Mini 771 - Mafia in Ludd: Game Over

[OhGodMyLife]

I know someone in scumchat was complaining about skitzer not confirming holding up the start of a game last night. Perhaps he is the shenanigan starter?

unvote, vote skitzer

I'm assuming vollkan wouldn't have said something like that in scumchat, and I don't see why anyone else would either. If skitzer held off confirming with some ulterior motive, I don't think he'd go round telling people about it. I guess we should hear from him though.

Point A: I don't see why lateness of confirming should have any bearing on in-game alignment when we have no way whatsoever of knowing the reason for someone being late in confirming.
Point B: I was present in scumchat for the discussion of skitzer being a late-confirmer in another game that was starting simultaneously. If anything, I'd take this to mean that there should be absolutely no correlation between his not confirming in

this game

and his alignment in this game, and not the other way around as Izzy seems to be spinning it.

Also, (general question to anyone) how common is it for scum to be able to talk pregame?

In any game where I've ever been scum, been the mod or bothered to read role PMs after the game ended, scum have been able to communicate pre-game. It is certainly the norm.

Incog's post 34 is defending camn almost too blatantly. Must chew this over. But more disconcerting than actually trying to combat Green Crayons' argument is this snippet from the end of the post:

There's something about Korts's 23 that I really dislike. I can't quite put my finger around it otherwise I'd elaborate further, but I'll try and do so if it comes to me.

It seems to me that Incog is trying to undermine a valid point made by Korts in 23 with nothing more than bad vibes.

Meh on Yos' post 39. There's more meat to these first two pages than he's giving the game credit for.

Note that I haven't checked all of your games by far, but going back 9 games, you only voted for the player at the bottom of the list once. Your claim of "at end of list" being a common reason for random votes doesn't seem to be particularly credible so far.

This seems like a horribly concocted way to attack Green Crayons. Also, hey, thats

my

ongoing game you just referenced, and there's a reason why ongoing games should be kept out of the discussion.

Yet you have a stated tendency to always use the same reason for a first vote. Don't you think those two things are contradictory?

Again with the cockamamie semi-attack. I do not see what possible use you could find for this line of questioning.

I was tempted to vote someone who hadn't posted yet, as per my standard vote at that stage, but everyone had posted

Your attention to detail is lacking. This is my first post.

I wanted to vote patrick, but he already is managing to give me pro-town vibes with his magical "I always give Yosarian protown vibes" machine, damn his eyes

I'd love for you to elucidate on this. As of post 45, the only vibe I'm getting from Patrick is that he's been unusually non-interactive.

charter's post 67 is a pretty list, but he doesn't draw any conclusions from it. And post 70 is self-defense meta. It feels like he's skating.

I'm already pretty sure Ether and Green Crayons are town.

@skitzer: Pre-emptive warning, if you serial lurk I will lynch you.

Vote: Patrick

=======================

Page 4 Votecount

camn (2/7): Korts, Green Crayons
charter (0/7):
DizzyIzzyB13 (1/7): Ether,
Ether (0/7):
Green Crayons (2/7): Xdaamno, camn
Incognito (0/7):
Korts (0/7):
OhGodMyLife (0/7):
Patrick (1/7): Incognito
skitzer (0/7):
Xdaamno (1/7): Yosarian2
Yosarian2 (0/7):

Not voting (5/12):

OhGodMyLife, skitzer, DizzyIzzyB13, Patrick, charter

With 12 alive, it's 7 to lynch.

Countdown To Deadline
============================

[Ether]

I voted for skitzer since I noted a lack of activity and was attempting to provoke some. Also, I believe if you re-red my post, I agreed with one part5icular argument Canary made, not the entire post.

I did skim a bit after "Green makes a persuasive argument," but Camn was not making a case against Charter. She was saying that she always finds him scummy. Her vote was a joke. (Do you find her scummy?) I still want her to elaborate on Charter's meta, though. Don't really get what you're saying in the first part of that quote; noting a lack of activity is kind of eh on post 18. I don't really care enough to push this point, though.

I don't get Canary's SkitzFoS. He can correct me if I'm wrong; the paragraph just reads to me as, "Camn's vote was dumb, but not scummy." It wasn't fencesitting.

I get OGML's Patvote, but plan to give him some leeway early on--he's worried that he's lost his bearings. I am also going to blatantly fencesit on Korts because I am tired.

[Yosarian2]

Looks like to me she's being pouty ...

You write that like it's a bad thing.....

Camm...you know, it would help if you actually responded to the legitimate arguments he was making against you, instead of just making jokes...

[Korts]

This seems like a horribly concocted way to attack Green Crayons. Also, hey, thats my ongoing game you just referenced, and there's a reason why ongoing games should be kept out of the discussion.

I only referenced information that is accessible by anyone. I don't think that is an infraction of site rules or any discussion guidelines.

Again with the cockamamie semi-attack. I do not see what possible use you could find for this line of questioning.

I just found it strange that the story keeps changing--either his reason for random voting is always the same, or he tries generating discussion from it; both at the same time are not really plausible, since a fixed randomvote reason is a cop-out from having to fish for reactions.

Anyway, GC's explanation seems fair enough, in that he tries to avoid random voting when he can, and only when he must vote randomly, is his reasoning constant.

while I appreciate your thoroughness, I'm curious as to what end?

Your claim stood out to me, and I had time on my hands. I was interested to see whether your claim will hold in the face of further inspection.

[Green Crayons]

OGML: For having such a self-described "detailed" first post, why the lack of any (direct) reason given for the Patrick vote?

Ether: It looked to me like he was cheerleading both sides.

Korts: I hope your further inspection stays within the realm of some sort of temporal constraint. The last game you linked was from '06 - go back too much further and you'll be teaching me things about games I've completely forgotten about in terms of what happened and how I acted.

[Korts]

GC: why are you so opposed to me reading your earlier games? Do you think you aren't responsible for your play in those games, or are you simply trying to avoid meta attacks?

[DizzyIzzyB13]

I know someone in scumchat was complaining about skitzer not confirming holding up the start of a game last night. Perhaps he is the shenanigan starter?

unvote, vote skitzer

I'm assuming vollkan wouldn't have said something like that in scumchat, and I don't see why anyone else would either. If skitzer held off confirming with some ulterior motive, I don't think he'd go round telling people about it. I guess we should hear from him though.

Point A: I don't see why lateness of confirming should have any bearing on in-game alignment when we have no way whatsoever of knowing the reason for someone being late in confirming.
Point B: I was present in scumchat for the discussion of skitzer being a late-confirmer in another game that was starting simultaneously. If anything, I'd take this to mean that there should be absolutely no correlation between his not confirming in

this game

and his alignment in this game, and not the other way around as Izzy seems to be spinning it.

No, that's the point I was trying to make - that it appeared to be Skitzer holding us up and thus there's no reason to draw any inference from it. Then I voted to try and provoke a reaction, since Skitzer hadn't posted.

[DizzyIzzyB13]

DizzyIzzy: I see your point now about the "random" stage, I guess, and how it wasn't just based on GC's argument against camn. As for the second part about unvoting, I don't think with a game this size and especially with the skill level of this group of players you need to worry about something crazy happening like an accidental lynch if you left an unattended vote out there.

Well, yes, but better to be safe than sorry.

[Green Crayons]

For starters, I'm not "so opposed." Go read them, by all means. I was merely giving you a warning that the further back you go, the more stuff you'll find that you'll be teaching me about.

And if you think that my play in a four year old game, where there have been major gaps of no mafia play between then and now, has any sort of bearing on my current meta then... go for it. But don't expect me to give much credence to whatever crazy relation you want to make between now and a game that dives that far deep into the past.

So, I'm not keen on your characterization of my post. Your making it look like I'm becoming super defensive when I'm merely saying that I don't know what relevance a four year old game has. I also think there is plenty of meta to mine from the seven or so games of which you currently have linked. The insinuation that I'm afraid you might find something from an '05/earlier game which shows just how incredibly scummy I am in this game, but you can't find that nugget in the past seven... well, that's just silly. I'm not the same person I was four years ago, much less the same mafia player.

[DizzyIzzyB13]

I voted for skitzer since I noted a lack of activity and was attempting to provoke some. Also, I believe if you re-red my post, I agreed with one part5icular argument Canary made, not the entire post.

I did skim a bit after "Green makes a persuasive argument," but Camn was not making a case against Charter. She was saying that she always finds him scummy. Her vote was a joke. (Do you find her scummy?) I still want her to elaborate on Charter's meta, though. Don't really get what you're saying in the first part of that quote; noting a lack of activity is kind of eh on post 18. I don't really care enough to push this point, though.

Well, it seemed to be at least seriousish discussion. Maybe I put too much stock in it. As for the Skitzer vote, I'd made a point that could only be confirmed by Skitzer, who hadn't posted up to that point, so in my mind, it seems sensible to encourage him to post.

[Patrick]

It seems to me that Incog is trying to undermine a valid point made by Korts in 23 with nothing more than bad vibes.

This surprises me; last time we played together I remember you using just vibes semi-often to express suspicion of people. Do you feel vibes aren't legitimate (especially this early)? For the record, I can see where he's coming from there; Kort's interpretation didn't seem the most natural to me either and something about the immediate vote seems marginally off.

I'd love for you to elucidate on this. As of post 45, the only vibe I'm getting from Patrick is that he's been unusually non-interactive.

Not sure I get this, as of post 45 I haven't posted at all because I went to bed and now I'm at work. Why did you prefer to vote me over others who've been less "interactive" then me? Reading on I see Ether agreed with this. Strange.

Early feeling is leaning town on Ether slightly town on camn; Ether just seems to be playing as she usually does as town, and camn's reactions seem very natural to me (with the qualifier that I haven't seen her as scum). Less sure on where I want to place a vote atm, might have a reread when I'm home from work. On my quick skim here, the GC/Korts debate doesn't inspire me.

[Incognito]

Hi, Brian.

Incog's post 34 is defending camn almost too blatantly.

No.

She defended herself prior to that post. I was giving my interpretation of the events; ya know, sharing my thoughts. It's good to do that sometimes.

It seems to me that Incog is trying to undermine a valid point made by Korts in 23 with nothing more than bad vibes.

First, I don't think the point made there by Korts was valid at all -- it seemed pretty obvious to me that camn's first post was a joke so to me the vote lacked a lot of luster. Second, why do you assume that those "bad vibes" only related to what he said about camn? Basically, it's hard for me to articulate in a meaningful way what it is I found wrong about Korts's opening post. The stuff he wrote about Ether just gave me a (deep breath) "I'm poss-scum who doesn't quite know what to say yet so I'll ask a silly question that I probably already know the answer to in an effort to make myself seem active" vibe. That's a mouthful and is largely speculative so I'd rather wait to see more from Korts before acting on it or elaborating on it. Third, what Patrick said -- my meta on you suggests that you tend to be a gut player when town so why would vibes bring you cause for concern?

OGML: For having such a self-described "detailed" first post, why the lack of any (direct) reason given for the Patrick vote?

This is a valid question. For a moment there, I thought the post was gonna conclude with a Korts-vote or even a charter-vote so I was a bit surprised to see a Pat-vote instead.

I'm already pretty sure Ether and Green Crayons are town.

I agree on Ether; GC, eh, not so much.

---

DizzyIzzy isn't scum hunting.

Unvote
Vote: DizzyIzzyB13

[Xdaamno]

...after reading everyone's posts, the person who seemed the least pro-town to me, by some tiny percentage, was Xyl, since this was his only post to date:

Vote: Green Crayons

wagon '09 wooooo

I suppose you mean me?

I try not to post unless I have something useful to be doing, because it's actually an effort for me to not look scummy. I get lynched all the time.

[Xdaamno]

It seems to me that Incog is trying to undermine a valid point made by Korts in 23 with nothing more than bad vibes.

This surprises me; last time we played together I remember you using just vibes semi-often to express suspicion of people. Do you feel vibes aren't legitimate (especially this early)? For the record, I can see where he's coming from there; Kort's interpretation didn't seem the most natural to me either and something about the immediate vote seems marginally off.

This post is scummy. You seem to be thinking up points of attack, rather than noticing something that actually piques your interest. Most people wouldn't assume a "semi-often" mild behaviour in a game you played awile ago with someone actually meant anything (plus, I personally don't store meta information in this way, instead I just remember what that person was like, as if we knew each other in real life.)

Phrases like "for the record", "didn't seem the most natural to me" and "seems marginally off" also fit with this hypothesis; he's not being honest in his attacks.

Early

Unvote, Vote: Patrick

[Patrick]

This post is scummy. You seem to be thinking up points of attack, rather than noticing something that actually piques your interest. Most people wouldn't assume a "semi-often" mild behaviour in a game you played awile ago with someone actually meant anything (plus, I personally don't store meta information in this way, instead I just remember what that person was like, as if we knew each other in real life.)

Not sure why you put in "a while ago", this game was invitational 10, pretty recent. OGML was replaced quite early, but during his stay in the game alot of his suspicions were quite vague with a fair amount of vibes or gut type stuff. Sure, I guess it's possible he's had a drastic change of philosophy since then and now hates vibes, but it seems unlikely, and I don't see why you felt the need to cut across this at all. Why wouldn't it mean anything? What are you arguing?

Phrases like "for the record", "didn't seem the most natural to me" and "seems marginally off" also fit with this hypothesis; he's not being honest in his attacks.

This is just the way I post. It's not gonna change.

[DizzyIzzyB13]

DizzyIzzy isn't scum hunting.

Unvote
Vote: DizzyIzzyB13

Untrue. I just yet to have anything concrete to add. I have yet to get a sense of how people are playing in this game. So far, I've yet to really agree with any of the accusations of scumminess and I've found the particular attacks to be less that scummy. Sorry if the fact that I have yet to form firm enough opinions on the game makes me seem scummy.

[Xdaamno]

This post is scummy. You seem to be thinking up points of attack, rather than noticing something that actually piques your interest. Most people wouldn't assume a "semi-often" mild behaviour in a game you played awile ago with someone actually meant anything (plus, I personally don't store meta information in this way, instead I just remember what that person was like, as if we knew each other in real life.)

Not sure why you put in "a while ago", this game was invitational 10, pretty recent. OGML was replaced quite early, but during his stay in the game alot of his suspicions were quite vague with a fair amount of vibes or gut type stuff. Sure, I guess it's possible he's had a drastic change of philosophy since then and now hates vibes, but it seems unlikely, and I don't see why you felt the need to cut across this at all. Why wouldn't it mean anything? What are you arguing?

Phrases like "for the record", "didn't seem the most natural to me" and "seems marginally off" also fit with this hypothesis; he's not being honest in his attacks.

This is just the way I post. It's not gonna change.

Yeah, wasn't asking you to change. I was just making an observation.

Fairly town reaction, I think...

[charter]

unvote, vote Dizzy

You just said you that it's untrue that you aren't scumhunting, then in the next sentence say you haven't added anything. Instead of adding something, you just come back with that post (which just seems like an "I'm here" post and don't ask anyone questions or nothing). I also looked back at your posts, you haven't asked anyone any probing questions or nothing (I guess that falls under not scumhunting) but you've talked about skitzer not confirming at length. Why is skitzer's confirmation time more interesting than questioning people?

[Xdaamno]

unvote, vote Dizzy

You just said you that it's untrue that you aren't scumhunting, then in the next sentence say you haven't added anything. Instead of adding something, you just come back with that post (which just seems like an "I'm here" post and don't ask anyone questions or nothing). I also looked back at your posts, you haven't asked anyone any probing questions or nothing (I guess that falls under not scumhunting) but you've talked about skitzer not confirming at length. Why is skitzer's confirmation time more interesting than questioning people?

This is

page 4

- you think not scumhunting yet is unusual? She hardly talked about it "at length", anyway, and that wouldn't be a scum tell if so - it was the very start of the game, so it's not unnatural to talk about things like that.

[OhGodMyLife]

Re: Korts' post 78 - this explanation is fair, but I think you're spending too much time on your meta fishing trip with GC and I worry that you might be trying to hide behind it.

OGML: For having such a self-described "detailed" first post, why the lack of any (direct) reason given for the Patrick vote?

I thought a reason could be inferred from my post. And I wasn't self-describing my post as detailed, I was pointing out that Yos isn't paying much attention to the game. He claims that he would have voted any player who hadn't yet posted at that point, but that there were not any for him to vote for. I had not yet posted.

This surprises me; last time we played together I remember you using just vibes semi-often to express suspicion of people. Do you feel vibes aren't legitimate (especially this early)? For the record, I can see where he's coming from there; Kort's interpretation didn't seem the most natural to me either and something about the immediate vote seems marginally off.

I do use vibes to make judgments on

players

, as I already have with Ether and GC, and to an extent with you. What I find wrong with what Incognito did is that he's targeting a specific

post

and saying "this gave me the heebie-jeebies," which just feels like a way to lessen the impact said post would have with other players as they read along.

Not sure I get this, as of post 45 I haven't posted at all because I went to bed and now I'm at work. Why did you prefer to vote me over others who've been less "interactive" then me? Reading on I see Ether agreed with this. Strange.

I think that voting you will be more fruitful. Also, you seem to be misrepresenting Ether's position. She said:

I get OGML's Patvote

, but plan to give him some leeway early on--he's worried that he's lost his bearings.

Which is the opposite of agreeing with you, though she does give her own opinion of what the cause may be.

Hi, Brian.

Incog's post 34 is defending camn almost too blatantly.

No.

She defended herself prior to that post. I was giving my interpretation of the events; ya know, sharing my thoughts. It's good to do that sometimes.

Hi, Rex.

Your interpretation of the events had a very strong slant towards camn. And just because she had already defended herself does not mean a post you make in support of her is not also defending her. And now I'm sharing my thoughts. I agree, its good to do.

First, I don't think the point made there by Korts was valid at all -- it seemed pretty obvious to me that camn's first post was a joke so to me the vote lacked a lot of luster. Second, why do you assume that those "bad vibes" only related to what he said about camn? Basically, it's hard for me to articulate in a meaningful way what it is I found wrong about Korts's opening post. The stuff he wrote about Ether just gave me a (deep breath) "I'm poss-scum who doesn't quite know what to say yet so I'll ask a silly question that I probably already know the answer to in an effort to make myself seem active" vibe. That's a mouthful and is largely speculative so I'd rather wait to see more from Korts before acting on it or elaborating on it

Well why didn't you just say so in the first place? As for agreeing with Patrick re: my stance on "vibes," see above.

This is a valid question. For a moment there, I thought the post was gonna conclude with a Korts-vote or even a charter-vote so I was a bit surprised to see a Pat-vote instead.

Sometimes you've got to throw a curveball.

I try not to post unless I have something useful to be doing, because it's actually an effort for me to not look scummy. I get lynched all the time.

Scumhunting would be useful. I know you've got it in you.

Oh, look, charter is hypocritically voting Izzy for something along the lines of active-lurking/not scumhunting. Did you miss my concerns about your last two posts in your rush to jump on that bandwagon?

Unvote, Vote: charter

[Green Crayons]

X, clarify your Patrick interaction for me because this is how I'm reading it:

Patrick's posting style (including those phrases you pointed out) make it look like he's just making up points to engage/attack other players. This is because he doesn't actually see anything that grabs his attention, but he feels it is necessary to speak up about some point, even if it's entirely contrived. This is dishonest and scummy.

However

, you do not want him to change this dishonest and scummy behavior. And somehow, by asserting that he will not change his play style because he finds it to be a perfectly acceptable mode of play, you think he's town.

Basically:
X: Patrick is doing Action Y! It's scummy!
Patrick: Actually, I don't find Action Y to be scummy at all.
X: Patrick is doing Action Y! He's town!


It looks like to me you just threw something out there to see if it would stick. You get to look active without chancing having to commit to anything. Once Patrick basically said the exact opposite of you, you pulled a 180 and shut down the conversation.

[charter]

I mean, she's got nearly 20 posts in this thread. I'd think that's enough to have at least something.

That's also not why I'm voting her. I voted her because she's trying to say she is scumhunting when she got called out on it, but then says she hasn't added anything concrete to the game and does zero scumhunting in that post. But she still says she is. Why do you defend her?

[charter]

Holy simul post batman!
That was in response to 93.

Did you miss my concerns about your last two posts in your rush to jump on that bandwagon?

Yes.

[DizzyIzzyB13]

unvote, vote Dizzy

You just said you that it's untrue that you aren't scumhunting, then in the next sentence say you haven't added anything. Instead of adding something, you just come back with that post (which just seems like an "I'm here" post and don't ask anyone questions or nothing). I also looked back at your posts, you haven't asked anyone any probing questions or nothing (I guess that falls under not scumhunting) but you've talked about skitzer not confirming at length. Why is skitzer's confirmation time more interesting than questioning people?

Because Skitzer's confirmation time was directly relevent to someone else's attempts at scum hunting. Ensuring that people don't come to incorrect conclusions is kinda important.

You seem to be confusing scum-hunting with asking a lot of questions. Sure, that's one valid approach. Another is to find the right question to ask at the right time. Think of it as the difference between a blunderbus and a sniper rifle. A blunderbus fires widely, covering a wide area and giving a greater chance of hitting the target. A sniper rifle firse a single shot aimed at a specific spot to give a good chance of hitting it's target. Both are perfectly capable ways of trying to kill someone, they just work in different ways.

As for the reason behind your vote and accusation that it's not content... well, would you expect me to just ignore something when someone, as Incognito did, uses it as a reason to vote for you. I answered his charge. That's hardly a content-free "Look, I'm here" post. You can't have it both ways. If you want to use your blunderbus-style question everything approach, surekly you expect people to answer? I mean, if they don't, you'd have a hard timn escum-hunting, wouldn't you?

[Patrick]

Yeah, wasn't asking you to change. I was just making an observation.

You weren't merely making an observation, you used that to paint me scummy, and this response feels like a sidestep.

Fairly town reaction, I think...

This feels planted. What's your vote based on? I still want you to explain why you didn't like my questioning of OGML.

Untrue. I just yet to have anything concrete to add. I have yet to get a sense of how people are playing in this game. So far, I've yet to really agree with any of the accusations of scumminess and I've found the particular attacks to be less that scummy. Sorry if the fact that I have yet to form firm enough opinions on the game makes me seem scummy.

This isn't entirely true, since you've expressed agreement with some of GC's attack on camn. I don't think you responded to Ether's question about this - what's your read of camn?