Mini #564 - Mafia in Crubtown - Game Over

[Cephrir]

I never said the vote was random: stop twisting my words. There's a huge difference between a random vote and a not serious vote.

A lot of people will take them as the same thing, and they might as well be.

Of COURSE Mogsuggz did not seem scummy (note that my scum-o-meter works on a post-to-post scoring system, not accumulative):

Might want to fix that.

Cephir: How serious an FOS is I guess is debatable, but it was an accusation. It is my policy to address all of my accusations, little or small, and do my best to cleanly defend myself and not leave doubt behind. Therefore, I am usually pretty thorough in my defenses, and it would seem that it comes off as scummily defensive. I guess it's something I need to work on.

The point is, not only is it just an FoS, but it wasn't a huge one. VoD FoS'ed someone else and voted me in that same post, it's not even like you were his main target of suspicion. Massive overreaction sometimes can mean your emotions are forced.

[Crub]

Third Vote Count of Day 1

Cephrir (3):

YvonneSeer, darkdude, thevampireofdusseldorf

windkirby (3):

zeddicus, QuantumFruit, Cephrir

Pink Puppy (1):

vikingfan

vikingfan (1):

Pink Puppy

thevampireofdusseldorf (1):

mozsuggs

Akonas (1):

windkirby

mozsuggs (1):

Akonas

QuantumFruit (1):

Talitha

With 12 alive it takes 7 to lynch.

[zeddicus]

Dude, you ninja'd me. Not cool.

sorry about that.

There's a huge difference between a random vote and a not serious vote.

"huge" like the difference between 2.5 and 1? Sorry If i'm a bit skeptical of your standards for being "a lot" or "huge". They are basically the same. (in this case, not in 2.5 and 1)

note that my scum-o-meter works on a post-to-post scoring system, not accumulative

as Cephrir said, your scumdar needs fixing.

he seemed more scummy than PP's was

how so?

I still felt it would be put to better use on Mogsuggz than PP

why? why not have a different random reason on a different person?

[Akonas]

Vote: vikingfan

. You are not taking this nearly seriously enough.

[QuantumFruit]

@Cephrir:

QuantumFruit wrote:
At this point, there appear to be two "camps," if I may say so: those dismissing joke votes as joke votes, and those reading into joke votes and saying that they have elements of scum/town. The former could be looked at as trying to cover up their potentially scummy actions and hence trying too hard not to look like scum - because of this, they're scum; the latter could be looked at as trying too hard to appear pro-town because they're going into overkill mode and attacking every minor divergence as scum.


Bit of an overreaction here. It's a bit much to say that those dismissing joke votes as jokes are trying to cover scummy random votes, although from this statement it is obvious which "camp" you'd put yourself in. Besides, you assume that those people made scummy random votes that needed to be covered up, which isn't neccessarily the case. Reading too hard into random votes isn't a tell either, it's just what some people do. The divergent opinions here, I think, are really just a simple disagreement and nothing more.

Congratulations, you've restated my thesis! What camp I'm in is completely irrelevant - I'm saying either action could be perceived as scummy, whether it be dismissing scum votes or reading too much into them. For that reason, I think we should look into the random votes as an area to start from, but ultimately not take them too seriously and get off track (because I see how that could happen from either approach).

You happened to miss my point in this analysis, however:

Quote:
At this point, I could honestly FOS everyone who's been participating, but I don't think it'd do much good.

That might indicate to you that you're reading too much into things and scumhunting too overzealously at this point in the game.

Or it might indicate that I'm being dismissive and saying that anything could be scummy, but it isn't necessarily. That's essentially what I'm doing. I haven't made my mind up about anyone. I see how certain things people do could be scummy, but the game hasn't progressed enough for me to make my mind up about any player. I don't know how they normally play. I don't know their motivations. I haven't seen them under pressure. Me, scum-hunting? What basis do I have, pray tell?

@windkirby:

Talitha - You said she was jumpy and long-winded.
My opinion was that if she had made such a long post explaining a simple joke vote on the first page (so early in the game), then THAT would be weird. However, as the game goes on, it gets progressively less jokey, so if you're going to make a jokevote on the second page, it will probably need more than just a simple sentence.

Actually, I said I was long-winded. She said I was jumpy. Plus, I didn't really give the joke vote that much explanation, there just seemed to be numerous jokes I can make. Coincidentally, I'm not a very funny person, so I failed.

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.

@zeddicus:

Quote:
What happened was that I looked at mozsugg's vote and thought it was like maybe a 2/10 on my scum-o-meter

it registered on your scumdar at all? yet it was "not serious"?

seems odd.

I think he was more so stating that unless it was a joke vote, that degree of scumminess wouldn't merit a vote. Hence, not a serious vote. I imagine for a serious vote it'd have to be at least above 5. Seriously, though, the purpose of a joke vote (imo) is primarily to prod at someone and have them justify themselves. If windkirby felt his joke vote would elicit that response, then there was a reason for doing it - after all, we must have some basis for joke votes (though, sometimes, it is just for kicks). The vote itself wasn't scummy, I think, but the amount of attention windkirby paid it potentially was.

Also,

@Cephrir again:

Quote:
I never said the vote was random: stop twisting my words. There's a huge difference between a random vote and a not serious vote.

A lot of people will take them as the same thing, and they might as well be.

Wrong. There's a big difference. I just explained the difference. Random would be a dice roll. Even a joke vote (assuming no dice roll, or random number generator was used) is not random.

@some select players who know who they are: Enough with the trite little truisms. You know, where you agree with what another players been saying - like "Yeah guys, joke voting obviously has a purpose of giving us suspicions. How else are we gonna do it?" It doesn't seem very productive. I've just been noticing it and I thought I'd comment.

@Talitha: See, told you I was long-winded.

[Akonas]

Vote: QuantumFruit

. You are taking this far too seriously.

[vikingfan]

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

[Pink Puppy]

Talk about jumpy/defensive.

Unvote, Vote windkirby

I got a well-backed-up FOS. I'm not supposed to react or something?

There is a fine line about being defensive. If people are accusing you, there's really nothing for you to do but defend yourself. But where does it become too much? I'm not really sure myself, and I think windkirby is sort of riding the line so far. "Defensive" is not something that necessarily makes me think someone is scummy, but makes me pay more attention to them to see if I can see something REALLY scummy.

And the above quote made me think, because windkirby says he "got a well-backed-up FOS." (I think he's talking about zeddicus' FOS btw). But sounds to me like even windkirby believes the fos had good reason -- like he felt caught. Usually people don't say it like that. They call it a crap fos (because they know it to be wrong) or they just ignore it, because afterall, it's only an FOS. I don't know about other people, but I don't take FOSes very seriously anyway.

On another topic: can anyone get me a cliffs notes version of quantum fruit posts?

[windkirby]

Geez, I really hate it when people MiST-reply.

Cephir and zeddicus -
As QF said, there is a definite difference between a random vote and a jokevote. A random vote is usually due to a player's name or perhaps because he/she didn't confirm very early (or even because a player is in two of your minis), but a jokevote is a vote that has some sort of small reason behind it presented in a humorous and not-serious manner.

2.5 and 1 is a large difference to me. Percentage-wise, it's 250% as lengthy. Pinkpuppy's was an illogical vote that was presented briefly and appeared to have no reason behind it, while Mogsuggz felt that he needed to "soften" the vote by telling VoD it was completely random and apologizing. That's why I felt his vote was scummier.

Okay, so I exaggerate with the word "huge." What I meant was "significant."

Also, the criticisms on my scum-o-meter are kind of stupid. To me, it was like holding a thermometer to a post and checking the reading, not anything I am going to lynch someone on. Scum-o-meter =/= scumdar. "Huge" difference.

Pinkpuppy-

I used the term "well-backed-up" because he gave an explanation of moderate length to it. Had he said something shorter like "FOS on windkirby for the rather contradictory post," I wouldn't have used that term.

Also, sparknotes-dot-com might have them.

[Cephrir]

Wrong. There's a big difference. I just explained the difference. Random would be a dice roll. Even a joke vote (assuming no dice roll, or random number generator was used) is not random.

As QF said, there is a definite difference between a random vote and a jokevote. A random vote is usually due to a player's name or perhaps because he/she didn't confirm very early (or even because a player is in two of your minis), but a jokevote is a vote that has some sort of small reason behind it presented in a humorous and not-serious manner.

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.

And there goes windkirby with the overdefensiveness again. It seems my vote is in the right place.

[windkirby]

You say something to me, and I'll respond. You can't keep accusing me and criticising my posts if you're going to use my response to your criticisms as an excuse to keep your vote where it is.

[Cephrir]

Sure I can.

[Cephrir]

Alright, as good as that response sounds, I should probably clarify. Your responses are a perfectly legitimate target for additional "criticism", as you call it. Actually, the responses are the whole point, I want to see how you react. And I'm not making excuses to keep my vote where it is, your responses seriously make me think even more that you are scum.

[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?

[thevampireofdusseldorf]

The posts seem to be dominated by 3 players so far would be nice to hear from some of the others in this game!

[Talitha]

I agree. I'm a bit dubious of both the two main wagons right now.

Can we have a prod for YvonneSeer please mod?

Prodded - Crub

[Pink Puppy]

Okay so I forced myself to go through Quantumfruit's post. I could not find the cliff notes anywhere so I made my own.

@Cephrir:

QuantumFruit wrote:
At this point, there appear to be two "camps," if I may say so: those dismissing joke votes as joke votes, and those reading into joke votes and saying that they have elements of scum/town. The former could be looked at as trying to cover up their potentially scummy actions and hence trying too hard not to look like scum - because of this, they're scum; the latter could be looked at as trying too hard to appear pro-town because they're going into overkill mode and attacking every minor divergence as scum.


Bit of an overreaction here. It's a bit much to say that those dismissing joke votes as jokes are trying to cover scummy random votes, although from this statement it is obvious which "camp" you'd put yourself in. Besides, you assume that those people made scummy random votes that needed to be covered up, which isn't neccessarily the case. Reading too hard into random votes isn't a tell either, it's just what some people do. The divergent opinions here, I think, are really just a simple disagreement and nothing more.

Congratulations, you've restated my thesis! What camp I'm in is completely irrelevant - I'm saying either action could be perceived as scummy, whether it be dismissing scum votes or reading too much into them. For that reason, I think we should look into the random votes as an area to start from, but ultimately not take them too seriously and get off track (because I see how that could happen from either approach).

PUPPY CLIFF NOTES: Quatum thinks we can read into random voting stage, but not be entirely certain about scumminess.

I'm with her here. The first bits of discussion don't have that much to go on, but I think they're very important. If we just shrug and say "we have nothing to go on," or "it's too hard to tell right now" then nothing ever gets done, scum can hide, and the game drags.

You happened to miss my point in this analysis, however:

Quote:
At this point, I could honestly FOS everyone who's been participating, but I don't think it'd do much good.

That might indicate to you that you're reading too much into things and scumhunting too overzealously at this point in the game.

Or it might indicate that I'm being dismissive and saying that anything could be scummy, but it isn't necessarily. That's essentially what I'm doing. I haven't made my mind up about anyone. I see how certain things people do could be scummy, but the game hasn't progressed enough for me to make my mind up about any player. I don't know how they normally play. I don't know their motivations. I haven't seen them under pressure. Me, scum-hunting? What basis do I have, pray tell?

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?

@windkirby:

Talitha - You said she was jumpy and long-winded.
My opinion was that if she had made such a long post explaining a simple joke vote on the first page (so early in the game), then THAT would be weird. However, as the game goes on, it gets progressively less jokey, so if you're going to make a jokevote on the second page, it will probably need more than just a simple sentence.

Actually, I said I was long-winded. She said I was jumpy. Plus, I didn't really give the joke vote that much explanation, there just seemed to be numerous jokes I can make. Coincidentally, I'm not a very funny person, so I failed.

PUPPY CLIFF NOTES: Quantum is cursed with unfunniness. She is sorry.

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.

@zeddicus:

Quote:
What happened was that I looked at mozsugg's vote and thought it was like maybe a 2/10 on my scum-o-meter

it registered on your scumdar at all? yet it was "not serious"?

seems odd.

I think he was more so stating that unless it was a joke vote, that degree of scumminess wouldn't merit a vote. Hence, not a serious vote. I imagine for a serious vote it'd have to be at least above 5. Seriously, though, the purpose of a joke vote (imo) is primarily to prod at someone and have them justify themselves. If windkirby felt his joke vote would elicit that response, then there was a reason for doing it - after all, we must have some basis for joke votes (though, sometimes, it is just for kicks). The vote itself wasn't scummy, I think, but the amount of attention windkirby paid it potentially was.

PUPPY CLIFF NOTES: It was not windkirby's joke voting (or slight reason voting) that was scummy, it was his defensiveness.

See above -- defensiveness tells me nothing.

Also,

@Cephrir again:

Quote:
I never said the vote was random: stop twisting my words. There's a huge difference between a random vote and a not serious vote.

A lot of people will take them as the same thing, and they might as well be.

Wrong. There's a big difference. I just explained the difference. Random would be a dice roll. Even a joke vote (assuming no dice roll, or random number generator was used) is not random.

PUPPY CLIFF NOTES: Joke votes are not random.

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.

OVERALL: 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.

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"?

[Pink Puppy]

Pinkpuppy-

I used the term "well-backed-up" because he gave an explanation of moderate length to it. Had he said something shorter like "FOS on windkirby for the rather contradictory post," I wouldn't have used that term.

Also, sparknotes-dot-com might have them.

I'm actually much more on your side now and more inclined to believe your explanation now. After wading through quantum's post.

[Pink Puppy]

It occurs to me that quantum will hate that I made her post into cliff notes and boiled down her arguments. Sorry in advance, but you did admit to being longwinded. I provided your originial text so people can read it if they don't agree with what I wrote.

[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

[mozsuggs]

UNVOTE

VOTE CEPHRIR

Just to speed things up. No justification at all, but it would be cool to get a lynch this century.

[Pink Puppy]

unvote; vote mozsuggs

the game is only a week old.

[Cephrir]

How is voting for someone who doesn't have the most votes supposed to speed the game up? Are you trying to speed the game up by drawing attention/suspicion to yourself?

@Puppy: I realize that your question is probably directed at everyone but me, but I'm going to answer you anyways. Being defensive, by itself, isn't a tell. 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.

[darkdude]

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.

[QuantumFruit]

And the above quote made me think, because windkirby says he "got a well-backed-up FOS." (I think he's talking about zeddicus' FOS btw). But sounds to me like even windkirby believes the fos had good reason -- like he felt caught. Usually people don't say it like that. They call it a crap fos (because they know it to be wrong) or they just ignore it, because afterall, it's only an FOS. I don't know about other people, but I don't take FOSes very seriously anyway.

I usually explain myself if I get FOS-ed. If I get to it before another person, I explain them if they got FOS-ed, etc. I don't think it's necessarily even defensive to respond to an FOS. I think there is a connotative difference between defending oneself and being defensive.

As far as the CliffNotes bit, you've written a longer one.

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?"