Mini 1042 - Skillville - GAME OVER!

[DemonHybrid]

Untrod, you have something to say? You've been in and out of Little Italy all day today and hadn't said a word since your first post.

You're visiting Little Italy again...

this game has been moving kinda fast...if you hadn't noticed... Every time I come back to respond to something I read earlier, there are four more walls of text. That being said, your play is twitching my scumdar, DH. I'm suspicious of your willingness to jump on/create bandwagons and by your rapidly switching votes around on page two.

Ah, so here we go. Glad you could join us. Also, this is a pretty apparent parroting of vollkan's view of me switching votes, -however-, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and pretend that you didn't read what he wrote. It's fine and all when you agree with someone (not everyone can be original), but you're molding this point after what he said.

It's usually the first one that cracks and leaves the wagon that looks the best. What better way to gain town points than to do that?

Asking for an explanation doesn't sit right with me either.

Yes, everyone knows that the person who wants the most said about what happens in the game is the scum. The only person who should be averse to explanation is the person whose motivations are not those that benefit the town. Saying that you don't like someone “asking for an explanation” is anti-town, imo.

Like I said before, look at the context. Al's wagon was RVS, my vote was without a reason (I wanted it to be assumed that it was RVS, and it wasn't; Zach took it too seriously to my liking). I know that RVS ends at different times for everyone, but at that point, there clearly really wasn't any solid information to be that serious over a single vote. Hence my scum read on Zach.

@Soc: Except for the fact that I don't really take stuff at face value. That's how you scumhunt effectively. I also don't remember Scott disagreeing with me on the fact that I thought he was looking for a reaction. As far as me "forgetting" that Scott could be scum, I haven't forgotten, but I had a good inkling on what he was trying to do, and trying to hunt for info like that plays off as purely town to me. Scott is town to me at the moment, but he could do something that I don't like. -You-'re forgetting that you can have reads instead of inside knowledge.

@Aldusk: The beauty of my vote without a reason (Soc, you might want to read this part, too) is to see what he would do. Of course I know both town and scum can do that, but it's how they react afterwards that really test their alignment. Zach soft-asking for a reason on why I'm voting for him shows off a great paranoia at that stage of the game and rubs off as scummy to me. Asking for explanations are fine and all, but it all depends on the context, and I think you know that and forgot the context part of it.

I don't think votes without a reason are ever good. I'm the kind of player who thinks that some kind of explanation is always good. It doesn't have to be honest

I have to stop you here.

Wouldn't not being honest (a.k.a lying) be a TERRIBLE thing for town to do? Vague reasons are fine for a scumfishing townie; lying is just either a ballsy gambit or...well, you know: Anti-town. You've heard of lynch all liars before, right?

, but I really don't like just smacking a couple votes around without any kind of decent explanation why. If you don't give an explanation, then the town doesn't have any way to judge your actions later in the game and it just looks like you want to be able to vote without recourse or review. Sorry, that's not how the game works. Also, I don't think you should be telling us “how you scumhunt effectively”. Trying to look the expert is smarmy and a good scum tactic to look “too valuable to lynch”, which is the other reason why I really dislike the “I have my secret reasons!” vote.

I'm only putting out my point of view. By this logic (I'm going to be using this term a lot, it seems...), info hunting and scum hunting by any means necessary is a terrible thing to do, which goes along with my last bolded point criticizing your view...why is lying good, then, if you're against having vague reasons? You're kinda backwards on this subject, and I don't know what to make of it.

I'm not THE expert on Mafia (I know like 2/3 of you have been here for months longer than I have), but I do have a good hold on the game and I believe I'm an ample scumhunter. But it's points like these that make me question how much of an understanding everyone has of this game. OBVIOUSLY not being honest is a bad thing. It's lying. You lynch all liars. That's the way that it goes. You're also being hypocritical on telling me how the game is supposed to be played and criticizing me on being smarmy in the same post.

I don't like hypocrisy....-_-;;

I'm also really bugged by posts 80, 94 and 97. Quoting a really long post just so you can give a one sentence response, or worse yet, only bold some things in the post is NOT productive contribution. It's the appearance of activity.

You're not the type of guy that likes short, sweet and to the point responses, but likes reading loads of fluff. Got it.

I have a neutral tell on you, but I feel like you're extremely misguided. Pick things up.

[DemonHybrid]

By the way, the V/LA will be in effect after 2:15 PM, EST. Keep that in mind.

[Untrod Tripod]

Wow. Just. Wow. I don't even know where to begin with your last post. I'll attempt, though.

Ah, so here we go. Glad you could join us. Also, this is a pretty apparent parroting of vollkan's view of me switching votes, -however-, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and pretend that you didn't read what he wrote. It's fine and all when you agree with someone (not everyone can be original), but you're molding this point after what he said.

Ok, this is really obnoxious. "glad you could join us"? I posted on Wednesday, there were, oh, 60 posts on Thursday, and I posted on Friday. This does NOT qualify as inactivity. I dislike this because you had to make a smartass remark about how I wasn't posting in an attempt to color me as a lurker. Did it not occur to you that maybe I didn't have anything meaningful to add, I was busy and only checking the forum from my phone between classes, couldn't keep up with the amount of activity with the amount of time I had to post etc? Admittedly, I could have just quoted volkan's comment on that with a QFT, but...I felt I should say it. I dunno why, I just did. I also find "not everyone can be original" to be exceptionally obnoxious as well. You're saying that, based on a RV and one post, I'm unoriginal and can't be buggered to participate .So far you have two unqualified and unnecessary personal attacks on me for....no reason. Fantastic.

]Like I said before, look at the context. Al's wagon was RVS, my vote was without a reason (I wanted it to be assumed that it was RVS, and it wasn't; Zach took it too seriously to my liking). I know that RVS ends at different times for everyone, but at that point, there clearly really wasn't any solid information to be that serious over a single vote. Hence my scum read on Zach.

Fine. I still don't like you vote-hopping.

I don't think votes without a reason are ever good. I'm the kind of player who thinks that some kind of explanation is always good. It doesn't have to be honest

I have to stop you here.

Wouldn't not being honest (a.k.a lying) be a TERRIBLE thing for town to do? Vague reasons are fine for a scumfishing townie; lying is just either a ballsy gambit or...well, you know: Anti-town. You've heard of lynch all liars before, right?

Ok, I'll give you that I didn't really qualify that one and saying "you should lie" is not a good plan. Allow me to restate: I feel like you should give a reason for your votes. If you don't give one at all it really just allows people to come up with different reasons why you might do it. If you have hidden motivations for your vote, you're a lot more likely to be prodded for information if you don't give any reason at all and then you'll end up saying "oh, I had some secret reasons", which kind of defeats the purpose, don't you think? I'm not saying that you should lie, just that if you have hidden motivations, you shouldn't just vote with no reason because people will call you on it. Also, I'm getting a little more of the feeling that you're trying to color me as stupid by doing the "I have to stop you there" thing, because dude....it's forum mafia. You either can respond after the whole quote or just stick a comment between sentences. "I have to stop you there" serves absolutely no purpose other than a kind of rhetorical device to put you in the power role in this discussion.

I'm only putting out my point of view. By this logic (I'm going to be using this term a lot, it seems...), info hunting and scum hunting by any means necessary is a terrible thing to do, which goes along with my last bolded point criticizing your view...why is lying good, then, if you're against having vague reasons? You're kinda backwards on this subject, and I don't know what to make of it.

I'm not THE expert on Mafia (I know like 2/3 of you have been here for months longer than I have), but I do have a good hold on the game and I believe I'm an ample scumhunter. But it's points like these that make me question how much of an understanding everyone has of this game. OBVIOUSLY not being honest is a bad thing. It's lying. You lynch all liars. That's the way that it goes. You're also being hypocritical on telling me how the game is supposed to be played and criticizing me on being smarmy in the same post.

I don't like hypocrisy....-_-;;

I'm not questioning your ability to play mafia. I'm sure you're fine. My point of view is that information is the most useful thing you can contribute. You are being smarmy, though.

You're not the type of guy that likes short, sweet and to the point responses, but likes reading loads of fluff. Got it.

No.

I have a neutral tell on you, but I feel like you're extremely misguided. Pick things up.

Glad you have a neutral tell. Do you think wanting information is "extremely misguided"? What do you mean by "pick things up"? Do you not think posting once a day is enough?

[Reckamonic]

Sorry guys! Haven't had a chance to discuss the game with my other half in a little while. Will try to make that happen today!

[q21]

I don't think votes without a reason are ever good. I'm the kind of player who thinks that some kind of explanation is always good. It doesn't have to be honest, but I really don't like just smacking a couple votes around without any kind of decent explanation why. If you don't give an explanation, then the town doesn't have any way to judge your actions later in the game and it just looks like you want to be able to vote without recourse or review. Sorry, that's not how the game works. Also, I don't think you should be telling us “how you scumhunt effectively”. Trying to look the expert is smarmy and a good scum tactic to look “too valuable to lynch”, which is the other reason why I really dislike the “I have my secret reasons!” vote.

Are you actually implying that a dishonest reason for a vote can be a decent reason for a vote... because so far as I'm concerned a dishonest reason for voting is, well, scummy.

[Untrod Tripod]

Are you actually implying that a dishonest reason for a vote can be a decent reason for a vote... because so far as I'm concerned a dishonest reason for voting is, well, scummy.

No. Let's say for example, I wanted to vote for DH (I don't), but I was doing so for his reaction, or because I had a secret cop read on him or something. If I just posted "vote DH", then people will say "...why are you voting for DH?". Then I'd have to back it up with something, which kind of defeats the purpose. If I said "vote DH, because I think that x thing that he did is scummy", but my real reason for doing so was because I wanted to see what he said, then I'm not really voting for my real reason, but I should give a decent reason for the vote so that people won't ask for my motivation for it, so that if I have a hidden motivation I can get the reaction I wanted. Does that make more sense?

[q21]

Are you actually implying that a dishonest reason for a vote can be a decent reason for a vote... because so far as I'm concerned a dishonest reason for voting is, well, scummy.

No. Let's say for example, I wanted to vote for DH (I don't), but I was doing so for his reaction, or because I had a secret cop read on him or something. If I just posted "vote DH", then people will say "...why are you voting for DH?". Then I'd have to back it up with something, which kind of defeats the purpose. If I said "vote DH, because I think that x thing that he did is scummy", but my real reason for doing so was because I wanted to see what he said, then I'm not really voting for my real reason, but I should give a decent reason for the vote so that people won't ask for my motivation for it, so that if I have a hidden motivation I can get the reaction I wanted. Does that make more sense?

It does, I guess. But only if the x in "vote DH, because I think that x thing that he did is scummy" is actually valid - otherwise you're better off not giving any reason at all.



And on another note... DH, stop writing you're responses inside other people's posts please. It makes your points hard to follow and respond to.

[Skill006]

Second Vote Count:

DemonHybrid (3) – Zachrulez, Socrates, reckamonic
Espeonage (1) – Untrod tripod
Socrates (2) – Scott Brosius, Alduskkel
Zachrulez (3) – DemonHybrid, q21, Horrordude0215

Not Voting: horrordude0215, YoshiX, Espeonage, vollkan

With 12 alive, it takes 7 to lynch!

Sending out a prod to Espeonage

If I made any mistakes, let me know ASAP!

[vollkan]

I just have to comment: From what I've noticed, L-1 wagons in RVS are no different than L-4 or L-5 wagons, even if they are more intense; it's still as valid. I'm not sure if you're arguing against the "extreme"ness of L-1 RVS wagons or not, but L-1 wagons actually produce more intense and panicked results. I have no problem pushing someone that close to the edge. I know Soc hates this word, but I'm sure everyone was assuming that someone was going to crack. I just feel that it was scum that did it based on his reaction to my vote.

That's a valid theory position to take, so it makes my attack moot.

My argument's was premised on an L-1 wagon "going beyond" a normal wagon - but if you don't hold that assumption then it can't really apply to you.

-2

for reasonable benefit of the doubt.

"I would find that asking explanations to voting on him for backing away from an L-1 RVS wagon scummy, because it's too serious for the situation." I think that's a good enough answer.

I didn't ignore that; it just didn't answer my question.

He was taking what happened seriously, but that's neither here nor there. His actions are equally consistent with a townie who has a theory problem with L-1 random wagons. The only reason a person wouldn't take it seriously is if they didn't think the wagon was a big deal.

Well Volkann is town, so is Zach.

Unlike DemonHybrid.

Unvote: Whoever
Vote: DemonHybrid

Reasons for each of those?

Also, I'm pretty sure that "I didn't like the way he reacted to my vote" is a solid explanation.

It's not.

"I don't like it" is not an explanation. It doesn't tell us anything about

why

you don't like it.

I'm suspicious of your willingness to jump on/create bandwagons and by your rapidly switching votes around on page two.

By my count he changed his vote only once (from Ald to Zach) on page 2

this game has been moving kinda fast...if you hadn't noticed... Every time I come back to respond to something I read earlier, there are four more walls of text. That being said, your play is twitching my scumdar, DH. I'm suspicious of your willingness to jump on/create bandwagons and by your rapidly switching votes around on page two.

Ah, so here we go. Glad you could join us. Also, this is a pretty apparent parroting of vollkan's view of me switching votes, -however-, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and pretend that you didn't read what he wrote. It's fine and all when you agree with someone (not everyone can be original), but you're molding this point after what he said.

How on earth is he parrotting my views? I haven't been attacking you for bandwagoning; I've been attacking you for the specific reasons behind one vote.

[Alduskkel]

I'm seeing a lot of theory discussion and then discussion about theory discussion. That doesn't help us find scum, I think we should move away from that and maybe take it to MD.

No, that's not all I'm going to say about the stuff that's happened since I last posted, but since there are a bunch of text walls I just felt I should post a little something before embarking on a proper response.

DemonHybrid: Don't quote a wall of text and then bold your own wall of text within it. It just makes the game even longer than it should be.

[Alduskkel]

Socrates puts Ald at L-1 on page 2... Meh, nulltell at best.

At best? That phrase usually means that you think that the best case scenario is unlikely, so from that am I to think that you thought it was scummy?

@Scott Brosius:

vote: Aldusskel

L-1!

No claim. Somebody hammer.

Woo real vote time!

Unvote
Vote: Socrates

Yay! Reasons?

Why haven't you answered this? There's been a LOT of discussion over this, and of course Socrates has tried to explain that he was looking for reactions. Do you buy that? Why or why not?

@vollkan: You're a fairly active player, but you haven't come out and voted for anyone (except me in the RVS). Who do you suspect? I notice you giving out stuff like +4 and -2. I take it that means +4scummy and -2notscummy but how significant are those numbers? Is +4 a lot or a little? Why haven't you voted for either of the 2 people (Socrates, DemonHybrid) who you gave +4s to?

@DemonHybrid: I'm still not really clear on why Zachrulez is scummy. You said that he was overreacting to your vote, but since you voted without explanation what did you expect him to do, not inquire about it?

Unvote: Reckamonic

.

Not convinced that anyone is scummy yet, but we'll see what I get from the above questions.

[Espeonage]

Sorry forgot to bookmark after I confirmed. Reading game thus far in a sec.

[Scott Brosius]

Why haven't you answered this? There's been a LOT of discussion over this, and of course Socrates has tried to explain that he was looking for reactions. Do you buy that? Why or why not?

Wagons are good and all when there is a chance for someone to react. Wagons that build up quickly to L-1 serve no purpose as a. someone will undoubtedly unvote and remove pressure and b. there usually is not enough time for the person to react. I find people are more honest in their reactions to a slow building wagon rather than an L-1 and forms in 5 posts. So rather than be close to an accidental/scummy hammer. Clearly we are both looking for reactions.

Answers to both questions were provided here. I understand he was looking for a reaction, I don't agree with the method.

I too was looking for a reaction, but when you tell someone that, it neutralizes any effect it might have.

Agree with the talking about theory and more theory being alright, but it's now turned to overkill.

[Alduskkel]

And what makes that scummy and not just a disagreement on theory, Scott?

[Espeonage]

Actually my mum is dragging out. My catch up will happen a couple of hours from now.

[Espeonage]

ebwop dragging ME out.

[Espeonage]

I do have a question. Have we been playing with xrx or dram thus for.

[q21]

Unvote Zach

I've lost interest in my Zach vote.

]Like I said before, look at the context. Al's wagon was RVS, my vote was without a reason (I wanted it to be assumed that it was RVS, and it wasn't; Zach took it too seriously to my liking). I know that RVS ends at different times for everyone, but at that point, there clearly really wasn't any solid information to be that serious over a single vote. Hence my scum read on Zach.

Fine. I still don't like you vote-hopping.

Was a little distracted by the dishonest = decent point earlier, but noticed this on rereading the page this morning. The accusation of vote hopping here is wrong, I think. Excluding DH's first vote (which was quite obviously random) he's only changed his vote once this game. How does that constitute vote hopping?

Any reason you're still voting Espeonage?

Unvote: Reckamonic

.

But you're voting Socrates...

[q21]

I do have a question. Have we been playing with xrx or dram thus for.

And how exactly does this make any difference to the price of cheese?
It doesn't matter which one we're playing with.

[vollkan]

@vollkan: You're a fairly active player, but you haven't come out and voted for anyone (except me in the RVS). Who do you suspect? I notice you giving out stuff like +4 and -2. I take it that means +4scummy and -2notscummy but how significant are those numbers? Is +4 a lot or a little? Why haven't you voted for either of the 2 people (Socrates, DemonHybrid) who you gave +4s to?

I'm tring to get back in the habit of using my points system. Basically 0 = town, 100 = scum, and everybody starts at 50. (ie. Socrates is at 54, DH is at 52).

To give you some idea of how it works meta-wise:

Thus, 0% = complete town. 100% is complete scum. My voting threshold is generally 70%, unless the field is so un-scummy that nobody reaches that level, in which I may have to sink below 70%.

Each player begins at 50%, because obviously I have no read on them either way. Town tells (and I am extremely skeptical of calling things town tells) make that go down below 50%. Scum tells make it go above 50%. Generally, my voting threshold is 70%, give or take depending on relative levels of suspicion of people.

In practice, I do find that I tend to rarely have people hitting 70 (which, if I were to put it into words, would be "I am ready to lynch you right now"). My number one suspect is the person with the highest score, at this stage Socrates, but since that score is only 54 that isn't really saying much.

[Espeonage]

I do have a question. Have we been playing with xrx or dram thus for.

And how exactly does this make any difference to the price of cheese?
It doesn't matter which one we're playing with.

Because I have solid meta on both. Actually I have meta on quite a few people here. And should have some on others soon.

About to have a closer look at Zach he has had a few votes and I have seen him as scum closely so he looks like a good place to start searching for scum.. (ongoing game. Can't comment more.)

[horrordude0215]

Sorry about not posting yesterday, everyone... I basically had to help my dad and his girlfriend go and rescue my stepbrother from being kidnapped by his dad. (Long story)

Anyways, I'll have a decent post up later today... Promise

[Alduskkel]

Unvote: Reckamonic

.

But you're voting Socrates...

Unvote: Socrates

. I blame the mod (see above).

Ack, sorry, missed that vote somehow. It's all better now.

[Scott Brosius]

And what makes that scummy and not just a disagreement on theory, Scott?

I never said it was scummy, more anti-town.

[Alduskkel]

So, is your vote on Socrates for a policy lynch then?
Who do you think is

scummy

?