Open 218: Two-fold C9 - Game Over

[Beefster]

Vote: ODDin

Because he needs more votes.

[Beefster]

I only have scum meta so far. Good luck figuring me out. It's not a challenge or a threat, just a fact.

That probably wouldn't matter anyway. This is my first non-newbie game.

[Beefster]

Hmm. I'm still digesting. The RVS can be annoying.

Keep in mind that we have 4 scum in this game. Less people to trust, etc. Not only that, but you can't really look for affiliations because of the 2 factions.

I'm gonna try asking questions. It got the ball rolling into a good discussion back when Netopalis used them in my first newbie game. (I still disagree with questions like "are you nervous?")

1. How long have you been playing Mafia? (inside and outside MS)
2. How would you describe your meta?
3. What's your win/loss record?
4. Favorite setup?
5. What do you think is the biggest scum tell?
6. How do you make your decisions?

[Beefster]

I'll take a look at it. I'm playing 2 games right now- and it's my first time doing so. Give me a little time to adjust to that.

Right now, I'd say that inHim and ODDin both look suspicious. If they're scum, they're either staging something (unlikely), or in different factions. But that's beside the point.

Alright, this is silly, and I won't continue this muddying of the waters. I won't drop my vote, though, because such an attack on my vote of ODDin is intriguing given the setup.

This statement is odd/suspicious. Maybe he's hinting at something, but it doesn't seem characteristic of a 6th year MSer.

@ODDin on giving into pressure: care to elaborate?
I would think that anyone would at least respond to pressure. Nobody wants to be lynched, right?
Do you mean giving in as in claiming scum? (I did that in my first game (as scum), but only because I shot myself in the foot one too many times.)

I'll do some other ISOs a bit later. I need to give my other game some attention.

[Beefster]

How am I prolonging the RVS?

The RQS can extend decently into the rest of day 1. Yeah, I should have asked the questions earlier, but I felt that we weren't being very productive and just running off the fuel from the RVS. So I tried something new. The questions I asked were a little more relevant than other question sets I've seen.

[Beefster]

@ODDin:
About connections: it didn't seem relevant to comment on that. I see what you're saying.

To be honest, I'm kinda detached from this game. I'm putting too much focus on my other game. I'll fix that.
Anyway, here's some analysis:

ODDin:
casts the first real vote. Good.
You've been fairly pro-town this whole time.
What was I thinking?

Unvote

Easjo:
Voices in your head? Pfft! I hardly think that's valid just outside the RVS.
Self-contradiction. The need to lie is a scum trait, and you suck at lying.

FoS: easjo

inHim:
Isn't

anything

better than a random vote? Reasons start off few and far between, but then gradually build up and make mistakes. But really? Chewing him out over

word choice

? Your words and actions here don't seem characteristic of a 6th year townie.
He then defends himself in his stupidity. Is he playing village idiot or something?
He says he doesn't want to muddy the waters. What exactly does he mean by this?

Vote: inHim

Chronopie:
If his meta tends to be anti-town and he's being lurky, he's definitely a player to keep an eye on.

IGMEOY

[Beefster]

XScorpion (1) Chronopie
inHimshallibe (3) Elscouta, Mr.Sandman, Beefster
Chronopie (2) Toon Fighter, ODDin
easjo682 (3) Scott Brosius, XScorpion, Mr. Chaos
Toon Fighter (1) Slepz
ODDin (1) inHimshallibe
(No vote) easjo682
12 alive; 7 votes lynch.

As far as I'm concerned, RVS ended on page 2.
I find RQS is only useful when scum are sloppy, i.e. a scum says something later in the game that contradicts one of their RQS answers.

On the other hand, not answering RQs in the first place can look scummy because it obscures personal meta. It still isn't a valid reason by itself, however.

1. How long have you been playing Mafia? (inside and outside MS)
2. How would you describe your meta?
3. What's your win/loss record?
4. Favorite setup?
5. What do you think is the biggest scum tell?
6. How do you make your decisions?

1. Online mafia just here. I've played quite a bit of IRC mafia, and have played IRL mafia for years.
2. I don't really have valid meta yet. I only have scum meta. I know that I dislike being mysterious unless I'm using pressure votes.
3. see sig
4. I dunno yet. I have played some interestingly flavored IRL mafia, though.
5. contradictions, probably. (which are vastly different from perspective changes)
6. I think about it, I sleep on it, and sometimes I pray about it. Depends.

[Beefster]

In general, the RVS ends when the first non-random vote comes out. That was on one of ODDin's first posts.

@XScorpion: I dunno if that lends itself to a personal explanation if that's what you want...
It's an interesting reaction really. Scum likes to hide information, and that's what easjo seems to be doing.

It may have made more sense if easjo used

but

rather than

and

in the first place. But it still doesn't make sense...
What would he have to gain by saying his statement on the need to change votes and no reason?

[Beefster]

[joke]YOU JERK! You sure live up to your username. [/joke]

@Beefster :
* Could you sum up your case on easjo? After a reread, I still don't understand.

It starts with the "voices in my head" gag just after the RVS. He's trying to prolong it.
He's lying/contradicting himself.
I think there's a good chance that he's scum.

* What do you think of inHim?

Didn't I already discuss this?...
For clarification, I think he's playing village idiot, and that he's scum.

[Beefster]

Ah. Never mind. Someone misquoted you, so I thought it was on the same post.
(it was on the need to change votes->no reason to change votes.)

You still appear to prolong the RVS, along with inHim. Surprisingly enough, the RVS ended on page 2, on ODDin's vote.

[Beefster]

I see a need to change my vote,

also no real reason for switching my vote.

Self-contradiction is a scumtell.

Misquoting is also a scumtell. There was time between those 2 posts. You're taking things out of context. I see scum motives behind this.

FoS: XScorpion

[Beefster]

@Sandman: What's so unlikely about VI and scum? It seems pretty viable to look like you have no idea what you're talking about and be scum. Maybe I just used the wrong term. I'm suspicious with the way InHim been responding to questions as well- it's definitely not my only reason. I just thought that was a good way to summarize/clarify an earlier post. *shrugs*

As for the late RQS, I didn't really think of it earlier. The RVS ended really quickly, and I didn't really catch that until I looked in hindsight.

@Elscouta: I'm not so sure about your last post. It makes me wonder if you've been reading the topic if you missed the fact that I already have a vote on InHim...
Mainly, it's your attempt to redirect the votes to inHim that worries me. You posted no reasoning behind it.
There is the possibility that you both are scum, but you are probably in different factions. There may be a link with you and easjo.

FoS: Elscouta

[Beefster]

EBWOP for clarity:

There is the possibility that Elscouta and inHim are both scum, but they are probably in different factions. There may be a link between Elscouta and easjo.

[Beefster]

I just realized that VI was entirely the wrong term. My Bad.

A recap/reclarification on my case against inHim:
I didn't like his propaganda argument on ODDin. And I'm not at all happy with the fact that he attacked the first person to have a somewhat serious vote. (even if it wasn't for that reason) I never liked how he attacked ODDin based upon word choice and how he faded into the background when actively attacked. He's not playing like a 6th year townie would. (And I guess that's how I came up with the (invalid) VI argument- Mind you the argument I indended to convey is still valid, but no longer improperly termed.)
A potential train of thought: inHim sees a potential ending to the RVS and tries to blur it by finding a stupid reason to vote on the first somewhat serious vote. He then tries to prolong it more by saying that his defense of the attack (better than random vote = dishonest) was just "casting for nibbles." Then when he realizes that the end of the RVS is inevitable, he fades into the background.

Scummy if I ever saw it.

[Beefster]

The word choice is being blown way out of proportion, and I mean WAY.

unvote
vote: Beefster

Scummy spin when accusing me/easjo of prolonging the RVS.

We waited so long for this rebuttal? I'm disappointed by you, my friend.

On the other hand, i'm happy to see my vote in a good place.

What is this supposed to mean? You change paradigms or something. (I can't think of any better terminology...)

[Beefster]

Y'know what? My case

was

weak. But relatively, for the current moment, it's average. There isn't much info to go by yet. Nothing really has come out inHim.

Unvote

I still feel he's hiding something, but I'm at loss to any links. In fact, I find it strange that anyone could possibly decide to follow me in my stupid argument.

Honestly, I've been tunneling too much. I think Elscouta deserves more attention. I'll give him a proper analysis later. I have family over and don't have much time to post.

[Beefster]

inHim: Could you post a few links to some of your recently completed games? I want to know if your playstyle is outstandingly different from your normal play; You might just be an

off

player.

[Beefster]

My scumlist:

-inHim for attacking substance, prod dodging, low-substance posts, and weak responses (I still feel he's suspicious, but I don't have a solid case on him yet.)
-easjo for having voices in her head
-Sandman for following suit with me yet continuing to vote on inHim riding my weak arguments.
-Scott for being confusing (i would give a better reason if I had more time right now.)

[Beefster]

I'm working on it. I'm off to the movies pretty soon. I'll be back later today with an Elscouta analysis.

[Beefster]

And now for the Elscouta analysis I promised.

There's too much debate around easjo and not enough votes on inHim.

You were one of the first ones to put a vote on easjo, yet you say there's too much debate on him. This is just strange. I never liked the statement in the first place because it appeared diversionary.

On the other hand, i'm happy to see my vote in a good place.

I still can't figure out what you meant by this. If you can poke through your V/LA to tell us what you meant by this, I probably wouldn't be so bothered by it.

I haven't been suspicious of him until just recently. 'Nuff said.

Scott really only has active lurking and confusing posts against him. If I had more time to actually take a look at him before, I probably wouldn't have put him on my scumlist. There isn't enough evidence against him.

[Beefster]

Forgot some stuff.

@XScorpion: who do

YOU

think is scum. You've been doing an awful lot of asking other people who they thought was scum lately and not a lot of your own scumlists. I can see scum motives behind this sort of thing.

FoS: XScorpion

@Chevre: It's hard to remember what I was referring to when you take things out of context like that. IIRC, I believe I was referring to something XScorpion was misquoting.

[Beefster]

EBWOP:

@XScorpion: who do

YOU

think is scum?

Forgot the question mark. Don't want him to miss an important question.

[Beefster]

alright, scott I was over emphasizing when I said 'alot' sorry, but there has been commenting on you in the negative

easjo for having voices in her head

you don't believe what I said about the voices in my head posting?

This question? I didn't know you were asking me one in the first place.
Whether you say it's a joke or not, I just don't think it's at all valid to write off an odd message like that.

[Beefster]

Beefster and Inhim, is there any particular reason why you aren't voting for anyone?

There are a lot of people to suspect and evidence is few and far between.

Inhim, where is that player analysis you promised?
Beefster, if you think Elscouta is so suspicious, why don't you vote with me?

because I'd rather vote AGAINST you..

And is that really all you found on your Elscouta analysis?

Yup. I don't like to look at posts in the RVS and his posts looked null/town between the RVS and ISO8. It wasn't conclusive.

Elscouta, are you going to post or just active lurk?

And for the people on the Scott wagon, does he really look more like an active lurker than Elscouta?

responses in italics.
XS, could you do a little more than ask questions? I know you mean well by it, but it comes off as avoiding scumhunting to me. Maybe a vote will coax you into analysis.

Vote: XScorp

[Beefster]

But I HAVE made analysis. XScorp just throws around questions.

[Beefster]

unvote

that is all.

[Beefster]

Do you not see how it looks as though Mr. Chaos is simply dropping his attack on Chrono because Beefster is a much easier target?

QFT

And a supplemental PBP analysis on

Mr. Chaos

:
*Skipping RVS*

Vote: Easjo

Yea, what the hell is up with those last 3 posts, man? "Voices in my head" explanation is total bs since it doesn't explain anything about your latest vote.

And FoS: Elscouta and Beefster

El: For giving up his vote on Eas based on a post that IMO is completely incomprehensible

Beefster: For trying to prolong RVS/RQS.

Looks like he's just attacking the easiest targets. He posts minimal reasoning behind his statements. And what's this? He appears to be attacking Elscouta on a reason that he's attacking easjo with.
ISO3 hijacks a question aimed at me. Tries to clarify his reasoning against easjo and fails. Fence-sits inHim. Pretty much one big scumtell in a convenient package.
ISO4 dislikes the lurkers that answered the RQs.
ISO5 attacks my hypocrisy, despite the fact that he's more of a hypocrite than I am. Then he unvotes for no reason. WTF? Then he drops an excuse to coast by waiting until the next page to vote. (since that's how Korejora does vote counts)
ISO6 attacks WIFOM, and only WIFOM. No action here. Pretty sneaky way to avoid a prod.
ISO7 throws up another dust cloud that has nothing to do with his defense.
ISO8 looks like a diversion. Chrono didn't really bother him before, but he suddenly finds Chrono suspicious and promptly votes on him? WTF?
ISO9 begins with hypocrisy. Demands a scumlist. Disputes asking for meta/self incrimination. And all topped off with sarcasm.
ISO10 begins with more hypocrisy- for throwing up a dust cloud. Attacks me and my spontaneous time restrictions. Keeps his vote on Chronopie for one small thing.
ISO11: apology
ISO12 points out a question I missed.
ISO13- You're no better in the area of active lurking... I had too many suspects with equally weak cases.
ISO14 attacks Chrono again for not contributing much. Hypocrisy.
ISO15 jumps on me for "not scumhunting" and does a 180 in his stance on Chrono. Attacks playstyle instead of scum.
ISO16 calls V/LA
ISO17 defends (poorly) why his stance changed. He throws up another dust cloud in defending himself from XS. A note on XS's statement: I only

looked

like obv. scum. There was probably some other rational reason why he didn't vote on me.

Conclusion: Mr. Chaos is scum. He appears to attack the weakest target. He's a huge hypocrite. He's active lurky. He throws up dust clouds and incomprehensible paragraphs in his defenses, and dances around the questions pointed at him and hijacks the questions not pointed at him.

(the part about hijacking questions is a joke)

Vote: Mr. Chaos

[Beefster]

I unvoted because I was getting frustrated at how much I sucked at explaining myself. Just because I'm an easy target to attack doesn't mean I'm scum.

[Beefster]

agree with your read on beefster, hence my vote on beefster
he just got ten times worse with his ISO 25 post, how can he ignore what people are saying about him, what they are asking him? it comes off as scum giving up.

Or it could be town giving up. Which is exactly what it was.

[Beefster]

^ Prod dodging.

[Beefster]

^ Question dodging.
Maybe this will encourage you?

unvote
Vote: Beefster

I'm afraid you're going to have to try and explain this one further to me. I don't see the connection. How does you not being able to explain things influence your read of another player/make you want unvote?

I've answered that, although a bit implicitly. There is no connection. I felt hopeless and gave up by doing stupid things.

While I'm at L-1, I might as well claim. I claim Vanilla Townie.

[Beefster]

I've answered that, although a bit implicitly. There is no connection. I felt hopeless and gave up by doing stupid things.

While I'm at L-1, I might as well claim. I claim Vanilla Townie.

So you still think scorpion's scum?

Actually, not so much anymore. I realize that my case on him was just stupid and weak.

[Beefster]

inHimshallibe (1) ODDin
Beefster (6) Scott Brosius, Chronopie, Mr. Chaos, easjo682, Mr.Sandman, XScorpion
Scott Brosius (2) ConfidAnon, inHimshallibe
Mr. Chaos (2) Karma, Beefster
Karma (1) Chevre
12 alive; 7 votes lynch.

Yes. Tomorrow.

[Beefster]

I have a new read on inHim. At first, he seemed absurdly brief and mysterious, but his more recent posts are more indicative of town.

Scott Brosius has been active lurking/coasting/prod dodging the entire game.
-He attacks me for having a weak case and leaves it at that.
-He says he likes his vote where it is. Perhaps because I'm the weakest player.
-His stances aren't major because he's only picked out 2 possible scums and hasn't really mentioned anyone else except in defense.
-I'm surprised he didn't attack me for voting Scorp.
-I think that even on day 1, links have meaning. Not as much meaning as a dead scum, but they're worth something later, when you DO have information. I find your assertions against finding links to be suspicious.

with that said,

FoS: Scott Brosius

[Beefster]

Ah. I thought he was talking about my vote.