Mini 410 - McDonald's Mafia [Game Over!]

[Amb]

Proxy voting? That is bizarre! I wouldnt trust anybody with my vote ever, just in case I hand the mafia an advantage.

StallingChamp had best have a good reason for trusting Glork. (Such as in the same masonry(unlikely))

We just need to watch carefully here, this could be an obscure form of dayskill. Has SC pulled out in any other game for the same reason, or with similar behaviour?

[DeanWinchester]

This proxy vote thing IS really wierd. He said he was only going to be gone for two days right. At this stage it seems kinda scumie to do that out having any reads what so ever and it probably not mattering.

Random vote: Pink Princess

Because I bet she dosn't have a pink cadilac and that is just not right for somone called pink princess.

[Omega]

Meh, working through Chinese New Year in a casino sucks, I wanted to post yesterday.

Anyways, for the totally arbitrary and insignificant vote portion of today, I am going to

Vote: Amb

because he's the only other one in the game whose forum name starts with a vowel.

It's a bad habit I picked up somewhere.

[Frozen Atlantic]

I didn't think of masonry. But yeah, safe to say that proxying your vote to a mason is also retarded. You're supposed to NOT be connecting yourself to the other guy during the day. In short,

phail

.

FOS: Winchester for explaining a random vote.

o_0;

[Glork]

I didn't think of masonry. But yeah, safe to say that proxying your vote to a mason is also retarded. You're supposed to NOT be connecting yourself to the other guy during the day. In short,

phail

.

Bzzzt. Wrong. On so many levels.


Masons are supposed to leave hints where they can so tha t, if one of them dies, the other(s) will be able to confirm themselves. Proxying a vote to a mason is actually a pretty good way of doing so. Leaving hints (such as a mason-buddy's name buried in a post somewhere) is also a good way of doing so. The greatest strength of a mason group is the idea of having a hidden, but confirmable role.



I will defend the notion of proxying votes in general. When a player proxies their vote, they are indicating that they are willing to put their faith into the person gaining control of their vote. It's little secret that I'm going to be named the best scumhunter from 2006; proxying one's vote to the Paragon is probably the safest decision one can make. I'm no more or less likely to be scum than anybody else, and if I actually manage to find something useful to do with that vote, I just might pressure the right person at the right time.

In the random stages of a game, it's not even particularly important; it's not as though I'm going to do anything significant with my vote, other than possibly wagoning somebody to a whole three or four votes, so I'm

VERY

surprised that SC is picking up flak for proxying his vote at all. It seems like an

awfully

weak reason to attack somebodoy who

isn't even here to defend themselves

. I haven't decided if the people harping on SC are stupid or scummy yet. But I've definitely logged and noted the reactions to his proxy thus far.

That said, when SC comes back, I

would

like him to explain why he chose to proxy his vote. He indicated that he would only be gone for a day, and I wouldn't expect anything groundbreaking to happen during that time. Even though I see no reason not to proxy one's vote on Page 1, I definitely don't see a reason why one should/would proxy D1.

[StallingChamp]

First of all, I must say I am very happy with what happened while I was gone. I proxied my vote for one main reason: to generate discussion. How many games do you know that have actual, legitimate discussion by post 22? It has done a good job of generating discussion, and I have to agree with Glork that I am mighty suspicious of those who took the oppertunity to jump on me for that. I will

Unvote

for now, since I have my vote back, but it may very well go back on FA for his reaction once I read more carefully. Expect more later tonight/tomorow morning. When I make a more in-depth post, I will answer/reply to every comment made about the proxy. Feel free to ask any questions, as well.

P.S. Glork was the only name that stuck out as an exceptional player from when I was here a few months ago.

[Frozen Atlantic]

I didn't think of masonry. But yeah, safe to say that proxying your vote to a mason is also retarded. You're supposed to NOT be connecting yourself to the other guy during the day. In short,

phail

.

1) Bzzzt. Wrong. On so many levels.


2) Masons are supposed to leave hints where they can so that, if one of them dies, the other(s) will be able to confirm themselves. Proxying a vote to a mason is actually a pretty good way of doing so.

3) It's little secret that I'm going to be named the best scumhunter from 2006; proxying one's vote to the Paragon is probably the safest decision one can make. I'm no more or less likely to be scum than anybody else, and if I actually manage to find something useful to do with that vote, I just might pressure the right person at the right time.

4) I definitely don't see a reason why one should/would proxy D1.

1) ORLY?

2) There are no more subtle way to make the "hidden" part of that statement plausible? This method is about as good as making a post that says "SUP MASON".

3) It's a safe decision... if you are town. All of point three is logical if you are a confirmed townie, you are not and therefore it is not. Am I missing something?

4) Well, we agree on that, anyway. SC? Incredibly bad play. At best. Pretend all that stuff was in question form and respond accordingly. Vote stays - the whole town can note it if they like.

[StallingChamp]

1) ORLY?

2) There are no more subtle way to make the "hidden" part of that statement plausible? This method is about as good as making a post that says "SUP MASON".

3) It's a safe decision... if you are town. All of point three is logical if you are a confirmed townie, you are not and therefore it is not. Am I missing something?

4) Well, we agree on that, anyway. SC? Incredibly bad play. At best. Pretend all that stuff was in question form and respond accordingly. Vote stays - the whole town can note it if they like.

1) YARLY

2) I am not implying that I am or am not masons with Glork, but note that he mentionned that, not me.

3) I have said my reasons for proxying my vote, and once the decision to proxy was made, I doubt anyone here disagrees with Glork as a choice

4) Disagree with the bad play. Noted, and returning my vote to you for that. You have blown this WAY out of proportion.

Vote: FA

btw, also noted that you only quoted certain parts of Glork's post, while keeping it in 1 section to make it seem like his whole post.

[Amb]

I disagree with Glork as a choice. I would happily have misused your vote on day 1 randomness. Which is also why I disagree with me as a choice

[Pink Princess]

I'll just pipe in to say that I don't have a pink Cadillac, and I think they're quite ridiculous.

Also, I don't think SC's proxy to Glork is a huge deal. It was day one, page one. Not really a game-breaking decision. I personally don't think a proxy at that point is

necessary

, but it's certainly not a big whoop.

That is all.

[StallingChamp]

Just to be clear, I didn't find it necessary, I did it to spark discussion.

FA - Why did you attack me so heavily for a minor thing? You seem to be taking advantage of this to get me lynched. Lynch-happy scum?

[Glork]

2) There are no more subtle way to make the "hidden" part of that statement plausible? This method is about as good as making a post that says "SUP MASON".

That is simply

not true.

Proxying one's vote is not exclusive or indicative of mason-hood by any means. Thus, when you see someone proxy a vote, you

cannot

come to the conclusion that the player and their proxy are mason-buddies. Thus, it is

not

in any way obvious. Note also that a non-Mason may proxy a vote to a mason, so even if the proxy dies as a Mason, nothing is guaranteed. It only becomes "obvious" if the proxier dies as a Mason, but the

ENTIRE POINT

of being a mason is being able to posthumously confirm your partner.

3) It's a safe decision... if you are town. All of point three is logical if you are a confirmed townie, you are not and therefore it is not. Am I missing something?

This game is not about "safe decisions." Virtually

NOTHING{/i] in Mafia is a safe decision. Saying that his move is stupid because it might help the scum is like saying "we shouldn't ever lynch D1 because we don't have info and will probably lynch a townie." That's just a retarded argument.

4) Well, we agree on that, anyway. SC? Incredibly bad play. At best. Pretend all that stuff was in question form and respond accordingly. Vote stays - the whole town can note it if they like.

No. Not bad play. Just what I saw as pointless play. Needless to say, if SC's "I wanted to spark discussion" reasoning is in fact true, he's accomplished exactly what he set out to do... in which case, he did

NOT

make a bad play. He made a very

good

play.

Unvote, Vote: FrAt

I'm reasonably happy with that vote, all things considered.

[pete d]

It has done a good job of generating discussion, and I have to agree with Glork that I am mighty suspicious of those who took the oppertunity to jump on me for that.

I don't think it's such a big deal either way. People jumped on (ie. commented, not voted) because it was a weird thing to do. I don't really think it made much sense. (I guess it did generate some discussion). The only person who voted you as a result was FA, who doesn't agree with the idea one bit. If more people wagoned you, i think it would be a bigger deal, but they didn't. From my perspective, I don't really find it much scummy on SC's part, just an attempt to create discussion (as he has said).

[Omega]

A short term vote proxy this early doesn't strike me as being particularly scummy either. I don't see what the major fuss is about.

One thing that sticks in my mind, however, is SCs comment that Glork is someone he knows to be an excellent player.

Alright, maybe that's the one and only reason SC picked him, what was Glork going to do if he was scum anyway? Generate a wagon and use his two votes to quick-lynch inside a day? He might be an excellent player, but nobody's good enough to do that without it sticking a big neon sign over their own head that says "I R SCUMMXORZ!" for everyone else. He, and I assume, everyone else in here, are all obviously far too smart for that, and I don't like the way FA jumped on it for that reason.

I do wonder, though, whether that makes Glork's reaction in particular something that was of interest to SC, it was an off the wall play, after all. I know I looked at Glork's replies to the proxy a little more carefully than I did anyone else's, especially when I reread after SC returned.

I may be wrong about that being a point, of course, and even if it was I don't make any great scumtells out of it either, I certainly didn't find anything in either of their posts to make me suspicious, I just know it made me look a little closer in those directions.

[ChannelDelibird]

Brought you to by Big Mac...

...here's a Vote Count!

Glork- 2 (blahgo, Amb)
Amb- 2 (Pink Princess, Omega)
Frozen Atlantic- 2 (StallingChamp, Glork)
Pink Princess- 1 (DeanWinchester)
StallingChamp- 1 (Frozen Atlantic)
DragonsofSummer- 1 (Zarvok)
DeanWinchester- 1 (pete d)
blahgo- 1 (yellowbounder)
Zarvok- 1 (DragonsofSummer)

Not voting- 0

7 to lynch.

Ba ba ba ba ba...I'm lynchin' it

[DragonsofSummer]

Oh whoops... I forgot to actually write the word vote on my omgus... *sighs*

Vote:Zarvok

[Frozen Atlantic]

I proxied my vote for one main reason: to generate discussion.

Needless to say, if SC's "I wanted to spark discussion" reasoning is in fact true, he's accomplished exactly what he set out to do... in which case, he did

NOT

make a bad play. He made a very

good

play.

If you are making an intentionally bad play to spark discussion, then the discussion that ensues doesn't help you seperate scum from town, it merely seperates good player from bad player.

Nobody needs to proxy their vote for a 24 hour abscence, nobody needs to proxy their vote on day one, and nobody should be "willing to put their faith into"

any

unconfirmed player, regardless of their experience level.

I also find myself wondering what secret fountain of scumbusting he hoped to uncover with a mere one day leave. This simply does not add up on a great many levels. The play seems to have a greater effect of tying oneself to said experienced player in the eyes of the town and gaining his trust for future votes. FA's mama didn't raise no fool. And SC wants to know why I'm on top of him for an intentional bad play? Peep the sig. It's not new.

Virtually

NOTHING

in Mafia is a safe decision. Saying that his move is stupid because it might help the scum is like saying "we shouldn't ever lynch D1 because we don't have info and will probably lynch a townie." That's just a retarded argument.

^ =/= logic. You're right, there are no "safe" choices in Mafia. But there is such a thing as calucated risk and reward. We lynch Day One because there's been a good amount of discussion and we've made an effort to pick the scummiest player in the town. Making dumb, random plays and bandwagoning the people that point out said dumb plays - I might be a little rusty, but I can't file that under "good, calculated risk".

Omega - I think "off the wall" is letting the dude off light.

God, I miss this game. Questions, comments, concerns?

[Glork]

It's not a bad play either way. I still don't understand why you think that is the case. It was a harmless play. It was a highly

unusual

play. Some might say it was even a pointless play. But it was not a "bad" play. Not by any means. Not when there was virtually no harm that could have been done, even if I were scum.

I'm not saying that one should be given leave to do what they wish "for discussion's sake." To insinuate such a notion is beyond ridiculous, and more often scummy than not. But in no way do I feel that SC's play falls anywhere within the general viscinity of "bad." If you're going to claim that he's scummy for making a "bad play" and then claiming "I wanted to create discussion," I want you to explain clearly and concisely

why

his play was bad. I also want you to define "bad" (as part of me suspects that our definitions of the word may differ).

[Frozen Atlantic]

In this instance?

Good play : Words and actions that help the town track scum (ie: pressuring StallingChamp)
Bad play : Words and actions that distract the town from tracking scum. (ie: tying yourself to an unknown alignment for any length of time)

Harmless play is voting for someone because they were last to confirm or has a screenname similar to yours. This wasn't harmless play. To those sitting on the sidelines and wondering "what the big deal is" - do you think it would be more constructive for the town to NOT discuss this? I'm all ears.

[StallingChamp]

Nobody needs to proxy their vote for a 24 hour abscence, nobody needs to proxy their vote on day one, and nobody should be "willing to put their faith into"

any

unconfirmed player, regardless of their experience level.

I also find myself wondering what secret fountain of scumbusting he hoped to uncover with a mere one day leave.

I have said it several times now, I didn't NEED to proxy the vote, I did it for a specific reason. Your attempts to change my reasoning is noted.

As far as trust goes, I didn't expect Glork to do anything special with my vote. I proxied to generate discussion, and I am very happy with the discussion I generated. Are you honestly saying someone of Glork's skill would not only try to pull off a quick-lynch on page 1, but get away with it?

[Frozen Atlantic]

First, the whole "your (insert whatever) is noted" gimmick is already taken this game. Pick something else.

Second, I would stick with letting Glork handle your arguments for you. In this sense of the word "needs" is clearly meant to indicate

the town's

needs and not your own. The so called change of reasoning you're trying to pin on me is a response to Glork's words and not your own.

As far as the "secret fountain of scumbusting" line, here are your own words:

"It has done a good job of generating discussion, and I have to agree with Glork that I am mighty suspicious of those who took the oppertunity to jump on me for that."

Am I mistaken in the belief that the "discussion" you hoped to draw had the purpose of finding someone you found scummy (ie - the first guy to call you out)? Or did you hope to generate idle discussion of the weather?

As far as "trust" goes, I'll need to repeat it again since you haven't mentioned or reponded to it at all in your posts -

you should not be showing any "trust" for anyone of unknown alignment!

That is foolish, and seems more in the intrests of self-preservation than scumhunting.

I certainly do not believe that your only goal in this play was to "generate discussion". The idea that Glork's gonna use his two votes to quicklynch someone is stupid, but you ARE trying to hide behind another player of unknown alignment. How on earth is this pro-town? Suppose one of you are scum - it instantly casts suspicion on the other one.

Like I said, terrible play. At best.

[StallingChamp]

First, the whole "your (insert whatever) is noted" gimmick is already taken this game. Pick something else.

I just posted to let you know that I noted the fact that you continue to twist my words.

Second, I would stick with letting Glork handle your arguments for you. In this sense of the word "needs" is clearly meant to indicate

the town's

needs and not your own. The so called change of reasoning you're trying to pin on me is a response to Glork's words and not your own.

I don't anyone to give my arguments. You are beating around the bush.

As far as the "secret fountain of scumbusting" line, here are your own words:

"It has done a good job of generating discussion, and I have to agree with Glork that I am mighty suspicious of those who took the oppertunity to jump on me for that."

Am I mistaken in the belief that the "discussion" you hoped to draw had the purpose of finding someone you found scummy (ie - the first guy to call you out)? Or did you hope to generate idle discussion of the weather?

you called me out for a bad reason. That sent me scummy vibes. Mission accomplished.

As far as "trust" goes, I'll need to repeat it again since you haven't mentioned or reponded to it at all in your posts -

you should not be showing any "trust" for anyone of unknown alignment!

That is foolish, and seems more in the intrests of self-preservation than scumhunting.

Try reading my last post.

I certainly do not believe that your only goal in this play was to "generate discussion". The idea that Glork's gonna use his two votes to quicklynch someone is stupid, but you ARE trying to hide behind another player of unknown alignment. How on earth is this pro-town? Suppose one of you are scum - it instantly casts suspicion on the other one.[/quote]
So if Glork won't misuse the votes, what's the issue?

Like I said, terrible play. At best.

I disagree.

[Glork]

FrAt, you're not making any sense.


You claim that SC's placing his trust in me was dangerous. I contend that there is no "trust issue" whatsoever, because as I've already stated,

THERE WAS NOTHING SIGNIFICANT I COULD HAVE DONE WITH THE EXTRA VOTE.

What exactly are your thoughts on that point?

I would further contend that it is perfectly reasonable to "trust" somebody whose alignment isn't

known

, but whom you believe to be pro-town. That doesn't apply in this case, but it could with regards to proxies in other games/situations.

you ARE trying to hide behind another player of unknown alignment.

How in the world is he trying to hide behind me? It's not like he's going "IF ANYTHING HAPPENS, ITS GLORK'S FAULT!!!" I don't understand what you're getting at here.

[pete d]

you called me out for a bad reason.

I don't think it's a bad reason. FA took (i think valid) exception to your play.

btw, it may have generated discussion, but >half the town is still random voting

[StallingChamp]

I don't think it's a bad reason. FA took (i think valid) exception to your play.

Please explain your points about how it was bad. Hopefully you will do a better job than FAscum, and not just twist my words and ignore my answers.