NY 120: Flash mafia 2. GAME OVER

[Espeonage]

You misinterpret my post.

In rvs we need to give those stupid reasons that some people neglect because it helps get initial reads. My votes here aren't random. Both my vote targets were chosen because they were what I deemed to be the most likely to result in useful reactions that I may use later when making cases.

[Luchris]

Vote: Tripod

[Fishythefish]

OK.

unvote, vote: UT

So I was reading back through the RVS stuff, thinking maybe Parama was a weak end-of-RVS suspect. Then I read this

VOTE: Vollkan

Because?

You tell me.

Wat. I cannot, for the life of me, figure out what the purpose to that was.

vote Espeonage

then vote for Parama when voll votes you? I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH HERRE

This really doesn't read to me like he thinks Espeonage is scum. Confusing play is simply not a scumtell in the RVS, and to treat it as such isn't something I'd expect from town.

[Fishythefish]

EBWOP: my "OK." was to Espeonage.

[RichardGHP]

Unvote
Vote: Espeonage

This speaks for itself.

[Budja]

Espeonage is doing the same thing as Parama, over-explaining himself.

unvote, vote Tripod

, sheeping Fishy here, reasoning looks fake.

[Oman]

Totally forgot about this game. Will try to read and post on my phone in work standby.

[Oman]

Espeonage is doing the same thing as Parama, over-explaining himself.

This was my big first tell on him too, as was the rest of that first post he made about rvs

Unvote
Vote: Espeonage

This speaks for itself.

it certainly does, and I'm very much in agreement with this wagon. He's jumped out at me from the start quite branzenly. I'll quote and post to further explain when back on my PC.

[RichardGHP]

TOWN:

vollkan
Budja
Porochaz
Parama
Untrod Tripod

NEUTRAL:

Fishythefish
JDodge
Luchris
mikeburnfire

SCUM:

Espeonage
Ojanen
Oman

[mykonian]

votecount

Porochaz (3): Parama, Ojanen, mikeburnfire
Parama (3): JDodge, Vollkan, Espeonage
Untrod Tripod (3): Luchris, Fishythefish, Budja
Espeonage (2): Untrod Tripod, RichardGHP
mikeburnfire(1): Porochaz


Not voting (1): Oman

[vollkan]

Acceptable but still null.
UNVOTE: vollkan
VOTE: Parama

The above makes no sense. What about my vote for you was "acceptable"?

And I wouldn't expect you to. It is for my benefit not yours ... yet. That is assuming you are town.

I have a suspects just from the reactions on this page. Two in fact. But they will be revealed later when cases can be made.

The above makes even less sense.

1) You have two suspects, X and Y, already.
2) But you aren't going to reveal your reasons for suspecting X and Y until later on when cases are made.

However:
a) If your subsequent cases are based on your existing reasons for suspecting X and Y, why not just make the cases now?
b) And if your subsequent cases are going to be based on factors other than your existing reasons, from the use of which illicit substance did you develop the psychic powers to know in advance that you are going to be making cases on X and Y?

[vollkan]

TOWN:

vollkan
Budja
Porochaz
Parama
Untrod Tripod

NEUTRAL:

Fishythefish
JDodge
Luchris
mikeburnfire

SCUM:

Espeonage
Ojanen
Oman

What about my play makes you think he is more likely town than scum?
What about budja's play makes you think he is more likely town than scum?
What about Prozac's play makes you think he is more likely town than scum?
What about Parama's play makes you think he is more likely town than scum?
What about UT's play makes you think he is more likely town than scum?

What about Espy's play makes you think he is more likely scum than town?
What about Ojanen's play makes you think he is more likely scum than town?
What about Oman's play makes you think he is more likely scum than town?

-----
If you can't answer any of the above: then how did you determine that they deserve the classification that you give them in the above list?

[Parama]

I'd agree with your reads more if you put Poro in the scum section, Rich.

P-Edit: WHOA vollkan. Obviously making a wall-o-text case for every one of your town and scum reads is the way to go in mafia. (hint: succintness is pro-town)

[Espeonage]

Was going to make a post but preview shows some questions.

I have two suspects. Neither of which I have voted for yet.

Because my cases at this point lack the weight needed to convince the town at the moment. It would just create confusion and make the cases harder to make in the long run. I will be making cases on my suspects because they are scum. I'm sure everyone would agree that is what you do when you think you have found scum.

Oh and it was acceptable because it was a good reaction. The tone was good you didn't show the signs I would expect to find from a scums omgus ish vote and thus you have stayed null. In short you had an acceptable reaction by my standards.

[Espeonage]

vollkan. - points for the inquiry.

[vollkan]

I'd agree with your reads more if you put Poro in the scum section, Rich.

P-Edit: WHOA vollkan. Obviously making a wall-o-text case for every one of your town and scum reads is the way to go in mafia. (hint: succintness is pro-town)

There is a gulf of difference between being succinct and posting a list which cannot possibly tell any observer anything about why he categorises people the way he says he does.

(And don't tell me those lists are useful for ensuring he is consistent, because the lack of any reasoning means that he is always at liberty to change his position; whereas if he posts reasons there is actually infinitely firmer ground to anchor him to)

vollkan. - points for the inquiry.

By "- points" you mean?

[Oman]

vollkan. - points for the inquiry.

You seem to give a lot of people points for questioning you and calling you out on things. Protip: This means you are not playing well.

[Espeonage]

vollkan. He was giving a summary of his stances. Don't expect a full on explaination. I would even go so far as to say that if he gave reasons I would consider it scummy.

- points as in you are leaner closer to the scum side of the radar for asking.

PE: I have no qualms with his questions of me. I do have issue with the richard questions though.

[Espeonage]

ebwop. Contrary to what you believe I think I am playing well. I have two scum. I just need the third and I will have them all. Then it is just a case of convicing the rest of you that I am actually smarter than I appear.

[vollkan]

Because my cases at this point lack the weight needed to convince the town at the moment. It would just create confusion and make the cases harder to make in the long run. I will be making cases on my suspects because they are scum. I'm sure everyone would agree that is what you do when you think you have found scum.

1) I don't see why the fact that your cases would currently not "convince" the town (meaning what? That they wouldn't cause an instalynch?) justifies not posting them. If your arguments are valid, they will be seen as valid and held against your suspects.

2) You can't possibly expect to be making cases against your suspects based on things other than the two cases as they currnetly stand

because those things haven't happened yet

.

3) Assume you get a few more arguments against each person, why are the arguments you currently have going to be any less likely to "confuse" in that scenario?

vollkan. He was giving a summary of his stances. Don't expect a full on explaination. I would even go so far as to say that if he gave reasons I would consider it scummy.

Bingo - "his stances". If he doesn't have reasons for them (the "g-" word), I want to know.

- points as in you are leaner closer to the scum side of the radar for asking.

Because?

ebwop. Contrary to what you believe I think I am playing well. I have two scum. I just need the third and I will have them all. Then it is just a case of convicing the rest of you that I am actually smarter than I appear.

[Espeonage]

1) Every case you make on anyone is an attempt to get the town to believe you. That was all I was refering to there.
2) Scummy people will do scummy things. Weak cases aren't good. I will wait until they do something conventionally scummy and then act. I already have my bases cases.
3) Weak cases cause stronger opinions. town would get caught up in the little things and get confused whereas scum can then see what they did wrong, rectify it and then we get nowhere.

4) That doesn't mean you can fish for information. It is a scummy tactic. There is a difference between interrogation and information fishing.
5) See 4.

why did you quote the last bit.

[vollkan]

1) Every case you make on anyone is an attempt to get the town to believe you. That was all I was refering to there.

Yes, but if you don't think your arguments would convince people (again, to what degree?), that isn't a reason not to post them

2) Scummy people will do scummy things. Weak cases aren't good. I will wait until they do something conventionally scummy and then act. I already have my bases cases.

Depends on what you mean by "weaK".

Cases based on faulty reasoning are not good

Partial cases based on good reasoning (ie. the sort of one-off attacks that people always want to make in this game) are completely fine.

The whole of a case is not greater than the sum of its parts; it only creates a greater impression (and you know how much I like 'impressions' )

4) That doesn't mean you can fish for information. It is a scummy tactic. There is a difference between interrogation and information fishing.

Define "information fishing".

What I was/am doing is ensuring that people can't get away with calling somebody scum or town without explaining why. Why is that bad?

[Espeonage]

That is definantly a reason not to post them. Especially when the power of the case is that the scum don't yet know what they are dealing with. There is more than one way to catch scum.

Cases that have one very strong point that has a convoluded path is weak by this site's meta. Consider it a partial case with a confusing base that will explaination and backing up.

information fishing is like role fishing but for information. Scum really likes to know exactly what the town is thinking.

Because he isn't acting on the unexplained parts yet. Until he does that he doesn't need to provide reasoning and it would be pro scum to do so even if it isn't scummy.

[Porochaz]

Firstly useless lists are useless. Better trying to get something vaguely useful from them. Useless lists are just a cover for posting fluff.

1, wrong. Noone expects a full blown case on page 4, but a justification of your votes helps us know that your not just splaffing and not being a dick with your vote. It shows that you actually, you know, have a reason for your vote.

2, If someone does something page 30, and you had a "base suspicion" on page 4. Im not going to give a rats ass. I do now though. The fact that you refuse to say anything even under pressure looks scummy.

3, is bullshit. Sometimes the small things count, and the small things can lead to bigger things. Granted Im arguing the opposite side of this argument with Parama but at least it creates discussion.

4, you know how to play this game, don't you? What disadvantage do town have knowing this information?

[Espeonage]

Prozac, I expect better from you.