Mini #564 - Mafia in Crubtown - Game Over

[Cephrir]

Wrong. You can read into a joke vote, or even more likely the way someone responds to it. That's how games basically always start. That gives us something to go off of. There's really no other basis. While I don't think extended periods of joke voting are productive, some is necessary.

I don't agree, but whatever. It's hard to read into something insubstantial. Not that that phase is unneccessary, it's very important. Just not for that reason. See: below.

Do you have any other propositions for getting a game going? Because you don't seem to be employing them.

I tried to put a third vote on someone and see if anyone jumped on me for it. In my experience, that's one of the best/fastest ways to get a game going. The first time, I was foiled by my inability to count, but I believe I eventually managed to do it and nobody cared.

[Crub]

Fourth Vote Count of Day 1

windkirby (3):

zeddicus, QuantumFruit, Cephrir

Cephrir (3):

darkdude, thevampireofdusseldorf, mozsuggs

QuantumFruit (2):

Talitha, Akonas

vikingfan (1):

Pink Puppy

Pink Puppy (1):

vikingfan

Akonas (1):

windkirby

darkdude (1):

YvonneSeer


With 12 alive it takes 7 to lynch.

[Akonas]

I think there is a connotative difference between defending oneself and being defensive.

Yes, but they might as well be the same thing. Because neither really matters, neither is going to lynch someone, and not a whole lot can be read into either. They might be different words, but come on.

Wrong. You can read into a joke vote, or even more likely the way someone responds to it. That's how games basically always start. That gives us something to go off of. There's really no other basis. While I don't think extended periods of joke voting are productive, some

is

necessary. Do you have any other propositions for getting a game going? Because you don't seem to be employing them.

PUPPY CLIFF NOTES: Quantum thinks we can't know anything for sure at this stage. And she's not scumhunting.

Yeah, you know, nothing is for certain. But you have to take a stand and see what reactions you get and see if someone says anything to change your mind or solidify your suspicion.

And why aren't you scum hunting? What page will you start?

I'm setting up scum-hunting. I mean, no one's

really

scum-hunting yet. That's more so what I was saying. I'm analyzing players/play-styles. I'm reading into people's posts. I'm pointing out what I notice, defending or "attacking" as I see fit. At this point, though, I'm not going to pressure anyone. I'm not doing the confrontational bit of scum-hunting yet. Scum-tracking perhaps.

quantum wrote:
Also, yeah, why did you feel the need to give such an in-depth explanation to your joke vote? I mean, you've already explained it before, VoD was just pointing out that it was kind of suspicious - not enough to merit a vote, just kind of suspicious. The fact that you got really defensive could be something we should look into as the game continues.


PUPPY CLIFF NOTES: Windkirby is defensive to da max!

As I said before, I don't put that much stock in somebody being defensive. They have to respond to your accusations. It does make me look into their posts more closely though, and see if I can find any scumminess. But defensiveness isn't bad by itself, IMO.

That's what I said. Defending yourself, by itself, is not bad, no.

Personally, I don't see the difference. I understand the technicality, but I don't see why you are pushing the difference between joke and random votes, when you don't even think we can read into much at the beginning of that game anyway. I believe you can learn a lot from the beginning of the game, but not from the random votes. It's more about what they say and how they say it that counts for me.

That's why the difference matters. You can't learn a lot from random votes, but you can learn quite a bit from joke votes. I don't think one should base everything on joke votes, though, and that's what I've been pushing. I think they're something to take into account and keep in mind, but know that people make blunders, etc. Like, it's important to be flexible about that, I think. I think we pretty much agree on the core principles, though.

After readin that whole long thing, I feel it was actually very thin on content (sorry!). I think quantum's biggest reason for voting windkirby is simply that he seems defensive. I don't think being "defensive" is any indication of scumminess. And after reading that whole thing I am starting to feel like windkirby doesn't deserve all the suspicion he is getting.

Question A question for all: Is being "defensive" a sign of scumminess? And where do you draw the line between answering people's concerns and being "defensive"?

I can change my vote when I see fit, but at this point, I see most reason for voting windkirby than anyone else (except maybe Cephrir, who I am quite suspicious of at the moment as well for being so dismissive).

Defensiveness is an indication of scumminess. Scum would try really hard not to appear like scum, and be afraid that someone's "caught them." I feel that windkirby reacted too strongly. Answering people's concerns would be more proportional. For example, if I accuse you of being scum and give you two sentences of reasoning (yeah right, two sentences), and your respond with 10-sentence paragraph and a blurb at the end, that's a little weird. It's something to look into. If windkirby was anywhere near a lynch I'd definitely remove my vote.

Also, what do you mean by "boiling down [my] arguments?"

[Akonas]

Sorry about that last post; I accidentally hit "Submit".

---

Votes at the beginning of the game are not technically random (unless someone posted a random dice tag and then voted, and those people are jerks); they are arbitrary. It can be random, it can be strategic, whatever. The point is, they're something to go back to later and something to get the ball rolling now.

OVERALL: After readin that whole long thing, I feel it was actually very thin on content (sorry!).

I agree, to an extent. She's saying a lot without actually saying much. It's the whole "well, it could be either, we don't really know" thing. The thing is, everybody knows that at this point. It's redundant and unhelpful. And this game is mostly about stuff that can't be logically justified.

---

I think there is a connotative difference between defending oneself and being defensive.

This is one of those "duh" moments. The difference is whether you think they're scum, really. And so I don't see why this is relevant to the discussion.

I think that QuantumFruit's reaction to PinkPuppy saying she wasn't scumhunting is interesting; I think she was scumhunting. Not attacking anyone directly, but nevertheless looking for scum (despite my other complaints).

I FoS the both of you

.

Also, QF, I think your problem is that you feel a need to overjustify everything. Think about what you're saying and whether you really need all those quotes.

---

windkirby doesn't come across as all that scummy. I didn't think he was being overly defensive; I thought that his response was justified. However, his reaction to being called defensive is interesting. IGMEOY but you're not seeming that scum. Don't be afraid to talk (as your last post seemed to imply); that is nothing but bad.

[vikingfan]

Cephrir, I went through windkirby's posts and I'm not seeing the scummy behavior you are...he seems to be playing more town, at least so far. What scummy actions are you seeing?

Just reposting this for Cephrir's benefit since he hasn't responded to it yet, unless I've missed something. I'm really not seeing the scummy behavior out of windkirby at all.

[Talitha]

I don't think defensiveness in itself is a good indicator of scumminess. I can be defensive as town or scum -- it's the fact that I'm backed into a corner and have something to lose that makes me defensive.

I also don't think windkirby has been

that

defensive. Damn, I'm embarrassed to think of some of the posts I've made in defense of myself... oooh, let's not go there. Anyway, I have yet to make up my mind on windkirby, but for now he's not on the list.

Cephir rubbed me a little the wrong way with his early dismissiveness of people's suspicions, but lately he seems to be sticking his neck out more than I would expect from scum.

My list of candidates for scum thus far:
- darkdude
- Zeddicus
- QuantumFruit

With that in mind, I'll stick with my current vote.

[zeddicus]

What on earth are those two posts supposed to mean, Akonas?

bump. The two posts in question are:

Vote: vikingfan. You are not taking this nearly seriously enough.

Vote: QuantumFruit. You are taking this far too seriously.

and

I tried to put a third vote on someone and see if anyone jumped on me for it.

You support the "scum is third on the bandwagon" meta?

Reasons talitha?

[Pink Puppy]

I think the nuances that quantum fruit is using to explain herself are useless and confusing. I mean, I feel like she's just taking up space now and distracting from any real arguments by arguing semantics.

And why aren't you scum hunting? What page will you start?

I'm setting up scum-hunting. I mean, no one's really scum-hunting yet. That's more so what I was saying. I'm analyzing players/play-styles. I'm reading into people's posts. I'm pointing out what I notice, defending or "attacking" as I see fit. At this point, though, I'm not going to pressure anyone. I'm not doing the confrontational bit of scum-hunting yet. Scum-tracking perhaps.

I had no idea there was a difference between scumhunting and "setting up scum-hunting." For all intensive purposes, I think there is no difference. You're either looking for scum or you're not. At the beginning of the game, you can be less sure of your findings, but you are still looking for scum. Or at least you should be.

I just think you're wishy-washy. Flippy-floppy. You want it both ways with everything, finding a way to say you're scum hunting, but not really. You're "setting up scum hunting." Which is neither here nor there. It's like if somebody asked you "are you pregnant" and you said, "Yes, I'm a little bit pregnant." How can you be a little bit pregnant?? You either are or you're not!

unvote; vote quantum

BTW, I still think mozsuggs deserves a vote, but quantum more so. Check out all of mozsuggs posts. He has posted nothing of substance and commented on none of the discussions, yet pops in for a vote to get things going.

[Cephrir]

Cephrir, I went through windkirby's posts and I'm not seeing the scummy behavior you are...he seems to be playing more town, at least so far. What scummy actions are you seeing?

Just reposting this for Cephrir's benefit since he hasn't responded to it yet, unless I've missed something. I'm really not seeing the scummy behavior out of windkirby at all.

Since windkirby is being overdefensive now, I think getting a few votes and a little actual pressure on him will generate a reaction, given his playstyle thus far, that might be indicative of alignment, hence my vote.

You support the "scum is third on the bandwagon" meta?

No, I think it's ridiculous, but I know some people believe it.

[zeddicus]

FoS: Mozsugg

care to post some content?

No, I think it's ridiculous, but I know some people believe it.

then be happy you have a town that agrees with you.

[zeddicus]

EBWOP "town" here meaning "group of people"

[YvonneSeer]

Yeah I guess you're right guys. This new lead seems much more promising to look into.

Yeah I read the whole damned paragraph. Seems like scum.

I don't think I'll vote just yet though. Also it could be just inexperience in general instead of scumming... a townie could freak out in a similar way.

How could anyone miss this post?

This is basically darkdude throwing in a little something to show that he has suspicions for windkirby and then covering his tracks by not voting and saying windkirby could be a townie. Maybe he already knows windkirby is a townie. Supporting a wagon from the sidelines but not committing yourself to it is a really scummy thing to do.

vote darkdude

I guess it does look suspicious, but at the time I was still thinking about the initial joke votes and didn't pay attention to the latest post.

I admit that I do not read every single sentence written here...it's just too much. My time is limited.

You still didn't address the issue yet though. What I'm saying is you supported the wagon on windkirby but you stay away from it yourself by not voting and saying something like "he might be a townie".

[windkirby]

I'm neutral on the QF dispute. On one hand, I don't think it's so bad that she is trying to explain anything - she could just be trying to thorough to avoid argument. But on the other, she hasn't said a whole lot since people've started suspecting her. Not a big deal, but if she doesn't post in a few days, it could turn into one.

Speaking of not posting anything, I'm starting to get pretty suspicious of mogsuggz. No scumhunting, no defending, no posting anything of substance. Definetely scummy behavior.

[darkdude]

You still didn't address the issue yet though. What I'm saying is you supported the wagon on windkirby but you stay away from it yourself by not voting and saying something like "he might be a townie".

As said by many others, there was not enough evidence for a serious vote. Voting is not a prerequisite for suspicion.

[thevampireofdusseldorf]

After all that posting im getting a better idea about certian people.

re:QF

Also, QF, I think your problem is that you feel a need to overjustify everything. Think about what you're saying and whether you really need all those quotes.

Overjustify was the word I used to describe her four reason joke vote post.
I see QFs long posts heavy quoting and justifications as more indicitive of her style and not necessasarily of her alignment. The above stated things does give the impression of a post of large size but thin content.
I will have to watch QF closely to work out style from alignment, that said

IGMEOY:QF

re:Defensiveness

A question for all: Is being "defensive" a sign of scumminess? And where do you draw the line between answering people's concerns and being "defensive"?

Being defensive is a natural reaction for both town and mafia and I think either alignment can be called up on being too defensive. The big difference is in the fact that mafia have much more to be defensive about than town. Im not sure I can make a general statement about it as a sign of scumminess as I believe each case (of defensiveness) has to be viewed in its context. To use it as a main argument without surporting evidence I would find this as more of a scum tell..............that said I will look at WK (windkirby)

re:WK

I would first like to look at the vote which first bought suspicion onto WK:

zeddicus points out the double standard of the vote
wk replies "I wasn't serious & if you really need an explanation the vote stood out more."
(ok @wk to say it wasn't serious then if you realy need an exlanation is not a great way of saying things, I believe you (we all) knew saying I wasn't serious wasn't going to hold up but to add "if you realy need an explanation" that is just going to look bad as if you fabricated the explanation or you lied about not being serious)
with that said I dont find it surprising that zeddicus then attacks the explanation given by wk
I also note the explanation (more interesting than the vote)
QF is dissmisive of this and Talitha is also mostly dissmisive
After two players and 3 post focusing on the vote/reasons wk replies in post 66

I figured that if I just said "I wasn't serious" he would've kept persisting about it, as it was already pretty obvious that it wasn't anything too serious. What happened was that I looked at mozsugg's vote and thought it was like maybe a 2/10 on my scum-o-meter, which I felt was good enough for a jokevote (I like to have some sort of miniscule reason, even if it's a dumb one.). Having made my decision, I scrolled down, not paying too much attention to PP's post as it wasn't as lengthy or stand-out-y as mogsuggz's (such a hard-to-spell name!) was. The post may seem contradictory because I provided two unrelative reasons in one post, and I do understand that, but I wanted to make it clear that not only is no one serious on the first page, but there was a slight reason for my vote as well. Basically, I defended myself with two different points. "What? Two different points? Scumtell! Deserves an FoS!" is a reaction that I fail to comprehend.

(I can see this post as defensive but I like the fact that wk can see the reason he attracted suspicion, and I also think that wk has a tendency to overjustify (note post52) as well which can also be interpreted defensive.)

re: Wk & Defensiveness

Reading through WKs post I find him naturaly defensive (and overjustifying), again IMO more indicitive of style than alignment.

On the second page we have WK responding to QFs 4 reason/joke vote with

I'm in two of your minis?! What does that even mean? WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN? :O

At the top of page 3 we have

Hmm... I don't think it's such a big deal, personally. Sorry if it sounds like I'm defending her overmuch, but it's only on the second page. (I would agree if she had done it on the first.)

This to me is overjustified and is already defensive "Sorry if it sounds like I'm defending her overmuch" before anyone had question it.
Both of these are early indications of Wks defensiveness as a part of her style.

So now after the above has occured we get
Cephrir(post 68) saying that that was defensive and votes:wk
zeddicus also sees this as defensive (and has other previous reasons for suspected scumminess) but already has his vote there
darkdude sees this possibility but also says that could be a town freak out
Cephrir mentions overreaction
QF is hesitant in seeing wk as defensive but does allude to it
Cephrir refers to wk post as overdefensiveness
QF makes another stronger reference to wks defensiveness

Now what I can deduce from this is that Cephrir was the 1st to call wk defensive and also to mention it the most, others saw this also but were less aggressive.....
As I have already stated that wk gave tells very early in the game of being defensive I see this move of Cephrir as a scum oppertune move; that coupled with the fact that this seems to be his only real premise to think wk scum as he made no comments on the double standard of wks vote and the contradictory nature of his explanation.

Ok so to finish I have less suspicion on both QF and WK and only more on Cephrir

Sorry for such a long post but I felt the need to clarify some things on the two most high profile people.
I also have things to say about others but will leave that for another post.

[Talitha]

Reasons talitha?

The people I listed were the ones who seem least townish. Sorry, I've been too tired lately to keep notes on people. Just going off general impressions.

[thevampireofdusseldorf]

ok now impresions of 2 more people, this sholud be a lot shorter as both haven't posted that much

darkdude
he seemed to be following others points and suspicions on things but on one occasion he decided to add to his post "this could be just a townie freak out" and decided to not vote...............
now I dont realy see this as too scummy at all. I would rather put it as cautious town and his other post back this up as well. In his posts so far he has picked up on others points mostly (but has addd a few of his own thoughts) and he has not posted a second vote, he has also not posted anything of great length or ferocity.

mozsuggs
seems very quick for action right from the get go a person of few words even fewer justifications (HA a balance to QF & WK perhaps) easily going to attract attention (do mini normals have jesters?) someone to certainly keep an eye on

IGMEOY:mozsuggs

[Cephrir]

Now what I can deduce from this is that Cephrir was the 1st to call wk defensive and also to mention it the most, others saw this also but were less aggressive.....
As I have already stated that wk gave tells very early in the game of being defensive I see this move of Cephrir as a scum oppertune move; that coupled with the fact that this seems to be

his only real premise to think wk scum as he made no comments on the double standard of wks vote and the contradictory nature of his explanation.

I'm not really all that suspicious of wk anymore:

Overreacting to just an FoS and being really overdefensive is worse, but not always a huge tell, more of a newb tell. If an experienced player did it, then it would be different. Since windkirby is being overdefensive now, I think getting a few votes and a little actual pressure on him will generate a reaction, given his playstyle thus far, that might be indicative of alignment, hence my vote.

That's why I'm still voting for wk. I thought I made that clear enough, but perhaps not.

(I can see this post as defensive but I like the fact that wk can see the reason he attracted suspicion, and I also think that wk has a tendency to overjustify (note post52) as well which can also be interpreted defensive.)

Defending wk pretty strongly, here and throughout the post. My gut tells me for some reason that you might be scum trying to pick up a pet townie, just because scumbuddies probably wouldn't be so blatant, but I've found that my gut is pretty often wrong, so I'll just keep an eye on that. VoD, it kind of seems like you have QF syndrome. You make huge posts, but sometimes they don't say as much as they appear to. I guess that's just because you do a lot of summarizing before you get to the point. It seems to me like you defend a lot of people here (wk, QF, darkdude in 116), but I suppose that could just be playstyle or a tendency to agree with the less ulterior possible motives behind a post.

As said by many others, there was not enough evidence for a serious vote. Voting is not a prerequisite for suspicion.

You still did offer some passive support for it, sort of like someone trying to raise popular support for a wagon while remaining transparent in the voting record. I don't think that's terribly likely though, and not voteworthy.

I sort of want to vote mozsuggs here to pressure him into posting some content, but I also want to get some more reactions out of wk. If nobody decides to help me, I'll switch pretty soon.

[YvonneSeer]

As said by many others, there was not enough evidence for a serious vote. Voting is not a prerequisite for suspicion.

You didn't have enough evidence, yet you were convinced he seemed like scum from reading that one particular post from windkirby. You thought he's scum but you didn't vote for him, instead choosing to keep your vote on the player who is attacking windkirby of being scum. That is suspicious to me.

You still did offer some passive support for it, sort of like someone trying to raise popular support for a wagon while remaining transparent in the voting record. I don't think that's terribly likely though, and not voteworthy.

I disagree. I think it might be likely and, therefore, voteworthy.

[mozsuggs]

Shall we just kill someone?

[vikingfan]

Mind posting more content than that, mozsuggs? We certainly don't want to just do a random lynch...that would get us nowhere.

[thevampireofdusseldorf]

I really felt the need to look at both QF and WK for myself as they had both attracted the most suspicion but people were also divided on their opinions about their scumminess & I was also personaly devided. I came to my own conclusion about each as both perhaps targeted for their style more so than their actions. Having such a long post was to show others evidence to support my opinion. But if that is too much for some then my main points were:

I see QFs long posts heavy quoting and justifications as more indicitive of her style and not necessasarily of her alignment. The above stated things does give the impression of a post of large size but thin content.
I will have to watch QF closely to work out style from alignment,

Reading through WKs post I find him naturaly defensive (and overjustifying), again IMO more indicitive of style than alignment.

Im trying to get reads/understanding of how different people play/post at this stage of the game. If I see this as contridictory to the suspicions cast on that player then I will say something.

This is how I read both of these players at this point in the game, it also gives me a better base to judge future actions from them.

Also

I will ask again does a mini normal have a jester?

Shall we just kill someone?

[Cephrir]

I disagree. I think it might be likely and, therefore, voteworthy.

Reasonable.

Shall we just kill someone?

I don't really think anyone else cares to pressure wk, so I'll put that objective in the back of my mind for a bit. As such, yes, we can just kill someone.

Vote: mozsuggs

VoD: A jester is extremely unlikely in a normal game. To the point where you should just assume there isn't one.

[Cephrir]

Err,

Unvote, Vote mozsuggs

[windkirby]

Cephrir, your confidence that there isn't a Jester implies that you want us to think you're the Jester so that no one votes for you! Scum!!! FoSoSoSoS!

PS: Sorry, I'm just really bored when no one posts on the weekends.