NY 120: Flash mafia 2. GAME OVER

[Espeonage]

Doesn't change the fact that the tipping point exists and he avoided which is pro-town in my eyes.

I said what I said there because tbh I would have expected Parama to do a bit more reading into the situation that saying it outright.

[vollkan]

Doesn't change the fact that the tipping point exists and he avoided which is pro-town in my eyes.

But it's not a tipping point. It's an "oh wow he went from 3 votes to 4 votes" point. In no way whatsoever does the addition of a single vote to a wagon which is baseless or, at best, exceedingly weak in any way make it appreciably more likely to advance scum's win condition.

[RichardGHP]

vollkan, analysis is redundant when it comes to voting for Espeonage. ISO post # 7 for a case-in-point, and general scum-ness thus far.

I await the flood of misrepresentations.

[RichardGHP]

TOWN:

vollkan
Budja
Parama
Untrod Tripod
Fishythefish
Luchris

NEUTRAL - POST MORE PLEASE:

mikeburnfire
JDodge

SCUM:
3 of:

Ojanen
Oman
Prozac (Parroting vollkan -

word for word

)
Espeonage

[vollkan]

vollkan, analysis is redundant when it comes to voting for Espeonage. ISO post # 7 for a case-in-point, and general scum-ness thus far.

Whose ISO post 7?

Yours is just: "Conceding, dismissing, they both have more or less the same effect. Don't you agree?"

I await the flood of misrepresentations.

From me?

[RichardGHP]

vollkan, analysis is redundant when it comes to voting for Espeonage. ISO post # 7 for a case-in-point, and general scum-ness thus far.

Whose ISO post 7?

Yours is just: "Conceding, dismissing, they both have more or less the same effect. Don't you agree?"

Espeonage's, of course.

I don't see the relevance in comparing mine with his.

I await the flood of misrepresentations.

From me?

Depends.

[vollkan]

vollkan, analysis is redundant when it comes to voting for Espeonage. ISO post # 7 for a case-in-point, and general scum-ness thus far.

Whose ISO post 7?

Yours is just: "Conceding, dismissing, they both have more or less the same effect. Don't you agree?"

Espeonage's, of course.

I don't see the relevance in comparing mine with his.

Oh, I misunderstood. I thought you meant that your ISO post 7 contained a summary of his scumminess.

[RichardGHP]

vollkan, analysis is redundant when it comes to voting for Espeonage. ISO post # 7 for a case-in-point, and general scum-ness thus far.

Whose ISO post 7?

Yours is just: "Conceding, dismissing, they both have more or less the same effect. Don't you agree?"

Espeonage's, of course.

I don't see the relevance in comparing mine with his.

Oh, I misunderstood. I thought you meant that your ISO post 7 contained a summary of his scumminess.

One can be forgiven for such a mistake.

As an aside (and something of a given), I will happily lynch anyone on my scumlist today. Keep in mind that I'll probably be on the one with the largest wagon.

[vollkan]

As an aside (and something of a given), I will happily lynch anyone on my scumlist today. Keep in mind that I'll probably be on the one with the largest wagon.

Richard+5

Unvote, Vote: Richard

That most definitely is not "an aside" (that you just happen to mention by the by) or "something of a given". You have failed to give any reasoning for any of those suspects and yet, now, you have pre-endorsed the lynch of any of them. Moreover, you're employing a pre-commitment strategy to justify what would otherwise be rank opportunism. There is absolutely no pro-town reason to play in this manner and a pretty obvious scum motivation.

I will remove my points and vote if you can show me meta precedent for you doing all of the following as town:
1. Use of an unreasoned list
2. Pre-endorsing the lynch of any suspects
3. Pre-committing yourself to voting the suspect with the largest wagon

[RichardGHP]

What do you take me for? I'm not an idiot.

1. I can give reasons, if that's what you mean.
2. Why would I have someone in my suspect list if I didn't want to lynch them?
3. That is completely logical. If I'm suspicious of them, and they have the largest wagon, what possible cause could I have for NOT voting them?

HoS: vollkan

. Metagaming, anyone?

http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=55&t=14343 - meta precedent for 2 and 3 as requested.

[Espeonage]

Doesn't change the fact that the tipping point exists and he avoided which is pro-town in my eyes.

But it's not a tipping point. It's an "oh wow he went from 3 votes to 4 votes" point. In no way whatsoever does the addition of a single vote to a wagon which is baseless or, at best, exceedingly weak in any way make it appreciably more likely to advance scum's win condition.

It is because they were competing wagons. Wagons have momentum just like anything and it is a great boon to any wagon if it can get ahead of the other wagons that it is competing against.

It was my interpretation of the vote based on game theory.

[Espeonage]

Also guys stop arguing. Town v town (As I am assuming this one is) arguments get town nowhere.

[RichardGHP]

Also guys stop arguing. Town v town (As I am assuming this one is) arguments get town nowhere.

This doesn't help your cause, you know.

[Espeonage]

I would think that is null not scummy.

[vollkan]

What do you take me for? I'm not an idiot.

1. I can give reasons, if that's what you mean.
2. Why would I have someone in my suspect list if I didn't want to lynch them?
3. That is completely logical. If I'm suspicious of them, and they have the largest wagon, what possible cause could I have for NOT voting them?

HoS: vollkan

. Metagaming, anyone?

http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=55&t=14343 - meta precedent for 2 and 3 as requested.

Richard-5

Unvote

1. I mean "unreasoned" in the sense of "you haven't supplied reasons"
2. There's big a difference between suspecting a person and being happy with their lynch
3. The fact that it means that, rather than arguing for your strongest suspect, you subordinate your decision to the crowd

And, yes, I metagame. Why is that relevant?

Also, in that game you linked, your early list was the following:

Scumreads (in no particular order) :

MehPlusRawr (Early parroting and IoAing)
vezok (Out of place, late RVS vote + generally bad play thus far) [dependant on Blazez' flip]
BlazezRB (early tunnelling) [dependant on vezok's flip]
sc00t (wanting to lynch someone very early on, cites reason as the game getting "dull" after it has only been a few RL days, doesn't bother to pursue current EGL vote)
guy0 (IoA post on page 5 or 6 {in response to sc00t}, something which should have been a sentence or two transforms into the entirety of the post, which doesn't even mention anything else that is happening).

Why no succinct explanations for each one here?

Doesn't change the fact that the tipping point exists and he avoided which is pro-town in my eyes.

But it's not a tipping point. It's an "oh wow he went from 3 votes to 4 votes" point. In no way whatsoever does the addition of a single vote to a wagon which is baseless or, at best, exceedingly weak in any way make it appreciably more likely to advance scum's win condition.

It is because they were competing wagons. Wagons have momentum just like anything and it is a great boon to any wagon if it can get ahead of the other wagons that it is competing against.

It was my interpretation of the vote based on game theory.

Yes, but the momentum of a wagon comes from the reasons supporting it. A wagon which is comprised primarily of random and junk isn't going anywhere.

[RichardGHP]

Ever heard of the tell where a mafioso is playing two townies against each other?

I find the opposite to be equally scum-like (the opposite being, a mafioso trying to stop two townies fighting, thereby gaining his own self brownie points, so to speak).

[RichardGHP]

I never got around to it, vollkan. I was V/LA when the first list was made, and I seem to recall justification of each read not being a requirement from you.

[Oman]

And the point about it being a playstyle based case that he doesn't want to alert his suspects to?

I don't really buy it. If you alert someone to a playstyle being scummy, and then the change it instantly, that's a huge tell.

I don't think it's a viable excuse. But that is just me.

Also Vollkan, do you intend to play this game empirically with numbers? I'm interested to know your thresholds for votes, and your thresholds to lynch.

[Espeonage]

He has thresholds. He uses them every game.

[vollkan]

I never got around to it, vollkan. I was V/LA when the first list was made, and I seem to recall justification of each read not being a requirement from you.

Sorry, are you referring to meta or this game?

I don't really buy it. If you alert someone to a playstyle being scummy, and then the change it instantly, that's a huge tell.

Good point. @Espy: Response to the above?

Also Vollkan, do you intend to play this game empirically with numbers? I'm interested to know your thresholds for votes, and your thresholds to lynch.

I've started using my points system again as of my last 3 or 4 games (some ongoing).

70 used to be my voting comfortableness threshold

and

lynching comfortableness threshold, but it just wasn't viable because in many games people weren't even getting above 65.

The approach I am trying to force* myself to take at the moment is as follows:

• No formal voting threshold
  
• Auto-vote the highest ranked (
  Vote: Espy
  )
  
• Scale numbers so as to make 70 correspond with lynch comfortableness

(* I say "force" because my tendencies have both been to not vote unless I am particularly outraged at a specific thing (see my Richard vote before) and to understate my points values in such a way that few reach 70)

[Fishythefish]

Also guys stop arguing. Town v town (As I am assuming this one is) arguments get town nowhere.

I find this pretty hard to believe; town reads on both volkan and RGHP at this stage just seem really unlikely.

More people need to comment on UT! I really think his reasoning for voting espy was poor, and his later dismissal of my point totally failed to address it.

@RGHP: iso 7 is a post that has been much quoted as an example of Espe's scumminess. Saying "Espe is scummy - particularly iso 7" does not amount to a case. Either say where else he is scummy, or explain why iso 7 is so awful and scumlike (why would scum do it would be a good start), or preferably both.

I just don't see why people think Espe is scum atm.

[Oman]

Copy all Vollkan, I disagree with numbers. Although it looks like you're actually just assigning values to what most people assign "rank" or "feelings". It works for me.

[mykonian]

prodding JDodge

[Porochaz]

Prozac (Parroting vollkan -

word for word

)

Jesus Christ, Do you not think for a second I did that deliberately... you refused to answer him, I wanted you to know that I had wanted answers to those questions as well. I had hoped increasing pressure would have made you answer them.

[RichardGHP]

Prozac (Parroting vollkan -

word for word

)

Jesus Christ, Do you not think for a second I did that deliberately... you refused to answer him, I wanted you to know that I had wanted answers to those questions as well. I had hoped increasing pressure would have made you answer them.

I know you did it deliberately. Doesn't change the fact that you did it.