Open 590: Diffusion of Power (Town Win)

[Green Crayons]

/confirm

We can vote for people already?

VOTE: Mentor

False apprehension.

New scum spotted.

[Green Crayons]

/confirm

We can vote for people already?

VOTE: Mentor

False apprehension.

New scum spotted.

What does this mean?

You're concerned over whether we can vote, rather than the voting itself.

[Green Crayons]

Confirm! I finally rolled scum!

VOTE: House

Didn't you recently say you were going to do this when you, in fact, rolled scum?

Please confirm/deny truthfully, I don't want to do research.

[Green Crayons]

/confirm

We can vote for people already?

VOTE: Mentor

False apprehension.

New scum spotted.

This guy knows.

VOTE: gc

/belch

This guy doesn't.

Soft GC defense spotted.

BBT votes are acceptable.

[Green Crayons]

Confirm! I finally rolled scum!

VOTE: House

Didn't you recently say you were going to do this when you, in fact, rolled scum?

Please confirm/deny truthfully, I don't want to do research.

Umm, maybe? I don't know...

Ah, no, it was this:

This lurking stuff is so cool.

Like, you don't come under any pressure or anything.

I'm totally doing this in my next scum game.

[Green Crayons]

Soft GC defense spotted.

BBT votes are acceptable.

Instead of posturing, you should go ahead and jump on my wagon.

Failure to address soft GC defense.

Lashes out at observer.

[Green Crayons]

@Mentor:

Mmm.. not quite. I asked because I'm not sure what's acceptable or not and I wanna follow the mod rules,

but that doesn't mean I'm not concerned with who's voting who.

I think that's a pretty big leap to take without actually asking me what I thought about any of the votes.

Wrong.

Before your statement above, this is what you posted showing that you were more concerned about the ability to vote than what those votes were:

/confirm

We can vote for people already?

Well I don't know. I thought everyone had to confirm first. I'm not sure where the game begins.

That is, you only voiced concern about whether the votes counted, not the substance/intent behind those votes.

-----

Ultimately, it doesn't matter whether the voting "counts" or not. People are voting. If the mod doesn't tally them because 10 people haven't confirmed, that doesn't detract from the fact that the votes have been placed in fairly typical RVS fashion. Whether or not these votes are actually going to be put up on the scoreboard does really affect the circumstances.

-----

You say:

The mod hasn't officially announced the start of the game so are all these votes actually meaning something or are people just joking around with each other? It's important for me to understand the basis and intention of a vote if I'm going to evaluate whether it's worthwhile or not, don't you think?

But I have a hard time believing this.

Looking at the typical RVS activity is hard enough - people usually joke around, and so you have to attempt to decipher natural joking (town) from forced joking (scum). I typically find it to be a lost cause.

But here, you're saying that if you understood whether these votes are counted, you would be able to further differentiate between natural/forced RVS play based upon whether the votes counted? I'm doubtful.

BUT WAIT! The layers go even further: it's not whether the votes actually counted, it's whether the people thought their votes counted - which isn't really answered by your concern of whether the votes actually count.

Poking just beneath the surface of your justification for asking about the procedure over form reveals a confusing mass of logic.

[Green Crayons]

@BBT:

You gonna vote or continue with this running commentary?

<Abrasive scum mode activated.>

[Green Crayons]

I'm serious.

Me too.

[Green Crayons]

Mentor, it was obvious why BBT was voting you from the context in which the vote was placed, and I thought that I was voting you for the same reasons that BBT when I put my vote down on you.

Mountain, molehill.

[Green Crayons]

Green Crayon - What's RVS? Also, a lot of the assumptions you are making about me are incorrect. I think you either have a misunderstanding about what I've said, or you are trying to take an easy shot at someone who is new here. In either case, I'm town and you are wrong.

I'm trying to work through your rationale for focusing on whether votes were possible rather than on the votes themselves, and the justification for your position don't really stand up to a "does this make sense if I put myself in Mentor's shoes and try to be rational about Mentor's play?" Which was the point of my post.

You can try to explain yourself further instead of appealing to "I'm new (to this website)." My eyes and ears are open.

[Green Crayons]

@Mentor:

Are you just new to this site, or are you new to mafia?

[Green Crayons]

I'm not doubting you understand how to play.

I just want to know how much experience you have with online mafia.

[Green Crayons]

Not trying to be pejorative, just wanting to know in what context I should be interpreting your play.

[Green Crayons]

Okay.

UNVOTE: Mentor
VOTE: BBT

[Green Crayons]

Generally, a read of a player is based upon the culmination of posts, not just any single event.

I thought your first post was suspicious. I think your response to pressure - including frustration, inquisitiveness about various aspects of suspicions, focusing on your attacker BBT - looks town in light of the fact that you are new to online mafia. All together, that means I'm not voting you any more.

[Green Crayons]

I'm down for a color coded hydra.

[Green Crayons]

Haha, I'm not getting lynched.

It was in no way suicidal. If someone suspects me, then I expect them to put their vote where their suspicions are.

Simple as that.

Taunting people into voting you =/= suicidal.

Okay.

[Green Crayons]

You think because I gain a couple of votes I'm going to be lynched?

Please.

No, and I never said that.

[Green Crayons]

I don't think that's hammer, because it's only a provisional VC, but I'm okay with it if it is.

[Green Crayons]

Provisional Vote Count

BlueBloodedToffee

(6)

L-1

: House, randomidget, Mentor, Green Crayons, ChriVi, Newbie

randomidget

(1): BlueBloodedToffee

NJAC

(1): Antihero

Green Crayons

(1): Not_Mafia

Not Voting

(4): inte, killapenwin, NJAC, Creative

With 13 alive, it takes 7 to lynch.

Deadline

: (expired on 2015-03-27 21:00:00)

Mod Notes

: I was planning to use a confirmation phase but y'all were just too eager. I guess it was the long signup period. The above is what the vote count would be if we skipped confirmation. In the meantime I'm going to try to find the point that 10 people had participated. Note that BBT would be

L-1

in this count.

FWIW, Anti is voting me, not NJAC.

[Green Crayons]

I don't think that's hammer, because it's only a provisional VC, but I'm okay with it if it is.

Oh, I guess allowing for a claim would have been nice.

[Green Crayons]

Oh. I see what you were doing there.

Uh? Do you not know me?

I spoil anything resembling fun. You should probably replace out if you thought this game would be fun. I will crush the fun.

[Green Crayons]

VOTE: BBT

[Green Crayons]

GC is the wierdest in that interaction, he started by sort of defending BBT and was justifying all he was saying, then when Mentor declared to be new, he suddenly changed his vote to BBT without any reasoning,

i failed to see why the conclusion is: Mentor is new, therefore BBT is mafia.

I find it interesting that this what you're saying my thought process is, when it clearly is not. And you've clearly read the thread.

[Green Crayons]

Mentor is probably town

Agreed.

[Green Crayons]

VOTE: GreenCrayons

Play better.

[Green Crayons]

Because I'm happy to help the thread conscious put the appropriate people into the town column.

[Green Crayons]

GC is the wierdest in that interaction, he started by sort of defending BBT and was justifying all he was saying, then when Mentor declared to be new, he suddenly changed his vote to BBT without any reasoning,

i failed to see why the conclusion is: Mentor is new, therefore BBT is mafia.

I find it interesting that this what you're saying my thought process is, when it clearly is not. And you've clearly read the thread.

Both clarifying and rereading your posts, your positions feel pretty genuine. The bristling in 134 isn't towards your alignment, it's towards your mistaken read of events.

[Green Crayons]

Some wierd interactions between Mentor, BlueBloodedToffee and Green Crayons

i don´t think they are all the same alignment.

Though I did find this to be a weird statement.

[Green Crayons]

I'm not saying this is your though process, but since you never explained why you changed the vote that is what your actions look like. And yes, i've read the thread at least 3 times.

Post 30, Post 56, Post 59, Post 112, and Post 117 don't exist independent of my BBT vote.

Unsure how you don't see the relevance of those posts to my BBT vote, and instead saw a "If Mentor = Town, then BBT = Scum" rationale that I never actually voiced.

[Green Crayons]

Are you upset by what i've said? you seem very anxious to justify yourself or to force disbelief on me cause i said more or less that i wasn't being able to read your alignment for one interaction.

lol

No.

This is about why - after supposedly reading the thread 3 times - you misconstrued my play.

Was it you simply misunderstood something, somehow, some way? I was thinking maybe yes. Not necessarily alignment indicative, but I would probably attribute it to town at the end of the day.

Or is it that you're laying groundwork for something more? I was thinking maybe no.


But then there's the delightful 146.

Such pejorative buzz words: "upset," "anxious," "force disbelief."

There's the shift away from your own failing: I note that you fail to mention how in the world you decided to put words into my mouth while simultaneously ignoring p much all of my posts directed to BBT.

And then there's a focus on some other suspicion that you play up to be bigger than your own play: I'm "anxious" about whether or not you can read my alignment. Also note that this is lolworthy misinformation.

[Green Crayons]

I hope this game doesn't become those that one has to state about his unsureness every single time he gives a read, it gets really redundant. Mafia is a game of imperfect information, not even scum has all the info in the game. Of course the info i discussed is one that i could have if i was scum, but i mean, do you think that was exactly a 3 town or 3 mafia interaction, it's even statistically unlikely.

Fair enough. I understand your point.

I really hate that Newbie rolled over so quickly. I disliked this part of Creative's 142 when I saw it, but I decided to just let it be because I thought I was getting too paranoid.

Now, I'll ask a not-too-random sampling of

@BBT

,

@random,

and

@Not_Mafia

: how do you feel about Creative, and this particular quotation from 142? Please compare what he's saying here with his positions on players in Post 132.

UNVOTE: BBT

[Green Crayons]

Green Crayon - What's RVS? Also, a lot of the assumptions you are making about me are incorrect. I think you either have a misunderstanding about what I've said, or you are trying to take an easy shot at someone who is new here. In either case, I'm town and you are wrong.

I'm trying to work through your rationale for focusing on whether votes were possible rather than on the votes themselves, and the justification for your position don't really stand up to a "does this make sense if I put myself in Mentor's shoes and try to be rational about Mentor's play?" Which was the point of my post.

You can try to explain yourself further instead of appealing to "I'm new (to this website)." My eyes and ears are open.

(Still catching up)

The easy explanation is that Mentor is newb and uncertain on game mechanics. Do they not strike you as newb? I think you're overanalyzing and making assumptions.

(Keep catching up.)

[Green Crayons]

You are just making yourself look bad dude, the fact that you are tunneling this early on the game is very unwelcome, it makes you seem almost offended by the fact that your intentions weren´t clear to another player, i mean, how sad is that you can´t take another player's perspective? If you are mafia, then ok, you are making an effort to undermine whatever i say, but if you are town, your tunneling demonstrates a lack of empathy that is just sad.

How often are you right in people alignment based upon one post/consideration? I appreciate the fact that you've clarified your position but i don´t see where is this discussion going.

1. lol, "tunneling" =!= a two-page back and forth. You can keep using pejorative buzz words to describe my play, but they aren't accurate!

2. "can't take another player's perspective" = heh, all I'm trying to do is

understand

your perspective. That's why I'm asking you questions. To get that insight. Because I'm not a mind reader.

3. "i don´t see where is this discussion going" = you're in the driver's seat, bud! At first this was just a "hm, I wonder how Creative-town would have thought X instead of Y about my play in Post 132 and Post 142," but that morphed into "lol, Creative is now (suspiciously) flipping this to be GC's questions are scummy in Post 146." Please tell, where are you taking us now?

[Green Crayons]

I have however seen players flip out Anti early into a game when they are both scum, therefore vote: ChriVi

I agree with Not_Scum's observation that Chriv's belligerence looks fake. That alone is a strong motivator for me to vote Chriv - which I may do as soon as I turn some other things over in my mind.

However, reading your post, it looks like you're voting Chriv not because of Chriv's fake-anger, but because scum-buddies have used fake-anger towards Anti-scum in the past. That is, it looks like you're assuming that Anti is scum in this game in order for Chriv to be scum.

Please clarify.

[Green Crayons]

@BBT:

After taunting people into voting you, and then promising to hunt scum off of your wagon, you've instead voted Killa for five words ("risk being misread as scum").

Why would BBT-town do this?

[Green Crayons]

Why would Scum!BBT do this?

Because reasons I don't really care to go through right now.

Feeling better about BBT for the time being.

VOTE: Chriv

[Green Crayons]

Taunting-into-votes more likely to come from scum alignment for reasons Chriv explained.

"Oh I'm just going to scum hunt off of my wagon that is obviously on town because it is on me" = scum excuse to help explain away taunting.

Assuming BBT-scum, jumping away from wagon on self is good, because it is a wagon on scum and therefore probably filled with town; and here, it was accomplished by seizing on a "slip" of a player who hasn't really contributed to the game = easy distraction.

[Green Crayons]

Not saying that I don't still harbor these thoughts as possibilities, but I like what i"m seeing from your actual, more recent play rather than from the double secret probation motivations I'm ascribing to some of your earlier play.

[Green Crayons]

Chriv's explanation is flawed because it's based on the assumption I was actually trying to get lynched; which would be dumb.

This is a mischaracterization of Chriv's explanation.

Being "suicidal" isn't done with the intent to actually get one's self lynched. It's done with the intent to look town because "OMG scum would never play in such a way to actively seek votes on themself!"

I don't feel inclined to engage with you on the other points because I'm feeling you to be town at the moment, and it's not worth my time/effort.

[Green Crayons]

@killa:

I have however seen players flip out Anti early into a game when they are both scum, therefore vote: ChriVi

I agree with Not_Scum's observation that Chriv's belligerence looks fake. That alone is a strong motivator for me to vote Chriv - which I may do as soon as I turn some other things over in my mind.

However, reading your post, it looks like you're voting Chriv not because of Chriv's fake-anger, but because scum-buddies have used fake-anger towards Anti-scum in the past. That is, it looks like you're assuming that Anti is scum in this game in order for Chriv to be scum.

Please clarify.

[Green Crayons]

No.

All town have either cop or doc.

Role nights are randomized, and therefore there's no way to determine whether a particular claim is false just from the claim itself.

[Green Crayons]

Role nights are randomized, and therefore there's no way to determine whether a particular claim is false just from the claim itself.

As in, there can be roles that act on the same night.

[Green Crayons]

Though, I've been thinking about it and mafia have extra knowledge over the town than in the usual game (they are aware of how many docs/cops there are), and town are deprived on essential knowledge of another town's death - specifically, the night that a town player's role was effective. Thus, upon a cop dying, town cannot analyze to see whether that cop had already used its power and try to deduce who might have been investigated.

I therefore proposed that any town cops reveal their investigations the day following their night action - obviously if the result is scum, but even if the result is town. Ideally, of course, such results would be held back into near the end of the game. But the prospects of both the cop and the investigated town surviving to the point when such a reveal would be most effective is not great.

Obviously it's up to each cop's discretion, but that's my proposal because I think it will benefit the town the most in assuring that we get some information rather than no information.

[Green Crayons]

ChriVi wasn't wasn't lynched for "being mad"

[Green Crayons]

everyone on this buttcheeks wagon smells. since when does being mad = scum? i could say fuck 50x times and still don't matter cuz its about the meaning of what i said rather than what actually was said

fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck
fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck
fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck
fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck
fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck

Like, you're making my point for me.

Context and delivery matters.

[Green Crayons]

1. GC and random are confirmed not guilty.

I was looking for a bussing buddy that was not killa, because I figured killa would get a bunch of attention today regardless of an investigation.

Official Vote Count

ChriVi

(7 - LYNCH):

Antihero

, Not_Mafia, killapenwin,

Green Crayons

, Newbie,

randomidget

, House

killapenwin

(2): BlueBloodedToffee,

ChriVi

randomidget

(1): inte

Not Voting

(2): NJAC, Creative, Mentor

With 13 alive, it takes 7 to lynch.

Mod Notes: NJAC is being replaced.

2. We should be lynching either killa or BBT.

I'm not sure if it's EITHER/OR are scum, but I'm feeling fairly confident that it's AT LEAST ONE.

A. killa vote justifications.

i. Really convoluted Chriv vote:

Killa's original vote for Chriv was in Post 175. I noted that killa's justification wasn't just that Chriv's belligerence was fake, but that Anti-scum had his buddies get angry at him before, and therefore Chriv must be scum with Anti-scum in Post 187. killa attributed it to poor wording in Post 217. Uncertain whether I believe him, but could be trying to throw suspicion onto another player pre- and post- scum flip.

ii. Chriv singles out killa to distance:

Alright, so Chriv pops up and insults killa (Post 237), GC (Post 238), and Newbie (Post 240) - all of who were on Chriv's wagon. Notably, however, after the 1-2-3 punch, Chriv calls out a killa/Newbie scum team and votes killa in 240. Looks like last minute distancing.

B. BBT vote justifications.

i. Really didn't want to vote Chriv:

shortly on the heels of Chriv's/Not_Mafia's back and forth - which BBT agreed with Not_Mafia in that "this feels fake" - BBT jumps to a killa vote for killa's use of 5 words in Post 176. Note that BBT completely ignores his wagon, which he said he was going to be scum hunting off of - and which had Chriv on it. I noted this in Post 189, and you can read BBT's explanation for his sudden shift in focus in Post 190. I think his explanation is pretty weaksauce on its own, because a vote is a vote regardless of whether the game "officially" started, but more importantly, BBT was giving Mentor shit in early D1 for basically acknowledging aloud what BBT has now adopted: that the before official game start play didn't count.

Also, note that other than an obligatory agreement in Post 176 that Chriv's play looked forced, BBT pointedly did not bring up Chriv again.

[Green Crayons]

Killa

post 170: The tone of this post comes off as too cautious to engage Chrivi, especially the bolded.

post 175: Using pre-flip association + reaching looks like scum knowing there’s a big chance that his partner is being lynched, so he jumps on the wagon for town cred but doesn’t want to come up with any valid reasons, so he just uses pre flip association, connecting a townie to scum.

post 177: How convenient that the interaction that caused the pre flip association stopped him from voting NM for naked voting.

post 240: A bussing attempt.

I actually just followed these posts and agree with Newbie.

[Green Crayons]

I don't like House's posts. The "PLEASE SUSPECT ME" bit is tryhard scum.

[Green Crayons]

VOTE: killa

I am more comfortable with this over BBT, but man BBT's actively trying to not vote Chriv bothers me.

[Green Crayons]

More likely town than scum based off of pre-flip reaction to Chriv-wagon. Reads pretty genuine, rather than faked.

[Green Crayons]

@Not_Mafia:

inte's interaction with the ChrVi wagon (and slot in general) was bad

, misconstruing the ChrVi wagon in a way that it's hard to believe is genuine

I understand but disagree with the second half of your sentence, but could you please explain the bolded?

[Green Crayons]

Nice work, folks.

I think dave's solutions to the problems makes most sense.

6 one-shot cops is pretty town sided, but I guess that's just part of the swingy nature of the setup.