Mini 1341 - Game Over!

[jee]

I believe a vote based on a name is just as random as any other vote that early in the game.

So? No one has talked about how "random" a vote is, only what the intent behind the votes are. And you still haven't explained how anything I've done even comes close to suggesting I'm scum.

- He voted someone
- He said he did this to help create discussion
- You accused him that since he is voting based on a name, that his intentions were not to create discussion.

----

The general consensus is RVS will lead to discussion. I said a vote based on a name is just as random as any other, meaning his vote was a random vote trying to get discussion going; it was exactly what he said his intentions were. I am currently voting for you because of your strong accusation. I do not see anything wrong with what brundibar did. You on the other hand have some weird problem with it... which is why my vote is on you.

[MichelSableheart]

@nhammen:
regarding point 1: how can you guarantee that playstyle hasn't changed over the absence?
regarding point 3: Most players will answer "my best game as town is [link], my best game as scum is [link], my worst game as town is [link], my worst game as scum is [link]. RQS is good if, from the answers given, you can make arguments along the lines of "I believe X is scum because his answers don't match his actions" or something similar. These questions give no way to differentiate between answers, and therefore don't give such info.

---

What do you like about his thoughts? Looking at SV's post, it contains a whole lot of nothing. The "scumpoints to anyone who answered nhammen's questions" part has already been said. The rest of the post is pretty empty.

I like the way his thoughts are going. Both his suspicion on nhammen and his vote on pine, though they lack reasoning, are sitting on players I have scumreads on as well.

Also, I am surprised that you're ignoring pine's brundibar vote.

---

I would like to point out that lack of time can't be the reason pine withheld his reasons, even though he claimed it was, as I believe ICE and nhammen have noticed as well. He made multiple posts throughout the day without going into explanation.

[ICEninja]

- He voted someone
- He said he did this to help create discussion
- You accused him that since he is voting based on a name, that his intentions were not to create discussion.

I give up. Vote me if you want, but you still really have zero reasons for actually accusing me of scum. Sure you have a "reason" (if still confused) for voting me, but it doesn't even point to me being scum.

I am currently voting for you because of your strong accusation. I do not see anything wrong with what brundibar did. You on the other hand have some weird problem with it... which is why my vote is on you.

So this makes me scum...how?

[Pine]

I have my reasons, Michel. I could explain, but it better suits said reasons not to at this point.

When I explain, if you still don't feel my reticence justified, then go ahead and vote me for all I care. This is not a reasonless vote.

[brundibar]

- He voted someone
- He said he did this to help create discussion
- You accused him that since he is voting based on a name, that his intentions were not to create discussion.

I give up. Vote me if you want, but you still really have zero reasons for actually accusing me of scum. Sure you have a "reason" (if still confused) for voting me, but it doesn't even point to me being scum.

Alright, I've moved on from this Ice thing. It was what it was but I really don't think it's helping us anymore to keep badgering him about it.

Unvote

VOTE: Pine

Whatever you're doing right now, it's not helping town. Hold onto your reasons as long as you want, but if you're not going to say anything, it's not benefiting anyone.

[AurorusVox]

@Mod

V/LA from tomorrow (04/06) until Sunday (10/06).

Going on holiday. Having fun. No mafia.

V/LA noted. For my sanity, in the future please use the American date format of month, then day. At first glance it looked like you were declaring a 6-month period starting 2 months ago or 10 months from now.

[Pine]

- He voted someone
- He said he did this to help create discussion
- You accused him that since he is voting based on a name, that his intentions were not to create discussion.

I give up. Vote me if you want, but you still really have zero reasons for actually accusing me of scum. Sure you have a "reason" (if still confused) for voting me, but it doesn't even point to me being scum.

Alright, I've moved on from this Ice thing. It was what it was but I really don't think it's helping us anymore to keep badgering him about it.

Unvote

VOTE: Pine
Congratulations!

Reaction test failed.

This is why I withheld my reasons - I had none. My observations of 1080 (I had a real-life friend playing in the game, so I read it as it was happening) suggest to me that Brundibar is not that twitchy or reactive when playing Town. His earlier bad reaction to suspicion piqued my interest, so I set this up to see how he'd react to being voted sans explanation. OMGUS and opportunity out of someone who appears to normally not do so = scum.
Whatever you're doing right now, it's not helping town. Hold onto your reasons as long as you want, but if you're not going to say anything, it's not benefiting anyone.

[Pine]

Bah, fucked up the quote tags.

My vote on Brundibar is for real now, no longer a reaction test.

[ac1983fan]

The possibility that mafia waited with confirming to gain more time for pregame discussion makes Mafuyu slightly more likely to be scum then the other players in the game at this point in time.

Vote Mafuyu

I'm down

VOTE: Mafuyu

This first vote is a stretch. The second vote is iffy. Why blindly follow someone using flimsy reasoning in the RVS?

If everyone wouldn't mind answering:
What game do you feel to be your best somewhat recent performance as Town?
What game do you feel to be your worst somewhat recent performance as Town?
Same questions for scum.

I would answer these, 'cept I haven't had a completed game in years.

Those two games as scum were literally my last two games on site. It would be pretty amusing if me and Pine were scum together yet again, but three times in a row would strain beief, and I would have to ask the mod if roles were actually randomly assigned.

To be fair, it's not like the previous two games have any influence on this one. It could have randomly happened again.

Ah, the beauty of chance, and the fallacies in our human attempts to rationalize it.

I'm really not liking nhammens questions. First of all, there is a large number of players who haven't played in a while. That makes his request for somewhat recent games rather worthless. Secondly, because mafia can choose which of their games they'll list, the meta read he'll get from the answers is open to manipulation. Thirdly, everyone who answers the question is likely to do so in the same way, so the answers to the questions are unlikely to give direct information regarding who's scum in this game. Fourthly, answering the question thoroughly takes a LOT of time, time that can't be spent on scumhunting. His questions therefore actively encourage other players to divert energy away from scumhunting. Finally, the questions allow him to look like he's participating when he's not actually doing anything.

Unvote

Vote nhammen

This is a major stretch. I'd presume nhammen starts off most games with similar questions in most games. Getting people to evaluate their own play and to post their results can help the game (for players who choose to use meta that is).

Vote: pieceofpecanpie

The Devil's dessert.

Scum for not joining either wagon.

Unvote; Vote: brundibar

If you wanted to generate discussion, a wagon vote is a better way of doing it.

He voted third. There were no wagons.

Jee you are obviously confused. I did not vote him because he random voted someone based on their name. I voted him because he tried to look pro-town by claiming that his actions got discussion going. Town wants to get discussion going. Scum wants to look pro-town. By claiming he was trying to get discussion going, he's trying to look pro-town.

Get it now?

So whats your reasoning for the vote on me now?

I still don't understand how my vote is more suspicious than the two before me. I said that RVS gets discussion going because from my experience that's what it does. I don't see why you're still beating a dead horse.

Yeah, ICE, you misinterpreted what he was saying. He was answering a question posed to him. And how can you say that his vote was any less protown than any other random vote?

In addition to that,

Unvote

VOTE: ICEninja

Because you can't seem to focus on anything else

On the other hand, OMGUS is never good.

Think, Ice. I'm neither dense enough nor noobish enough to make such a scum blunder as voting without a good reason. Ergo, I have a reason, and will explain it in my own time.

You're neither dense nor noobish enough to make a scum blunder? But in order to make a scum blunder, wouldn't that necessitate you being scum prior to being dense or noobish?

----
With all that, I don't like the wagon against brundi at all. There's no logic to it. Which is why I'm glad it stopped. I don't think ICE is scummy for starting it however, as ICE said it was only a "semi-serious" vote, which I understand.
I don't like Pine's recent "reaction test." It seems fishy and half-baked. I also think the post in which I quoted him could be a scumslip - or it could just be not overemphasizing townieness. Either way, it does make a good point about brundi's OMGUS-hopping.

I also don't like the fact that AurorusVox has contributed nothing to the game except questioning and voting a player for an RVS vote, and ignoring all other discussion.

Sorry again about not posting until now! Surprise limited access kicked me in the butt, LOL.

[Pine]

My statement to Ice does not necessitate me being scum. He was calling my gambit scummy, but I'm not so bad as to do something that obvious as scum. Ergo, there has to be some other explanation for it.

Think whatever you like about the reaction test, but your response is too quick to really have independently verified it. Go read 1080 in light of what I said.

[brundibar]

Congratulations!

Reaction test failed.

This is why I withheld my reasons - I had none. My observations of 1080 (I had a real-life friend playing in the game, so I read it as it was happening) suggest to me that Brundibar is not that twitchy or reactive when playing Town. His earlier bad reaction to suspicion piqued my interest, so I set this up to see how he'd react to being voted sans explanation. OMGUS and opportunity out of someone who appears to normally not do so = scum.

First of all, 1080 was over a year ago. I don't think you can predict my playing style from my first and only game on-site. If you had a larger sample size and I had more games online, this might be a useful test. Secondly, a lot of other stuff happened since you first voted me with no reason. I had plenty of time to vote you then, but wanted to see if you'd actually end up contributing anything useful. My vote wasn't an OMGUS, it was a "whatever he's doing, it's not helping the town" reaction. This seems like an elaborate explanation of something that doesn't really make sense.

[nhammen]

@SV: I like the way your thoughts are going. What's your opinion on Alduskel pressuring pine for not answering nhammen's question?

What do you like about his thoughts? Looking at SV's post, it contains a whole lot of nothing. The "scumpoints to anyone who answered nhammen's questions" part has already been said. The rest of the post is pretty empty.

I completely agree.

I believe a vote based on a name is just as random as any other vote that early in the game.

So? No one has talked about how "random" a vote is, only what the intent behind the votes are. And you still haven't explained how anything I've done even comes close to suggesting I'm scum.

- He voted someone
- He said he did this to help create discussion
- You accused him that since he is voting based on a name, that his intentions were not to create discussion.

----

The general consensus is RVS will lead to discussion. I said a vote based on a name is just as random as any other, meaning his vote was a random vote trying to get discussion going; it was exactly what he said his intentions were. I am currently voting for you because of your strong accusation. I do not see anything wrong with what brundibar did. You on the other hand have some weird problem with it... which is why my vote is on you.

I agree with your reasoning for why ICE's vote is bad. I have even stated similar reasoning before. However, do you believe bad play implies scum?

Congratulations!

Reaction test failed.

This is why I withheld my reasons - I had none. My observations of 1080 (I had a real-life friend playing in the game, so I read it as it was happening) suggest to me that Brundibar is not that twitchy or reactive when playing Town. His earlier bad reaction to suspicion piqued my interest, so I set this up to see how he'd react to being voted sans explanation. OMGUS and opportunity out of someone who appears to normally not do so = scum.

That did not appear to be purely an OMGUS vote to me. He stated valid reasons for the vote. Now those reasons had been stated before by other players, but it was still valid reasoning. Also, given that he had already placed an OMGUS vote, that indicates that he is the type of player that does that (OMGUS is a playstyle tell rather than a scumtell). This indicates that you had a pretty good idea of what his reaction would be ahead of time. So its not really a reaction test, its more of a trap. This "reaction test" doesn't fly.

This is a major stretch. I'd presume nhammen starts off most games with similar questions in most games. Getting people to evaluate their own play and to post their results can help the game (for players who choose to use meta that is).

Actually, I was trying something new. It turns out that it didn't work out as I expected it to, and Michel had some very good arguments for why it was not a good play, so I probably wont use this specific technique again.

I also don't like the fact that AurorusVox has contributed nothing to the game except questioning and voting a player for an RVS vote, and ignoring all other discussion.

It is true that too much of AV's content seems to be focused on one player. However I have seen this type of argument before, and can understand his play coming from a town perspective. Different players have different points of view regarding what constitutes enough content and information to place a real vote rather than a random vote.

My statement to Ice does not necessitate me being scum. He was calling my gambit scummy, but I'm not so bad as to do something that obvious as scum. Ergo, there has to be some other explanation for it.

That argument is called too scummy to be scum, and that doesn't fly either.

UNVOTE: jee
VOTE: Pine

[ICEninja]

So, I was pretty much expecting what just happened to happen. I don't like that Pine blatantly lied for the purpose of getting reactions, but that is Pine after all.

To be perfectly honest I'm not sure how I feel about this situation. Pine actually makes a good point (and if it remains a relevant point I'll read the game to get a feel for what he's saying, in context), but brundibar also makes a good counter argument, as I certainly wouldn't want someone using my first game as meta for my play now. That being said, it was brundibar's last game.

My initial vote on brundibar, as I'm sure many have guessed by now, was purely an attempt to accelerate the game in to useful discussion as quickly as possible (and those of you who know me know that I virtually always try to do this) but now I feel there is some justification in a vote on him.

Pine plays gambits, in my experience, as both town and scum. He's erratic and as such I can definitely see him having done exactly what he just did as either alignment. The fact that he had to blatantly lie to do it bug me, though, so I'm going to hold my vote on him. For now.

[Pine]

Telling you the truth would have completely spoiled the attempt. What was I going to say, "Shh, I'm reaction-testing!"

[Pine]

That's really what I was trying to get at with telling you to

think

. I figured you were experienced to guess that I was going somewhere with it, but you didn't catch my drift.

[quidagismedice]

Pine, it was blatantly obvious that you were reaction-testing, why else would town (which whether you are or not, you're aiming to look like) withhold information? It's quite literally the only reason to do so & you were openly stating that that's what you were doing. As has been said I hardly think that that was a useful test at all, voting for you was a pretty reasonable move.

I put it to you that you would have placed your vote on anyone who did as brundi did & tried to find justifications from their meta.

[Pine]

I actually read 1080, as I have a friend who played in it, the only person I've convinced to join the site, however briefly. Meta pre-existed the test, not the other way around

[quidagismedice]

What I'm saying is that your refusal to explain yourself meant it was very likely that someone would react with a vote, brundi or not. You could well have then said that that person failed the test & looked through their meta for a justification.

[quidagismedice]

If I start lurking, feel free to slap me across the face.

Don't mind if I do.

VOTE: Alduskkel

[MichelSableheart]

pine, if you're going to do meta research, please do it well.

The reaction of brundibar to your vote is not interesting, and definately not indicative of scum.
A reaction that would have been interesting to see was jee's, but that opportunity is gone now.

---

Time for some analysis on pine and the bandwagon against him.

Posts 16, 20 and 25 give me a very bad feeling. Pine starts unwilling to answer nhammens question, then immediately changes opinion when Aldruskkel votes him on it, then pressures jee for not replying. That's a complete switch of opinion unwarranted by the arguments from the other players. It almost looks staged, or as if Aldruskkel is instructing pine to answer to avoid suspicion, or something like that.

18 doesn't feel good either. It's being far too helpful on irrelevant stuff. I could see it from an overeager newbie, but why would an experienced player waste time on that, except to go "look how helpful I am".

His attempt at reaction fishing doesn't look scummy to me, though, but rather looks like bad play.

Aldruskkels vote on pine looks very bad to me. Forcing a player to spent time away from scumhunting? This request can cause players to lose interest in the game. Scum coaching a partner or scum trying to cause town to lose interest both seem more likely then town trying to determine alignement.

Shattered Viewpoint's vote simply lacks reasoning. Not necesarily bad, but not good either, except for the player it's on.

ICE's vote is for the lying about lack of time, severely weakend by ICE's later statement that he could see this type of gambitting (except the lying) from both town and scum.

Brundibars vote feels like reasonable OMGUS/pressure for reasons.

nhammen is the only one who seems to make actual accusations, though I would like to see some comments on him on whether he believes pine's behaviour is more likely to come from scum, and why.

Overall, the playerslot doesn't feel too good to me, but I'm also hardly seeing any "this is why we've caught scum" on the bandwagon.

Unvote

Vote: Aldruskkel

[ICEninja]

Pine, you think yourself far too clever. Honestly, you accomplished little other than admit that you lied. I've come to the conclusion that meta research for someone's one and only game (and a somewhat dated one at that) is pretty much useless, so the fact that someone voted you and had decent reasoning to do so does not indicate him as scum at all really.

I've noticed a trend in your scum games where you have this extra cocky "look at how clever I am and awesome at finding scum" attitude compared to your town games where you tend to just, well, find scum. That's how I pegged you as scum in mini 1315, anyway, combined with your lurky posting habits. Which you obviously wouldn't repeat so soon after being caught on, anyway.

[Pine]

Actually, that lurking wasn't intentional.

Irrelevant, really. This was genuine, and while it isn't as foolproof as I'd like, it was done in good faith. The piling onto me for shabby, one-dimensional reasons suggest to me that I've stumbled onto the right track.

[jee]

Also, I am surprised that you're ignoring pine's brundibar vote.

I was waiting for a reason that he promised. I guess I didn't realize how long it has been.

- He voted someone
- He said he did this to help create discussion
- You accused him that since he is voting based on a name, that his intentions were not to create discussion.

I give up. Vote me if you want, but you still really have zero reasons for actually accusing me of scum. Sure you have a "reason" (if still confused) for voting me, but it doesn't even point to me being scum.

I am currently voting for you because of your strong accusation. I do not see anything wrong with what brundibar did. You on the other hand have some weird problem with it... which is why my vote is on you.

So this makes me scum...how?

You are being suppppeeerrrrr defensive for only having one vote on you. You said you give up, but you keep asking me. I've already explained it many times. Its you accusation, I didn't like it, I voted you.

This first vote is a stretch. The second vote is iffy. Why blindly follow someone using flimsy reasoning in the RVS?

Because its RVS

I agree with your reasoning for why ICE's vote is bad. I have even stated similar reasoning before. However, do you believe bad play implies scum?

Not necessarily. I just don't have anywhere else I want my vote at the moment. I also think his extreme defensiveness is a bit odd, especially after multiple people have pointed out what I said.

My initial vote on brundibar, as I'm sure many have guessed by now, was

purely an attempt to accelerate the game

in to useful discussion as quickly as possible (and those of you who know me know that I virtually always try to do this) but now I feel there is some justification in a vote on him.

I somewhat believe this part because of you citing it is a 'semi-serious' vote. But, if your going to make a awkward accusation at someone to accelerate the game, expect to get some attention.

As far as the Pine thing, I have used that tactic before, but it was to get discussion going, not create a reaction test. I am not entirely sure how you can base a reaction from this game, on only one game from long ago. I can see you making an argument no matter what his reaction is. It seems like fishing for something to making an accusation on.

FoS: Pine.
I was going to vote for him, but I'd rather not put him to L-1 this early in day 1.

[jee]

On the other hand... you created a wagon on yourself, and scum like to ride wagons. *noting who's on it*

[jee]

SORRY FOR TRIPLE POST

But also,

UNVOTE; VOTE: quadagismedice

His only accusations on people thus far are pretty weak, or have been said multiple times.