NY 174: Oldy Mafia 2 (Game Over)

[petroleumjelly]

BooKitty,

1.)

Your explanations actually make a lot of sense to me. However, the Tigris explanation and your results are nowhere in the thread that I saw. If it's valuable information, shouldn't you share your findings with town? Do you intend to make a similar investigation of the person who replaced into her slot?

No. "I think I will be able to get a read on Tigris later in the game" is not something I feel the need to share. And no, I do not intend on seeing if I can happen to read Kublai Khan (her replacement); it is not Kublai Khan's posting I see myself having trouble with. My questions were particular to Tigris because I could tell I was going to have some issues with her posting.

I do not feel the need to update the Town on every little thought I have. The people I pursue and the questions I ask generally should give you a fair idea of where my mind is at.

2.)

The "Socratic dialogue" with VitaminR reads completely like smoke and mirrors. Reread it for yourself and I think you'll see exactly why.

Uh. Sure. I reread my posts. And I understand

exactly

where I was going and I think VitaminR (should have) understood as well.

Why don't

you

try rereading

my

posts and then decide if you think I was trying to herd VitaminR into a particular answer (i.e., "there are lots of 'strong' players and not many 'weak' players"). VitaminR put out the theory that MafiaSSK was an "easy target" and that there was a "power disparity" in those voting for MafiaSSK and

therefore

the "strong" players were suspicious but MafiaSSK was not. I do not think his position is tenable if he agrees there not many "weak" players in the game

or

if he agrees this game is largely made up of "strong" players.

3.)

I don't like you saying that you were giving LML a wide berth and then suddenly springing your assessment on everyone.

Do you feel that the scumtell I mentioned before is the one you were picking up on?

It wasn't really clear to me from the wording of your post.

I am trying to read this question charitably, but I do not understand the "scumtell you mentioned before" I am potentially "picking up on." If you are referring to this:

LML is a null-leaning-scum read for me. The scum part is:

He pulls his vote off STD and then votes UT for the EXACT SAME thing. His VCA actually shows that. I realize he's only got one vote, but why switch it at the point he does and then blame it on his VCA? That's not reading honest to me. STD ducked my question on that, but I would be interested to know how STD sees that move. To me, it was the scummiest thing LML did all game and it made me look hard at STD as a result.

Then no, I was not "picking up on" your thought-process.

~

4.)

Why, if LoudmouthLee's switch to Untrod Tripid was scummy, did LoudmouthLee's Vote Count Analysis "make you look hard" at Save the Dragons as a result? Were you looking for potential LoudmouthLee and Save the Dragons connections?

5.)

You claim you have been reading this game from the very beginning and that you've read the game several times over the last few days. You have also posted ten times now. What has prevented you from noting other potentially opportunistic votes or suspicions? Your "transparency" spiel is not lining up with your own posts very well. I will grant that you have not been in the game long, but it's not like you had to catch up or have not had time to post.

Your posts are suggesting that you have had to tailor your thoughts somewhat since joining the game, which suggests you have drawn a scum role and made a change of plans.

FoS: BooKitty

[Green Crayons]

@Bookitty

:

@PetroleumJelly

: In a game this size with this many players, wouldn't it make more sense NOT to put in the effort to do that analysis if LML was scum? I think it would be pretty easy to blend in with the pack and not make too many waves. VCA data is verifiable by town and can be used throughout the game to catch scum, though I think it's really not that useful until later. Why would scum make an effort to tell the truth to town when they could generally just coast? This line of argument seems fabricated and could be used against anyone, town or scum, who put in effort to provide data. To paraphrase chamber's tagline, it's as if you're saying "content is scummy."

UNVOTE:
VOTE: PetroleumJelly

No.

Follow-up: do you think my play has been coasting? Do you think I have been making any waves? What makes you say I have "given a minimal approach to contributions to the game so far"?

At the point I posted that, you had posted eight times. Some of your posts were lists of questions; others were theory discussion regarding the value of bandwagoning and the question of weak players vs. stronger players. You asked Tigris some questions; what did you hope to derive from the answers? Did Tigris's answers sway you to the view that she was town or that she was scum?

I liked your move from MafiaSSK to LML because LML is far higher on my scumlist than MafiaSSK; however, I didn't like the timing and it seemed really suspicious since you said you had been "giving him a wide berth" and then suddenly you came up with all the reasons why your vote was totally and completely justified at the point you made it, i.e., right after he put up his VCA (good) and then exhibited craplogic in his conclusions (bad).

What do you think your main contributions have been so far? What do you feel you've learned from your questioning? Do you still think MafiaSSK is scum? Is it likely he is scum with LML?

Reading the game for the second and third time, I'm seeing a lot of heat and smoke from your posts, but I just don't see a lot of light.

I've pulled what I don't like about your entrance into the game.

You stake out a position (scum are more likely to "blend in with the pack and not make too many waves"), PJ challenges you on the fact that he himself

hasn't

"blended in with the pack and not make too many waves," and then your response to that is a wish-washy post that is, in part, answering a question with questions of her own.

My takeaway is that you've come up with a play style that's indicative of non-scum activity, PJ fits that play style, and so you've tried to contort PJ's play so it doesn't fit that style.

Which part(s) of that takeaway would you disagree with?

[Green Crayons]

@Glork:

It looks like you're blending what I view as two separate points.

We're all smart enough to know that both scums and towns can take actions that are contradictory to their alignment. I'm not saying that LML's analysis and subsequent vote of UT eliminates the possibility of him being scum, but it's something I'm having a harder time seeing in Hypothetical-LML-Scum's grand scheme of things.

"I'm having a hard time finding the motivation for scum-LML to make this case" doesn't mean "I think it is impossible for scum to take this action." I meant exactly what I said. I wanted to hear the logic behind LML's attackers as to why

they

think scum-LML would do it.

<snip>

I think that the arguments as presented by Yos, PJ (caveat: haven't read his last couple of big posts yet), et al, are insufficient. They're attacking the bad vote, and when I ask for the reasoning behind the bad vote, I'm extremely dissatisfied with the answers.

Right now, I don't think LML is scum, and I don't think UT is scum either. And I don't think that the people going after LML are all town. There are almost certainly scum riding this train.

First, these comments make it appear that your issue with the LML votes is that you don't know why scum-LML would use contextless voting patterns to justify his vote.

To that end, scum-LML would use that bad reasoning because (1) at best, voting patterns in the abstract aren't alignment indicative and (2) at worst, voting patterns in the abstract lead to misunderstandings of actual reality (e.g., how many times has STD stated that LML has mischaracterized STD's vote as a bandwagon vote in light of the fact that STD voted a player

before

other votes piled on, and therefore before a bandwagon even existed?).

Why would scum use such bad reasoning? Because it makes them look productive (use of voting patterns!) without actually reaching results that identify scum.

To be frank, if LML-scum were to make this kind of attack and really stick to his convictions when questioned about it, I'd expect UT to be scum. Earlier in the game, UT was suspicious of LML among others, but didn't really pursue the optino very heavily, which could be a possible distancing link. Coming out of the break, LML tried to show that he was putting forth the effort to vote for UT, and he defended his vote when people questioned his argument's validity. I could potentially see that coming from LML trying to put some distance between himself and a scumbuddy, so that if one of them eventually died, it would lower suspicion on the other one.

Unless I missed something, I don't think anybody's addressed this possiblity. People seem to think that LML as scum would make a bad analysis vote on UT, and have implied that he has some grand scheme, but nobody seems to be willing to complete the train of thought and actually take that argument to its likely logical conclusion(s). All I'm getting out of the attacks (and the responses to my criticisms) are "no, this vote lacks context and therefore it's from scum."

Second, these comments make it look like your issue with the LML votes is that you're not sure why scum-LML would vote UT, regardless of what reasons LML is using to justify that vote.

To that end, I gave a reason why scum-LML would vote a player who hadn't any attention on him (based upon a belief that UT is town). In this post, you give a reason why scum-LML would vote a player who hadn't any attention on him (based upon a belief that UT is scum). Without a flip of either LML or UT, I don't know why you're interested in this aspect of LML's UT suspicions, especially because we all recognize that LML voting UT -- when that vote is divorced from LML's rationale -- could be the result of either town-LML or scum-LML.

[Save The Dragons]

Unvote, Vote: Bookitty

There's something I'm quite eager for you to respond to so I'll bite my tongue for now.

[Albert B. Rampage]

I don't like this shift from petroleumjelly.

[Shanba]

I do.

I've seen no real reason to think PJ is scum.

[Patrick]

Votecount

LoudmouthLee (3) -- Green Crayons, Yosarian2, petroleumjelly
Kublai Khan (1) -- MrBuddyLee
MafiaSSK (2) -- CrashTextDummie, undo
Bookitty (6) -- Sotty7, Shanba, Cogito Ergo Sum, chamber, Untrod Tripod, Save the Dragons
Cogito Ergo Sum (1) -- MafiaSSK
petroleumjelly (4) -- Albert B. Rampage, VitaminR, LoudmouthLee, Bookitty
Porochaz (2) -- DrippingGoofball, Zorblag
Yosarian2 (1) -- Glork

Not voting: Kublai Khan, Porochaz
22 alive, 12 to lynch.

[Save The Dragons]

I haven't forgotten PJ.

[VitaminR]

I'm still not really getting what's so scummy about Bookitty's recent posts, perhaps because I mostly agree with her. I guess she seems nervous, but that could just be replacement jitters.

My questions to VitaminR (the "weak" v "strong" push) was to see if I could get him to agree with my stance through a Socratic line of questions. Given that I feel the direction I was going was pretty obvious, his refusal to answer my questions (or least to admit "I see where you are going with this, but I disagree") strikes me as being purposefully slippery. His point ("MafiaSSK was outclassed, therefore I suspect the attackers going after an 'easy target' and do not suspect MafiaSSK") is simple but flawed given the realities of this invitational game.

If this is honestly what you were trying to do, I don't see why you're surprised it turned out this way. A "Socratic dialogue" outside of a teacher-student context just feels oddly persistent, because no matter what I say you keep asking questions.

Especially since my point was a simple one, you must be able to see why it seemed to me like you were stringing me along with little reason. (Also, incidentally, the realities of the game only matter in terms of how I think

you

perceive the game. Who I think is weak or strong is irrelevant because I made a point about what I thought

your

motivations were.)

[MafiaSSK]

Gah. I'm giving myself one more RL day to actually make a serious post if I can't, I'm replacing. Sorry ya'll.

[DrippingGoofball]

I'm still not really getting what's so scummy about Bookitty's recent posts

Nor do I, can someone explain it in a few sentences (the fewer the better)?

[Albert B. Rampage]

its an excuse ton distract from PJ

[Bookitty]

Just a quick post to let you know I am fighting off the flu. I'm going to make an effort to make a response later today to the questions asked of me.

Sorry for the delay in responding.

[Zorblag]

In a few sentences , it looks to me like the issue with Bookitty is that she's come in say that LoudmouthLee leans a bit on the scummy side of neutral while laser focusing on one of his voters (petroleumjelly) for reaction to vote count analysis while at the same time saying that the vote switching due to vote count analysis is the scummy part of LoudmouthLee's play. That petroleumjelly was under some pressure makes it come across as an attempt to place a vote rather than to find scum. Lack of attention to the rest of the game is an issue for me as well, but I don't know how much that factors in for others.

I don't have any issue with the votes on Bookitty at this point.

@Sotty7, the lack of content from Porochaz is what I've found scummy, but I don't think that content for the sake of posting something after he's getting votes (which is what the jumbled post by post strikes me as,) is indicative of a town mindset. Even something as simple as the list that Kublai Khan came up with would have been better as a place to start (though that one needs some backup sometime soon.) If Porochaz starts trying to put pieces together and figure out who's scum overall I'll have a reason to reevaluate, but for now I don't see the town play there at all.

-Zorblag R`Lyeh

[undo]

Enjoy my second serving of loose notes. They mainly concern pp. 15-20, because I’m still catching up on the last couple of pages.

De Yosarian

Consistency is a scum tell.

I really can’t let this pass without making a comment. I hope you were being hyperbolic for rhetorical purposes, because otherwise that is a very dangerous aphorism. I mean, you could say "Consistency is not a town tell" or "Trying too hard to be consistent (vide MafiaSSK...) is a scum tell". But saying "consistency is a scum tell" is a gross simplification and also potentially misleading. Inconsistency (that is, the lack of coherence in one's reasoning and reaction patterns) is the primal indicator of a latent dishonesty. If your post history shows signs of core changes in your frame of thought, you undoubtedly are more likely to be scum.

De Zorblag

After his first analyses I was going to jump on the Zorblag-is-town wagon, until I saw STD’s 377. I must say this contribution has granted STD a solid place in my town list.

I also don’t like Zorblag's jump on the Porochaz wagon. About Green Canyons, Zorblag insists “That’s how I would play as scum”; about Porochaz, he says “I know that he's busy, but I don't feel like he's caring.“ Zorblag seems to suggest GC is scummier than Porochaz, but between the active poster and the lurker, he chooses the latter to vote. Indeed, lurkers are less likely to give you trouble, while GC is well able to present a strong defense.

De LML

Rationale:
[*]UT has been on 3 of the major bandwagons, the most out of any player (tied with StD)
[*]UT was also on the Nat wagon which looked incredibly opportunistic at the time.

Unless you’re suggesting he’s playing the “too scummy to be scummy” card, I don’t see why UT-scum would openly jump from wagon to wagon like that.

But soon after this you chose to vote PJ, yet with some more weak points to support your case. Besides the lumping of lurkers and “self-controlled voters”, which I already mentioned in my last post, you also say this:

Point 4: Your bluster at ABR was very odd. That was especially odd because he was VOTING ME AT THE TIME, and how you've "had nagging suspicions of me" does not compute. You wouldn't bluster at him for voting me if you actually had those nagging suspicions. I think you're lying. Or posturing. You're not being forthcoming regardless.

So just because ABR was voting LML, PJ couldn’t suspect both? I can’t really see where’s the reasoning behind this. It’s too early to make associations and steer our suspicions accordingly. If A votes B and I suspect B, that’s not a reason for me not to suspect A. I mean, there are many reasons to suspect a player -- PJ’s suspicion on ABR was not based on his vote, but on the content of one of his posts (which was later cleared off).

De Bookitty

It really doesn’t do you any favors that your first relevant post after you replaced in was to jump on the biggest wagon of the game (other than the wagon on yourself, of course) – and with a very questionable argument too (mainly this: “In a game this size with this many players, wouldn't it make more sense NOT to put in the effort to do that analysis if LML was scum?”).

I’m holding further action on you until I see your promised catch-up analysis and reads.

[MrBuddyLee]

Looking forward to hearing some actual analysis from Kublai Khan/tigris. This post is just some questions that came to mind while I read the thread yesterday and this morning. I owe fuller opinions--expect them today.

@KublaiKhan

, are you having trouble motivating yourself to find the scum in this game?

@Albert

, what changed your mind on LML?

@Bookitty

, do you not enjoy being scum?

@SSK

, what are your thoughts on CES and Bookitty?

Bookitty's stances on LoudmouthLee feel really arbitrary, especially in the context of some of the other things she said.

@CES

, can you elaborate upon this please?

[Yosarian2]

Enjoy my second serving of loose notes. They mainly concern pp. 15-20, because I’m still catching up on the last couple of pages.

De Yosarian

Consistency is a scum tell.

I really can’t let this pass without making a comment. I hope you were being hyperbolic for rhetorical purposes, because otherwise that is a very dangerous aphorism. I mean, you could say "Consistency is not a town tell" or "Trying too hard to be consistent (vide MafiaSSK...) is a scum tell". But saying "consistency is a scum tell" is a gross simplification and also potentially misleading. Inconsistency (that is, the lack of coherence in one's reasoning and reaction patterns) is the primal indicator of a latent dishonesty. If your post history shows signs of core changes in your frame of thought, you undoubtedly are more likely to be scum.

In my experience, at least for competent scum, scum tend to be very good at keeping their posts and their votes consistent, while town tend to be much more distractable and all over the place, because town are actually trying to hunt scum with incredibly limited information (so any little thing may send them off in a radically different direction), while scum are just pretending to do so, so they're less likely to change their minds.


When I first started saying that consistency is a scum tell, several years ago, it was honestly mostly for shock/reaction value. As time has gone on, though, I've found it to be a surprisingly effective tell in it's own right.

[MafiaSSK]

Yeah. This isn't happening. I'm sorry guys.

Patrick, please replace me?

[Sotty7]

I just got here. Do you truly expect someone who replaced in late on Friday night to have had time to do what you suggest?

Reading the game for the second and third time, I'm seeing a lot of heat and smoke from your posts, but I just don't see a lot of light.

I've read the game several times over the last few days. I still don't have it down, but I guess that's normal for a large game.

Hi! Yeah, I replaced in late on a Friday night and I WILL do it but I've been really busy and I've been posting in between other things that have to get done. I have reread the thread on the go on my tablet; one of those posts takes a long time actually sitting in front of the computer with multiple windows open, especially in a game this size with so many people to consider in ISO and drill-down and all that stuff.

I would expect at least a little lip service if you have really read this many times, yes. Do you agree with my assessment of PJ's LML vote?

[CrashTextDummie]

Turns out I didn't have time to get fully caught up. Starting from where I left off.

I'm trying not to make broad, sweeping judgements yet because, well... we're just beginning D1.

Curiously, I remember you being a player that's

very

prone to making broad, sweeping judgements at the beginning of D1 (Fire & Ice Mafia comes to mind: "joking is scummy").

Why half-joking?

I genuinely believe that waggoning Glork to start the game off is good for the town, for mostly superstitious reasons.

eh.
a. the stuff I got off VitR was that.
b. I don't liveblog my reading. most of that happens internally.
c. you know gosh darn well that you can't really do a lot day 1 with real cases.

a. what stuff you got off VitR?
b. please externalize your readings more. "I'm doing all that stuff I love doing as town, but on the inside" is not very convincing.
c. I know the exact opposite to be the case.

I struggle to explain things like this. Like I know you explained why you thought it was scummy, but its more you gaining reasons from chambers wording rather than the thought process behind it. It seems too easy.

I actually explicitly mentioned why I thought the thought process behind the wording is potentially suspect so I'm really not sure what you're getting at.

CTD:

Rephrased:

- MafiaSSK said that (1) it "would make sense to blow it off with a joke" when referring to how he responded to Tigris -- that is, it would make sense to respond to Tigris with a joke rather than with his bandwagon theory -- but MafiakSSK (2) never disowned the legitimacy of his Tigris vote, and directed PJ to look at MafiaSSK's earlier posts where he justified his Tigris vote. (Post 124.)

- You conflated those two points to say that MafiaSSK de-legitimized his vote for Tigris by recognizing that his vote should have been kept on the joke level. (Post 129.) As stated above, MafiaSSK acknowledged that maybe he should have responded with a joke instead of a bandwagon theory, but MafiaSSK never said that his vote itself was a joke or not legitimate (which he apparently thought was aligned with his own bandwagon theory).

Do you disagree with what I believe to be your mistake in reading MafiaSSK's posts?

No, I don't. For one thing, I find it hard to believe that his bandwagon theory would lead him to actually, legitimately suspect Tigris (which he reinforced by stating that "[VitR] makes more sense than Tigris-scum at the moment" in Post 124, which to me implies that he needed a stronger case to "convince" him to move on from Tigris).

My issue with him is also not that he de-legitimized the vote, but rather the opposite. That he presented his bandwagon theory to turn what looked like a joke vote into an actual suspicion.

@PJ, Poro, CTD and undo, you have somewhat similar reasons for voting SSK. I haven't read the guy in other games yet--have you? I want to know whether these odd behaviors you've noted are scumtells of his, or as Sotty has alluded to, are hallmarks of his overall loose/"lynchable" play. If you believe that one or more of these behaviors are genuine tells for him in particular, please elaborate.

I don't remember ever playing with MafiaSSK.

@CTD, you've placed the burden of profiency upon yourself by alluding to your genius in the last Oldy game. Can you please list MafiaSSK's scumpartners in the order you intend to lynch them?

I don't consider myself a genius for catching UT in the last Oldy game, which is the only thing I've alluded to. You are alluding to the fact that I also caught two of his buddies early on in that game, so I'm pretty sure you're the one BoPing me. I'll humor you with a list once I'm done catching up nevertheless.

At this point, not very suspicious of mafiassk to be honest, at least partially because of his potential leaps in logic. Partly kept my vote on him since others found/find him suspicious and to garner more reactions supporting/detracting from him, but that is insufficient reason for me right now since I plan on more fully analyzing in the next few days.

That's a lot of words to justify removing a vote. I find myself agreeing with MBL that Tigris seems image conscious. She didn't place a new vote promising further analysis and I don't really get the point of making a scene of unvoting other than an attempt to look pro-town.

It's meta based mostly. My town read on ABR is a lot stronger than the one on DGB but that doesn't really matter (the Farside one is non existent since her replace out). Town reads aren't locked in and I can change my mind at any moment should I want to. I just don't see the need to argue with someones declared town read unless you have a scum read on that and I didn't really get that from your post. You just seemed to be disagreeing to disagree rather than dig any deeper.

I didn't argue with his town reads, I questioned their legitimacy. I don't think he had anything to say about that, so I'll continue thinking that he's just pulling reads out of his ass. I think it's problematic to liberally dish out unwarranted town reads (it's worth noting that DGB is arguably a worse offender, and I'll get to that), precisely because they aren't expected to stick. It's a way for scum to look busy and potentially get some buddy points without much consequence. I don't have a good overview of ABR's play as it currently stands, but at the time I thought it was worth pointing out.

Post-crash catch up will have to come tomorrow.

[Kublai Khan]

@KublaiKhan, are you having trouble motivating yourself to find the scum in this game?

I am, sorry. Thought I was going to have time this weekend and I'm making time now to read. I've made it to Page 15 (Site Crash/Return). Going to keep slogging until I fall asleep.

[Yosarian2]

Anyway, I'm not interested in lynching PJ today, and the bookitty wagon feels kind of weak to me. What else do we have on the menu?

LML still looks like the best choice to me, but even though he hasn't done anything since his superscummy vote on PJ, that wagon has sadly faded away.

[MrBuddyLee]

@Lee

:

Tigris, MafiaSSK, Seol, Myself and, most recently, Zorblag (Far/Nat)

Which of these early wagons do you see as the most likely to be scum? Also, what do you make of our town's difficulty in getting a large wagon rolling?

@Yos

:

Anyway, I'm not interested in lynching PJ today, and the bookitty wagon feels kind of weak to me. What else do we have on the menu?

What's your current opinion of PJ? Are you not interested in lynching him today because he's PJ or because he's not significantly scummy to you?

Also, what do you think of Tigris/Kublai Khan?

[Patrick]

Looking for a replacement for MafiaSSK. LML is VLA until Wednesday.

[Yosarian2]

>What's your current opinion of PJ? Are you not interested in lynching him today because he's PJ or because he's not significantly scummy to you?

His play seems reasonably pro-town so far to me; it all looks like standard PJ-style analysis, mostly on reasonable targets with solid reasoning. Not going to claim to have a strong read on him at this point, but nothing he's done so far feels scummy to me.

>Also, what do you think of Tigris/Kublai Khan?

Tigris's early play was odd, but that may be more playstyle then anything else. Don't really have a read on that slot right now; hopefully Kiblai Khan will post more content soon.