Newbie 991 - Newbieville! (Game Over)

[Aranneas]

Ahola.

I'm... some kind of... sparkley... light thing, apparently. What is it really? Who knows. Some questions are better left unasked.
The important thing is I'm here to catch scum and chew gum, and I'm all out of gum.
This will by my second game on this site. I'm hoping you all will help me make it a good one, as I had a less than stellar experience with my first.

willows_weep: I will answer you those questions three... if you will tell me why you asked them.

Oh, wait. You did that already didn't you. Huh.
Beating me to the punch?
Suspicious.

However, there is a much likelier candidate for voting at this point, and so I will

vote: scapegoat

because goats are delicious.
And cuddly.
In that order.

[Aranneas]

... oh right, those questions.

1. Which is the best Mafia gambit for scum: Claim Doc or Cop in a standard set up at a time when they are in the hotseat

Interesting start. I'll have to go with cop, but I've never actually had a game as a mafia member before so this is simply based on gut logic. (No that is not a contradiction in terms. Go away. Seriously.)

2. What do you think of the consistency of oatmeal

It does not stand up to the consistency of porridge, I'll say that much.
I'm not a huge fan. I've had far too much of it in rural settings.

3. What are your thoughts on sharing the scum buddy Quick Topic with the entire MS community at end game?

Presumably data mining is a good thing for the mafia playing community as a whole. For open/newbie/normal games I see nothing wrong with it and am, in fact, in favour. In certain closed setups, however (such as the one I'm working on right now), it has the potential to destroy further games with that setup. This is fine if the mod is okay with it, I suppose, but I feel like good games should be allowed to stand the test of time.

[Aranneas]

Greetings to those who are... experienced.

Thor: I think question 3 has potential to be telling about the personality one would have as scum. To me it tells me if you're likely to be more outgoing or reclusive as scum. Also, shares a bit about potential ego and how that person as a player is dedicated to the spread of information.
As compared to a scum player that is paranoid because they tend to play a certain way as mafia.

All depends on how it's answered.

You're assuming they answer it truthfully. That is never something you should assume in mafia unless you can prove it somehow. This type of reasoning is quite likely to lead you into a WIFOM fallacy - "they must be reclusive but what if they know I'm thinking about it that way they'd answer the opposite but what if they know I know that then..." and so on, you get the idea. There's no real end to it and it rarely provides you with useful answers.

[Aranneas]

Are there ever any useful answers on day 1?

Yes, for later in the game. Stuff we say now often becomes relevant later on.

You can never assume anything is truthful and the town doesn't have anything to go on expect for hunches related to a players statements, demeanor, defensiveness, activity, etc...

It might just be my naivety but I think the 3 questions are as good a way as any to get things rolling.

And did I say not to ask them? No. I'm all for discussion at this point. Any point, really. It's our main weapon.

While I appreciate your humor (especially post #3) and your argument I find your unwillingness to offer any alternative scum hunting mechanism as scummy

FoS: Aranneas

.

*shrug* If you feel my words thus far deserve your suspicion I don't really have much to say to that, as it's your subjective opinion. I would like to point out again, however, that I didn't say not to ask the questions - I simply suggested that you should not rely too heavily on the answers at this point in time. As you yourself have stated, this stage of play is all about feeling out (up? ) the other players; once we see patterns start to emerge, we might well be returning to this very page for answers and confirmation. The fact of the matter is that there is no ideal tactic for finding scum during the random voting stage. That's why we call it random. The idea is to move to productive discussion as quickly as possible.

Mrs Sak: Oh, my lanta... I'll do my best to answer these but I might need mod or SE/IC assistance.

1.The players chosen by the cop/ doc find out that they were pinged/ guarded during the night ?

Typically, no. I'm pretty sure it's this way for all newbie games. It's up to the mod to give us a definitive response, however.

2. Since players cannot pm each other, the cop can't pm the pinged players either? So basically, only the mafia can get in contact with each other but it's forbidden for the townies to form an alliance outside of the thread- which means any townie alliance will be known by the mafia.

Yes. This is the fun part of the game. How do the power roles make use of their abilities to the fullest extent possible... without getting themselves killed? Obviously you don't want to attract too much attention in the early stages, but working any results you get into your arguments without arousing scum suspicion can be challenging.

3. Do we find out the role of the dead players at the start of the next day ?

In the case of night-killed players, yes. In the case of those we lynch, we find out as soon as night falls.

Also, although I see what you guys are saying here when you're randmly voting against each other, the probability that today's lynch would kill a scum is very low. Looking at how the roles and abilities are distributed, I say the townies are at a huge disadvantage even withour a random townie kill. Just saying.

Also part of the inherent fun of the game. The idea is to gauge people's reactions, try to determine what's going on in their heads, figure out why they're voting a certain way, etc. Lynches are a form of information gathering as well.

Oh, and about the reactions that you might be able to get from people. I might be wrong but forcing players to give reasons of why they shouldn't be lynched might make some give out their role (aka the doc, cop etc), which leads to certain mafia win.

Yes, forcing claims early on will potentially expose them to mafia attention. The fact remains, however, that we really should be lynching someone day one, and it's best to find out as much information as possible before we do that.

Certain

mafia win, however? I disagree, strongly. Are you saying a pure vanilla setup has town doomed from the outset? I could probably dig up links to a large number of games that will prove you wrong. The primary advantage of the mafia is their improved access to information. The primary advantage of the town is their numbers. Power roles help, certainly, but there's no reason that town shouldn't be able to win without them. The flow of the game depends much more on the strengths and styles of the individual players than on the roles they fill.

[Aranneas]

EBWOP

You can never assume anything is truthful and the town doesn't have anything to go on expect for hunches related to a players statements, demeanor, defensiveness, activity, etc...

Yep. That's how it works. Generally, the more information is available to all players, the more we close in on the mafia's initial information advantage.

[Aranneas]

Yes, forcing claims early on will potentially expose them to mafia attention. The fact remains, however, that we really should be lynching someone day one, and it's best to find out as much information as possible before we do that.

Yep. That's how it works. Generally, the more information is available to all players, the more we close in on the mafia's initial information advantage.

I just realized these statements could be badly misread and want to clarify before it has any potential to get out of hand. I am not in any way endorsing an immediate mass claim. The identity of any power roles the town may or may not have is information that is currently hidden from the mafia, and it should stay that way as long as possible.

Also it looks like rvs is over. UNVOTE: scapegoat

[Aranneas]

Also it looks like rvs is over. Unvote: scapegoat

If RVS is over (for you) then that means you believe that you can start putting out serious votes.

I read your post twice. Didn't see any serious votes...
Didn't see any scumhunting on anyone...

Wat up wit dat?

rvs, for me, ends as soon as people start posting serious content. I consider your reluctant's post to be on the edge of that, and yours to be serious.

That is not the same as saying I have strong suspicions at this point. For me, a vote as a tool for applying pressure only really means anything once the majority of people have at least responded to the thread. I might have a soft scum read on someone, but at this point, for all I know everyone in the game is going to have a playstyle too similar to that person for me to tell it apart without more content. At this point I simply have no point of reference to compare my suspicions to. I could vote reluctant, but even in light of your suspicions of him it would look a lot like an OMGUS with so little having been said at this point.

[Aranneas]

Oh and I don't vote solely because I'm being pressured to by another player. I'll use my tools as I see will best produce a town win. This does not include allowing someone to bait me into jumping at shadows.

[Aranneas]

I just realized these statements could be badly misread and want to clarify before it has any potential to get out of hand. I am not in any way endorsing an immediate mass claim. The identity of any power roles the town may or may not have is information that is currently hidden from the mafia, and it should stay that way as long as possible.

Also it looks like rvs is over. UNVOTE: scapegoat

I whole heartily agree with the first part of the above quote. I think the 2nd part of this is even more scummy than earlier statements. Declaring an end to RVS? With only 5 people having posted (and only 3 of those actively so). I agree that we should lynch day 1, but I don't think that we're ready to do it without hearing from everyone. Doesn't a quick lynch usually help scum more than town? UNVOTE: Anton VOTE: Aranneas

I realize the irony of making a non-random vote for someone declaring RVS to be over. I'll just note that while I feel Aranneas to be the most scummy I am far from convinced that he is scum.

Now that's just a complete misrepresentation of what I wrote. How on earth did you get to "we should lynch as quickly as possible" from "people have started to post content"?

I do not advocate we go for a quicklynch. At all. And I do not see anything in that post that indicates I do. As I said previously, we

want

random voting stage to end as quickly as possible, because it means we are all actively contributing to the discussion and therefore increasing our chances at actually finding someone. Also, I deliberately removed my vote, and stated I was holding it back

because

I was waiting for some of the other players to get in here and contribute. The fact that you jumped on this... and boggled it completely... well, you either deliberately intended to vilify my actions, or you simply didn't read half of what I wrote. Either way, you've removed any reluctance I had to vote for you. VOTE: reluctant

So let's hear the chain of reasoning that led to this post. Please.

[Aranneas]

Apologies, missed Thor's post.

Do you think I'm trying to bait you? If you believe this then theoretically you see my play in a negative light and should react as such. If you don't, then why bring it up?

Perhaps bait was too strong to apply to your circumstances, but I was making a more general statement. I do think you're looking for a reaction, yes. This is not inherently a negative thing, as it's the only way we'll get any strong reads at this point. I brought it up to make the point that I will follow logical arguments for where I should place my vote.

If you don't have any particular strong reads why not bandwagon on something? RVS is a subjective thing, and until you personally leave it by making your own first serious post it's more helpful to town to have you voting in some way to at least generate more content rather then unvoting and waiting for some mystical insight. (basically if you're not actively doing something to create insights into players I fail to see what you're waiting and hoping for). At the very least, since you see my reluctant vote as serious - why not react to it? Do you think it makes sense or not. Would you support a reluctant lynch? Et al.

At the moment, yes, I would support a reluctant lynch over that of anyone else here. But not before I get his response to my question, and not before everyone else gets in here and weighs in. Hence my post above, and my vote on him.

[Aranneas]

So, reluctant didn't initially vote Aranneas because of concern that the vote was partially OMGUS oriented?

Hm...how is: voting someone specifically for declaring RVS to be over considered Ironic?
Is it that their declaration happens to be what gets them a vote?

Not currently relevant, but this is how I read it, yes.

Also, you think that Aranneas has been scummy, but you don't really think Aranneas is scum?
Yet you apply a vote instead of an FOS/HOS?
Why?
This bothers me.

Voting for someone does not necessarily think you mean they're scum, particularly in early day 1. As previously stated, applying pressure, hopefully getting a reaction, etc., is a valid goal for giving someone your vote (usually unless they're already close to being lynched).

Also, why is it that every game regardless of newb/not newb status brings up whether or not D1 lynches are a good idea? The majority opinion is always the same. Argh, sorry, it just hurts my head to see the same MS related discussion.

Heh, I've never really noticed this before but it's kind of true. I guess some parts of the mafia-playing community like to talk themselves in circles. Maybe it's the equivalent of talking about the weather?

Putting it the way you did, It certainly seems as though I made a bit of a logical leap for which I apologize. I certainly was not trying to misrepresent what you said.

You don't need to apologize. You made an assessment, which you've since stuck by. And when it becomes relevant, I'll make my own judgment on that.

While you never advocated a quick lynch I felt as though declaring a premature end to RVS (before everyone had even posted!?) was headed in that direction. Maybe it was an observation more than a declaration?[/quote]
This. I don't have the authority to 'declare' anything and I don't claim to. I was making a subjective observation, based on my best understanding of what the RVS entails.

I'm not sure, but in either case it rubbed me the wrong way and gave me a bad feeling, which I stand by.

Again, can't do much but shrug at that.

I'd also like to note that I'm not attempting to over-vilify your actions, which I hope I made clear when I said:

I'll just note that while I feel Aranneas to be the most scummy I am far from convinced that he is scum.

Granted, for now.

Either way, you've removed any reluctance I had to vote for you. VOTE: reluctant

I really hope I find someone else to be more scummy because I seriously enjoy your humor.[/quote]
No brownie points for you. Unless you make me brownies. Then maybe.

[Aranneas]

ITT: Aran messes up his quote tags.

There's no misquotes, I somehow just got rid of the opening tags.

[Aranneas]

So, reluctant didn't initially vote Aranneas because of concern that the vote was partially OMGUS oriented?

Hm...how is: voting someone specifically for declaring RVS to be over considered Ironic?
Is it that their declaration happens to be what gets them a vote?

Also, you think that Aranneas has been scummy, but you don't really think Aranneas is scum?
Yet you apply a vote instead of an FOS/HOS?
Why?
This bothers me.

Also, why is it that every game regardless of newb/not newb status brings up whether or not D1 lynches are a good idea? The majority opinion is always the same. Argh, sorry, it just hurts my head to see the same MS related discussion.

I'm going back to this for a moment because it started to bug me on a reread. You're asking a lot of questions, which is good, but you haven't really given any opinions on any players. The closes you came is stating that something 'bothers' you. If you want to learn anything about someone, you're going to have to get more aggressive than that. To me, this implies that you're not interested in garnering information. This is sufficient, in my mind, to elicit a

FoS: willows_weep

.

@scapegoat:A random vote is pretty much pointless right now, because we're already starting to get into serious discussion, and especially to do that on one of the more interesting players so far, doesn't seem right to me. That whole thing just seems scummy to me.

I'm not liking Reluctant so far, and I can totally see the case against him. First off, he needed to be to told to make the serious vote, which I don't like at all. But also, he seems very noncommittal now, which is not good, because if a bandwagon starts against someone else, then as scum he could use this an excuse to switch to that bandwagon, because he was never really committed to voting for Aranneas. Basically, I'm getting a scummy vibe from Reluctant right now.

Aranneas is interesting. His sudden declaration that RVS has ended for him did seem odd, though he has been serious since then, which is a way of showing you think RVS is over, even without serious voting. His case on Reluctant was good though, as Reluctant's case really didn't make sense, and Aranneas has certainly not been rushing anything. So far I'm getting more of a town vibe from him.

Thor is also interesting, because he's an IC, and so it's really difficult to get a read on him. So far, nothing particularly scummy from him, and again, I agree about Reluctant. His stats about scum chances also seem to make more sense, it's certainly not a hopeless situation for anyone, and there's no reason to no lynch. In fact, suggesting that is scummy, because the only way to win is to lynch, and scum are likely to succeed on their NK, so no lynch really benefits scum more. So far, hard to say what I think of Thor, but he's leaning more towards town. Mrs Sak seems like a scared townie, though I'm not ruling out the possibility he/she is scum, because they might just be trying to scare the town.

Vote:Reluctant

, right now I find him scummier than anyone else.

I'm liking your reasoning so far. Not a pass, however. Everything you've written here makes perfect sense from either town or scum perspective. I will say it makes me slightly less suspicious of you than of others.

My "Not really any reason" vote was because we don't have any strong information to go off of yet. I am disinclined to vote for "slightly scummy" newbie players at the moment, so I felt putting the heat on someone more knowledgable and talkative would give them a chance to either explain their innocence or fumble and show they're mafia. It's still a bit early in the game to go pointing fingers though, IMO.

You're forgetting option three: ignore it completely. It's not my primary goal to defend myself. My primary goal is for my faction to win. As town, the only time self defense is a viable means to accomplish that is if you're in danger of being mislynched. My brainpower is better spent catching members of the opposing faction.

On Mrs Sak: I think the implication is that Mrs Sak has migrated from somewhere that plays mafia differently than it's done here; with some sort of communication system allowed outside of the game. This makes me see her reasoning as closer to a null tell - it would, to me, appear suspiciously defeatist on anyone who's experienced mafia the way I know it to be played.

[Aranneas]

no, aranneas is right, I played and hosted multiple games like this, but with communication allowed.
in any case, the coincidence makes it that I played a game with almost the exact setup like this one, and I was a scum. by the end of day 1, the townies had lynched their doc, and the rest of the townies all died by either lynch or kill. Faking townie is really easy, especially in this situation.

Anyway, the votings up until now have been:

willows - Thor
Aranneas - goat
(Travis - goat )-unvoted
reluctant - Anton
Thor - reluctuant
(Aranneas - goat)- unvoted
reluctant - Aranneas
Aranneas - reluctant
Sak - Thor
goat - Aranneas
Travis - reluctant

By voting pattern, there is something about the Aranneas- Travis pair that I don't like. While their reasoning might be different , sometimes the said reasoning is used for appearance only, in order to convince other people to vote against a townie. Since it's harder to trace back during the first two days, and people often badwagon, it is much ore likely that the mafia would vote for the same person.
Notice how they both unvoted scapegoat and concentrated on reluctant instead. Travis unvoted first because he didn't want things to go very far, but I believe aranneas unvoted second because the votes were already all over the place. Reluctant, who was already voted by Thor and who voted Aranneas, would be, in this situation, a perfect target. Travis' vote followed, of course.

unvote: Thor
vote: Aranneas

I dislike vote pattern arguments this early in the game. They tend to reveal more once more serious discussion has occurred, but right now I wouldn't rely on them too heavily. Still, you're at least trying despite your stated disadvantage.

That's a very interesting argument. However, out of the games I've played, I find the mafia usually avoid the tactics you mentioned:They generally don't vote the same right away, and generally try to distance themselves for the first while, make themselves less obvious. So even ignoring that your argument involves me, I have to disagree with it, because scum wouldn't do something that obvious, especially on day 1. However, it's good to see you making an effort at scumhunting at least.

Perhaps this is accepted theory but to me it seems a bit WIFOM. Scum could just as easily play against an established pattern in order to allay suspicion.

Keep in mind that information lynches very often lead to more subjective information that becomes extremely difficult to interpret as the game goes on. We shouldn't be trying to lynch someone on the basis that it will give us reads on others. We should lynch someone that we legitimately think is playing a scummy game.

Thor, I'd like to hear more opinions from you. You've asked a lot of questions but you're keeping us in the dark as to what is going on in your head. Perhaps this is just your style but play like this tends to draw a bit of suspicion from me.

[Aranneas]

Fair enough. I suppose it is more related to playstyle difference than anything.

[Aranneas]

Welcome Anton.

I will be trying for more reads today but there's not a lot to go on I haven't already commented on.
As of the moment, I don't think the reluctant thing is going to go anywhere . Reasoning explained, no further reads elicited, and we're just kind of sitting on our votes.

@ Aranneas - Reading back, I see there is one less vote on you than I thought there was, so I guess it doesn't add to the pressure I was hoping for. I figured 3 votes would be enough to start prodding a confession out of you. Regardless, as your option to 'ignore it completely' has offered me no new information on the situation, I'm keeping my vote the same. It smells of mafia to me.

Why does not feeling a need to defend myself smell of mafia? I can't really give you any information you're going to find useful, therefore I declined to respond. At this point you've given me a pressure vote with no reasoning behind it. I really don't have much to go on.

@Mod: How long before a prod is warranted on willows_weep?

[Aranneas]

Also I lol'd that town chance is best when it lynches doctor day 1.

[Aranneas]

Read: better than when vanilla gets lynched.

[Aranneas]

I think the point has to be made that no-body is really posting as much as they should; tells off post count are at this point going to be pretty close to null in my interpretation.

That said, I agree with reluctant about scapegoat, particularly in light of his latest post. I may be biased, and if it appears that way to anyone else please call me on it, but I can't find the logic behind his suspicion of my posts. Additionally, rather than press the issue and actually attempt to get a useful read out of me, he has backed off and switched to the target of choice at this point in time - what looks like a safe vote. I wouldn't mind some more insight into what's going on there.

FoS: Scapegoat

. For reals this time.

Likely going to be V/LA this weekend. Am flying to Europe. Should get access again when I land.

[Aranneas]

Because if it's true, it gives the scum one less target in their hunt for PR gold. And if it's not, it will confuse town later on.

UNVOTE: reluctant
VOTE: scapegoat

If roleclaiming is useless, why did you do it?
If it could just as easily be a lie why do you expect us to believe you?
Still haven't addressed this part. If applying pressure is your intent, then

why did you take your vote off of me

?
Moreover

why are you giving up

, we have been at this for all of four pages. That is not pro-town, dude. Throw some opinions out there.

[Aranneas]

UNVOTE: scapegoat

re-FOS scapegoat

L-1 again, apologies

[Aranneas]

wait no, I can't effing count at 1am apparently
VOTE: scapegoat

[Aranneas]

I forgot to UNVOTE: Scapegoat to escape L-1 ness. It's been a long day already.

At least I'm not alone.

It's 5 to lynch, rel. We only had three votes on him.

[Aranneas]

I forgot to UNVOTE: Scapegoat to escape L-1 ness. It's been a long day already.

At least I'm not alone.

It's 5 to lynch, rel. We only had three votes on him.

*facepalms*

I'ma just go sleep for a couple of days and come back when my math brain is working. 'kay?

[Aranneas]

I am pretty content with the reluctant lynch

scapegoat?

because your previous content post mentioned reluctant in your town reads

[Aranneas]

Based on one post? I may be open with my reads but that's pushing it even for me.
But I will give it a shot. FOR THE GAME

It's clouded by the fact that he's still catching up. I've had some rough experiences with that myself on replacing, so I'm trying not to be quick to judge, but the sense that I get is that he's 'trying to appear town'. Not much of a logical basis behind it, mostly just a gut read, but I can try to dissect it. He has a lot of fluff for a post of that size and ends up pegging the target of opportunity.

Note that this does not mean by definition that he's not town. It just means to my mind, he's (sub?)consciously trying to project the appearance. But it does make me uneasy.

[Aranneas]

2-0 my favour vs. Izzy. Wish him better luck in the future.

[Aranneas]

wrong thread >.> can I get a mod delete?

[Aranneas]

ITT: People post about how people need to post more.

And yes, it's hypocritical of me to say that. And yes, it's true. But it irritates me (mildly) that five pages in this is still the topic of choice. Either they will, or they won't. Talking about it in the topic they're not posting in is unlikely to change much.

A *known* mislynch is never the correct play in a normal (or newbie) game. If there's someone most of us have a town read on (which I do for reluctant atm, he has been playing full town since page 2.5ish) we can analyze wagons just as easily without the flip. If it comes to that I suggest we take out someone who everyone is feeling ambiguous about. But I don't think we're there yet.

[Aranneas]

Scapegoat's posting, to me, implied more an itch to bandwagon than an itch to get the game going faster. Though one typically leads to the other.

However, we did have wagons. One of them was on scapegoat himself. This implies either such boredom that he no longer wanted to read the thread and missed this, or a frustration-based scum defense.

[Aranneas]

Ahola.

Likely going to be V/LA this weekend. Am flying to Europe. Should get access again when I land.

This is done. You guys have had some interesting stuff going on while I was out. I need to mull/analyze a bit. If anyone has specific questions for me to answer that would be lovely.