Micro 181: Everyone's being watched (Game Over)

Horus · Post Post #6 (isolation #0) » Thu May 23, 2013 8:27 pm

/confirm

Horus · Post Post #22 (isolation #1) » Fri May 24, 2013 8:37 am

VOTE: Fuzzybutternut

For not voting.

Horus · Post Post #27 (isolation #2) » Fri May 24, 2013 4:18 pm

Or Town confused at why everyone thinks they should be voting for different people during RVS... because that's pro-town... somehow...

Horus · Post Post #28 (isolation #3) » Sat May 25, 2013 5:36 am

SLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWW....

Horus · Post Post #29 (isolation #4) » Sat May 25, 2013 5:39 am

fuzzybutternut: You had been posting during RVS without random-voting, then I voted for you for not voting and then yiu random-voted. Do you see value in RVS participation? If so, then why were you abstaining until I brought it up? If not, then why did you join in at my prompting?

Horus · Post Post #33 (isolation #5) » Sat May 25, 2013 8:32 am

lol

Just because you call it "clearly" an "over justification" doesn't make it so. I voted for fuzzybutternut for posting without voting during RVS - the seriousness of the vote was relatively ambiguous to gauge his reaction. His reaction was to place a vote. It sends a conflicting message about the value he places on RVS participation, and the most logical conclusion I can draw from the inconsistency is that his vote was prompted by mine. I find that peculiar, and rather scummy.

If you disagree that's your prerogative, but calling me scum for daring to justify my vote and commit to actual opinions, with actual reasons, that actually matter amidst a sea of random votes, as if I'm the one being anti-town, is ludicrous.

Horus · Post Post #35 (isolation #6) » Sat May 25, 2013 8:42 am

Clever. Any response can be misconstrued as furtherance of the thing you are accusing me of, while no response implies an admission of it.

Horus · Post Post #37 (isolation #7) » Sat May 25, 2013 8:46 am

It implies entrapment. This sort of opportunism is anti-town, but not inherently scummy, I've seen Town try to trap their scumreads as well.

I would just hope that if that's what this is you have more behind this vote than "over-reacting," in which case I'd like to hear it.

Horus · Post Post #39 (isolation #8) » Sat May 25, 2013 8:51 am

Again, saying it doesn't make it so. Start backing up this hyperbole or stop employing it.

I'm calling bs when I see it, there's a difference.

Horus · Post Post #42 (isolation #9) » Sat May 25, 2013 9:35 am

I'm asking him to clarify the thought process that prompted his actions, since I can only see them coming from Scum - if he's Town, he can explain the non-scummy motivation that I'm missing.

Makes sense to me.

Horus · Post Post #44 (isolation #10) » Sat May 25, 2013 9:50 am

Because... when I voted he hadn't reacted with a random vote yet and those questions would have made zero sense...?

Do you even remember why you think I'm scum anymore or is this just stubborn tunnelling? Because you've already managed to completely forget the context of my vote.

Horus · Post Post #65 (isolation #11) » Sun May 26, 2013 5:02 pm

Hm... fuzzy is ignoring me.

As for Zionite, I don't really understand how you can simultaneously argue that you're voting someone to put pressure on the slot

and

not pushing a case or trying to accomplish a lynch at all - that is the opposite of applying pressure to a slot. If you aren't willing to put some teeth behind your vote, I wouldn't expect to garner much of a reaction - or much support.

Horus · Post Post #67 (isolation #12) » Sun May 26, 2013 5:17 pm

Hey, maybe it works, I wouldn't know - I don't try it on principle. Voting for someone and expecting them to feel "pressured" while also announcing to the thread that you aren't interested in actually lynching them seems counterintuitive to me - since the express purpose of a vote is to exact a lynch and the threat of a lynch is the only potential source of "pressure" I can see. Take that threat away and the pressure is gone.

"Hey, I'm going to park my vote on you, but don't worry: I'm not pushing a case against you and I don't want to lynch you. But... it would be really helpful if you would still panic so I can fish for reactions, please."

Horus · Post Post #96 (isolation #13) » Mon May 27, 2013 6:39 pm

In post 76, fuzzybutternut wrote:
In post 29, Horus wrote:fuzzybutternut: You had been posting during RVS without random-voting, then I voted for you for not voting and then yiu random-voted. Do you see value in RVS participation? If so, then why were you abstaining until I brought it up? If not, then why did you join in at my prompting?
I had one post before my RVS. Therefore, this question is invalid.

Technically two posts (the former having initiated the game), but ok.

In post 86, fuzzybutternut wrote:There really isn't anything to fill in. I literally had one post before my RVS vote. There is no rule stating that your first post in game HAS to be RVS.

True, but your meta indicates that you do RVS in your first post 75% of the time, and that 50% of the time you don't as Scum, so I think this concern is valid.

Spoiler: Due Diligence

The results were not firm enough to be conclusive, but still fall close enough in line with my theory (that you are more cautious in your approach to the earliest stages of the game as Scum) to make me comfortable with keeping this vote.

Horus · Post Post #97 (isolation #14) » Mon May 27, 2013 7:05 pm

In post 79, Zionite wrote:I've had this argument before in a recent game. My findings were that it's fine to vote for pressure and call it what it is. It may not be as effective as campaigning, but it doesn't take that much effort either and stays away from being disingenuous. I play as honestly as I can because it's easier than "pretending" to try to lynch someone when you really just want a read.

Well yeah, you can call a pressure-vote what it is and it can still be effective, and yeah, you shouldn't "pretend" to push a lynch, but I personally prefer to only pressure-vote someone I would in fact be willing to lynch, and then follow through if they don't deliver. You generally only have to do this to someone once before they start taking your vote seriously, but I digress.

Horus · Post Post #103 (isolation #15) » Mon May 27, 2013 7:49 pm

Rach and Grim, thoughts on fuzzy?

Edit: Ninja'd

Horus · Post Post #161 (isolation #16) » Tue May 28, 2013 5:48 pm

RachMarie:

In post 103, Horus wrote:Rach and Grim, thoughts on fuzzy?

I'm coming around to the Zionite wagon, I've been trying to work out my thoughts on him and I'm actually finding it a very arduous task to move him out of the null column one way or the other; we basically get one snippet of meaningful activity between him and I immediately outside of RVS, and after that his focus immediately narrows exclusively to trying to negotiate townreads on him.

His early content becomes crucial in reading him because almost everything afterward is focused on defense and claiming towncred, which does less to inform us of his alignment and more his personality/playstyle: It is evident that Zionite is accustomed to being able to snatch early towncred and begin to command the thread in the game's earliest stages. The fact that this strategy has so spectacularly backfired in this instance confounds him and he is now focused almost entirely on figuring out what went wrong and reclaiming the perceived towncred he feels we're denying him.

This singular focus on defense is something I would ordinarily find scummy, but I've been burned enough times by people who did this and flipped Town to be wary - his ego (as I perceive it) suggests he is a seasoned player, however, who wouldn't fall victim to such a vice as Town (his #89 provides a helpful window, informing us he does, in fact, consider one's fixation on their own wagon a scumtell), so I am left to wonder...

why did he stop scumhunting once he became a suspect?

I like this wagon, but I'm wary because I've heard a lot of quiet agreement that fuzzybutternut is suspicious, but there's been no movement on that front - which is rather odd.

Horus · Post Post #171 (isolation #17) » Tue May 28, 2013 7:37 pm

Zionite: I never said it was your preferred playstyle "as Town," I said it was your preferred playstyle. Nice try, though.

I'm all for the power of positive thinking, but statements like "I won't be lynched today" coming from someone at L-1 who refuses to contribute to scumhunting until their wagon dissipates (hint: scumhunting might be an effective way to prompt this) just make me want to quickhammer them to make the hubris end.

(Note: That wasn't a statement of intent, but it is tempting)

Horus · Post Post #176 (isolation #18) » Tue May 28, 2013 7:42 pm

fuzzybutternut: Everyone plays this game differently from everyone else, I don't see how this observation was especially relevant to the statement you were responding to.

Horus · Post Post #178 (isolation #19) » Tue May 28, 2013 7:46 pm

Zionite: I think I said at the time that the information I was able to glean about your playstyle wasn't alignment-indicative, just helpful in understanding the perspective your posts are coming from.

Not liking the way you keep trying to couch townreads on you into other players' posts where they don't belong.

Horus · Post Post #180 (isolation #20) » Tue May 28, 2013 7:48 pm

In post 177, fuzzybutternut wrote:
In post 176, Horus wrote:fuzzybutternut: Everyone plays this game differently from everyone else, I don't see how this observation was especially relevant to the statement you were responding to.

Yes, that's true; however, most people adopt things from other people as they play. I don't.

Cool. How is this observation relevant, though? i.e. what was your point? The post you were responding to wasn't even about your behavior, I just mentioned the odd interactions other people (who were/are scumreading you) were having with your wagon, or not having, as it were.

Horus · Post Post #183 (isolation #21) » Tue May 28, 2013 7:55 pm

In post #154 you tried to infer from DBK's wording that his scumread on you had changed, despite his actual intent with the usage of past tense being quite clear. Then you blatantly assigned a townread to my analysis of you in your #175, when there was pretty much no rational way you could have read my post that way.

Horus · Post Post #185 (isolation #22) » Tue May 28, 2013 7:58 pm

In post 181, fuzzybutternut wrote:Because what you call "odd" I call "normal." It's how I play the game.

I was talking about other players' actions toward you being odd, though, so that actually isn't relevant to my point at all. You can't use your propensity for odd behavior to justify someone else's.

Horus · Post Post #188 (isolation #23) » Tue May 28, 2013 8:04 pm

Are you implying that your Scum playstyle is wildly different from your Town playstyle? I would like to hear more about this.

Edit: @Zionite

Horus · Post Post #189 (isolation #24) » Tue May 28, 2013 8:06 pm

fuzzy: Ok, we are nit understanding each other I think. I'm saying I find it odd that multiple people have espoused scumreads on you rather recently but there has paradoxically been no movement on your wagon. The observation had nothing to do with your activity at all.

Horus · Post Post #192 (isolation #25) » Tue May 28, 2013 8:26 pm

In post 191, Master Mew wrote:Your approach, though - as in, the way you set out to play. My point being you suggested my summary of your playstyle registered to you as an uncanny representation precisely of your Town play, so I'm wondering how your Scum play differs that you wouldn't have just recognized it as a summary of your overall playstyle.

This is me, btw. <.<;

Horus · Post Post #287 (isolation #26) » Thu May 30, 2013 4:14 am

In post 193, Grimgroove wrote:
In post 161, Horus wrote: I like this wagon, but I'm wary because I've heard a lot of quiet agreement that fuzzybutternut is suspicious, but there's been no movement on that front - which is rather odd.

How are the Zionite-wagon and people's responses to fuzzybutternut's suspicious behavior interrelated? What effect does your wariness have on your intentions with regards to the Zionite wagon?

Because I only have one vote, so I have to prioritize my suspects - Zionite was at L-1 at the time, so jumping on his wagon would have been a substantial move and would have necessarily meant letting fuzzy off the hook for the day. I was not (and am not) prepared to do that. Zionite was arguably a counterwagon to fuzzy, so the implication here is that the Zionite wagon may have sprung up as an excuse for scum to scumread fuzzy while voting for someone else who they superficially deemed more suspicious.

I am still wary of Zionite, but still think fuzzy is the better wagon. I'm kind of doubting that they would both be scum right now, based on the relationship between their wagons.

Horus · Post Post #422 (isolation #27) » Sat Jun 01, 2013 4:31 pm

In post 409, Miss Destroyer wrote:I HAD AN EPIPHANY WHILE I WAS READING THE EARLY GAME AGAIN

VOTE: Zionite

Hey guys, remember when Zionite had an L-1 wagon on him?
Remember when he reacted strongly to everyone's vote?
There's...someone he didn't react to.

I'll give you a hint: their name starts with Mala, and ends with Kittens.

Ooooh shiny!!!

Iso'd them together. Their interactions:

Zionite's #32 he disagrees with Mala's #31 townread on me
Mala's #53 she votes for Zionite for being willing to move his vote for a compromise (this feels like piling on to your scumbuddy without contributing anything particularly troublesome to the case against him)
Zionite's #55 is ambiguous as to whether he was referring to Mala's #53 or fuzzy's #54
Mala's #117 she reaffirms her Zionite vote.
Zionite's #123 mentions Mala's lack of clear examples to back up her accusations of him
Mala's #261 she unvotes Zionite to vote for Miss Destroyer
Mala's #273 she unvotes Miss Destroyer but does not place a new vote (not technically an interaction with Zion, but the lack there of interested me)
Zionites #295 he tries to refute the Zionite/Mala scumteam by pointing to Mala's vote for him in #53
Mala's #306 she agrees with Zionite's #295 as a plausible refutation of the Zionite/Mala team
Mala's #395 she asks Zionite if he is rolefishing
Mala's #397 she asks Rach why she's calling out Zionite's tunneling but not fuzzy's.
Mala's #402 she asks fuzzy why he's rolefishing and makes a point of drawing a parallel with Zionite
Mala's #421 she jumps on the fuzzy wagon (for old reasons, wonder why she didn't do it sooner) as the tide is turning against Zionite again

This scum team looks plausible to me. I don't like the way Zionite seems so eager to respond to other players but tends to forget to answer Mala - as if responding to her concerns were an afterthought.

Unvote
Vote: Zionite

This is L-1.

Horus · Post Post #424 (isolation #28) » Sat Jun 01, 2013 5:02 pm

It's the way you're interacting with each other - it isn't just some transitive property of her scumminess to you. She appears to superficially suspect you while always looking for an out to another suspect, and you seem very concerned about answering other players' concerns about you (because you want to talk them out of suspecting you) but seem unconcerned about Mala (I'm here implying that you unconcerned because you know she can change her read on you if she wants to).

Horus · Post Post #428 (isolation #29) » Sat Jun 01, 2013 6:12 pm

Well, you'll notice I'm voting for Zionite.

On the whole, I feel "rolefishing" is exaggerated as a "scumtell" on MafiaScum - I've never caught scum for rolefishing. Maybe it works, but it isn't foolproof and ignores the fact that sometimes Townies analyze softclaims in their scumhunting as well (mentioning it in-thread is sub-optimal play, of course, but sub-optimal play does not make someone scum).

A lot of MafiaScum's "scumtells" are really anti-town-tells, which is a nice thought in an ideal world where Townies are always pro-Town, but that is not this world and I'm more interested in lynching Scum than lynching anti-Town players, since I'm more interested in winning this game than encouraging good play in the next. It isn't quite a null-tell to me, but it's negligible to the point that it wasn't worth berating them both over it again when it's already been addressed and they're both already scumreads.