Open 104 - The New C9 - Game Over

[The Fonz]

First thing: talking about 'if i am the cop, X is innocent' is insanely antitown. It helps scum narrow down who an actual cop might be.

if you guys really are masons, bad guys won't kill you. you're no threat to them.

This is untrue. Masons are confirmed innocent, so likely to be first in the firing line, particularly for the SK who doesn't have to worry about cops.

i didn't call anyone a retard. I asked stef if he/she was "retarted". Please do not make up things about me.

Being a retard and being retarded are synonymous, and misspelling is no defence.

In fact, we also know how games are played

on this site

. That we have chosen to play differently does not make us wrong.

I suspect I will refer often to "wolves" rather than "mafia". If this confuses you I apologize; it may be a hard habit to break.

Some of the things you appear to think are normal are antitown. And I find references to wolves and seers annoying, rather than confusing. But meh. It's probably not the most annoying thing about you wolf players. For instance, the amount of spamming you're doing, which reduces the signal:noise ratio and makes it harder to catch scum.

people who have to come up with some "purpose" for putting a vote on someone on Day 1 is a solid scum tell.

Absolutely and utterly wrong. The first day starts off with random voting; that does not mean it will stay that way. Read other games on this site. There's usually a good reason, or the appearance of one, behind most day one lynches. Your attitude is one I typically see with people who come from sites where the night game exceeds in importance the day. That isn't so here.

my point is that given day 1 without much reads or information, overdefending a vote for "some logical reason" is fillery.

Just a warning: accusing someone of being 'overdefensive' will get me to try to policy lynch you. The issue here appears to be that you are of the opinion that statements like that on day one won't ever carry weight, whilst SC believes that you shouldn't say something like that unless you can back it up with some reasoning or evidence. This one is simply a culture clash, and i don't see scumminess on either side.

similarly, getting agitated over a few votes on you is also scum like. but i do concede this is my first game on this site, and that may be standard. will have to wait and see.

Overreacting to a baseless wagon can be scummy. But so can implying there's more to a vote than there is. We'll see.

A. this is completely standard for him (not the insulting bits, but his style and the awesome poke bits)

Note, around here, we do not generally accept 'he's always like this' as a defence if the behaviour is genuinely antitown. Not that I find zh that antitown thus far, though i disagree with his positions.

i think it's easier to belive OMG im innocent on the claim because:

- his claim is so damn refutable, its ridiculously hard to make it stick. i mean he has to rely on his partner, and if hes a wolf doing it, his partner is going to claim in accordance like damn near 100% of the time to keep hte even flow going, IMO.

WIFOM. Though my instinct is that you are correct.

As for oEJo countering omg_im_innocent_wtf, I'm 99% sure it's now obvious that omg_im_innocent_wtf is scum, but I still want to scumhunt. I'm happy with voting OIIW if zhaorx can convince me he's not scum, but if we have a vigilante he or she needs to be the one to shoot OIIW in my opinion.

How? Consider cost/benefit. Though, of course, LAL suggests getting rid of him anyway.

BTW: For anyone who's not experienced him before, OMGIIWTF has a history of doing off the wall things, that can seem scummy, and sometimes are, and getting angry when anyone attacks him on it because he thinks he's better than everyone else.

I am glad to see that M1KE is a good guy.

Tip: Don't be DrippingGoofball.

are mafiascum players the total badasses of the werewolf world?

Obviously not, as we don't play 'werewolf.'

Re: Hitch 182- There are reasons why a town player might vote a claimed mason there: I would however like SC to explain himselg.

It appears who does something they perceive to be anti-town, and it appears Stef perceived a d1 mason claim to be anti-town even if true (and therefore, by extension, probably false -- which is hilariously bad reasoning but seem to be along the lines of the prevailing wisdom). Accordingly, you can't reasonably conclude from stef's vote on of an uncountered claimant that he's scummy -- there is another, in my opinion more likely possibility that I probably don't need to spell out any further.

Actually, it's not bad reasoning. If you're town, you have a town win condition. Claiming mason D1 hurts the town wc. Therefore, town should never do it, at least not deliberately. This leaves the possibility of a) the player did not realise it antitown b) the player is doing it deliberately, and is therefore scum (since, as we've said, town won't deliberately hurt their own WC). Town and scum are as likely to do it in manner a) whilst only scum will do b). Therefore, any antitown behaviour is a small scumtell at the very least. Of course, you have to weigh that against the likelihood he actually is a mason. And OMG's meta.

And you didn't need to mention the other possibility at all. That's also antitown.

atakdog: Have you ever encountered lynch all liars? Is lying about roles as town common where you come from?

RE: 195. Let's not direct the vig right now.

I think OMG's claim is more likely to be villager FPS than a wolf tactic, but I'd still like to hear his thoughts on what he was trying to accomplish.

I'd also like to hear what matrix thinks he was trying to accomplish if he's scum.

I don't like this line of argument: it's perfectly possible he expected this exact reaction. There are obvious benefits for scum, since there's the possibility of a real mason group outing themselves by counterclaiming, and town shouldn't do it for the same reason.

How could I possibly be doing this as a power role? oEJo would just come in and tell you all that I was lying.

Basically I am either exactly a mason with oEJo, or a wolf with him.

dug up from page 2 before this quality post gets buried.

Not a quality post; As i said, wifom.

I do NOT, however, like Matrix' defence in 235.

Only if they are truely masons, or both scum, EJS choice would be a bad one.

You clearly have little idea how to play mafia.

241: I agree that there is a little too much metagame discussion going on, and not enough discussion of the game that's going on.

I assumed Stef was talking to OMG and myself. I don't understand where he comes to the conclusion that either of us are newbies or that we don't belong in this game. I don't understand how "behavior like this ruins games."

I do.

well consistency isn't matrix's strong suit. thus, i'm not reading a whole lot into that part of it right now. and matrix will vote as he sees fit, so you can't jump to conclusions from that either.

Meh, inconsistency is scummy, although thankyou for the meta info.

i like how everyone thinks they are a mafia god.

QFI.

A guy, that posts with a girls name, that cries as soon as someone makes a claim he is too noob to understand. .

It is you, and not him, who made the n00b move.

ok does this post read as if cougar

knows

matrix is scum allready?

No, and imho posts like this are scumtells.

Or you can open your mind up and learn from me.

The choice is yours.

StrangerCoug is a much better mafia player than you.

btw
im teh seer
hewitt is not mafia
just kidding, im not teh seer

Even ignoring the annoying claim unclaim thing, this post does not add anything.

You are going to look

outstandingly

wrong for this comment when my vanilla role is revealed, I shall take some small crumb of solace for being mislynched d1 *again* when that happens
.

Vote: Matrix

Call it a policy vote, whatever, but claiming vanilla unforced there is outstandingly antitown, and therefore scummy. Plus the appeal to emotion.

atakdog is a power role

100% sure this is a lock

mike, what benefit to the village is this post?

QFT.

MickeyMike and atakdog are both wolves.

if atakdog is a wolf, and mike called attention to him the way he did, mike should be shot. if atak is a wolf here, mike is almost never ever a wolf. further, if mike is a wolf, its very unlikely atak is as well.

WIFOM overload. There is such a thing as bussing.

QFT StrangerCoug 364.

EPICNESS

SPAMNESS.

can we get a lynch organised then? or shall I come back on Monday?

Let's organize a lynch on omg_im_innocent_wtf. He's completely anti-town, nothing he posts makes any sense...

Dont hate what you do not understand.

You are trying to lynch a pro-town player. Thus you are the one being anti-town.

*HEADDESK*

i think this game setup is so favored for the village

agreed. village wins this game easily imo

Three completed games. One scum win, one town win, one tie.

OMG's abrasiveness comes so naturally that it sounds like hes legit annoyed at being persecuted after his oh-so-clever initial play backfires.

This is classic omg. Though that doesn't mean it's not detrimental enough to the town to lynch for it.

one wonders if some of the people jumping onto my case are not Scum themselves looking for an easy out d1.

Not an argument.

The Fonz

not posted yet I don't think, certainly needs to post more

So let's try

UNVOTE
VOTE;FONZ

Right. I'm going to try to be civil. But the reason I haven't posted yet is because you spammers managed to get the thread locked before i could get to it in order to post. It only just re-opened, and you're trying to make out like it's voteworthy lurking? Come off it. I'm not happy that half the mafiascum regulars have decided that this game is intolerable, and i wouldn't be surprised if darkdude has terrific difficulty finding enough players to keep it going.

And doing nothing till the replacements show up is a good recipe for killing the game. It'll probably take at least a week, at best, for all of them to show. Was that sarcasm?

[The Fonz]

think I love the fonz.


what is wifom?

If you don't know what WIFOM is, you really need to play a newbie game. I can't believe you can play mafia without understanding the concept.

Honest question, review my posts, you think I'm a spammer?

I was using the collective 'you.' I'd agree your noise: signal ratio is better than many people's here.

But still:

hey girls
sorry for the lateness
gonna catch up and lay some smack down
stay tuned

hai

[The Fonz]

Alright, nice post The Fonz, I've got to say the statement I agree with the most is that matrix should not have claimed vanilla townie D1 because it is anti-town and that really bothers me. Then again, I've also been very suspicious of him from the beginning so every little comment like that further re-enforces my fear that he's scum.

And there's also obvious reasons for scum to do it, as well. Plus he's used appeal to emotion.

The comment I'd disagree with the most is your reaction to zhaorx's comment on how he doesn't think "behavior like that ruins the game", which you responded with I do.

I'm not being funny, by page four i wanted to kill all of you who play on that werewolf site in real life. Personal insults and pointless spamming make the game less fun.

Okay, come on people, get overselves. The behavior is fine, deal with it and quit complaining like second graders. Let's just play the damn game.

No, it's not fine. It's already driven several people who i know to be reasonable, level-headed and tolerant players from the game.

I understand the concept, just never heard the acronim before.

Good.

so, fonz, who do you want to kill?

Everyone. But if you want me to be more specific, i'm voting. That should be a clue.

[The Fonz]

I'm glad the Fonz is in this game. I've played with him a couple times and he's pretty good.

I disagree about the fake peeks being anti-town tough. They provide seer cover. Personally, I don't like the "if I'm the seer" type peeks, but I agree with the principle.

Quite the contrary, because...

While it's true that it helps the scum narrow down their targets, if the real cop is the only one leaving peeks, it's even worse. Also, who the scum kill while searching for the cop provides the town with useful information.

Right. But the real cop should categorically not leave 'peeks' either. At the very least, not as utterly unsubtly as that. I tend to be of the opinion that breadcrumbing is in general a bad idea, since anything that can be caught by the town can also be caught by the scum (in fact more often, since town should be scumhunting, whilst finding the cop is a priority for scum). You have to be damn good to be able to breadcrumb without risking giving yourself away... the overwhelming majority of players, myself included, are not that good.

Also, you cannot assume that the scum are solely cophunting.

I'm not going to respond to everything Fonz said, particularly because he's probably a villager and antagonizing him would be ungood for us. However:

- Yes, I have heard of "lynch all liars". I consider it an absurdly simplistic way to play werewolf, but I get that you and others here don't.

Heh, not so much 'others here.' i think we're a minority here as well. But then i also believe that most people who oppose it don't actually understand it, or why lying as town is so bad. For instance, if this site had a solid LAL meta, then OMG wouldn't have risked outing a real mason pair like he did. I mean, read the discussions on the subject in mafia discussion. IMHO, JEEP wins them hands down.

People who disagree tend to be the kind of player who think themselves to be especially clever, and to think that just this instance of lying will work out differently to every other instance. They're wrong, and 'die if you get caught' is a pretty big incentive to think carefully about it.

The whole "policy lynch" meta, along with the idea that anyone who does something that doesn't facially help the town must therefore be scum, is something on which the two main contingents here are unlikely to agree, so while you're advocating a level one approach, understand that you will not be receiving unanimous support. I imagine you'll call that anti-town; have at it.

I've explained why doing antitown things is by its very nature scummy; namely, that antitown actions must be scum-benefitting, so the scum have incentive to do them if not penalised for them; and the only real method we have to disincentivize them is the lynch.

If you're acting antitown, you're either scum, or providing cover for scum. If the mafia are aware, through the medium of policy lynching, that actions which harm the town won't be tolerated, then the mafia are forced to either act in the town's interests, or give themselves away.

Neither of which are in the mafia's interest, and both of which are likely to lead to more mafia lynches.

- No, I wasn't being sarcastic; it hadn't occurred to me that (1) it might take a long time to get replacements, and (2) that would upset anyone here -- the two seem inconsistent. But whatever, we're playing.

Well, you suggested doing nothing until the replacements showed. Since that is likely to take a period of time measured in weeks, that means you were advocating doing nothing for that kind of period. For fairly obvious reasons, that struck me as absurd.

- For you to say Hitch needs to play a newbie game for not knowing what you mean by WIFOM, which a less than universal, and not particularly helpful even when spelled out, way of referring to the concept, suggests that you are not interested in seeing things from the perspective of someone who is unlike yourself. As mafia is a game that depends intimately on seeing things from others' hypothetical perspectives in order to deduce their motivations from their actions, I find this surprising.

You're being terifically presumptuous, if not dishonest. If you are not familiar with the notion that scum can do things that appear to be against their interest to look innocent, or do obviously scum-favouring things and pull the 'too scummy to be scum' card and so on along the infinite regress, then you are unfamiliar with one of the most important aspects of the game. It's like Mafia 101.

If, of course, you were interested in reasoned discussion and not petty pointscoring, you would have noted my saying 'that's ok then' when Hitch stated that he was familiar with the concept, but not the acronym.

As for 'less than universal' it's the only way I've ever seen it referenced.

[The Fonz]

obviously we all thought the pog influence would quicken things.
if i knew the days were actually going to last 30days, i never wouldve joined.
now, vote omg if you arent already

Likewise, if i knew a significant portion of the game were going to try to rush it like this...

Fonz's reasoning about breadcrumbing and leaving peeks is perfect except for the problem of the cop dying before he comes out.

Worth the risk. Simple as that. See the Mafia Discussion threads on hypos, which is basically what this is. And if you're going to hypo, EVERYONE has to do it. A claim tells a potential (in this game, basically certain) doctor who you are. A breadcrumb does not. To me, it's the worst of all worlds.


@ well named: The scum know precisely which players will appear guilty to cop investigations right? Therefore, they know that if you breadcrumb an innocent on a guilty party, or a guilty on an innocent (not that you should bother crumbing that- cops should claim with guilties) then you are not the actual cop. This makes the actual cop dying early more likely. Or an actual cop, I should say.

[The Fonz]

fonz, what are we rushing?
if we play it ms style, day 1 is a total crapshoot.

Your first premise is flawed.

@ Hitch: I'm voting matrix, for the unnecessary claim and the appeal to emotion.

[The Fonz]

I'm not going to respond to everything Fonz said, particularly because he's probably a villager and antagonizing him would be ungood for us.

Please explain your thinking behind this comment.

[The Fonz]

Your first premise is flawed.

whats the flaw?

Day ones on MS are anything but crapshoots.

fonz, what are we rushing?
if we play it ms style, day 1 is a total crapshoot.

Your first premise is flawed.

@ Hitch: I'm voting matrix, for the unnecessary claim and the appeal to emotion.

Those are terrible reasons to vote for him.

They're both solid scumtells.

[The Fonz]

Btw, how would you guys say you normally deal with players who 'always play like this?'

[The Fonz]

So this game proceeded like this:
joke vote
Joke vote
joke vote etc
Zhaorax (2p2er) says “player x and y’s votes seemed forced, I think they might be mafia. I think we should vote for them”
MSer says “omg you cant suspect people for joke voting!!”
hilarity ensues.
One of you MSers, perhaps fonz?, please tell me how you normally get past the joke vote stages here.

Read some previous games. There's no set thing, but they always seem to get out of the RVS somehow. Personally, I will generally random bandwagon for the hell of it, until someone either overreacts, or the wagon gets high enough that someone puts a player in genuine danger with a random vote. Or votes, and doesn't know why they're doing it. Or makes a strong pronouncement (like Zh did here) that they can't possibly back up.

[The Fonz]

No.

Let me elaborate.

I believe it is just about possible that a player's first post contains information that can paint them as mafia. I don't believe it's possible that can be immediately apparent, with a couple of exceptions:

1) The game starts quickly and the first post covers a fair amount of content
2) The mafioso tries something really dumb like the miller gambit.

[The Fonz]

Could you link me to a 'typical' (yes, i know there's no such thing) game on your forum, featuring as many of you as possible?

[The Fonz]

Linky?

[The Fonz]

See my earlier treatment of the topic. A possible motive as scum is that people would react exactly as you have. I've done things like that before. I know a fair few that make a habit of it. It makes no sense as town, to me, and I always prioritise 'does it make sense as town?' over 'does it make sense as scum?' because

pretty much anything

makes sense as scum due to wifom.

My gut feeling on the issue is that OMG is just an erratic town player- it fits his MO perfectly. But then, my gut feeling is too lenient on liars, in general- they're scum more often than my instincts say. So I'm basically disregarding the claim entirely.

[The Fonz]

Fonz:

You are voting me because I "claimed vanilla" and because of my "appeal to emotion"

couple of things.

i) I refer to my role in every game I ever play anwhere as "vanilla" regardless of what my actual role is. Usually I am vanilla (just like everyone else is there are more Townies than any other role in any game) but I don't see why this is anti-town. I've not actually claimed anything.

Yes you have. Saying 'I am vanilla' is absolutely, 100% a claim of a vanilla townie role. How else could it possibly be read?

ii) omg claimed a Town role in clear and unambiguous language, made odd appeals here and there yet you still prefer to lynch me over omg?

OMG's claim was a) perfectly in-character with his prior town play and b) utterly WIFOM, so is therefore no tell of any kind in either direction.

Players a and b have both exhibited behavior x - but I know a is nuts, so I'll vote b cos he must be scummy... Is that a fair summation?

Nope. There is more possible advantage to scum from claiming vanilla than claiming mason, since it isn't going to be disproven as easily.

vote: The Central Scrutinizer

TCS is a truly awful vote choice.[/quote]

the games their have evolved more towards "tone" and "feel" and less towards deduction and seem to have gone the other way here

Probably because pretty much any competent player has a consistent 'tone' and 'feel.' Or such an inconsistent one that you can't read anything into it.

"Personally, I will generally random bandwagon for the hell of it, until someone either overreacts, or the wagon gets high enough that someone puts a player in genuine danger with a random vote."

Now you're advocating doing something superficially anti-town to see who overreacts.

I thought you were opposed to that philosophy.

No, I'm opposed to doing things

actually

anti-town. Random bandwagoning is not actually scummy, but newbs and opportunistic scum often make out that it is, therefore it is an excellent tool.

[The Fonz]

I don't think you'll find that anyone is voting omg for 'annoyingness.'

[The Fonz]

Rushing the day so that it's over before the end of the RL week will significantly harm the town.

[The Fonz]

What 'people' think is of no concern to me. Certainly, there are numerous commonly-cited 'scumtells' i don't buy.

[The Fonz]

Grr, so much idiocy, so little time to respond.

Guys, you have to take into account that the average large game on mafiascum is usually barely getting out of random voting by this point. The logic you're using to call TCS a lurker is akin to calling someone a slow reader for taking three months to get through War and Peace, because you can read 'Spot Gets His Ball Back' in five minutes.

As for the point about p2p being the ones talking, well, without the p2p element you also don't get five players replacing out because they can't stand the way you're playing. There has to be give and take here. If you want an hour-long game, play in scumchat. If you want a game where a game day lasts one RL day, THEN PLAY SOMEWHERE ELSE. I like the fact that I can get in from work and post maybe twice, and then post again two days later with about 3-4 pages' worth to catch up on. It suits my life schedule.

[The Fonz]

OK guys, sorry I haven't posted the last two days... they were the last two days of my final, massively important placement, so I spent thursday working my ass off and friday celebrating. Anyway, back to the grind...

matrix. i will try

fonz, please give us youre thoughts on walle

To this point, he's made two posts. Two posts are not likely to produce anything on which I can give detailed 'thoughts' though his OGML vote is... well, I wouldn't do it, but I can understand it.

I don't think I've ever been "helpful" on a day 1. I suck at wolf-finding on every day, but most of all day 1. I'm OK at clearing some folks, and I'm OK at picking connections out of old posts after a wolf or two is found, and....that's about it.

Sun has been giving me weird vibes though this whole game, but I can't quantify it. I think he needs the

FINGER O SUSPICION

though.

This post is villagery.

Why?

Also, I tend to find it doesn't help too much to state who you think is town.

Grr, so much idiocy, so little time to respond.

Guys, you have to take into account that the average large game on mafiascum is usually barely getting out of random voting by this point. The logic you're using to call TCS a lurker is akin to calling someone a slow reader for taking three months to get through War and Peace, because you can read 'Spot Gets His Ball Back' in five minutes.

I am not so much calling TCS a lurker, more a low content poster.

Now this sort of thing actually makes me feel better about you. Lurking in plain sight, or making posts which appear to contribute but don't actually help find scum, is something that scum consistently does more than town.

Seriously I get the fact that the games play differently here, and people have lives and stuff.

He very quickly replied to my vote for him, but posted a one line comment.

Possibly because you didn't really give a reason for your vote, which makes it hard to respond to.

Btw, whilst I'm responding to you:

You are going to look

outstandingly

wrong for this comment when my vanilla role is revealed

No town player should EVER say that they are vanilla. Saying 'my role is vanilla' = saying 'I am a vanilla townie' = claiming that role. Seriously, MS guys, I'm not wrong here, am i? If someone says 'I am vanilla' that is a claim.

If he just happened to load up the page at that time and had no time to post much else then whatever - the timing of that and subsequent "your scum hunting skills are breathtaking" post is what make me think he is the most likely scum player here right now. NOT the fact that he is "lurking", it's the content of what he has posted as well as the timing of those posts.

Attacking people based on the timing of their posts is something i kinda consider scummy. It's so easy to go, oh, he posted immediately after I mentioned him, he musta been lurking. Uh, no.

To insinuate that my reading comprehension is about on the level of a kids picture book is nice, and then to make a post saying that I am voting him for lurking - when I'm not is ironic, don'tcha think?.

This is ironic, since your reading comprehension obviously completely fails if you think that was a comment on your reading comprehension.

Matrix, heres how this game is supposed to be played:
Day 1 takes a long time so everybody can get in and joke vote for a while.

That's not why it takes a long time. The rule of thumb on MS is that a game is slow if the number of posts per day drops below one per player. It's extremely fast if it's over three. So in a game this size, you'd expect between one and three pages per day.

The first two days, you P2Pers managed to spam up the thread to the tune of 23 pages. That means a player comes along, he's expecting six pages to read up on, he has 23. This then takes him ages to read through, and makes it harder for him to contribute.

But the 23 pages you've produced, unlike the first 23 pages of a normal mafiascum game, which would normally give you enough to run at least one player up, and often to lynch, have produced basically nothing of value.

Then eventually it miraculously goes from joke voting to serious voting. 2p2ers will not know when that point is, and will have to be told by the msers when it has occurred.

When someone places a vote with a serious reason behind it. Seriously, you can't be that dense, can you?

Before the “serious” point in the game, any posts by msers that are obviously wolfish are to be ingored

How can a random vote possibly be 'obviously wolfish?' Seriously, point to one post that is 'obviously wolfish' and give a reason why. This is how games on MS get started: someone does something in the random vote stage that someone else thinks is scummy. If other people agree, they vote the original target: if they don't, they vote the person who has placed the serious vote without any good reason gets voted. Hence, here you see a lot of MSers voting Zh because he made a serious attack on StrangerCoug and SiestaGuru for making posts that were 'forced.' Now Siesta's one post before that:

For having a name I don't understand:

Vote: The Central Scrutinizer

Absolutely, 100% normal mafiascum first-post random vote.

Vote: Sun Tzu

for being the serial killer last time we played this setup.

Again, absolutely normal mafiascum random vote, nothing remotely scummy about it.

We therefore conclude that Zhaorx's reason given for voting, that their votes seem forced, is a bad one. Voting on the basis of a bad reason is scummy, therefore a couple of mafiascummers, reasonably, attacked Zhaorx for it. At which point a load of P2Pers attacked the mafiascummers, and mafiascum in general, for simply playing like reasonable mafiascum players.

Fonz wants us to believe that people are busy and cant post frequently, and/or that posting one or two posts a day is normal here. Fine, I can dig it. But Fonz also wants us to basically ignore most, if not all, the msers posts, no matter how infrequently they post.

This is not true. Fonz is arguing that it's basically impossible to get a read off of one or two short, low-content posts, such as TCS has produced here. If players continue to post without contributing, sure, it's scummy. But it often takes a while for players to get going.

TCS, in addition, is a player known for starting slow. For the sake of comparison, here are his first five posts of Mafia 64, which had the same setup. He was town in that game (I know, because I replaced him).

Only average!

I'll show you average:

vote:Albert

Random vote...

Sigh. Battle Mage, please stop distracting the town from lynching the ACTUAL scum. This is the primary problem with your playstyle. Trying to be unreadable is all fine and good, but acting like bad scum in every game gets tiresome, and is about the most unhelpful thing a townie can be.

Now, can we please cut the crap and lynch Albert? He's clearly the best lynch, unless we want to start metagaming BM by lynching him every day one... which is actually kind of appealing, now that I think of it...

And that's exactly the sort of distraction I'm talking about.

Can we get on, now?

Complains about people spamming up the thread, and states that another player needs to be lynched.

Battle Mage wrote:
lol why the hell would SK-BM be telling the town who to kill AFTER HE IS DEAD.
That makes no sense. also, i never get to be an SK


God that is such a scum tell. :\

Sarcastic comment on the quality of someone else's scumhunting.

unvote, vote:Battle Mage

Might as well get it over with today.

Votes to push a policy lynch wagon on someone for spamming up the thread. Now note, Battle Mage is noted as one of the spammiest players on MS, and he posts about a third as much as the average P2per in this game, and with more content. And it pissed TCS off so much, and in his opinion made scumhunting so much harder, that he was willing to lynch for it. Now, can you understand why he's acting like this here?

TCS is an awful lynch candidate because he is playing exactly as he always does as town at this point in a game, and that playstyle is nowhere near detrimental enough to the town to be worth policy-lynching.

This I cant dig. It stands to reason that if people are so busy that they cant get in here to post, or posting once or twice per day is acceptable, then we must pay closer attention to those posts, because they have much more meaning than if they were posting say 10-20 times per day.

Untrue; it just means games take much longer. This game, for instance, I'd imagine every MSer who signed up was reasonably expecting it to last six months. You're trying to suggest that a player is scum after about a week, and three or four posts. It just doesn't work.

Fonz can not have it both ways. If we allow people to make one or two posts every couple days, we MUST put assign more significance to the content of said posts.

Only if there is significant content, and it is scummy.

We must gain as much information from those posts as possible. Any person with a brain would not disagree with this logic.

Any person with a brain would recognise your false dichotomy.

2p2er makes a post containing some reads, a mser comes in to make his one post for the day (example, perhaps he posts slightly more, whatever) “your scumhunting abilities are breathtaking”. Now, are we saying that msers are too busy to post but have time to come in and post little quips whenever they feel like it and we are to assume that these quips have 0 reasoning behind them?

If he feels that your reason for suspecting him is ridiculous, why would he waste his breath making a detailed response? You've voted him for not having a lot of content, in three or four posts. As I've explained above, you can't do this. You're trying to play this game at a P2P type of pace.

If the post is worthless in every sense, why is the mser taking the time to get in here and post it? If we are in the joke vote stage, why bother coming in to make that remark? If we are ignoring all such posts, then how do we get past the joke vote stage?

We've been past the joke vote stage since zhaorx's 'this is forced' statement over a week ago.

Fonz is trying to sell us a bunch of horseshit.

ScottHoward is full of crap. Oh, my, how that moved the game on. And I'm even right.


Your entire scumhunting so far appears to consist in attacking Mafiascum players for playing like mafiascum players, combined with attacking the site itself for its playstyle.

All that said, I dislike how you guys are all so bewildered that you'll jump on a player who's made ONE post above those who have made SEVERAL posts. Slow to lynch, quick to ask questions, not the other way around, please.

This is a good post by Wall-E. You can't realistically expect to find scum from one post (the exception is when someone replaces in to a game later on, and does a long P2p, and actually makes arguments).

Vote: Wall-E

Don't like this unreasoned vote in response to a good post.

...and after some initial digging, you are clearly in over your head in this game, so I'm not too bothered by your lack of reasoning. Still, someone might care, so I'm going to put a question to you:

Why am I scummy?

Another good one, asks for reasons why he's being attacked. Does not resort to the countervote. Recognises the complete n00bness of hewitt.

If you want a reason here you go, my vote is currently on you because I'm tired of certainly people talking around with a superiority complex in this game. To me, that's scummy as hell, and as I find you the most arrogant, I find you the most anti-town.

Also, my vote was on matrix but I wasn't quite satisfied with laying my vote there because I don't think he's scummy anymore.

Being arrogant is not detrimental to the town (well, unless it's taken to the OMG extreme). You're acting like the kind of dumb newbie we see in pretty much every game, and being treated as such. You can be patronised, or you can be treated with the same kind of analysis we'd give an experienced player, and get lynched for all the things you're doing which make you look like scum, but for which newbieness is a significant mitigating factor.

the post you made was horrible. it doesnt make anybody bewildered.

Disagree, there is nothing scummy about that one post Wall-E made.

Vote: Wall-E

You see this? Hewitt has voted and failed to state a reason. Don't do this around me or I start sniffing at your doorstep.

maybe it was a joke vote. seems theyre quite popular around here.
why does it bother you so much? (rest assured though, im a huge fan of players giving reasoning)

Again, we've been out of the random vote stage for nine days. And the reason it bothers people is that in certain circumstances, voting without giving reasons can indicate a lack of good reasons. (It can also reveal certain things which are protown; however, hewitt's response then indicated the former). If you don't give a reason, players can't defend themselves, and other players can't tell if you've got a decent case.

Why do I like players to give reasons when they vote?

I... I've never been asked that before. It's sorta like being asked why water is wet.

With nothing else to go on but bolded names this game would be nigh-impossible. It therefore behooves the town for the players to have policies which tend to pressure other players into providing information. Any information provided by scum is a lie, and it is by looking for said lies we find them.

LET'S STOP TALKING META AND START DISCUSSING WHY I'M SCUMMY PLEASE!

walle, you seem to be the abnormal mser.
up until your arrival, all attempts to get some interaction going was shot down because it was too early in the game. we were told that the joke vote stage lasts quite a while and any reasons attached to said joke votes should basically be ignored. zhaorax made a read that some peoples comments seemed forced, and things got crazy, and then stef, aka, mr aggressive, quit.

Because saying that a normal random vote, with a normal random vote reason behind it, feels forced, itself feels forced.

i'm waiting for the joke post stage to end before i post any content.

You yourself ended it with your third post. The random vote stage basically ends as soon as anyone places a vote which claims to have a genuine scumhunting-related reason behind it.

If you want a reason here you go, my vote is currently on you because I'm tired of certainly people talking around with a superiority complex in this game. To me, that's scummy as hell, and as I find you the most arrogant, I find you the most anti-town.

Also, my vote was on matrix but I wasn't quite satisfied with laying my vote there because I don't think he's scummy anymore.

What happened to omg_im_innocent_wtf's superiority complex?

Agreed. There is a genuine contradiction here. If Wall-E's superiority complex was enough to elicit a vote, OMG's much bigger superiority complex should have done.

See, on OMG's part I'm not sure if it's a superiority complex or whether he's just kind of crazy.

The two aren't exclusive.

I like a Wall-E lynch less than a Hitch or Scrutinizer lynch now.

I'm moving him to "neutral" read.Some of his posts seem bad, but he's interacting and says he's high volume poster, so I'll give him a pass for now.

Reasons for either? I could actually see a Hitch lynch. I remain opposed to a Scrutinizer lynch.

Genuine question here, does a high volume poster mean he's less likely to be scum to you? No snide intended.

If I may add my $0.02...

Obviously, 'High volume' is relative. Wall-E is a high volume poster by MS.net standards... you P2P guys are off the charts,.

Posting a large amount of content gives you more chance to contradict yourself, or otherwise make a mistake that can give you away as scum. The more genuine content there is, the easier it is for town to get accurate reads on other players. Town obviously want the other players to read them accurately; scum want the opposite.

However, even if Wall-E posting a lot is no indication of him being town, it means that we've more chance of him slipping up later. Whereas a lurker, if allowed to continue lurking, will never give you anything to go on. The skill, as scum, is to give the appearance of creating content, without actually helping the town find scum.

So lurkey players, or players who spam up the thread with lots of post and little content (therefore raising the noise: signal ratio), are good day one lynches because even if they are not scum, they make the town's job of finding scum harder. (If scum are allowed to lurk without fear of reprisal, they will).

Usually, on day one, you can find someone who exhibits that kind of behaviour, along with one or two things that make them more likely than average to be scum. That kind of player is a good day one lynch.

ok, I still haven't seen anything to change my mind from yesterday.

How about everyone post a list of 'acceptable' lynches, so we can maybe consolodate wagons?

unvote, vote: Hitch

This consolidates the read I've been getting on you. You're trying to sound reasonable, which you're doing pretty well, whilst trying to get other players to make the running. You don't force the issue if people disagree with you. You, my friend, look like peloton scum.

Strongest feeling/read so far is OMGIMIW is some kind of gimmick account and is just poking the locals for entertainment value and should not be lynched today. (but maybe a wagon target on d2 or d3 if we get there )

Just to note: OMG has been a player on scum since before I joined. Whatever he is, he's not a gimmick; i just think he is that arrogant.

What does "fancy play syndrome" refer to?

Don't vote without stating your reason. It's how we catch scum.

I think I have an idea. Also, where is atakdog?

Caboose, Norse, Mada, Sun Tzu, matrix and atakdog all need to decide one of OMG, Matrix or Wall-E imo as those seem to be the only lynches on the table at the moment and the participation seems to have dropped off so we should be all about getting to day 2.

False trichotomy. Nice. There is no particular reason to narrow it down to those particular wagons.

Sun, join me on Hitch.

I am going to follow Sun for a while and see how that turns out.

vote: Hitch

Good vote, terrible reason.

seeing as i havent been lynched or replaced...

unvote vote wall e

he seems like a worthless cunt rage bitch so fuck it i want him to die

Mod: If the c-word isn't modkill-worthy, what is?

SC: I remember you saying that too. Can you clarify? What case do you see?

It's mostly the question-dodging that I think is hurting you the most.

]

I don't see what he's dodged.

I have to agree I mean if you're on our side I would think you'd make a little bit more effort to help the town instead of just ignoring 23 pages of what you deem to be unimportant.

To be fair, the noise:signal in those pages is horrific.

Wow, that took me like an hour and a half.

[The Fonz]

I disagree that arrogance isn't detrimental to the town because it clearly states that you're me before the town and in the end it's a town win not individual. We win if the town wins and throwing fellow townspeople under the bus is pretty damn scummy.

Explain where anyone has thrown you under the bus. Wall-E is arguing with you because you're fundamentally

wrong.

Now I love how you saying I can be patronized because to my recollection I don't seem to see anybody besides yourself and Wall-E ragging on me for being a newbie.

Again, we're not ragging on you for being a newbie, quite the opposite. What you're saying is stupid and misguided. A veteran player coming out with those kind of ridiculous arguments would be lynched for it.

So saying you (a collective you, meaning you and everyone else) are going to look down on me and judge me for it would be quite wrong.

Get that ridiculous chip off your shoulder. No one is looking down on you.

If anybody else thinks that a relatively unexperienced player like myself is really hurting this game and contributing nothing than you can speak up about it too. But if I do say so myself I've made a couple of pretty good points this game and I'm hanging in there with the rest so lay off on the "noobness", doesn't make much sense.

And those points you think are 'pretty good' I think are

terrible

, which is the crux of our disagreement. Again, I can put it down to you being new, and not really understanding mafia, or i can put it down to you being scum attacking people with crap arguments. Your call.

the idea that zhaorx's flippant comment ended the joke-vote phase. That's ridiculous.

Was his comment flippant though? Seemed serious enough to me.

Even if he really thinks those posts seemed forced (and I think I see where he's coming from), that doesn't mean he thinks it's a strong read or that all other random voting needs to stop while we decide whether zhaorx or those posters are scum.

Doesn't matter whether it's a 'strong' read. It matters whether it's a read at all. The tone of Zhaorx's post indicated that he felt those posts were genuinely scummy. ScottHoward's arguments about 'obviously wolfish posts by MS players' seem to support this reading. And, actually, I'd say people should stop random voting when there's something of substance. (Also, you've made an unwarranted logical leap there- no one is saying either Zhaorx or those other posters have to be scum, that's a false dichotomy- it's a genuine misunderstanding is a perfectly fine read on that situation). Now, if Zhaorx was actually joking, that's a different matter.

fonz, please look at how matrix got to be a wagon in the first place, because you say I'm letting others do the pushing, I don't think I cound have pushed any harder for a matrix wagon, I was also extremely vocal that OMG was a bad lynch.

I disagree. You could have pushed much, much harder. Seems to me like you pushed for a while, then gave up.

I know I suggested that we consolidate on wagons that included OMG's but that was because there was no way I was getting people to drop the hardon they had about OMG.

OK, why the other two? Does it benefit the town to narrow their focus like that? What if someone came out with an excellent case after a re-read?

I'm not overly concerned about votes for me, however bad they are.

In particular, Sun's post where he says he has an acurate scumtell on me, I can link you all to games played as recently as this week where he has thought I was scum and I was not. He thinks I am evil in EVERY single game we play.

Fair enough; Sun's secret scumtell has nothing to do with why I'm voting you. I'm voting you because you give the impression of consciously trying to fit into the middle of the pack.

hey all, just got in
omg was village? excellent work msers! excellent work! you guys are all so fucking smart
i will be interested in voting for everybody who had a lame excuse for voting omg. "because he voted for himself" is a lame excuse. hi walle!

He was modkilled for personal abuse, Dumbass.

OK guys, sorry I haven't posted the last two days... they were the last two days of my final, massively important placement, so I spent thursday working my ass off and friday celebrating. Anyway, back to the grind...

matrix. i will try

fonz, please give us youre thoughts on walle

To this point, he's made two posts. Two posts are not likely to produce anything on which I can give detailed 'thoughts'

though his OGML vote is... well, I wouldn't do it

, but I can understand it.

why wouldnt you do it? because its not good strategy? then why do you understand it?
its either good or bad, if it was good, you would do it. you didnt do it. it appears you disapprove of it. appears you view it as anti-town, yet no bad thoughts toward walle. odd.

He believed OMG's claim was sufficiently antitown that it made no sense as town, and addition was worthy of lynching under LAL. I didn't, because, well, I've seen OMG before, know he always acts like a complete tool, and preferred not to dwell on it.

Apparently it's a new revelation to you that people can legitimately disagree on mafia theory without that necessarily meaning they're of different alignments.

No town player should EVER say that they are vanilla. Saying 'my role is vanilla' = saying 'I am a vanilla townie' = claiming that role. Seriously, MS guys, I'm not wrong here, am i? If someone says 'I am vanilla' that is a claim.

no, youre absolutely right. my question for you is why havent you voted for or used the mighty fos on the msers who have essentially claimed village? why only matrix? you are being inconsistent with your retarted logic.

Essentially claimed village? You mean, indicated that they are town? Here's a newsflash for you, shit-for-brains, everyone tries to indicate they are part of the town. NOT ONE MSer has indicated that they have a particular town role (well, except for OMG). So your argument is completely retarded.

Despite the confrontational tone, Scott Howard made some very valid points I think Fonz should respond to.

Scott Howard is utterly full of shit, and says nothing of value.

The fact that OMG is a vanilla townie gives us information.

Who was on his wagon?

Doesn't really help, since it was a policy-lynch wagon.

On day one, whether it last 20 minutes in a POG turbo or a month in a mafiascum epic, just isn't ever going to be high on content. (Cue Fonz telling me that if I were a good scum hunter it would be; cue me not caring much about his opinion, but nevertheless watching to see what actually comes of all this.)

Yes and no. Often, looking back in retrospect at a day one with the knowledge of a couple of people's alignment, a lot of information can become available. And there's usually something better than random to lynch on.

Hence, my own scumhunting at this stage is tone-based, which makes it nigh on worthless in a game composed half of people whom I know and half pf people whose approach to the game is sufficiently different that I can't read them. And this in turn means I'm not expecting to contribute much to raising the likelihood of nailing a scum today. Deal with it; the game is won at the end, not on day one.

Meh, just because you can't find things doesn't mean you shouldn't try.

I'm pleased that OMG turned up vanilla, as I expected -- I doubt those who were trying to get him lynched will be at all chagrined. (After all, what he did was so anti-town, it had to be a scum tell...! Pshaw.)

Strawman. The argument is that people who do things that antitown are detrimental to the town, WHETHER OR NOT they are scum. That they might be is a bonus.

Fonz, but too often he either misses, or, I believe, ignores, critical differences -- see, e.g., his discussion of zhaorx's ending the joke vote period, and how reasonable [by MS standards] the resulting votes on him were, with no mention of the possibility -- which is true -- that zhaorx's reasons were fine by POG [which = 2p2] standards;

Did I ever say they were not? But the mafiascum players voted him in a manner which is completely reasonable for MS players (not to mention- the MS players didn't know there were a load of visitors coming from another site, and so were judging posts, reasonably, by MS standards).

Then the likes of Scotthoward just started personally abusing them, which is unacceptable. If the POG guys had reacted reasonably, then we could have gotten things moving with a real discussion of expectations on both sites, and so on. But it didn't happen.

Basically, I feel like I'm bending over backwards to understand and accommodate the POGers, whilst ScottHoward is making no effort to understand how mafia is played here. If you don't want to do that, then fuck off.

am I the only person here who really has no clue what OMG was trying with regard to his early role claim??

No, no-one knows. That play makes no sense for town, but then, OMG is known for thinking he knows better.

[The Fonz]

I don't see the need unless there's a pressing deadline.

(Plus, we still need about 5 replacements, without whom it will be very hard to get an absolute majority).

[The Fonz]

And they have plenty of time left to do so, so why constrain them unnecessarily?

[The Fonz]

We have nineteen alive. Three have requested replacement. So, we need ten of the remaining sixteen to agree to one wagon if we want to lynch before the replacements come.

I have no problem, incidentally, with people ranking the leading wagons in order of preference, saying which ones they think are worthy, which they'd be willing to follow at deadline, and which they are definitively opposed to. But a wagon can build up fairly fast, as shown by the Hitch wagon itself, so I don't see why players should be forced to compromise if they still see mileage in a different case.

@ Norse: Can you remind us of what your case on well-named is?

[The Fonz]

That's craplogic- a complete nonsequitur. Town players will naturally drift towards a wagon that is viable over one which is not, unless there are no viable wagons with which that player is comfortable, and obviously that process will accelerate if a game is deadlined. It doesn't need you, at some arbitrary point, to say 'Right, these happen to be the leading wagons RIGHT NOW, we need to choose between them' when there's no time pressure, and one or two people switching could mean we have a new 'viable wagon.' As actually happened.

[The Fonz]

Strawman, atak. I did my damnedest, not to make it us vs them, and Scott just continued with the moronic arguments and personal abuse. WHICH MAKES ME FUCKING ENRAGED. Sorry if i can't be civil to a person who has demonstrated himself to not only be a bad mafia player but a truly awful human being.

[The Fonz]

Peace offered

Taken.

Would you care to point me to where you think players have been softclaiming vanilla town?

[The Fonz]

So,
Fonz claims that there is no information to gain from looking at the omg voters, as it was a pure policy lynch.

Not no information. But not a significant amount yet. Players who support policy-lynching tend to do so as both scum and town, in order to ensure a consistent playstyle. There is, from what I've seen, a slight tendency for scum to shy away from policy-lynching town and toward policy-lynching buddies, but it's minor.

Scrutinizer feels looking at the voters is a good idea.

Being wrong does not make you scum.

Surely everybody sees the conflict there. How can two msers familiar with standard msers procedure, have opposite views on this matter?

Simple. One of the earliest lessons you learn as a newbie is that 'it is not a scumtell to disagree with me.' There's a player here called Vollkan, who I disagree with on just about every aspect of game theory. There's another, named Yosarian2, from whom I stole just about every concept I've employed that ever works. But Yos is still scum sometimes, and Vollkan is usually town.

What you're looking for is sincerity. You can argue with someone about theory, and you can work out if they genuinely strongly disagree with you, if they've overlooked something (hence, are mistakenly wrong) or are arguing their position in

Some will argue, as fonz has eluded to in his tirade (no offense fonz), that two logically thinking players can view an event and come to different logical conclusions and both still be town.

In purely logical problems, you are correct. However, we are not dealing with a purely logical problem. It makes no more sense to say that all players must agree on what is the correct path to tread in a mafia game than to say that there is a single, logically deducible, set of policies that a government must pursue. Players attach different weights to different actions, have different levels of risk aversion, different willingness to take the meta into account (some people think that lynching for town-harming play when you don't believe the player in question to be scum is ever acceptable- some people believe anyone caught lying about their role has to be lynched as a deterrent. There are smart people on both sides). A can look at B's play and think he's just a newbie making newbie mistakes, B can feel that he's scum trying to hide behind his newbie status.

It is also odd that these two are not suspicious of each other based on the above. If I know im town, and another player has an opposite reaction than mine to a unique event, I would increase suspicion on that person, not dismiss it, and not ignore it.

It's not that unique. Again, the question of whether to policy-lynch comes up in a significant number of games, and people always disagree, and it never splits down straight town/scum lines.

Also, Wall-E and I do not have the same information on which to base evaluations of OMG.

Down the road, if we learn there were no scum voting for omg, there is a much better chance that fonz is town and scrutinizer is scum. Likewise, if there turns up one or more scum of those voters, then the reverse is true, scrutinizer is more likely town and fonz more likely scum.

Disagree. The vast majority of town wagons have neither no scum, nor all the scum, on them. One scum pushing a particular line has little predictive value for what the rest of a group will do. This is particularly true when there are multiple town wagons available.

[The Fonz]

I was convinced it was 'you make me vomit.' :Evil:

[The Fonz]

Atakdog, who's scum?

You to me fall into a similar category to Hitch: trying to be everyone's friend, sounding reasonable, and so on, being willing to talk about theory, but not willing to really push a wagon. The 'I haven't played with half of you before' excuse doesn't fly. Get to it.

[The Fonz]

SC, your sarcasm meter is broken.

[The Fonz]

Meh, TCS remains a horrible lynch choice.

[The Fonz]

Then again this is Eskimo we are talking about...

i can only imagine that omg had some reason that he thought was brilliant.
but, if i was in oejos shoes, if i was town, i would probably go along with omg, and if i was scum, i would deny omgs claim. [/quote]

Town should never lie about their roles. So if the claim was untrue, the expected thing for town to do is deny it. Scum, on the other hand, might go along with it... but I think this may have been what OMG had in mind, if EJ 'confirmed' the masonry, OMG would then deny it and 'out' EJ as scum.

reasoning: its early day 1, and im town. if i admit to being mason, nothing bad really comes of it. also, if i would assume that omg was a cop who investigated me, and he was getting his knowledge out for free, with little chance of getting nked.

The only things wrong with that are that a) TOWN SHOULD (basically) NEVER LIE ABOUT THEIR ROLES, and b) Claiming mason DOES make you more likely to get NKed. Hugely so.


[/quote]if i was scum, i would deny having anything to do with omg due to my almost automatic lynch if omg is ever found out to be not a mason.
not sure if any of these thoughts can be applied to oejo though.[/quote]

Meh, it wouldn't be a GOOD idea, but stupid scum might go along with it in order to be 'confirmed.' So I basically see the complete opposite reading to you there. It's a minor town tell to deny the masonry.

Would you care to point me to where you think players have been softclaiming vanilla town?

i didnt say "vanilla town", and i presume that you were planning to make a case that theres a difference between claiming (or softclaiming, whatever) "vanilla town" and "town". but really, there isnt.

No, really, there's all the difference in the world.

plenty of people have already insinuated that they are town. its only natural.

Yup. Everyone talks as if they are town. This is to be expected.

to make a big deal out of somebody claiming "vanilla town", is nitty, and if we were to believe you that it gives too much info to the wolves, then claiming vanilla is perfect if claimer is actually a cop, or doc or some other power town role. a wolf isnt going to believe somebody isnt the cop just the same as i am not going to believe that same claimer is actually not mafia.

TOWN SHOULD NEVER LIE ABOUT THEIR ROLE!!!!ONE!

If you are actually a cop, you should never claim town. That's because if you subsequently claim cop, no-one will believe you, and infact they will lynch you for lying about your role.

Therefore, the reasonable expectation for town and scum alike is that anyone claiming vanilla town is actually either a vanilla townie, or scum.

The correct play as town is to not mention your role unless forced to claim it. Claiming vanilla as powerrole isn't quite as detrimental as claiming powerrole as vanilla, but it's damn bad. Because you can never then claim your real role.

Let me guess... on 2p2, do people lie about their roles as town frequently? The expectation here is that a) people don't mention their roles unless they have to and b) that if required to disclose their role, town will not lie.

claiming "vanilla town" doesnt narrow anything down for anybody. its a waste of breath, but its definitely not something that harms the village. to use an extreme example, which is the easiest way to simplify things, what if everybody claimed vanilla town? youre gonna lynch everybody?

Yes, yes it does. Because the default assumption is that decent town players will never claim vanilla town if they are not actually vanilla town. Town are expected not to lie about their roles.

and to your other point about not thinking everybody who thinks differently than you is scum, well, you might have learned that as a newbie, but you learned wrong.

No, I didn't learn wrong. Countless games have confirmed the truth of this to me. Disagreeing over game theory is not scummy.

if youre town, thats all you know. that and that there are people who are trying to deceive you in the game. now, you come across two people, player A says player X is acting scummy, player B says X is acting town. If you think also that player X is acting scummy, you have to increase the chance that player A is town and player B is scum. you dont have to make it definitive, but you must increase the chances.

No, you just assume that people read things differently to you. People legitimately disagree on what the best action for town is.

if everybody did this, the town would hardly ever lose.

No, you'd end up with massive and very angry arguments between people who just happen to view the game differently.

now, we can save the strategy and theory talk for after the game because i dont want it to turn into another distraction.

I'd rather not, because if you actually believe this stuff, you'll be barking up the wrong tree perpetually.

youve called upon atak to step up and get going. we saw your post, but if you took out ataks name, do you agree that you could insert walles name it would apply just as well? what if we inserted your name there? not much difference if you ask me.

HUGE difference. I've made very clear who I suspect, and expended a considerable amount of effort in getting a wagon going on Hitch.

Wall-E hasn't settled on a suspect, but is pointing out things he thinks are scummy. So I don't think he's in the same boat.

atakdog gives the impression that he's spent most of his time trying to look like a rational mediator between 2p2 and MS players, without actually doing much scumhunting.

one last thing, again, when applying your logic, apply it consistently. you say that bad reasoning (zhaorx's reasoning to vote for whoever for example) is a good reason to vote for somebody(zhaorx), but then say bad reasoning(scrutinizer wanting to go after the omg voters) is not a good reason to vote somebody (scrutinizer), and in the latter case, claim he is a terrible lynch.

I didn't say his reasoning was bad. I said I didn't think it would come to anything much because of the nature of the wagon. Also, note that he has not actually voted anyone on the basis of it. TCS' 'we should look at who was on the wagon' statement is based off a defensible premise, that scum are somewhat more likely to attack town than town are. I've explained that the specific circumstances of the wagon mean I don't think it really applies so much in this case, but it's a decent basis to argue from.

On the other hand, saying that a random vote seems forced makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It was also earlier in the game; you obviously need less solid reasons to vote at that point than you do, say, now.

and write off his bad reasoning to him playing differently. well, perhaps zhaorx plays differently as well.

Except that I'm not accusing TCS of bad reasoning, so the whole house of cards falls down. Of course, it does somewhat annoy me that he hasn't actually gone back and looked at that wagon, and tried to see if he could draw conclusions from it.

just because you or whoever cant understand how zhaorx can make such claims, doesnt mean he cant be correct. i can point you to a couple recent games on 2p2 where wolves made one post and they were so odd that they were found right away, and the posts were less than 3 words each. (i can point you to more than a couple, but it would take longer to figure out which games it was)

Please do. But I look at those posts, and see standard random votes. I see nothing odd about them in any way, and therefore I can understand that a player looks at someone attacking them and thinks 'that's bullshit.' Having read a 2p2 game, then zhaorx's post makes a lot more sense in that context, and looks a lot less suspicious.

But at that point, those players voting zhaorx didn't know that he comes from a different site with completely different conventions. He just looked like he was either a newbie who didn't understand random voting, or a scum trying to make a knowingly bad argument. Therefore, it was reasonable to vote him.

[The Fonz]

Sorry for the double post, thought I'd stopped when I finished responding to Scott, then realised there was more:

1. his vote for zazier
How does my random vote prove I have not read the thread? I've already said once that I even had a small reason for the vote. Can you specify?

As stated, zazier wasn’t in the game when you voted. That’s absolute proof. Anything else would be gravy.

And I have addressed this. There's nothing more to say about it. During my read, Zazie struck me as scummy. I needed a random vote, so I voted Zazie. Fair?

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!

Alarm bells!

Was your vote because Zazie struck you as scummy, or was it random? The two are not compatible.

[The Fonz]

I very much do not like hewitt giving excuses for Wall-E before Wall-E has had the opportunity to answer the question himself. Possibly scum connection there.

[The Fonz]

I very much do not like hewitt giving excuses for Wall-E before Wall-E has had the opportunity to answer the question himself. Possibly scum connection there.

Yes, you're absolutely right. Of course I'm connected to him, which is exactly why I've been compaigning to lynch him. Makes PERFECT sense.

Yes, because scum never bus. Oh, wait...

It wasn't an excuse (holds back insulting word), I stated that it would've made sense if he didn't tell everybody but since he did it was suspicious. I then went on to ask him what made Zazier seem scummy to him. Why so quick to jump on my back Fonz? Especially when you apparently haven't been reading very closely?

You've offered him a specific explanation of his behaviour, which he may not have come up with of his own accord. (We'll ignore the fact that it doesn't really make much sense for now). This is scummy. If you are town, why would you want to offer someone who might be scum a rationale for their behaviour, which makes it much less likely he'll slip up in his response?

[The Fonz]

Also, your 'campaigning for his lynch' consists in making an unreasoned vote, which you then backed up with one of the worst rationales for lynching in the history of the site. Nor have you really made much effort to convince anyone else. It's perfectly common for scum to make REALLY BAD cases against one another, since they're not actually likely to get the partner lynched, but puts a separation in the town's mind.

[The Fonz]

Also, your 'campaigning for his lynch' consists in making an unreasoned vote, which you then backed up with one of the worst rationales for lynching in the history of the site. Nor have you really made much effort to convince anyone else. It's perfectly common for scum to make REALLY BAD cases against one another, since they're not actually likely to get the partner lynched, but puts a separation in the town's mind.

Or this could be you setting me up for the rest of the town to think I'm scum and so when Wall-E gets lynched and he turns out to be scum you can immediately flip this back around on me, pointing out this insane "connection" I apparently have with him and in turn save your own ass from being lynched if you're scum with him.

Except that I'm not scum, let alone with Wall-E, so that doesn't work. I attacked you for doing something that has obvious benefits if you're scum with Wall-E, and is obviously detrimental to the town if you're part of it. Now, did you do it deliberately as scum to help a buddy, or were you ignorant of why it was a bad idea to do as town? This is what the rest of us have to ascertain.

Let me ask you this: if you spot something that you think points to a connection between two other players, as town, do you believe you should keep it to yourself?

At this point is it really all that unfathomable for Wall-E to get lynched? I don't know I mean a couple more votes and he's done so I think your whole "not actually likely to get the partner lynched" theory a little bit to rest.

My point was not that he was an unviable lynch, but that your argument was sufficiently bad that it wasn't going to convince anyone else to vote him.

I think you're just pissed because I think you're scummy v. random vote was stupid and not the main reason to lynch Wall-E. Not everybody has to play your way Fonz and you're not always right so you can get off your high horse and quit attacking people for not playing exactly how you'd like them to play.

You've never stated before you think I'm scummy. And not everyone has to play my way, but if someone is playing in a way that makes more sense for scum than town- like you just then- I attack them for it. It's called scumhunting. You should try it.

[The Fonz]

You're correct I haven't stated that I think you're scummy because i don't so I don't know why you threw that in there. And of course you would deny being scum, especially with someone who's the closest to being lynched.

I think you're just pissed because I think you're scummy v. random vote was stupid and not the main reason to lynch Wall-E.

You said in the post above that you think I'm 'just pissed off because you think I'm scummy'. Now you're saying you don't think I'm scummy. Which is it? Make your mind up.

Please explain what I've done to be a hindrance to the town.

You've given Wall-E a rationale for his claim that he 'random voted' someone because they were scummy, without letting him answer for himself. Now, if Wall-E's scum, he has an easy out, where if you'd let him answer for himself, it could have been revealing. Therefore, you've directly harmed my attempt to gain information which might give me a clue as to Wall-E's alignment.

[The Fonz]

Okay well apparently you've never played a sport. Let me explain what you're misinterpreting.

No, I'm a keen sportsman.

I said I think you're scummy v. random vote was stupid.

v. stands for VERSUS. you know like versus, v., vs.

YES, I KNOW! Here's what you wrote:

'I think you're just pissed because I think you're scummy v. random vote was stupid.'

I read this as: 'I think you're just pissed because I think you're scummy. As opposed to (vs) thinking the random vote was stupid.'

So I didn't call you scummy, chill on that. I would've assumed that everybody understands that a lot of people cast semi-random votes so I'm sorry I ruined your chance to get some information but I just didn't think it was that good of a point.

Everybody understands? I think everyone understands that votes cast at this stage should never be remotely random.

[The Fonz]

The point is we'll never know.

In general, it is a bad idea to answer for someone. (In addition, as I say, the answer you gave for him I don't find satisfactory, and would still like Wall-E to clarify himself).

hewitt, are you trying to say: 'I think you're just pissed, because I said that what you were saying regarding Wall-E's random vote was stupid?' I think so, but your use of English is still not entirely clear.

[The Fonz]

I didn't misunderstand the v. You're not expressing yourself very clearly.

[The Fonz]

Fonz, in response to this:

During my read, Zazie struck me as scummy. I needed a random vote, so I voted Zazie. Fair?

You said:

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!
Alarm bells!
Was your vote because Zazie struck you as scummy, or was it random? The two are not compatible.

Fine. I would have made the same comment, exept, I already did, like 11 pages ago. A few minutes after walle made his thread entry post. Remember “by voting omg, hes indicated that he has knowledge of the thread contents and what has been going on, but that would contradict his vote for zazier.”? Surely you will agree that both your comment and mine made basically the same point?

Not really. I don't find random voting, despite having read the thread, that much of a scumtell. What I do find scummy is giving contradictory descriptions of the basis for his vote. Since he changed to voting someone else in the same post,

So, I made my comment relatively immediately, based on the post striking me as odd, a gut feel, a read, whatever you want to call it. You make essentially the same observation, but only after 11 pages, and after walle had to actually type the words to contradict himself. I saw the contradiction right away.

There is no essential contradiction in what he wrote. The random vote never even stood. It's easy enough to miss a replacement in a 23-page thread. He later said he hadn't read before page 23. Which made sense. As I said, I was getting incredibly annoyed and frustrated by about page four.

What strikes me as unusual (and might be scummy) is claiming that his random vote was based on having read the thread and found Zazie scummy. Which is a contradiction. My not finding it suspicious was predicated on the notion that he'd simply missed ZazieR being replaced. It's easy to miss in 23 pages. However, he then:

As I have stated already, I'm treating page 23 as page 1.

My vote for ZazieR was semi-random-stage, I actually based it entirely on ONE post he made around page 10

I saw the 'treating page 23 as page 1' bit. Due to the fact that I was busy trying to avoid throwing my monitor out of the window in anger and frustration at a certain poster I missed the later contradiction. (No, this is not a joke. Anger management could be going better).

Does this at all help you understand that people can find scum in ways that you think aren’t possible? That yes, 2p2ers are more aggressive (on average) and may have “unorthodox” techniques, but perhaps they are in fact valid techniques, and dare I say, more effective?

No, really, you're all amazing gut hunting superheroes. In all seriousness, can you please link me those games you told me about, where scum 'gave themselves away' with their first posts? I certainly don't think you're more aggressive, on average, btw. You are, obviously- then again, atakdog in particular seems overly passive. What I objected to was some of you voting MS players for fairly standard behaviours, then getting abusive when they objected to it. If your gut has given you a read on Wall-E, we'll see how good that is. I'll continue to look for logical inconsistencies and blendishness.

As far as walles comments go, if I find the time, I might reply. He asked me to quote where he said something, I quoted it, and he calls me drunk. I dont know if I can justify arguing with somebody im almost certain is scum.

I need to look at your interactions in detail. My initial impression is that there are some dodgy bits on both sides. Some of what you say is valid. Not all. The same is true of Wall-E.

[The Fonz]

a) TOWN SHOULD (basically) NEVER LIE ABOUT THEIR ROLES, and b) Claiming mason DOES make you more likely to get NKed. Hugely so.

why??

I'll answer the second part first, if i may.

Masons are confirmed innocents. They can't be lynched. In order to win, the scum need to get rid of players they can't lynch, and keep around town players that might. The SK, in particular, does not have to worry about cops. So (s)he has killing the masons as a high priority.

As for why town should never lie... basically, we find it best for town players not to reveal ANY information about their role. Then, when a player claims, you are able to assume they are either truthful, or scum. If a player is allowed to change his claim, that benefits scum. They can claim townie early, then claim doc when they realise there isn't a real one.

Or, let's say there's a tracker in the game. There isn't in this one, obviously. But if you're a tracker, then if someone is claiming vanilla, then they are telling you that they have no night action. If they then follow you and find you targetting someone, they'll have caught you in a lie, and assume you are scum.

The bottom line is that if the town, who don't need to lie about their roles, do so, then it is easier for the scum, who do, to get away with it. It is easier to catch scum lying when they are the only ones doing it.

If you are actually a cop, you should never claim town. That's because if you subsequently claim cop, no-one will believe you, and infact they will lynch you for lying about your role.

So how would a Cop/Doctor w/e go about looking like a Townie to avoid drawing attention to themselves and thus not get NKed?

Your position is inherently contradictory. If it were common for cops and docs to claim vanilla, then the claim would be worthless. It wouldn't protect from NKs at all. (Unfortunately, the best topics in Mafia Discussion on this were lost in the crash). You avoid being nightkilled by playing normally, just like you would if you were a townie. If you do anything different, that's a giveaway.

Having Vanillas get NKed by the Scum is *very* good for the Town, for hopefully obvious reasons.

Agreed....

Yes we should hunt down peoples logical inconsistencies and stuff , but to lynch a player who later claims cop after previously claiming "Vanilla" strikes me as head bogglingly bad, you'd surely just lynch a n other candidate and lynch the potential fake the following day if they haven't been whacked during the night

The idea of this game is that scum are trying to mislead the town. If scum are the only ones deliberately misleading people, it's easier to catch them doing it. Therefore, town should (with very few, very specific exceptions) always be truthful.

BUT: Bear in mind part of this is the meta, which means a genuine cop here never WOULD claim townie prior to claiming cop. So if a player changes their claim, you can assume they are scum. This is very useful to town.

If you're playing in a less evolved meta, one where people in general either haven't figured this out, or haven't succeeded in implementing it, then it can be fairly common to fake claim townie. I've encountered players coming to this site from one where it was usual to make your first post in every game, /in as vanilla townie. (Once we figured out this was just the convention on the site he was used to, we didn't lynch him). But here, we've learnt through literally thousands of games of experience that the most town-favouring way of handling claims is that a) no-one should claim unless facing imminent lynch and b) no-one lies. (Incidentally, your claim seemed a lot less premature to me after reading a 2p2 game, since it seems like there, someone getting halfway to lynch is likely to be dead within a day. We roll differently here; it's rarely the first to be wagoned who actually dies).

I can see what people are driving at with wanting to lynch Wall-E - I get the feeling though Wall-E would be better lynched on a later game day and not on day 1. If he continues to post this much he will slipup somewhereand spew us some innocents, or further incriminate himself should he be Scum, and looks like a useful Scum hunter should he be a Townie.

This is a good point.

[The Fonz]

But the contradiction wasn't actually there until later...?

[The Fonz]

What I do find scummy is giving contradictory descriptions of the basis for his vote. Since he changed to voting someone else in the same post

Now, you see, I actually hit send before I finished the sentence. What I was trying to say was... 'since he actually voted someone else in the same post, it doesn't matter anyway.' What it reads like is 'Because he voted for someone else, the basis of his vote was contradictory.' I

don't

believe that. I believe that the subsequent OMG vote made the ZazieR vote a nonissue- were it not for his later giving contradictory explanations for it.

[The Fonz]

fonz, i didnt realize you were here.
serious question:
if we are about to lynch somebody, and they claim vanilla town to save their life.
what happens(typically)?

They get lynched. A vanilla townie claim should not change anyone's views. (This does not, however, mean a vanilla townie who is going to be lynched should lie).

[The Fonz]

Why?

[The Fonz]

I'm saying there is no contradiction in the notion that he read the thread, and missed that ZazieR was replaced. It's one post, in 28 pages. You say if it was a random vote due to not reading the thread, why change it?

Well, it's a not uncommon occurrence for a player joining a thread which has gone for some time to start with a random vote, and then change votes as he goes along, in the course of a single post. This often means that the player votes for players who have died or been replaced. I could find an example if you wanted. (Btw, those 2p2 games...?)

What matters is where the vote ends up. The contradiction I saw was NOT whether or not he read the thread- it was saying there was a scumminess reason for something he had called a random vote. He did then contradict himself by claiming not to be reading '23 pages worth of players from another site bashing ms' and that he based his vote on 'something on page 10' but that's a different contradiction. Nothing to do with the original post.

[The Fonz]

What do you think the premise is? (And, yeah, lynch all liars is very controversial within the mafiascum community. There is general consensus that lying is at the very least a scumtell, though).

In terms of being solvable, no, it never will be. That's the nature of the meta. Any tactic that becomes effective, scum will adapt to avoid. But the collective experience of literally thousands of games suggests that the current meta re: roleclaims is the most effective one.

Also, posting to note that oEJo just posted onsite.

[The Fonz]

I'm saying there is no contradiction in the notion that he read the thread, and missed that ZazieR was replaced. It's one post, in 28 pages. You say if it was a random vote due to not reading the thread, why change it?

Well, it's a not uncommon occurrence for a player joining a thread which has gone for some time to start with a

random vote, and then change votes as he goes along, in the course of a single post.

This often means that the player votes for players who have died or been replaced. I could find an example if you wanted. (Btw, those 2p2 games...?)

you have people here who havent read the thread who show up, start typing an entry post and in that post make multiple random votes? for real? and this happens a commonly?

Yeah, they respond to things as they read, as if they're happening in real time. So they see something scummy, they'll vote it, if something happens later in the thread, they'll change their vote as they go along... not multiple random votes, that would be stupid. Particularly when people replace in, it really isn't that rare. My first post in this thread is of that ilk, only i only vote once.

Thanks for the links btw.

the premise that this game is solvable

There is no such premise. That doesn't mean that certain actions aren't almost always good, or bad.

You might be interested in looking at a couple of Mafia Discussion threads on the subject:

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... torder=asc
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... torder=asc

The (very rare) effective "lying as townie" gambit that works, works because scum don't expect town to lie. If scum did, then they wouldn't work. And if you're trying a gambit like that, you should do so understanding that if you get caught lying without nailing a scum first or something, you'll probably get lynched. So that kind of gambit isn't necessarally incompatable with LAL.

[The Fonz]

Not really. You think he's scum; I think there's a case to answer. He's certainly not a terrible lynch. Btw, I will get back to analysing your little to-and-fro when i finish the allnighter i'm currently pulling to get my final assignment written tonight.

[The Fonz]

In quick response:

1) No seriously, two goons claiming mason day one in a game where a) it's a large game b) there's definitely a serial killer and c) there might be an actual mason pair is so utterly suicidal that you'd treat masons claiming in that circumstance to be confirmed. In the last 'New C9' StrangerCoug claimed vig, and there were three kills the previous night including the SK, so he was basically confirmed. You can't 100% confirm, but you can as close as makes no difference.

2) Cop, Townie, Goon, right? Yeah, I can see how that leads to a different meta.

3) I can see that, which is why I became less suspicious of you after reading a 2p2 game. Here, lying as town just doesn't happen.

4) Please show me these 'soft claims.' I've asked before, and i haven't personally seen any evidence of anyone else hinting a specific town role.

5) The town aren't really trying to mislead the scum. Sure, they're trying to make sure the scum don't get any information unless it absolutely has to be in the open- but if you mislead a scum, for example, you will likely mislead a doctor, which is bad.

6) It wasn't a dig. And if it had been, it wasn't that subtle. We have 100+ games going on at once here. The meta evolves pretty darn fast.

[The Fonz]

Answer the question.

[The Fonz]

I voted for The Fonz because he's lecturing the town, enabled by SH's simple question that has nothing to do with hunting scum.

ANSWER THE MOTHERLOVING QUESTION.

[The Fonz]

Not liking the premature claim, TCS.

[The Fonz]

So we have TCS claiming two roles, this after many and various posts from Fonz outlining how on MS should a player claim 2 seperate roles in the same game its a reliable scumtell. Both Wall-E and TCS avoiding questions.

What TCS is fairly obviously doing, is parodying the style of play of the 2p2ers, what with the 'if i were X powerrole' and so on, to demonstrate how stupid he thinks it is.

Which is unacceptable, assholish, and does nothing to advance the game.

Btw, Wally, still waiting...

[The Fonz]

Then there is Siesta and Stranger who are both pressuring TCS for an answer - but not so much pressure for Wall-E. They are both voting Wall-E, but don't feel the same need to press Wall-E for answers it seems...

I havent seen any questions wall-e has missed recently. He was giving me the scum-vibe when he showed up, and he hasent been able to defend himself at all, while this shouldnt have been a problem since he only had to defend one post.

He's posted repeatedly since I asked him to explain him contradicting himself, and hasn't done so.

[The Fonz]

Sorry for the double post, thought I'd stopped when I finished responding to Scott, then realised there was more:

1. his vote for zazier
How does my random vote prove I have not read the thread? I've already said once that I even had a small reason for the vote. Can you specify?

As stated, zazier wasn’t in the game when you voted. That’s absolute proof. Anything else would be gravy.

And I have addressed this. There's nothing more to say about it. During my read, Zazie struck me as scummy. I needed a random vote, so I voted Zazie. Fair?

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!

Alarm bells!

Was your vote because Zazie struck you as scummy, or was it random?

The two are not compatible.

Wall-E - question highlighted in

bold red

above (from #954)

This. Also:

How do you square 'voting ZazieR for something she said on page 10' with 'treating page 23 as page one of the game?'

[The Fonz]

I got time to look over Scott's links.

also, i promised you a link or two about getting good wolf reads from one short post
in this game soah (and tarheels for that matter) is a wolf, and boo radley isnt.

OK, here, the short post on which it was supposedly possible to get a wolf read consisted of solely a vote. I can't see how it is possible to get any kind of read from that kind of post, unless the player in question had a history of vote-only posts as scum, and usually posted more as town.

in this game, reno is a wolf, cue, scott, and kokiri arent

sup?

cue

This is reno's first post in that game. Now clearly, there is no particular reason why scum would post 'sup' as opposed to town. IE, it is not intrinsically scummy to post 'sup.' (That you all come to a consensus that 'that post is bad' amazes me). Therefore, again, unless you had meta on Reno, I can't see what's wrong with that post.

If there was a general trend of wolves making short posts to begin with, you'd expect wolves to avoid doing it. And so on.

[The Fonz]

Which was precisely the point. If a player always acts A in a given scenario as town, and acts B here, of course it's noteworthy.

[The Fonz]

Bah, go town!

Might want to update the topic title, dd.

[The Fonz]

I think the town lost this as soon as zhaorx flaked. It was always obvious i would be the target night one. After that, no-one in the town really seemed to care.