Newbie 993 - Game Over!

[Leech]

Vote: Star for working too long. Btw, for whoever is wondering, this is RVS. (Random Voting Stage) We'll randomly vote to get discussion going so we can move into the actual game.

You never have to random vote, in fact that is completely counter-productive. You should always have a reason for your vote, period. I voted for a pretty ridiculous reason, but it was a reason none-the-less. I will actually defend my vote, as well. The discussion that stems from votes with reason, are much more informative than votes that are cast from "random" reasons. I'd much rather see a defense of "Oh, well, my reasoning was flawed so I changed my opinion" rather than "It was just a random vote" which leaves it at that. Voting for less-likely reasons are one thing, but you should never vote for something completely ridiculous. That just makes the game take longer to start.

Don't mislynch anyone, though.

Actually, in many cases you learn more from a town lynch than you do from lynching scum. Obviously lynching scum is our main priority, but it's not always such a horrendous thing to mislynch, as it can result in leading us in the right direction. Putting that reasoning aside, I'm curious why you bothered to post that in the first place? If you even ignore the falseness about it and look at it from the standpoint you were posting it from, wouldn't that be a given? The "tone" of that statement has a false ring to it.

Our IC will answer questions you guys have about the game and its mechanics when he is back.

That statement just seems wrong. Previously in your post you make it appear that you are trying to help, by explaining things then follow it up with passing questions off on the IC. While, the IC is here to help newer players, you specifically took on a "teaching" role immediately before doing so. You know what that says to me? You wanted to start off the game winning some townie points by trying to help, then pass the buck off to the IC so he could take on the actual role of IC, that he is assigned in this game. I'm not making a big thing out of this, because it is far too early to tell, but simple things like being overly eager to help the newer players on how to play, can be a scum tell. I have seen this, and have personally done it, on many occasions.

[Mysterio]

Oh look, the game started.

I have to admit I'm intrigued by Leech's post. However, I wonder why you've heaped all this suspicion on Hinduragi, but haven't bothered to vote for him. Early distancing from scum buddies? As for my experience, I've played two games outside this forum, but this is my first game on MS. So I'm still pretty new and will probably ask a few noob questions here or there.

vote: Hinduragi

to pressure you for a defense from Leech's suspicions.

[Leech]

I have to admit I'm intrigued by Leech's post. However, I wonder why you've heaped all this suspicion on Hinduragi, but haven't bothered to vote for him

You will not see me change votes very often in this game. With the exception of the first vote of every game, I never change on a whim. I will change my vote when I think a person is scum, not because I find them to be suspicious. Read the games in my wiki, you'll find that a vote from me is always a vote intending to lynch, not to pressure. I'll pressure with questions, not with votes. I do that so when I do vote, everyone realizes that I'm comfortable with a lynch on that person. That being said, there is nothing wrong with changing your vote. Some players will change votes frequently to mirror their suspicions. I just prefer to keep things simple, and maintain the value of my vote throughout the game.

[Thian]

I don't know what you mean since mine was updated when I confirmed in-thread.

Hinduragi: What do you not understand?

Don't mislynch anyone, though.

Hinduragi: This alone seems a bit off. It comes across to me as a way to make people feel unstable and second guessing themselves which can result in confusion and uncertainty.

[Leech]

Thian, why did you vote for someone that's not even in the game?

[Mysterio]

You will not see me change votes very often in this game. With the exception of the first vote of every game, I never change on a whim. I will change my vote when I think a person is scum, not because I find them to be suspicious.

Fair enough, but your first vote was clearly a "I have no one better to vote for" choice, whereas you actually have real suspicions about Hinduragi. It's a bit suspicious itself to keep a vote on anyone other than the person you find suspicious. It seems to me that simply muddles up the game even more. I'm really leaning toward the idea that you and Hinduragi are simply attempting to distance yourselves early, so that the rest of us will find it hard to believe that you are scum buddies.

Hinduragi: This alone seems a bit off. It comes across to me as a way to make people feel unstable and second guessing themselves which can result in confusion and uncertainty.

Indeed. Even though I'm pretty new, that still seems to be fairly common knowledge and not really useful to point out. Other than for the scummie reasons you mentioned.

[Thian]

Thian, why did you vote for someone that's not even in the game?

Note to self: Don't post when coming home after the bar.

[Leech]

Fair enough, but your first vote was clearly a "I have no one better to vote for" choice, whereas you actually have real suspicions about Hinduragi. It's a bit suspicious itself to keep a vote on anyone other than the person you find suspicious.

I find everyone suspicious. No one has said anything that gives me a town read. It's better, at this phase of the game, to be suspicious of every player in the game. Guilty until proven innocent is how I see everyone of you. As I said, I always start the game with a vote that's not really a "vote to lynch" but only move it when I believe someone is scum. Even with the suspicions I posted, my original vote is still the best option anyway. It was absolutely not "I have no one better to vote for" either. There is a player on this forum named "Incognito" who developed a theory that the first person in every game to post, was scum. His theory didn't work every time, but had about a 50% success. Do the math: 2 players out of 9 = roughly a 22% chance of hitting scum. Considering his theory hit scum 50% of the time, it was the best choice I could make with absolutely no information on the table.

I'm really leaning toward the idea that you and Hinduragi are simply attempting to distance yourselves early, so that the rest of us will find it hard to believe that you are scum buddies.

You're

really

leaning towards a possibility this early in the game, when he hasn't even addressed my post? I commented on his post, and as far as either of us are aware he hasn't even read it yet. How do you know how he's going to respond? In order to distance doesn't that require an exchange between the two of us, when there has been no exchange yet? You're putting a lot of weight on a situation, and potentially influencing how he responds. If there's anything a player should be concerned with, it's someone speculating about how someone will reply to an accusation. For future reference, you should never answer for a person in a game, nor should you speculate on how someone will react. Doing so can influence scum, and manipulate town. Both of those are equally bad.

[Trachimbrod]

I was gonna vote Mysterio for being first as well, but I don't want to pile on in RVS.

I've never played a game of Mafia before, though I've been watching a few games on MTGS which sparked my interest. I've played a few games IRL but those haven't been as serious and analytical as the forum games I've looked at.

I didn't think that line about not mislynching was significant, but I've never known how people actually pick up trails in RVS. I guess a "Don't mess up" could shake people a little.

[Thian]

I was gonna vote Mysterio for being first as well, but I don't want to pile on in RVS.

This just seems like you are following along with someones idea. Especially after Leech has explained the theory.

Also, telling people Don't mislynch, or as you put "Don't mess up" can put a bit of fear in people, make them stall, make them second guess if what they are doing is okay or not. It is okay to follow your theories and analysis, question who you want to and when you are confident put votes where you really feel they should go.

[Mysterio]

I find everyone suspicious. No one has said anything that gives me a town read. It's better, at this phase of the game, to be suspicious of every player in the game. Guilty until proven innocent is how I see everyone of you. As I said, I always start the game with a vote that's not really a "vote to lynch" but only move it when I believe someone is scum.

Again, I have no inherent problems with your playstyle. It sounds acceptable to me, but my issue comes from the fact that placing votes on people has an impact on how the game progresses. And when you leave frivolous votes on people, things tend to get out of hand fairly quickly. But perhaps that's simply due to my experience playing this game on another forum, so I'll back off for now.

There is a player on this forum named "Incognito" who developed a theory that the first person in every game to post, was scum. His theory didn't work every time, but had about a 50% success. Do the math: 2 players out of 9 = roughly a 22% chance of hitting scum. Considering his theory hit scum 50% of the time, it was the best choice I could make with absolutely no information on the table.

Sounds like confirmation bias to me.

You're

really

leaning towards a possibility this early in the game, when he hasn't even addressed my post?

My leanings have nothing to do with him. Your post was sufficient enough for me to join you in pointing the FoS at Hinduragi, but my scum buddy leaning has to do with you pointing the FoS, but refraining from voting. In the two games that I played, early distancing from each other by scum was a common tactic. However, I understand now that your non-vote has a fairly good reason behind it, and so I'm backing off my suspicion of you for now. As for my suspicion of Hinduragi, that will of course depend on his response.

[Trachimbrod]

I was gonna vote Mysterio for being first as well, but I don't want to pile on in RVS.

This just seems like you are following along with someones idea. Especially after Leech has explained the theory.

I guess I kind of am, though I've seen this in games I've watched before Leech did it here. I didn't know about the trend that Incognito discovered before Leech posted it, but I do find it suspicious to post before the mod is done sending out role PMs.

[Mysterio]

Oh, and just so no one accuses me of dodging, I just happen to be lurking the forums when I saw the thread. I knew I wasn't going to be back on until this morning, so I went ahead and confirmed as soon as I received my PM so that I wouldn't stall the game. If I hadn't confirmed before signing out, we wouldn't have been able to start the game until I posted this morning.

[Thian]

You will not see me change votes very often in this game. With the exception of the first vote of every game, I never change on a whim. I will change my vote when I think a person is scum, not because I find them to be suspicious.

Fair enough, but your first vote was clearly a "I have no one better to vote for" choice, whereas you actually have real suspicions about Hinduragi. It's a bit suspicious itself to keep a vote on anyone other than the person you find suspicious. It seems to me that simply muddles up the game even more. I'm really leaning toward the idea that you and Hinduragi are simply attempting to distance yourselves early, so that the rest of us will find it hard to believe that you are scum buddies.

When you state that the way Leech has provided to vote, does it really muddle it up all that much? Or is flipping your vote from one suspicious person to the next more to muddle things up?

[Leech]

I was gonna vote Mysterio for being first as well, but I don't want to pile on in RVS.

Early game bandwagons are a common way to get out of the RVS. While it's my personal style to only vote for someone when I believe they are scum, you shouldn't ever really refrain from voting when you feel you have a reason to do so. I've seen this hesitance from both new town and scum alike, so its null. You shouldn't fear voting if you have a reason for doing so, in any case.

Also, telling people Don't mislynch, or as you put "Don't mess up" can put a bit of fear in people, make them stall, make them second guess if what they are doing is okay or not.

While it certainly can have that effect, do you feel that is likely what he was doing?

Again, I have no inherent problems with your playstyle. It sounds acceptable to me, but my issue comes from the fact that placing votes on people has an impact on how the game progresses.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. I don't base my votes off of gut, or whatever I find suspicious at the time. I vote when I have made a decision about a player, and feel they are the best lynch candidate. Now, this can change over the course of the day, so it's not like I'm saying I'm just going to withold voting until the end. I'm just making it clear that I do not vote until I am comfortable with a lynch. If anything it clears up any confusion about why I'm voting. You will never have to ask me "So is he your top suspect, or do you think he's scum?" as I will never vote for a player until I think they are scum. That will have an impact on the game, sure. Every playstyle will impact the game.

[Mysterio]

In my experience, switching votes does nothing to muddle up a game, especially when "unvotes" are used. It's only when you keep votes on people you don't intend to lynch that things get ridiculous, because often times people not only forget who they've voted for, but what the current vote count is. It ends with a bunch of posts having to explain all of the voting (and with people having to subsequently unvote and revote once they realize what's going on), which wastes time and makes it harder for town to pinpoint scum. But this is a smaller game with only 9 players, so perhaps I'm being too harsh. Never played in a game this small.

And Leech has adequately defended himself, so as of now I'm backing off.

[steppenwolf]

Vote: Mysterio for being the first person to post in the thread.

Voting for less-likely reasons are one thing, but you should never vote for something completely ridiculous.

Now this is just plain silly.

[Thian]

Also, telling people Don't mislynch, or as you put "Don't mess up" can put a bit of fear in people, make them stall, make them second guess if what they are doing is okay or not.

While it certainly can have that effect, do you feel that is likely what he was doing?

It may not be what exactly he had intended of course. You never know how your words will affect someone. It could be looked at as if saying, during RVS do not mislynch, since he was talking about RVS stage during that little paragraph of explanation.

I have to question it because I am relating it my first game on here which gave scum a win. One had said, something along the lines of "don't vote yet, we can't mislynch" gave them a bit of a townie look to them and made me question the one person who did vote who turned out to be town at the end.

The only thing to do would be to question Hinduragi as to why he felt the need to write "Do not mislynch though"

[Leech]

Or is flipping your vote from one suspicious person to the next more to muddle things up?

There's nothing wrong with voting a lot. All players react to votes differently, so you can vote for pressure and to see reactions.

It ends with a bunch of posts having to explain all of the voting (and with people having to subsequently unvote and revote once they realize what's going on), which wastes time and makes it harder for town to pinpoint scum.

Well, I'd hope that each vote will be explained at the time of voting. If there is a vote without explanation I hope, equally, that voter gets questioned until we get that reason. There shouldn't be a need to waste time explaining votes, when they should be explained in the same post the votes are cast.

Now this is just plain silly.

Did you intentionally take that statement out of context and misrep me?

You never have to random vote, in fact that is completely counter-productive.

You should always have a reason for your vote, period. I voted for a pretty ridiculous reason, but it was a reason none-the-less. I will actually defend my vote, as well.

The discussion that stems from votes with reason, are much more informative than votes that are cast from "random" reasons. I'd much rather see a defense of "Oh, well, my reasoning was flawed so I changed my opinion" rather than "It was just a random vote" which leaves it at that.

Voting for less-likely reasons are one thing, but you should never vote for something completely ridiculous.

That just makes the game take longer to start.

I stated, in the paragraph you got that quote from, that my reason was "pretty ridiculous", and it is. While Incog's theory did work 50% of the time, it was also wrong 50% of the time. So while it is statistically better than random voting, I still wouldn't actually lynch for that reason.

[Trachimbrod]

I don't have a policy for my voting yet, I can see the merits of voting to pressure, but right now I don't think I'll vote for anyone until I'd want everyone to vote for that person too. Mysterio is the guy I'm most suspicious of at the moment. The quick jab and retreat from Leech felt distracting, without a real case on himself to distract from in the first place, but maybe it's normal just to feel people out in the early game.

As for the "Don't mislynch" thing, I just read it as an attempt to be helpful. When it got pointed out, I realized that the advice was pretty redundant. It would be more suspicious to me if it happened during a situation like Thian described, with the game well under way.

[Thian]

I don't have a policy for my voting yet, I can see the merits of voting to pressure, but right now I don't think I'll vote for anyone until I'd want everyone to vote for that person too.

So you are saying you will wait around until a consensus is formed and then proceed to vote?

[Mysterio]

Mysterio is the guy I'm most suspicious of at the moment.

May I ask why?

[Trachimbrod]

Not at all. I'm saying that I won't vote until I would want everyone to vote with me, not that I won't vote unless it's with the current majority. I'm not setting this policy in stone, but it's what I'm most comfortable with right now.

Mysterio: Mostly for confirming before the mod finished sending PMs, and somewhat for what I said directly after what you quoted, "The quick jab and retreat from Leech felt distracting, without a real case on himself to distract from in the first place, but maybe it's normal just to feel people out in the early game."

[Mysterio]

I see, wasn't sure if that last part was directed toward me or Leech. And yes, it was mostly to feel him out, since that's really the only viable strategy at this point for town. Currently, my only suspicion lies with Hinduragi, but depending on his response, that could change to a total "I have no clue" status for me.

[Trachimbrod]

I can see on rereading that the "from Leech" part could be confusing. I can be more clear, perhaps.

You mention backing off from Leech twice, in posts #35 and #40, as if you're afraid he didn't see that you're backing off the first time. It looks kind of like "Get attacked, counterattack and back off, hope the attacker backs off for parity." It looks calculated to me.