Mini 1337 - Elite Mafia (Game Over)

[Seacore]

I will be aggressive and hostile to anybody who proves they haven't read this minimal amount of game so far.

I asked Milk a question, milk answerd, i voted milk. I did nothing in between this, I think it would be obvious that this is why i voted milk.

I also post frequently from my phone/tablet and therefore do so with minimum text.

But in the future I shall endeavour to be painfully clear. So as to excuse people who choose not to read the game.

[Arugula]

I did read the thread. I can't read your mind, so excuse me if I didn't know why you voted Milk. You could have pointed out what you didn't like about his answer or something besides an empty vote.

Stop assuming that I haven't read the game. I have.

[snifit]

Votecount 1.3

roflcopter (0) -
Arugula (0) -
TeChNoWC (L-6) - Arugula
Thomith (L-5) - borkjerfkin, Milk
Milk (L-3) - MormonCoffee, Phenenas, Seacore, roflcopter
Seacore (0) -
UnofficialRulerOfEveryone (L-6) - DTMaster
DTMaster (0) -
Humble Poirot (L-6) - UnofficialRulerOfEveryone
SensFan (0) -
borkjerfkin (L-6) - Thomith
Phenenas (L-6) - TeChNoWC
MormonCoffee (0) -

Not Voting: Humble Poirot, SensFan

With 13 alive, it takes 7 votes to lynch.

[UnofficialRulerOfEveryone]

I asked Milk a question, milk answerd, i voted milk. I did nothing in between this, I think it would be obvious that this is why i voted milk.

I also post frequently from my phone/tablet and therefore do so with minimum text.

But in the future I shall endeavour to be painfully clear. So as to excuse people who choose not to read the game.

Simply saying "I vote ______, per Post #??" works fine. I post from my phone frequently, as well.

Now that we've had enough of semantics, one of Milk/Poirot is scum. It's hard to get responses from people who are not as active as the five or so of us consistently posting, though, so I will continue to wait on them.

[UnofficialRulerOfEveryone]

Votecount 1.3

UnofficialRulerOfEveryone (L-5) - DTMaster, UnofficialRulerOfEveryone
Humble Poirot (0) -

With 13 alive, it takes 7 votes to lynch.

Unvote ; Vote: Humble Poirot

*cough*

[snifit]

Corrected. Please place your votes on a new line to make it less likely I'll miss one.

[Milk]

@milk, if its a totally random vote why did you point out an in-game reason for it in the first place?

RVS usually means the reason you voted someone is random, or doesn't correlate with who you think is scum.
Me not liking RQS has nothing to do with someone elses alignment, thus it's rvs.
It doesn't really matter if it's in game or not, so long as the reason isn't serious.
https://wiki.mafiascum.net/index.php?title=RVS <wiki entry

I'm not being cautious in not voting for bork, lol. I'm just wanting to hear more from everyone else. I'm still a bit perplexed as to why Milk was opposed to a simple RQS, then tried to get off from voting for Thomith, saying that it was RVS. IMO, if you don't approve of random questions, why be okay with random voting?

They're quite different. As you can see now there has been more discussion about my vote than the questions asked. It allows people the chance to break the game into serious mode (such as seacore's vote), and keeps the discussion relevant to the current game.

they are being cautious maybe? i don't know if that is a scum/town tell though, as both can be cautious.

caution about what? there isn't anything to be cautious about as town.

[MormonCoffee]

@Milk, you said that asking for RQS affects how you view someone's play. I asked you how and I don't think you've answered me yet. I'm guessing you see it as some sort of scumtell, or else you wouldn't have given it a vote otherwise.

True, your vote has generated more discussion than the RQS itself, but all I see you doing is defending yourself by justifying your vote. If there's a reasoning behind your vote (i.e., how asking for RQS affects how you view someone's play), then it wasn't random.

Lastly, there are plenty of things to be cautious about as town. Not only are we supposed to be scumhunting, we are supposed to be determining who is town as well, and avoiding to vote for them. I'm not keen on the notion of throwing suspicion around blindly and ending up lynching a power role, thanks. IMO, the opposite of caution or uncertainty is confidence, and no one can be 100% confident on whether or not someone is scum or town this early in D1, unless you are mafia.

I'm not sure if I need to do this, but whatever:

Confirming VOTE: Milk

[Milk]

ugh. No i don't view it as a scum tell (in fact i said it the same sentence). I view it as dumb. I don't believe thomith is scum, and I honestly don't have any strong reads at the moment. and the reason I am defending myself is because it's currently what we are discussing. You all seem really confused on a simple post, and all apparently believe I think I am going after thomith. I want to clarify.

You also have "reasonable doubt" and "caution" confused. Scum are cautious cause they don't want the attention cause then they'll slip up, town are doubtful cause they are unsure if they are correct or not. Cautious is self aware, which is a characteristic of scum.

[MormonCoffee]

@Milk How does asking for RQS affect how you view someone's play?

[Milk]

I view it as dumb.

[MormonCoffee]

...Okay. You view RQS as stupid itself, I kinda got that already. But how does it change your view of someone's play specifically? Do you think Thomith's play will be somehow different than the rest of ours just because he was the one to initiate RQS?

[Milk]

I can tell what kind of player he is for asking (along with following your reasoning on bork), and that effects what kind of trends I think he would follow as scum and what trends he will follow as town. I do this with everyone's posts (such as I can tell what type of player you are by your need for clarification of wording), and I group them and treat them differently. Ultimately his play is no different from yours as mine is from yours, but I keep these sort of things in mind. I also was more talking about "the play" with that last quote.

what is it about this question that is helpful to figuring out my alignment though?

[TeChNoWC]

what do you think of the fact that coffee didn't follow up his own argument with a vote?

That he is a conservative player.

unvote, vote: milk

if he's scum, arugula is too. seacore is town.
discuss.

@mormon, is there anyone you think has done anything scummy? you seem like you're trying to avoid concrete suspicions, opting rather to go rng or, when forced to choose, picking lurkers (lack of content) instead of analyzing anyone's actual content.

On what do you basis do you make this assumption? And how could you possibly of three pages of posts? Do you assume that anyone that defends anyone is buddying and therefore scum buddies?

[Humble Poirot]

Ok. Up to date: I separated questions/answers with each player with area tags so as to be clear. General notes so far at the bottom:

@Pheneas:

@DAMaster I didn't even see the game when it started, as I was busy with exams and all. I really have nothing else to say; your reason for saying you would kill me wasn't personal.

What does seeing when the game started have anything to do with DTMaster asking you about the lack of reaction/acknowledgement of his kill choice?

@URoE:

I went from thinking you were a just-joking-around kind of player (harmful) to what seems like genuine scumhunting yet full of confirmation bias. Some questions from my notes:

urOe voting me is a bit reassuring. At least he stated a reason and moved on, apparently. Still, 2 questions:
1) Did you accomplish what you hoped for by voting yourself?
2) What do you expect from voting me? Do you expect more than from your self-vote?
3) How much would you say it harms a possible "pressure" on me when you announce "I doubt my vote will stay here for very long"

In other news, Humble Poirot doesn't even want to comment on who he would shoot if he had a hypothetical one-shot day-vig. Looks to me like someone is trying to avoid pointing any fingers early on to avoid suspicion.

Well, if you read my post again. You'll see that the rationale of whom to shoot is there. I just didn't know who fit the description considering the game had barely started and I had read just a couple of posts.

And if I wanted to "avoid suspicion", it would seem much simpler to give a non-committal "I'd shoot at random" or somesuch. Or joke around (eg: roflcopter, because he <insert joke here>)

Now that we've had enough of semantics, one of Milk/Poirot is scum.

You realize that I hadn't even posted a second time (and the first one was a moment where I had to leave fast) and you're already reinforcing your initial lame vote? This is called confirmation bias. It would be wonderful if we could avoid this. I'm aware you said you'll wait for inactive people but with every post, I see an alarming reinforcement of some point that hadn't even been replied to. I've fallen to confirmation bias myself. Not a good thing.

Furthermore, when you say one of X and Y is scum. Are you implying a connection or just that you think both are scummy and by rule of probability you should be right about at least one of them?

It's hard to get responses from people who are not as active as the five or so of us consistently posting, though, so I will continue to wait on them.

What's your read on SensFan and TechnoWC?

@Thomith

i like coffee's meta reasoning, so i am showing that i support it.

why? Could you explain it in your own words? (what's the argument and its merits).

i think coffee's meta arguement is good, so i voted as i find bork scummy because of it, aren't you meant to vote people you find scummy? (hint: answer is yes)

This seems to be a complete deflection from the question as to why bork is scummy or why the argument against him is "likable".

@MormonCoffee

by the time of post #42, a couple of players hadn't acted much more than TechnoWC and me. How did you fare Seacore, SensFan and Arugula's activity at that point?

@seacore

I asked Milk a question, milk answerd, i voted milk. I did nothing in between this, I think it would be obvious that this is why i voted milk.

Next time. Imagine we're all five year olds and adequately EXPLAIN your votes. Nothing is "just obvious" in mafia. We want to have the reasons on record.

But in the future I shall endeavour to be painfully clear. So as to excuse people who choose not to read the game.

Again, this is not just about reading comprehension. It's about stating things for the record and preventing people from reinterpreting an ambiguous vote.

@TechnoWC:

Twice, you've given me a feeling of ignoring what's going on in the game and just making a mild participation.

Do you have opinions on any of the dual or triple discussions that have been going on?

Notes:

Both milk and seacore seem to have a confrontational attitude. That doesn't mean their scum, it means we need to learn to work around it to get the truth out.

I, as opposed to what URoE and Thomith think, won't just vote around. By withholding votes and voting when I'm quite sure and have a decent analysis I give my votes strength and am able to pressure more effectively. Call it "prenventing vote inflation", if you like.

From what I have so far I'd kill SensFan (inactivity), TechnoWC (inactivity) or Tomith (scummy).

[TeChNoWC]

I admit this is my most inactive game. But its unlike me to be inactive, usually - I just have seven ongoing games and a shitload of assignment work, and the discussion so far has been pretty low key. I've only done two rather quick readthroughs but will try and pick up tomorrow, and get back to your question.

[Thomith]

coffee why didnt you vote bork in your explanation, too cautious? too scared you could slip scum from it? why have you ignored the discussion on it?

Milk if you don't view me as scum why is your vote still on me?

i like the meta arguement because it would make sense for scum to be cautious of people who know their meta, as they are more likely to catch them.

[Phenenas]

@Humble DT chose to kill me only because I was one of two last to confirm. I didn't see the game when it started, so I did not confirm. So, since the reason for wanting to kill me was just because of something that wasn't personal and was beyond my control, I chose not to be angry about it.

[snifit]

SensFan has been prodded.
borkjerfkin has requested replacement.
DTMaster has been prodded.

[snifit]

absta101 replaces borkjerfkin. Thanks!

[absta101]

Hello everyone!
I'll catch up tomorrow.

[DTMaster]

@MOD: Apologies, forgot to mention that I was away for the long weekend here

Status: Too tired from family stuff, and will post tomorrow during my down time.

[Seacore]

People are taking issue with my slight ambiguity. Ambiguity is sometimes alright. I will clarify, but its good to try and gauge the reaction of the person I'm accusing with slightly ambiguous votes and accusations.

So in the future, people should not jump in the way of attacks that aren't aimed at them.

As it is, I'm not terribly unhappy with Milk's reactions, but I don't have anywhere better to move my vote.

[MormonCoffee]

@Humble Poirot To be honest I completely overlooked SensFan, since he hasn't even posted. My bad there. As for Arugula, he was one of the first to post and answer the RQS, and so I assumed that he would be a relatively active player if he had posted so quickly in the beginning. What stuck out mostly about you and Techno, however, is that you both seemed to avoid the "one-shot vig kill" question from DTM. Techno moreso, seeing as how he had only placed a vote and nothing else. Seacore had made a couple of posts already, so I didn't see him as coming across as inactive.

Does that answer your question?

@Thomith I've already stated why I didn't vote for bork, despite my own meta reasoning:

I'm not being cautious in not voting for bork, lol. I'm just wanting to hear more from everyone else. I'm still a bit perplexed as to why Milk was opposed to a simple RQS, then tried to get off from voting for Thomith, saying that it was RVS.

And as it stands, I am still more suspicious of Milk than bork (or I guess now it would be absta101), which is why my vote has yet to move. You seemed pretty content on using my meta reasoning for your own read, yet you're using my own ammo against me? Your last post addressing me seemed to be suddenly aggressive, and I'd like to know why.

[absta101]

I don't see why you'd place your first vote on someone who would be the most familiar with your townie playstyle, is all. From my experience, first time scum are likely to vote for someone who may notice any changes in their meta.

Trying to find reason behind a random vote is just silly. If Bork was scum he would've added more reason to his vote so that maybe he would have gained support. Otherwise, what is the point in voting someone who may notice a change in his meta?

milk it wasn't RVS, you had a reason outside the not that much game related RVS votes so it wasn't a random vote, i find this weird but not enough for a vote.
UNVOTE:
VOTE: bork
i like coffee's meta reasoning, so i am showing that i support it.

I can't believe you are actually supporting that. What could Bork (as scum) gain from voting someone in RVS?