Open 598: GAME OVER

[Persivul]

Good morning everyone!

Let the RVS commence.

VOTE: BBmolla

If you give a reasonable explanation for your username I'll remove the vote.

[Persivul]

Well you could have at least made up a pretend reason...

[Persivul]

Just to be clear we should be wagoning Persivul right now.

Tried too hard to make his RVS vote seem natural.

I don't know the protocols yet. This is my second game, and in my first I replaced in after a week, so this is my first time through this stage.

[Persivul]

VOTE: ika

I presume our mayor was just murdered or some such...and you just want to chat around the fire?

[Persivul]

Damn lurkers

VOTE: sthar8

Hey green funyuns, who were you quoting?!?

[Persivul]

Nothing from ikea is ever solid, and the instructions suck

[Persivul]

Solid wagon on ika = ika is a scum read.

Don't particularly care how you want to word that. That's what it means.

If one of your scum reads has a wagon, you should probably join it. That's how we lynch scum.

Watch. You're about to fall victim to it.

Looking for a quick lynch is scummy.
VOTE: YGS

[Persivul]

Wagons are good for the game and are in no way scummy.

I agree that wagons are useful for town. However, lynches on preliminary information probably aren't.

I know this gets into the argument that wagons don't have pressure if they're not going to lead to lynch, but with 14-day phases, that's just how it is.

[Persivul]

Hey I haven't read anything but

I believe optimal strategy is to plan out our visits tonight and to have two players visiting different people.

Player A and B visits Player X
Player C and D visits Player Y
Player E and F visits Player Z
Player G and H visits Player ?
Player I and J visits Player !

This prevents PGOs from activating without confirming them as scum and allows cop to get reports relatively safely.

It also may be optimal to no lynch and then do that twice?

First...you could've just started the visited players with U and V. Then you wouldn't need ? and !

Second...yes, if there's a kill this wold help identify scum. OTOH, scum have no risk of wasting their gun night when they won't be visited. So there's pros and cons.

[Persivul]

Oh wait I just read the part where we no lynch today.

Whaaaaat?

[Persivul]

honestly i was gonna suggest we all target person below (where bottom targets top) and go from there

I was thinking about that method too, but I don't think it works. The problem is that we have PRs, who presumably don't show as a "visit" (correct me if that's wrong), and who should be free to target as they see fit. So:

- if you're town and you don't get a visit, the person above you might be a scum, or might be a PR

- if you're scum and you don't get a visit (and assuming your fellow scum isn't just above you),

you know the person above you is a PR

I'd like to see some methodology with visits that benefits town, but this isn't it. The ABCXYZ method might be a little better, but has flaws of its own.

[Persivul]

@YGS: yep, just RVS votes, plus I wanted to make the green funyuns joke.

[Persivul]

PEdit - Persivul - what did you think making 3 RVS votes would achieve? Why did you decide to change it 3 times?

Honestly I was just goofing around and waiting for the initial silliness to subside before getting into it seriously, as I'm starting now.

What do you think your 4 votes have achieved? Have you actually cleared the first 3 people already?

[Persivul]

92 - Quick note on the attempt at game breaking; can we not do that?

Thanks.

Newbie question - what's game breaking, and why don't we want to do it? Seems like a good idea to me if we find a method that would actually work.

[Persivul]

I think our votes would have achieved much more had people been willing to wagon.

Agreed. Again, I was just waiting for the crazies to subside.

Who would you put a wagon on right now, and why? If it makes sense I'll help with some pressure.

Game breaking is finding a method in which to break the game; i.e we don't actually have to scum hunt/play mafia (which funnily enough is why I join games) because there is an optimal way of playing that ends the game without actually doing anything.

Fair enough, I'm also here to play the game the way it's intended. I never understand why people try to scam video games and such. I won't post on it anymore, and really, I don't think there's a way to do it that doesn't benefit scum as much as town. Seems like the designer considered it when he made the setup.

[Persivul]

@persivul. How does it seem like a good idea to you if you don't even know what it is?

I was guessing from the context but wanted confirmation.

Anyways I don't like game breaking cause it defeats the purpose of the game for me.

Agreed.

You and YGS seem to be the most active. What's your read on YGS?

[Persivul]

@YGS: I read GC and newbie in ISO

GC seems to be honestly hunting to me.

Newbie - not so much. For example, in 72 he goes way overboard with the analysis:

It looks like scum knowing what ika will flip. If ika flips town, then lane can get town cred by not being on the lynch. If ika flips scum, then he can try and get town cred by saying he acknowledged that the lynch was solid.

[Persivul]

My current scum reads are ika, Persivul, GC, and sthar.

VOTE: Persivul

Excluding ZZZX who is on V/LA, your scum reads are the four players (excluding yourself) with the lowest post counts.

I've heard on here that effort is not indicative of alignment. Do you disagree? Is this just coincidence?

[Persivul]

I'm pretty sure GC doesn't have low post count. He's actually one of the more active players.

He was fourth from the bottom excluding you and ZZZX when I made that post, though now he's caught up with BBM.

Effort can be indicative of alignment when accompanied with scummy posts.

I'd say scummy posts are indicative of alignment regardless of effort.

Is that all you have to say? Nothing about my vote on you?

Not really. I think your charges have been way over the top so far. It's my understanding that making associatives before a flip is an exercise in futility, but you don't seem to have a problem with it.

[Persivul]

I mean, I don't have a problem with using associative flips as a strategy at times, but what does that have to do with my vote on you?

Point is that since you're just voting on shit I'm not real concerned about it.

[Persivul]

I am really busy for 3 days but it shouldnt be a problem. will read up really soon (and i will have limitless free time !)

This is scum?

do you think its not?

i mean hes null to me right now so is in my POE pool

Are you saying ZZZX went from scum in one post to null in the next?

[Persivul]

BTW, I've gotten shit for wagon hopping when, without any vote counts, I didn't know a wagon existed. I'll keep track in the future. If someone has a current one can you post it?

[Persivul]

Get a new/fix the setup if the setup is boring because town can attempt to come together and try to strategize night actions.

Pushing for less than optimal town play because it's boring is anti-town, pro-scum.

Just talking about optimal town play (as opposed to presenting a plan that will actually work) is anti-town because it takes the focus off the scum hunt. Regardless of the propriety of it, you should at least think it through and make sure it would work before presenting the plan. And yes, I realize I got caught up in it for a bit too.

[Persivul]

Need to see more from Sthar.

VOTE: Persivul

If you need to see more from

Sthar

, maybe you should put a vote on him.

[Persivul]

268

That's the most substantive observation to date.

VOTE: BBmolla

[Persivul]

268

That's the most substantive observation to date.

VOTE: BBmolla

Wtf? This makes my head hurt. What's with the vote?

It's obvious - suggesting a no lynch in order to prevent mafia from using their PGO is scummy. I'm sure mafia would be quite content with just their NK if no one's being lynched.

[Persivul]

@YGS: Well what did you mean by it then?

[Persivul]

did i ever say he was a scum read?

Yes, in 275

[Persivul]

This makes my head hurt.

Tell me about it. I feel like I'm speaking a different language from the rest of you.

[Persivul]

Persivul, the eye roll was a) our vote was there before we moved it to you, so your comment is odd and b) your vote is kinda terrible. I don't really understand your explanation. Your poke at ika looks better, though.

-bella

Can you explain to me why you emphasized the bit about the no lynch? I thought you were indicating that it appeared scummy.

[Persivul]

@Newbie:

2.

Also Persivul's Post 271 is a muddle. Post 281 and Post 283 is an equally confusing follow up. Like, Persivul is reaching to attack his voter kind of muddle.

- Post 271: the "effort =/= alignment, why are you suspecting low vote count people?!" is a very blunt attack of "Misconception X should not be a basis for a vote, therefore I will attack your suspicions as if they are based upon Misconception X"

You’re attacking this analysis because it’s a blunt application of conventional wisdom.

1. I’m new to the game. What’s surprising about blunt application of conventional wisdom?

2. I’m new to this site. A lot of you seem to have played together before. That means you know each other and can make more subtle reads. I don’t have that. Again, blunt application of fundamentals should not be a surprise.

3. What’s wrong with the analysis itself? Blunt and fundamental do not equal bad. When I have a problem in my golf swing, it usually turns out to be a fundamental.

I didn’t make up the facts. Everyone he listed as suspects were the lower post counts. I asked him if that was because he disagrees with the conventional wisdom. The possibilities I see are:

- He disagrees with the conventional wisdom and thinks that yes, effort is indicative of alignment. If so, he should just acknowledge it – but if he doesn’t apply it consistently, it could be problematic for him later.

- He disagrees, but he’s scum and wanted to point fingers at people who were less likely to fight back.

- He disagrees consciously, but unconsciously applies it. This would be like my golf swing. He’s just gotten lazy on a fundamental but doesn’t realize it.

- It’s just coincidence. That’s why I also asked “Is this just coincidence?”

Instead of a substantive response, he just said, “Effort can be indicative of alignment when accompanied with scummy posts.”

Well no shit, Sherlock.

Can high effort be indicative of alignment?
Yes, if it includes scummy posts.

Can long posts be indicative of alignment?
Yes, if they’re scummy.

Can short posts be indicative of alignment?
Yes, if they’re scummy.

His response completely dodged the subject with a pointless truism (more on this next).

- Post 281: follows up on Post 271, which is bleh; also states a pointless truism (paraphrased: "scummy posts are scummy") in his attack on Newbie;

This was a sarcastic response to his pointless truism that “Effort can be indicative of alignment when accompanied with scummy posts.” Since you don’t know my style, in hindsight I see I should have added a [/sarcasm] or something after that statement to make it clear that I was being sarcastic.

also talks about Newbie doing associative tells, which I still don't know wtf. All of which = bad push against Newbie.

Elsewhere I’ve made associatives on D1 and been told that they’re generally considered useless before a flip. So, I find his associatives on D1 suspicious.

- Post 283: having been called out on the "Newbie is using associative tells" out of left field, gets defensive with a nonsense response: (quote here to emphasis defensiveness) "Point is that since you're just voting on shit I'm not real concerned about it."

Yes, I thought people would see garbage charges for what they are. Indeed, some people have, and are reading me as newb town. But, since some people want to see a response, here it is.

3.

Ugh. I don't like anything on Page 12.

- Post 284: comical misrep-by-question of ika. Looking at it now I could see how Anti would be like "ah, yes, newbtown black-and-while bluntness!," but there's more manipulation that that, as indicated by the Fox News questioning format. E.g., "Hey is it true that you beat your wife? I'm just asking questions!"

I took “scum reside in ZZZX/TGS/Newbie” to mean that he had scum lean reads on that group. Now I take it that he meant those were just what’s left after process of elimination, but he wasn’t specifically reading them as scum yet. This was just a newbie terminology mistake.

- Post 287: this is part of Persivul's string of posts about town night action strategy that I don't like; here, he's a wise master about what we should do, when earlier in the game he was all like "what is game breaking?" and "this night strategy thing seems legit". There's more nuance to it, in terms of the various messages Persivul has put forward on the night action strategy, but I'm several beers in at this point and nobody really cares.

Again, the question on “game breaking” was a question on terminology. OTOH it doesn’t require knowledge of the jargon to analyze the proposed methodologies – anyone with paper and pencil can do it – and so that part of my posts comes across as less newbish.

I’ve gone back and forth on the ethics or desirability of such strategies. Part of me says it’s not in the spirit of the game. Part says that anything within the rules is permissible, so why not? But, the only strategy I’ve seen which makes sense is that everyone should target their best town read (forget who said it). That way we are most likely to at least protect our people. The methodologies designed to actually gain information appear to have flaws which give more advantage to scum than to town.

- Post 289 / Post 292: I didn't like this vote originally because it was on BB and was dumb. I still feel that way, but I don't know if it makes Persivul scum, necessarily, and tends to favor Anti's "black and white newbtown" narrative.

From what I’ve read and heard it’s generally accepted that D1 lynches are good for town. So, I thought YGS’ bolding of molla’s suggestion of a no lynch was YGS pointing out something scummy from molla. I really don’t understand molla’s point on the no lynch and how it would be helpful, but apparently no one thinks it’s scummy. So, I’m going to take my vote off him and move it to Newbie, based on the arguments above.

VOTE: Newbie

[Persivul]

Maybe I could have been more clear with respect to the first half of what your post addresses.

Newbie never said that she was suspecting players because of their low post content. But you said that she did, and then attacked her for it. That is what is suspicious.

No, I didn't say that. See 271 and 281. If you still disagree, please quote me.

Newbie never voiced associative suspicions. (Unless if I have missed it somewhere? I don't think so.) But you said that she did, and then attacked her for it. That is what is suspicious.

You're right. I read 72 too fast. Actually in that and preceding posts Newbie was getting on someone else for making associatives if I'm reading it all correctly.

[Persivul]

271:

"your scum reads are the four players (excluding yourself) with the lowest post counts"

+

"I've heard on here that effort is not indicative of alignment." / "Is this just coincidence?"

=

Accusation that Newbie is suspecting players because of low effort.

WTF? Where in there do I say that "

Newbie

[

never

]

said

that she was suspecting players because of their low post content"?

I don't know if you're purposely misrepresenting or just sloppy with your wording, but what you quote in 471 doesn't support the charge you made in 469, at least not to anyone who's reading it carefully.

[Persivul]

In case you still don't get it:

Newbie seems to be making reads based on effort.

and

Newbie

said that

she is making reads based on effort.

Are two different charges.

I made the first one, and have since explained why I made it, and why her response to it was crappy. (BTW I thought Newbie was a

he

in that post, apologies for any confusion).

I did NOT make the second one, but that's what you charge in 469:

Newbie never

said that

she was suspecting players because of their low post content. But

you said that she did,

[Persivul]

"But you said that she did," where the "did" was referring to "suspecting players because of their low post content," not whether or not Newbie ever

said

she was suspecting players because of their low effort.

I'm not a mind reader. If this was your intent, why not just admit that the wording was sloppy, rather than getting all defensive?

You're (wrongly) arguing a pedantic point about grammar,

Look at what I bolded. My interpretation is correct.

when it's clear that I am and have been saying you made up

I didn't make it up, I observed it. Post counts are made easily available for a reason(s).

a basis for Newbie's suspicions (low effort) and then attacked that made up basis.

Yes, I attacked the observed basis, got a dodgy response, and now you're unwilling to accept those facts.

[Persivul]

As I see it, by 445, Newbie was up to 3 votes, and GC was up to 2. I had previously been at 3, but dropped to none, and hadn't posted in a while. So, in 447, 2-vote asks 3-vote, "What do you think of Persiv, Newbie?" It was a pretty obvious play to move suspicion back to someone who wasn't responding. Once I made an IMO reasonable defense, though, GC still wouldn't let it go. I'm not sure if that's just personal stubbornness or if there's more to it.

[Persivul]

LMAO. All of the sudden the other half of the tag team shows up. (Not that I'm saying GC is scum, just that you two had common personal interests in targeting me.)

[Persivul]

Are you going to answer my question about the arguments against me

Above means above. Read it.

that oh so compelled you to place a vote?

My reasons aren't terribly compelling, but it's day one. There's only so much to work with, and the vote isn't carved in stone.

And you don't see GC's actions as scummy?

Actually yes, I do. I made the parenthetical because I had been talking about the cons of pre-flip associatives and wanted it understood that I saw you guys as working together for personal reasons. I find him scummier than you now. But again, I'm not implying that you're both scum. I doubt you'd work together so openly against me if you were.

[Persivul]

Here. Didn't realize it had been that long.

[Persivul]

and Pers is now offically my first strong scum read ! grats

Thanks, but you're only five pages in. I grow on people...

[Persivul]

@ Green Funyuns - If you're going to pull out the same D1 charges, I'll pull out the same rebuttal.

468

What NKs would NOT have led you to point the finger at me again, and why?

[Persivul]

Also, can we look at the early vcs? It might be nothing, but...

350 Pers has 3 votes.

It's the first wagon to get to 3.

By the next VC, 440 the votes have disappeared onto newbie/gc.

The only other counter wagon that gets going is sthar, 566, in opposition to newbie, which doesn't mean as much.

Also, look at the first votes on pers: newbie, bbm and GC. 2/3 are conf!town.

Interesting, no?

-bella

It's interesting that you know more about who has voted for me than I do.

It seems almost as if you and funyuns had this attack all planned out.

[Persivul]

Yeah, I still think your responses are bunk. As I made clear in Post 469, Post 471, Post 474, Post 477, and Post 492.

The NK analysis is all Anti.

Anti posted an opinion, not an analysis. I get that he's highly regarded here and you're likely to just follow him, but don't pretend it's on the basis of posted analysis.

[Persivul]

...pers, meta me.

Why - don't you mix it up just so that people can't reliably read you?

I love this VCA nonsense. This is pure!town-bella, sorry.

VCA?

Also, did you not read the game overnight?

Yes, but not too closely, as I didn't see the purpose in formulating a plan before the night flip. Also, I get the feeling that Anti can likely push what he wants through for another day, and a newbie isn't going to have much say.

[Persivul]

I don't even know what you're saying.

I'm voting you based off of D1 case.

Yeah, because D1 cases are so highly reliable.

[Persivul]

Also, I get the feeling that Anti can likely push what he wants through for another day, and a newbie isn't going to have much say.

What do you mean by this?

It seems pretty clear to me. What part of it don't you understand?

[Persivul]

So I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

That is totally apparent.

You need to consider context of a remark. In this case, I was replying to a question: "Also, did you not read the game overnight?"

And I replied: "Yes, but not too closely, as I didn't see the purpose in formulating a plan before the night flip. Also, I get the feeling that Anti can likely push what he wants through for another day, and a newbie isn't going to have much say."

When you read it in context, it's obvious point is that I didn't study the thread and formulate reads for two reasons: my reads might change based on the flip, and my input probably isn't going to matter for much anyway.

It has nothing to do with Anti pushing me on D1, and nothing to do with Newbie (capital N). The newbie I referred to was myself.

Slow down when you read my posts.

[Persivul]

@ anti, ika: why did you let D1 devolve into a quick lynch:
- without giving Newbie opportunity for claim or other defense, and
- when night visiting strategy was still being discussed but hadn't been settled. Particularly anti - you seemed to think the strategy was pretty important at one point.

[Persivul]

@grand cayman (or anyone else who wants to answer): Who are/were the best players in this game in your opinion? What skills make them good?

[Persivul]

Just trying to learn about the players, and generate some discussion so I have more to analyze.

P-edit: I meant best overall players considering all their games, not just this one.

Interesting that people are watching the thread but not participating.

[Persivul]

Telling me to mix up my meta in the same post you declare you are gonna let anti do the heavy lifting for you kinda sucks, just so you know. Unless you know anti's alignment 100%, that is...

-bella

I didn't tell you to mix up your meta. You told me to check your meta. I noted that you could certainly have manipulated your meta, so there's no point in me checking it.

But I suppose my question on best players is an attempt to get summaries of metas from the rest of you, as I'm not able to read enough games myself.

[Persivul]

Dammit Persivul what is the meaning of this question?!?!? AAAAARRRRGGHHHHH!

Also I've been in two other games during this one. One has ended, one's in night phase. So...wassup bitches?

[Persivul]

<jeopardy theme>

[Persivul]

Obvious bit is obvious, and spamming beats lurking, as you guys are apparently doing.

[Persivul]

@GC: Currently I lean scum on YGS. I find anti questionable. You I have leaning town. I know that's not much, but I don't have much to go on. There's an awful lot of one-line posts in this thread. It's tough for me to get reads. That's why I'd like to see more talk from everyone.

[Persivul]

GC, what's the significance of your signature?

[Persivul]

Persivul, can you state your case for us being scum please?

A nice concise summary of your thoughts would be much appreciated.

~BBT

OK

- Throwing too many votes around after the first couple of pages

- As someone else noted, you're way too defensive when someone puts you in their scum group, even if you don't have votes. You're too concerned with personal survival. I understand defending when the votes mount, and I do it myself, but you seem too concerned with preempting a possible wagon on yourself.

[Persivul]

What is scummy about throwing votes around?

It sows confusion instead of cohesion in the collective scum hunt.

Why is being defensive scummy? Why would we not want to survive as town?

Undue defensiveness takes the focus off the scum hunt.

Why is it scummy to try and understand why someone is scum reading you?

~BBT

A townie who doesn't feel an imminent threat doesn't worry about a few pokes at them. They figure that if they keep scum hunting people will see it and the pokes will pass.

[Persivul]

BBT, can you explain the bit between you and anti regarding ika and white flag?

[Persivul]

So everyone agrees Persv v. YGS for today, right?

No, I don't agree, and I daresay YGS doesn't agree.

Pile onto your racehorse, folks!

Let's not drag today out.

The site has reasons for 14-day phases. We've barely heard from a couple of players.

Why are you in such a rush?

[Persivul]

GC, what's the significance of your signature?

Did you have a

full and fair trial

?

WELL GOOD.

STOP COMPLAINING.

NO YOU CAN'T GET HABEAS RELIEF JUST BECAUSE YOU'RE "ACTUALLY" INNOCENT.

THE SYSTEM WORKS.

I think it's rather appropriate for the game of mafia.

So everyone agrees Persv v. YGS for today, right?

Pile onto your racehorse, folks!

Let's not drag today out.

The irony is delicious.

Why would you violate your own principles by pushing for fast judgment?

[Persivul]

Looks like I have to. I'm the cop. N1 I investigated you (GC) and you came back town. That's why I said I now have you at lean town and tried to get you to just slow down, without implying that you're scum.

[Persivul]

GG everybody! Hopefully playing scum is like sex - clumsy the first coupla times, but better as you go.

VOTE: Persivul

[Persivul]

GG everybody! Hopefully playing scum is like sex - clumsy the first coupla times, but better as you go.

VOTE: Persivul

You made it a day. You dun good! Great playing with you

Thanks

[Persivul]

Yes, it's completely different from playing town.