Newbie 774 - Spegezzironi: Game Over! TOWN WINS!

[muzzz]

Hey everyone. I'm replacing treeshavenotongues. So far I've only done a quick read of your previous exploits, but I want to get something off my chest.

@Lamont_Cranston: most of your posts seem very vague to me. I get the impression that you're purposefully trying to avoid giving details about your motives. Townies rarely have a good reason for that. Especially in games with inexperienced players. The confusion it causes in fellow townies usually outweighs whatever you yourself gain from it. If you keep this up I'll seriously consider lynching you for it.

---

@cpe: policy lynching is when you make it a policy to lynch everyone that exhibits a certain behavior. The most famous policy is probably "Lynch All Liars".

[muzzz]

I've been going over Lamont's posts, and I'm seeing a lot wrong with them. What really set me of was the following exchange. I took the liberty of putting it in a more traditional form.

Do you find ckool5000 scummy for using random.org as a basis for a vote? You also said scum don't need to use random voting and should use a bandwagon vote instead. However you yourself joined a bandwagon. By your own reasoning, wouldn't ckool5000 be town for using random voting and

you

be scum for joining a bandwagon?

I consider my vote pro-village

Why do you consider that? You haven't explain your vote at all and you didn't answer Johoohno's question either.You have stated again that your vote is “pro-village” care to actually explain

why

?

My job is to find scum.

He basically answered with "I'm a townie", twice in a row. That's evading questions for sure, and possibly also an emotional appeal. Both are on my list of things that townies generally don't have good reasons for. Some of his other answers also seemed vague enough to be called evasive. I also don't like how he responds to votes by pointing at other people to lynch.

@cpe: SensFan is right. Your logic is flawed. You can show that Lamont was following SensFan. But you can't show that them being scum partners was the reason for that.

[muzzz]

Almost forgot:

Unvote

Part of me wants to vote Lamont. But that'd put him at L-1, and I'm not sure I want to do that just yet.

[muzzz]

You got one thing wrong. Everybody does, now and then. Don't let it get to you.

All we know is that Lamont changed his vote after being accused of following someone. The simplest explanation is that he didn't want to be considered following anybody. There's a sort of theory, called Occam's Razor, that says that the simplest explanation is often the most likely. In other words, we have no reason to assume that it mattered at all

who

Lamont had been following.

[muzzz]

@Lamont: he wasn't even close to getting lynched, as far as I could tell. Did you mean the bandwagon, instead of the lynch? Why did you think it was too easy? And what do you think of my accusations against you? Are you considering giving more explanations in the future?

[muzzz]

Right I meant the BW. I haven't seen any strong arguments requiring my defense.

I thought my arguments about you evading questions were strong enough.

This is a total fabrication. I have backed up every vote I've made and it has had nothing to do with following anyone. I place my vote where I feel it will do the most good for the village

It's not fabrication. Absolutely no-one here is understanding the reasons behind your vote. Maybe you feel that you've backed them up, but not to my satisfaction.

]No it was the 24 hours of total silence immediately followed by his vote which was made with total disregard for the village in both your lynching and his own.

What makes you think his vote was made with "disregard for the village"? Do you have any proof?

Your vote is the only one I consider serious.

I'll give you another one then.

Vote: Lamont

[muzzz]

Muzz I shouldn't have to explain to you why CPE got me vote, it should be obvious to anyone who is paying attention.

Excellent righteous indignation. We'll see how righteious you are when I flip village.

Try analyzing the game for yourself instead of asking me to do it for you.

You should explain all of your votes. In fact, you should explain most of your actions. Not to analyze the game for me, but so that I can make an informed decision about you and your opinions. Explaining stuff is part of what townies do. It's

your

responsibility to convince others that you and your opinions are genuine.

If you think someone needs a vote, you need to provide facts to back that up. But more importantly, you need to explain

why

those facts lead you to a vote. And that's the part that you've been lacking in mostly. I'm out of time right now, but I'll go through some specific examples for you later.

I'll appeal to the truth thank you because you will have to deal with it when I flip villager.

Appealing is useless on it's own. We have no reason to believe any of your villager claims at the moment.

[muzzz]

I looked at the reasons you provided, and picked out the ones that I found most unsatisfactory.

Unvote, vote ckool

The dynamics have changed

Which dynamics? How have they changed? How does that change lead to your Ckool vote?

Based on the change of current events I am changing my vote to Johoolno to further investigate this voting dynamic.

What current events? What change? What voting dynamic? Why do they lead yo your vote? How do you think your vote will help investigate?

Before CPE arrived, I became convinced that the two BW choices were both Village. I refuse to participate in the village lynching itself.

The johoolno lynch was to easy. That give me a bad feeeling.

How does an easy bandwagon imply that the target is townie?

No it was the 24 hours of total silence immediately followed by his vote which was made with total disregard for the village in both your lynching and his own.

Why is the 24 hours of silence significant? What makes you think his vote was made with total disregard for the village?

---

Its still the truth however and I'm doing my job as village tio state as such emphatically

You

claim

it's the truth. Maybe it is, but the rest of us don't know that. For all we know you could be (and IMO probably are) one of the two lying scumbags.

I explained every vote and my actions in general. You have chosen note to follow along with my explanations. If the village lynches me it will be their responsibility to figure out why.

You feel you've explained them. I disagree. So do several other people. That means your explanations are insufficient.

You keep whining about how we're going to lynch a townie. But the simple fact is that you've shown the least townie-like behavior of all players in this game. Your fault, not ours.

[muzzz]

I am hunting scum my votes (in round 1) provide

pressure

towards that end. It doesn't make sense to come out and say so

while

I'm doing it.

Fair enough. But it does make sense to come out and explain now. So: who did you intend to pressure with your vote? What made you think your vote would pressure them? How did you expect them to react? What have their reactions told you?

The general rule is that silence = village on the BW.

I've never heard of this "general rule". How does "silence = village" work, exactly? Can you show a reference that shows it is indeed a "general" rule.

And towards that end, the village will be better served with 2 BW choices rather than one. No matter what you believe concerning me I CANNOT be BOTH Mafi so voting for a second choice will be very helpful.

How will a second bandwagon help anyone but yourself?

[muzzz]

But two bandwagons means you're seeing two people under pressure and so getting lots of desperate responses from two people, not one. Basically more information should come.

Pressure isn't an infinite resource. You only have so much of it, and it tends to spread wherever it can. Both in physics and mafia. Two bandwagons means you'll see two people under less pressure than the target of a single bandwagon. It might lead to more information, I guess. But I seriously doubt it'll lead to more

accurate

information.

It helps the village which also helps me because I am a villager whether I am lynched or not. The village is helped because if you have two good candidates for Mafi it will give excellent evidence based on the behavior of each player. The chances go up that you ACTUALLY have a Mafi in your sights -- so you focus on TWO people to lynch instead of one and this way its much harder for the Mafi to hide and you get the maximum evidential benefit even if you DO sadly lynch a villager.

How is it harder to hide for the mafia if we focus on two people? What evidence would we gain that we wouldn't gain from a single bandwagon?

As for chances, it's not just having at least one mafia in your sight that becomes more likely. It also becomes more likely that you'll have at least one townie sight. Don't you think that a double bandwagon will make it easier for mafia to manipulate townies into lynching the wrong person?

I think I've had enough of talking with Sens for the moment. I do find him to be quite anti-village and am beginning to suspect that in this case it means more than just his "regular" behavior[...]

I'll share something I learned in my previous game: if you're truly suspicious of Sens, you should still be trying to convince us that you're right. Not wanting to argue with Sens himself is one thing. But if you drop the case completely we can only assume your suspicions were unfounded.

[...] but its only my opinion and I'm waiting for input from others.

Saying you want input from others on your suspicions is generally a bad idea. At best, it makes you look uncertain, making it hard for you to push your case. But people might also wonder if you have no suspicions of your own (e.g., because you're scum) and want tag along with others.

It's even worse when it comes from someone who's suggesting we start a second bandwagon while he's at L-1. You come off as someone who's opportunisticly looking for the most likely bandwagon in hopes of saving himself.

[muzzz]

I've seen it used multiple times and it is quite powerful if set up correctly and its definitely better than only focusing on one lynch as far as gathering mafi intel/

This contains no content that can be factually checked.

Sorry but a dual BW is way better for the village because the more info the village has the easier it is to nab mafi.

This tell me absolutely

nothing

about

HOW

a dual bandwagon is better than a single one. You don't even seem to be trying here, actually.

Watching which player goes where and combining that with the lynch info & night kill info PLUS the info gathered from each of the lynchees, it just gives way more info to the village for identifying mafi.

This is an attempt, at least. But no, it doesn't

just

give us more info.

What you've completely failed to explain in the posts above is how it's

better

than a single lynch. In fact, you've completely foregone comparing the two. Not good.

I think I've had enough of talking with Sens for the moment. I do find him to be quite anti-village and am beginning to suspect that in this case it means more than just his "regular" behavior[...]

I'll share something I learned in my previous game: if you're truly suspicious of Sens, you should still be trying to convince us that you're right. Not wanting to argue with Sens himself is one thing. But if you drop the case completely we can only assume your suspicions were unfounded.

I have and am waiting for now.

[...] but its only my opinion and I'm waiting for input from others.

Saying you want input from others on your suspicions is generally a bad idea. At best, it makes you look uncertain, making it hard for you to push your case. But people might also wonder if you have no suspicions of your own (e.g., because you're scum) and want tag along with others.

I'm waiting for opinions from others sorry.

Oh but I forgot you don't care about lynching villagers its just the way to do things for you.

Confirm Vote: Sensfan

The space between the two posts above is 2 minutes and 0 input/opinions from others. Yet they completely contradict each other. So tell me, which is the one that's completely insincere?

[muzzz]

Which part of his second post sounds like waiting to you?

[muzzz]

I tried googling DADV and got nothing. So I still don't see how a dual bandwagon is better. Since you can't explain it, I can't unvote you.

You have absolutely no case against Sens. Nothing. The only thing uou've even accused him of is aggressiveness, yet you can't explain why that's scummy. You're just pissed at him because he's less patient with your attitude than others. And I have to say that your inability to take advice is starting to grate on me as well.

[muzzz]

Bah! Go hang scum!

[muzzz]

Nice job, guys!

It's a good thing the scum killed me. I'm not sure if I would've believed Santos during day 2

[muzzz]

I didn't put much stock in the breadcrumb argument. Reasoning that everyone makes mistakes, even cops. Perhaps especially cops.

What really made me doubt Santos was his "Why isn't Sens dead yet" argument. While I read Sens as a pretty decent player, I really didn't get the idea that everyone agreed with me during day 1. I mostly recall people criticizing Sens for his short and aggressive posts.

[muzzz]

So him not being killed on the first nights lead to no indication that he was a scum member?

Not really. It all comes down to WIFOM. People expect strong players to die quickly, and get suspicious if they don't. Which gives the scum an incentive to keep them around. After all, a townie that automatically becomes more suspicious over time is a pretty sweet deal from the scum's perspective.

His abrasive behavior with the two townies lynched in the earlier days clearly showed me that he must be scum because he said 'he didn't care if they turned up town'.

Sens might have exaggerated it a little. But it's a fact of mafia-life that in the first few days, you lynch townies more often than not. Accepting it is actually a good thing, although you keep trying to avoid it.

[muzzz]

Now it just seems that my convictions of who was scum was simply retarded, in stead of incredibly accurate, despite how I developed my cases. I'm kinda bummed I didn't get much credit This is a newbie game and all I get is "santos' play is shit, my logic rules." the end.

If you guys are truly ICs playing these games to help new players, then don't be so damn brutal to our learning experience.

Sotty and Sens are trying to teach you an important lesson: being right is only part of the equation in mafia games. Who you manage to lynch is at least as important, if not more so.

You vs. Sens is a good example of this. At the start of the day, you weren't right about Sens. At least not in the sense that you correctly identified his scummy plays. You simply knew that he was scum because he accused you of being scum. Whether your eventual case was accurate is up for debate, I guess. But nonetheless, he was the one that got lynched in the end. The point is that yesterday illustrates two important facts about mafia:

- knowing someone is scum is not enough to get them lynched.
- being right is not always necessary to get someone lynched. (or: having your lynch turn up scum doesn't necessarily mean you were right about why they were scummy)

[muzzz]

However, i've played at least 30 mafia games and this is the first time i've had to fight a scum claim like that, so it definitely caught me offguard.

In my (admittedly limited) experience, putting up a good defense is one of the hardest parts of mafia.

BTW, thanks to everyone for playing. I found this game quite enjoyable, even after my death.

And special thanks to Sekinj. You were a great host!