Mini 836: Commie Mafia (Game Over)
-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
If you're going to randomly select a player with dice, why not be fair and include yourself in it, or at least give everyone equal odds?Tonkatsu wrote: -If you want to vote for yourself, go ahead.
-Because that's how I roll.
-Dice are fun sometimes.
Please explain how using dice is a "cop out".
I'm personally not a fan of the RVS, but it seems to be a culture etched in the meta of this site, so much so that deviations from this tend to raise eyebrows. The psyche behind random voting is that no votes aretrulyrandom, and scum have to actively choose to vote a buddy or a townsperson.
I don't really buy into that logic though, and I will happily endorse alternate starts to a game, as you may occasionally generate odd tells from a unique situation scum isn't used to. But dice don't serve either purpose. It's an active commitment to something you have no control over - the only tell others can derive from the post is the choice to use dice, which looks like one avoiding responsibility for the outcome.
Mod's Note: This post is non-cannon and therefore not part of the game-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
Mod:What's the reasoning behind the order of the list of players? They're not alphabetic, nor sorted by chronological order of sign-ups or confirmations.
When the thread was first opened, I'm fairly sure the list was alphabetical, but there were two names missing. Checking back after about 30 minutes, the two missing names were added but the list was shuffled when confirmations came in.
Hey le Chat, are you an alt? Or do you just play elsewhere?
Mod's Note: This post is non-cannon and therefore not part of the game-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
No, never really. The only reason why it was any different this time is because I was online when my role PM was delivered, and upon viewing the thread noted two names missing from the list.Talitha wrote:I'm just wondering why you were paying such close attention to the player list, Hoopla. Do you always do that?
Mod's Note: This post is non-cannon and therefore not part of the game-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
Fuck, I feel kind of guilty about this now. To be honest, when I noticed it, I didn't think much of it at the time, and my PM to you about the missing names was just out of courtesy to tell you. It didn't click until the game started, as I remember how I randomized roles when I first started modding. Either way, I feel responsible for messing the game up. I should have replaced out, and not spoke without thinking.
Mod's Note: This post is non-cannon and therefore not part of the game-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
Debatable. I don't know if I want to do the math, but will agree that if every player's alignment on a 5-vote wagon was truly random, it is probable scum is there. But I think bandwagonning is more beneficial to town than to scum - town generates early reads. The closer to lynch they get, the more valuable they usually are. But the only thing scum has to gain from bandwagonning is the remote chance of a quick-lynch, which is never really worth the attention in itself.CoCo wrote: Precisely because it doesn't happen that often. It gave me pause to consider.
Fact: The odds of scum being on that wagon are probably higher than it consisting entirely of townies.
Fact: The scum were allowed 21 hours to talk pre-game.
In my experiences, early wagonning usually consists of town players. In fact, because I love you, I am willing share with you some data that shows it's generally a pro-town play.-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
The back and forth between Coco and co. is starting to become an irrelevant typing contest. The only thing of note coming from that was Coco's 104 which is rife with OMGUS and over-defensiveness.
Good posting. This wagon needs to generate more steam.Cyberbob wrote:I think both sides of this argument are overreacting. I'm not sure that "Oh look this person is overreacting...SCUM" is entirely applicable when you have so many new players around (who, I've found, tend to be a tad more emotional in their posting).
The wagon was kind of dumb but I don't think it was scummy. These things happen.
This is a pretty terrible vote. "Before discussion starts"? You're only two pages late on that score... are you sure that it's the only reason?Peabody wrote:Dang it, I need to get a random vote in before discussion starts:
vote mathcambecause I suck at math.Vote: Peabody
Vote: Peabody-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
I don't get the purpose of a recap after 5 pages, we're all capable of reading.
^ This is all you needed to say.CoCo wrote: Now, who looks scummiest in all that? This is a question for everyone.
Second, the Peabody wagon is incredibly stupid.
Condensing every post into one is subjective and more often than not bias seeps in. If you really care for a true evaluation of the game from everyone, why must they do it through your interpretation of play so far? We don't need recaps, we need analysis.-
-
Hoopla
-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
Besides Sens, you've been one of the quieter one's - votes are usually a good way to hurry up that process. An active town is a good town.Talitha wrote:Why?
I'm probably older than the average age of users here, although I suspect that question was rhetorical.le Chat wrote: hoopla seriously how old are you. also hoopla do you expect as much from me as you do talitha?
It's really important to keep everyone as active and involved in the game as possible. Balance of input is super important - one of the things I hate most is 4-5 people talking lots and then everyone else having to post big walls of text to catch up. Succinctness and a relatively even spread of participation is key. This is why I like chasing lurkers, or those external to the central conversation.
It probably sounds like a load of rubbish, but it is important and makes future analysis of D1 easier, which imo, is the best place to catch scum.
Also, tell me your alt account here.-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
Understandable.
As a side-note, Harumafuji's posts are hilarious. They look like the end-result from something from Translation Party.-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
Looking into some of Haru's posts, I would say it is almost certain that he is using that website for everything he writes. For those that don't know what it is, it's a utility that translates a phrase back and forth between English and Japanese. Usually, because sentences don't always directly translate, it will come back a garbled mess. The simulation stops when the same message keeps coming back.
I've messed around on that website before - occasionally a phrase will reach it's equilibrium after one or two attempts, but this is rare (unless you type in a 2-3 word phrase). What makes me strongly suspect Haru is using Translation Party or something similar, is many of his quotes are already at their equilibrium when I run them through the simulation.
Harumafuji wrote:I was in the glass, you agree to these cute little girl.
You'd expect both of these sentences to return a series of amusing mash-ups, but they don't change. Unless Haru can come clean and explain what he's doing, I'm placing my vote on him for actively hurting the town by deliberately making no sense.Harumafuji wrote: I have an idea to offset the Charter Lynch. Peabody Charter please vote for my questions. We are all benefiting from the UN Charter. Peabody "random votes" is a cop. Peabody, the drive is quite right in the Charter is already voting.
Unvote, vote: Harumafuji-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
Yeah, okay Sens.SensFan wrote:So, I'm not intentionally lurking, just out of town visiting my girlfriend. I'll be back home on Tuesday.
Thanks for your co-operation!-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
I don't think it is a scum-tell either - I agree that he probably decided to do it before the game, regardless of alignment. But faking a post restriction (of this extreme) is very anti-town, as it's basically one player slot we can't receive analysis from. For what it's worth, I'm not pushing for his lynch (yet).le Chat wrote: i dont find Harumafuji's account-imposed posting restriction to be scummy. i assume it was something he decided he would do before he received his role and therefore is just a Harumafuji-tell not a scum-tell. It seems like an easy lynch to push for, though. hmm!-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
I'm not suggesting Haru is scum by my quote - I'm saying that whoever the scum is in this game only serve to prosper by having one player slot not contributing analysis. Then,Talitha wrote:And I've decided that I do in fact find Hoopla suspicious. She already acknowledged that Haru's garbled-ness very likely has nothing to do with his alignment and is IMO incorrect, or at the very least exaggerating when saying that "Haru's garbled nothing-posts only serve to provide murkier waters for scum to lurk in".ifhe is indeed scum, it is difficult for the town to spot scum-tells through his act.
Can you explain why you think my quote is incorrect?-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
This argument is getting dumb, but I'll answer anyway.
What if there was another player posting only in emoticons? Or another talking in morse code? How much anti-town play would there need to be before it caused concern to you? Just because it's only one player doesn't mean it's excusable. As far as I'm concerned, his playstyle makes him near unreadable. It makes the water murkier in the same way of being in a town of lurkers, it's guess-work.Talitha wrote:Hoopla, I think your quote is likely to be incorrect because the only scum that can "lurk in the murky waters" of Haru's posts, is Haru himself. Also, I don't see why one player not providing analysis is so detrimental.
Because I don't think he's scum, it does not mean it is a really anti-town thing to do. I'm offering an ultimatum because if he doesn't change his style, I'd push for a policy lynch. For what it's worth, I'm usually for policy lynches of chronic lurkers or players with an anti-town meta on D1, so it's not like I'm giving him unique treatment.Talitha wrote: But that's all beside the point. Hoopla, if you have no reason to think he's scum why didn't you try asking him to change his posting so we can understand? Why not try reasoning with him? Why go on the attack, vote and give an ultimatum?
This isn't an attack - I doubt Haru is going to get anywhere close to lynch before he responds, and I've already stated that I'm not pushing for his lynch. I just don't get how anyone can generate a substancial read on him when you can't get direct answers to questions.
So we should just ignore everything anti-town to prevent it being a distraction? I think accusing me of causing a distraction is a distraction.Talitha wrote: It smacks of looking for an easy target or a distraction.
Because I found a better place for my vote. I haven't forgot about Peabody. And at the moment, I'm happy with it's use on Haru.Talitha wrote: On that subject what happened to your vote on Peabody? You unvoted with zero explanation ONE DAY after saying (re Peabody's wagon) "Good posting. This wagon needs to generate more steam." Why?-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
I wasn't actually, my post at the end of that game was a joke. The difference between these games is that everyone is at the same level, as opposed to one player deliberately handicapping themself.Talitha wrote:Ah, I see you were IN a Silent game. That is very interesting, but forget my last 2 sentences.
But to answer your question about a player posting in emoticons, no as long as they are trying to make themselves understood by some means I would not vote for them unless I had a reason to suspect them of being scum.
I'm sorry for being rude.Talitha wrote:I don't appreciate my arguments being called dumb, and think you're on a bit of a high horse there.-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
Don't you mean...SerialClergyman wrote:Hey guys, SC replacing in.
Allow me a bit of time to catch up and I'll go find the scum and solve this mess for you.
Sound good?
If you replace the time I was in.
Some of Bonn, to catch up with the news, I will go and I will find the scum please contact hours to solve this confusion please.
Sound good?
Appologies for falling behind this game. I will post my thoughts first thing tomorrow, if not tonight if I can get around to it.-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
Here is my previously mentioned catching up post, which will be various thoughts on players/plays that have caught my eye.
I'll start with CoCo, which seems like the logical place to start, considering almost all the play so far has featured him. I think CoCo's abrasiveness is an asset to the town, despite getting caught up in useless semantics debates occasionally, and is starting to appear a little pro-town, if only because of his activeness which is a loose town-tell.
On a reread, a couple of things have irked me about his play. Earlier he was quick to condemn Vaya (74) for an OMGUS vote (73), which looked more like theory disagreement, yet later (104) resorted to OMGUS on mathcam and charter. It was rightly picked up by charter, and both scenarios look very similar, with CoCo representing different sides.
I also dislike the amount of non-points CoCo has persisted with, ranging from his 'early reports' semantics gem, and baseles random comments which seek to incriminate without actually saying anything specific. Here is a good example.
But oddly, I find it hard to see CoCo being scum. Some of his early play suggests he is still relatively new to the game, particularly his reaction to my early bandwagon. Such brazen play is hard to forge, particularly from a newer player. I read him as town.
Onto le Chat now, for whom I only have one real point of note. On page 7 charter noted he had yet to vote (and didn't until page 10). Why did you vote in your first post in the original game before we restarted, and not this one? You were town in the previous game.
Onto a bit of active lurking now, which I think Peabody and Col.Cathart have been most guilty of. Col has been fence-sitting a lot of the game, and seems to chime in only occasionally with minimal conviction. Col's defense of Peabody's random vote (120) is unusual, particular when his wagon was just starting to pick up.
I agree with Talitha's (174) in regards to Peabody's contradiction in defending his random vote - coupled with him only really posting when someone questions him makes him a viable candidate for active lurking.
I'm not sold on Talitha's whisper of suspicion on mathcam. I feel she is probably the only one that has any idea of his usual playstyle, but I'm inclined to read mathcam as town for now. I don't understand mathcam's recent post where he would advocate a wagon on me, particularly when he has barely referenced me. Perhaps you can explain this one for me?
I have a little more I want to say, and will be cooking up more on and off during today. My vote on Haru is now void, so I'm going to swap back to Peabody.
Unvote, vote: Peabody-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
That is such a blatant misrepresentation and you know it. I was never pushing to get you lynched or Haru. Reread the translation party exchange again and you'll see my vote was there get answers for his anti-town play.SensFan wrote: Hoopla: The shananigans with trying to get both myself and that Translation Party person lynched for weak reasons. In my case, it was something I posted in MD ages ago that was very obviously not the case here, in an attempt to make me look ridiculously scummy while she knew I would be unable to defend myself. In the TP-guy's case, it was saying he should be lynched just for using TP; should be be smacked for it? Absolutely, but lynches are too valuable to lynch someone just for that.
I have no problem with V/LA's, but you were gone for 11 days, not 7 which you asked for. I understand external problems, but how are we supposed to know you want extra time if you don't tell us?-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
I would have done a thorough search of your post history had search been available.SensFan wrote:To clarify that last part, you took the time to look up that one post I made in a MD thread a while ago, while not looking up the fact I wasn't posting at all on the site.
4 months ago isn't ages, it's barely the length of a game in some cases. The fact you're here now and seemingly active makes it a moot point, because I doubt I'd ever know if you were lying or not. I am more than happy to unvote you now you're here.SensFan wrote: Hoopla: The shananigans with trying to get both myself and that Translation Party person lynched for weak reasons.In my case, it was something I posted in MD ages ago that was very obviously not the case here, in an attempt to make me look ridiculously scummy while she knew I would be unable to defend myself. In the TP-guy's case, it was saying he should be lynched just for using TP; should be be smacked for it? Absolutely, but lynches are too valuable to lynch someone just for that.
Find me a post where I said I wanted to lynch Haru. I made it quite clear my vote was placed to demand answers.
Unvote-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
Yes, it is a pattern. On D1, town lynches are very close to random, so I endorse policy lynches on anti-town play. Without a major slip from scum, the percentages between your scum/town reads are slimmer than most people want to believe. So I believe it's better in the long run to eliminate a player D1 that could be costly later in the game. To use a random example;Peabody wrote: Hoopla - Going with Sensfan's point, I'm starting to see a pattern. You are pushing cases consistently based on "policy" votes. Haru did translation party, Sensfan for lurking...
I want that observation out there just for the record. I'm not meaning that comment to be contesting your judgment, but I'm sensing a pattern. Behaviorally, who do you think is mafia?
Say you believe Chronic Lurker X's chance of being scum is around 30%, but Active Logical Player Y's chances of being scum is around 35%, I'd still rather lynch the lurker and take the chance he's scum. Because if Y is town he will be of far more use than X later in the game, which can negate a 5-10, even 15% difference in margins.
The reason towns don't often policy lynch anti-town players is because they overvalue their D1 reads.
Behaviourally, I still think your play fits the bill, mainly because the random vote thing was so awkward. I can understand a newer player wanting to experience the RVS or whatever, but I don't buy the joke defense.
le Chat being non-committal I interpret as a scum-tell. I don't understand the reluctance to vote. The vote is the most powerful tool the town has, and doesn't have to be used solely to try and get a lynch.
I don't like the charter wagon, and I don't think CoCo is scummy. So my top two lynch choices would be yourself or le Chat. I'd also adopt a Col.Cathart lynch mainly because I don't think charter is active lurking and Col seems to be pushing that.
Of course this is just behaviourally, other factors weigh into a D1 lynch choice, such as possible value to town later in the game, activeness and logical capacity.-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
I understand that, and I can easily see how CoCo's play can be interpretted as scum. I feel like I'm tricking myself into the 'too scummy to be scum' mindset, because it's not a typical place for scum to hide, especially on D1. It increases your likelihood of being lynched, and makes you a hot target for night choices. This is why I have a town read on CoCo.mathcam wrote:2) Hoopla's "Policy lynches on anti-town play." I completely agree, so I don't see how you can ignore CoCo. I even mildly understand your feeling that CoCo's aggressiveness is helpful to the town, but I just don't think it's enough to compensate. Look, I don't know CoCo is scum (I'm still suspicious that Charter might know he'snot,FOS: Charter), but I do know that if he is, we're never going to catch him unless we make him answer questions. The best way to do this is through voting pressure, and while my vote alone won't do it, it's a start.
CoCo has worth to the town. His aggressiveness and his activeness, despite occasional question-dodging is relatively pro-town. If/when CoCo dies, his confirmed alignment will hold a vast amount of data to work with on a lot of players, which is why I think it's worthwhile keeping him alive for at least another day.
Some of his play is probably anti-town, but he is definitely readable. This is the difference between chronic lurkers and players like Haru. I think prolonged failure to answer questions when we have confirmed information in the game would negate his pro-town value, but for now, he has enough use to negate his anti-townness.
It's not something he ought to get away with all game, and I expect CoCo will be more compliant when proper cases based on confirmed information surface. If not, then he is worth seriously considering.-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
How exactly? He's made a clear stance on many players and a lot of the theory debate.SensFan wrote: Not at all liking this post from SC, for reasons completely unrelated to those quoting; just gives me a vibe of massive amounts of noise, hoping to obscure the fact the little signal there is isn't very pertinent.
Sens, I'm usually anti-walls and hate players that waffle on, but it's hardly a pattern from SC. When you consider he's missed 10 pages from replacing in, I'd say this is tolerable now. I think there is a balance people should aim for.-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
Solid, well-founded. I agree with your town reads, and to a degree your neutral reads. I really don't agree with your scumread on Cyberbob though. Gutreads are hard to explain, so I at least give you credit for trying to quantify it.SerialClergyman wrote: Hoopla, what do you think of my reads?
Reading through Cyberbob in isolation, I find it odd how you called his posts 'careful'. He seems quite quick to jump on a variety of issues, and is more involved than typical careful scum. The one point that holds water, is that some of his attacks are weak or mediocre, but for D1 it isn't a crime.-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
Logical and not dependant on unknown information.SerialClergyman wrote:Hoopla, what makes you say they are well founded? Just an odd phrase to use for day one reads ( I hate day one).
To expand on the word careful, I mean careful that anything he attacks he is unquestionably right on. By that I mean there's almost no gut read, almost no sweeping declarations, almost no theory that can be argued with. His point always start at a minor scummy sentence and regularly stay there, never becoming something even mildly controversial.
I don't find myself feeling that his efforts are genuinely concerned whether the person BEHIND the comment he is attacking is scum, rather just being concerned that the comment is scummy.
Does that explain it better?
And that does explain it better, but I don't think he's flying under the radar as much as you think. Vaya/Col/Peabody (and probably others) are also guilty of the lack of sweeping declarations - I don't understand that point.
I also want to know SC's thoughts on this.charter wrote:SC, what do you think about Peabody and Col.Cathart?-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
I agree, charter isn't a good lynch choice. I don't really understand the charges he's guilty of. Lets tilt the balance back in Peabody's favour.SensFan wrote:I'm not a fan of the charter wagon right now, in no small part because I think there's at the very least one Scum in {SC, Col.C, CoCo}.
Vote: Peabody-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
She was voting Peabody if I recall correctly, but then bailed at L-1. Peabody is the choice lynch today - the way his wagon has been yo-yoing up and down has been quite odd, so on the chance he isn't scum, we at least get an informative lynch. I've yet to really note any quality insight from Peabody, his only real attempts at scum-hunting has been a weak iso-case on Tally. Lets just get on with it.mathcam wrote:Though, now that I say that, it is a little odd that Tally didn't vote Peabody.
Cam
For those opposed to this wagon or are off it currently for whatever reason, create another viable option. Charter was never a good lynch and the CoCo wagon isn't going anywhere. I'd think about jumping ship for Tally or Sens, but Peabody is the percentage play here.-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
Everyone automatically starts at 'probably town', though. Even if there is 3 scum, we all start at 25%. I fail to see anything someone could do to lower their chances to anything less than 15% on D1.SerialClergyman wrote:sif = as if.
Eliminate the players who you think are probably town and 50/50 gets a lot more likely.
If you had the choice to personally lynch someone right now, forgetting about the rest of the town, who would it be?
And once new confirmed information is in the game (lynches, night-kills), you should immediately reevaluate, as your reads are based on unknown information. The most effective way to scum-hunt is viewing interactions between live players and dead, confirmed players. D1 is always very random despite what anyone says.-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
For what it's worth, of the ~10 completed 2:10 Mini Normal games, the town has never won one. These games usually have no or very little town powerroles, but I thought the general consensus was that these games were balanced toward scum.SensFan wrote:
Why would you possibly think 2:10 is balanced, when just about every Mini out there is 3:9, 3:8:1, or 2:2:8?mathcam wrote:I think there's either 2 or 3 scum in this game (with a predilection towards 2),-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
Since mountainous 2:10 is probably scum-biased (even if it's not), there are plenty of conceivable 2:10 set-ups that could be balanced. Just throw in a powerrole or two. Just because a 2 scum game isn't common, doesn't mean it isn't possible. The fact the first game was only 2 scum, probably means this game is more likely to have 2 scum than any other mini normal chosen at random.SensFan wrote:
No. That's not correct.Hoopla wrote:
For what it's worth, of the ~10 completed 2:10 Mini Normal games, the town has never won one. These games usually have no or very little town powerroles, but I thought the general consensus was that these games were balanced toward scum.SensFan wrote:
Why would you possibly think 2:10 is balanced, when just about every Mini out there is 3:9, 3:8:1, or 2:2:8?mathcam wrote:I think there's either 2 or 3 scum in this game (with a predilection towards 2),
Of the ~10 completedmountanous2:20 Mini Games, the Town has never won once. Many people feel this is statistically insignificant, due to low sample size, since the set-up is balanced in theory.-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
How are you not convinced...? Peabody and mathcam were the names left off the initial player list. This is how it was discovered they were scum. Peabody has even said, it was only him and mathcam.SensFan wrote: I'm not convinced the first game had 2 Scum and 10 Town.
Seriously, Town wins a good amount of 3:9 set-ups, so why you guys are assuming this is 2:10 is beyond me, and almost seems suspicious.
I'm not assuming one way or the other - it's a useless guessing game on D1. This is the original quote I am responding to;
And I am saying 2:10 can just as easily be balanced.SensFan wrote:
Why would you possibly think 2:10 is balanced, when just about every Mini out there is 3:9, 3:8:1, or 2:2:8?mathcam wrote:I think there's either 2 or 3 scum in this game (with a predilection towards 2),
What does town winning a lot of 3:9 set-ups have to do with this set-up? The fact that Kublai's initial game was 2:10 probably means that this game now, has a higher chance than usual of it being 2:10.SensFan wrote: I'm not convinced the first game had 2 Scum and 10 Town.
Seriously, Town wins a good amount of 3:9 set-ups, so why you guys are assuming this is 2:10is beyond me, and almost seems suspicious.-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
Next post;CoCo wrote:Oh, for fuck's sake!
Talitha and Chatrer are obvscum.
Both hopped off the Peabody wagon for various reasons and it all crap. The only person with a good reason to be on that wagon is Cyberbob.
Cyberbob is town.
Peabody is town.
Mathcam is neutral.
Vaya has no read for me anymore (not enough post-bandwagon-content).
CoCo jumps off the Peabody wagon, although I don't really know why he was on there in the first place. Here was his vote to put him at L-2;CoCo wrote:Unvote. Vote Charter.
That discussion with Cyberbob only revolved around the joke RVS thing which has been around forever. Why did you only notice it being scummy now, when at the time you had this to say about the Peabody scenario;CoCo wrote:After my discussion with Cyberbob last night and thinking about it today...
Unvote, Vote Peabody.
CoCo wrote:So, because he never said it was a joke yet has said he wished to participate in an RVS; you find it scummy?
There are more quotes like this where CoCo defends Peabody heavily. What exactly changed your minds about these events CoCo, to see them as now scummy? Or do you now not find him scummy, now you're off Peabody's wagon? Seriously, I have no idea where you are in regards to Peabody.CoCo wrote:What's obtuse about it? Seriously, enlighten me. I cannot, in good consciousness, vote for a player that made a lame RVS joke. Had he not commenteated on the goings on, I'd be in your camp.-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
You have two completed games. What exactly are you hoping to prove with that sample size? The fact you're so eager to bring your own meta into play suggests to me you're likelier to be trying to manipulate it.CoCo wrote:So, I must assume no one here has bothered to read my games and instead prefers to insult me as a person.
Fail.-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
I'm starting to disagree and reevaluate my initial thought about CoCo's town value. With his seemingly indiscriminate OMGUS policy, and with some of the town starting to ignore him, I'm finding it hard to pinpoint what sort of information we could actually get from a CoCo flip.mathcam wrote:Interesting. To the contrary, I think we'd get tons of delicious information to digest if we lynched CoCo.
Cam
Because it's such a bizarre style of play, and without any completed scum games, it's guesswork to have any clue whether he'd be going harder at buddies or townies. Or if he flipped town, I don't think it particularly incriminates/clears anyone, as almost everyone has expressed similar opinions about him.
So, the dilemma for me is, using the D1 lynch to remove someone hurtful to the town, or killing someone like Peabody who has an okay chance of being scum and holds a lot more information.
Anyway, I agree with this. I'd still rather a Peabody lynch, but I will support a CoCo wagon seeing as everyone is starting to come to the same opinion about him.SensFan wrote:Like 5 people in a row agreed with Tally about CoCo being a good lynch. Why aren't we lynching him?-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
No to mathcam, he has a lot to offer town if he's town. And I haven't found him scummy.charter wrote:
What would you say to a scum lynch of Cathart or mathcam?Hoopla wrote:So, the dilemma for me is, using the D1 lynch to remove someone hurtful to the town, or killing someone like Peabody who has an okay chance of being scum and holds a lot more information.
I'd vote for Cathart if it's necessary to get a lynch, but he isn't in my top 2 or 3.-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
Yes, because there are a lot more town players than scum, and I have yet to see much scummy/anti-town play from mathcam. He's been logical and active. At the moment, he isn't townier than random, but I don't see any compelling reasons to lynch him.charter wrote: Do you think mathcam is town? Why or why not? Would you join me in a Cathart vote? What position is Cathart on your lynch spectrum?
Would you, Cyberbob, join me in a Cathart vote?
It's pointless for me to vote Cathart again if it's just going to be me, but if we get three votes on him, I think we can get some serious information from him. I'm still holding out for the mathcam wagon, but it's looking grim.
As for Cathart, I believe some of the incriminating behaviour people have picked him up on have been honest mistakes. For example, asking Peabody to claim at L-1, when he didn't have the intention of hammering. I think that's a matter of a new player not understanding the reasons behind why certain policies happen, but doing it anyway, because he feels that's normal.
I understand you now find that particular piece of play null, but it gives an insight into the sort of player he is, which semi-explains the active lurking case behind him. He's still scummier than random, but this is based on a semantics argument with an unconfirmed alignment on D1. It isn't solid, which is why I'd still rather lynch someone who gives more information, or is less helpful to the town.
At the moment, Peabody and CoCo are ahead of him. He's probably equal for the next spot with the lurky Vaya.-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
The absence for 11 days at the start ticked me off, but now that he's here, I know this is how Sens plays. He's usually okay at finding scum in the early game using confirmed information, so I see this virtue as enough to counteract any lurkiness.SerialClergyman wrote:Hoopla, what are your thoughts on Sens?-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
Well, there are no confirmed alignments in this game yet. I'm talking about in general. I've played a few games with him before and have read through his other games during that time, so I know his general mafia philosophy and playstyle.SerialClergyman wrote:Do you mean that you've found evidence of him activly doign that this game, or doy ou mean in general he is able to do that and is therefore valuable enough to keep around?
He does a lot of his scumhunting looking back at early in the game with confirmed alignments. I don't think he's as successful as he claims to be, but he usually has unique insights.-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
I think Cyberbob is referencing CoCo's play from yesterday, ie this;SensFan wrote:
What's the hold-up? There are now 7 people either voting for Peabody or willing to have Peabody hammered. That's a majority, and if it weren't for the fact a claim might save him, CoCo would have hammered by now.Cyberbob wrote:
Whoa.CoCo wrote:Considering I'm off the wagonand happen to be reasonably against Peabody being scum. I'll go ahead and say claim or die Peabody.
Whoa, whoa, whoa.
CoCo wrote: Yes, I think Peabody is town.
We need to get on with it, but CoCo should tell us why he wants to hammer Peabody.-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
Yay, we've started again. Extra yay for lynching scum (although statistically, lynching scum D1 doesn't improve town's win percentage). But Peabody was a good information lynch. I don't think the wifom Peabody offered after self-destructing is worth pursuing. It could have been a gambit, it could have been a feeble attempt to unsubtlely link himself to a townie. If I were to guess, I'd say based on experience, he wouldn't have the balls to out a partner.
I hate the 'too scummy to be scum' fallacy, but I'm seriously falling into with regards to CoCo. His flip-flopping and late bailout on Peabody's wagon seems just too audacious to be real. He's probably town, but either way he won't get NK'd for his ridiculous play, and I think he needs to be the lynch either today or tomorrow.
I have some gut feelings based on a brief skim of D1, but I'll make a more detailed assessment some time very soon.-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
You're right, my memory fails me, as this was only based on newbie games. I think the logic is very similar for Mini Normal's though - as SensFan has pointed out. The easiest, most common way of catching scum, with any long-term success is by linking dead scum's play with the remaining players.mathcam wrote: In other news:
Really? That doesn't sound right. [citation please]Hoopla wrote:statistically, lynching scum D1 doesn't improve town's win percentage)
Now that we have search back, I spent a bit of time, trying to dig up where I remember this data from, but can only find a couple of posts referencing it, such as this from Mr. Flay. Forgive me for improper use of the term 'statistically' - this is very much more like a theory, backed up by a lot games read.
To elaborate, whenever someone is lynched, they generally give a certain amount of information - the later in the game they are lynched, the more information we get, and the more confirmed alignments, the more accurately you can guess who is what.
I'm trying articulate a scenario that explains this better, but a D1 lynch of scum produces a certain amount of information - but if we lynch scum D2 and not D1, we can assume we have produced twice as much information (or at least twice as valuable) from that lynch. I basically agree with what Sens has said - although I don't think I've made enough sense yet.
The most important point is about losing connections early, where a lot of people find accurate (better than random) reads.-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
Really sorry everyone for recent inactivity, I've been busy. Consider me officially now back on track, with much more time over the next couple of weeks. Mkay, now on to business, with some thoughts on D1 with the knowledge of Peabody's and Talitha's flips.
Firstly, Talitha's death seemed odd. Is it note-worthy that one of Peabody's main suspicions throughout D1 was Talitha, and vice-versa? Along with Cyberbob, Talitha was one of the Peabody wagon's most vocal advocates. I speculate the scum kill was done to make others on the Peabody wagon look more pro-town.
An oddity from D1 was Cyberbob who went the entire day without shifting his vote from Peabody. He made two FoS's throughout the course of the day, but made no effort (besides surface-deep enquiries) to pursue any other avenues. Although some consider it a scum-tell, I think town tend to vote-hop more than scum, and I find single-vote days truly bizarre (especially D1, with little to no knowledge). I'd like some explaination from Cyberbob about this.
--
I'm still at odds about what to do with CoCo. For those opposed to the 'easy lynch', do you think he would act any differently as scum? The facts are he defended Peabody on multiple occasions, especially early for the random vote thing (see here: 1, 2, 3, 4)
After this early foray of defenses, he decides to iso-read Peabody and conveniently does a 180 and jumps on with the L-1 vote. I know everyone is finding it difficult to read CoCo, but this is a signifigant enough piece of evidence - especially when he rarely, if ever defended any other player. It seems to me he was trying to deter suspicion on Peabody early, then as it became increasingly likely he was going to be lynched, he had to somehow change his views to jump on and gain some town credit.
This theory is also quantified by the way he acted toward my early bandwagon. You'll note he was on edge when my wagon reached 4 and 5 votes. I think a similar thing happened when Peabody reached the same mark, he genuinely felt his Peabody's lynch was inevitable, and had to change his views knowing what Peabody would flip.
This smorgasbord of evidence is enough for me to think he is probably scum. This does not even include points I posted throughout D1 (such as bringing up his own two-game meta to try and defend himself, and his late flip-flopping on Peabody).
So, my question to those who don't think CoCo is scum is; what would CoCo have to do, for you to consider lynching him? Despite being anti-town, people only oppose his lynch because it seems too obvious. This is a bad trap to fall into as it allows him to get away with anything that could be construed as lying or a scumtell. The lynches become more important each day, and we don't want to be in a situation where he is alive in Lylo.
--
One of the biggest things towns ignore are dead townies' previous suspicions. Reading through Talitha's thoughts, her most outgoing attack on anyone was SC, despite conceding he was playing like a townie. The only reason why this is signifigant is because she is confirmed town. This means her motivations were pure, and although possibly wrong, we know this wasn't a statement of manipulation or lie. This slightly boosts my suspicion on SC (even though I think he is town).
--
My town reads are charter and mathcam. Charter has been outgoing and his interaction with Peabody does not seem fake. I never understood his bandwagon, which admittedly was fueled largely by CoCo (which indicates its worth ). I haven't fully understood the pairing he made between Col.Cathart and Peabody, but I want to look into it.
Mathcam is a quality player, and probably quality as scum too, but he's made enough sense so far for me to not find any inconsistancies. The main reason why I find him town is because he appears least likely to be bussing Peabody.
My gut says there is one scum on the wagon and one off (presuming there is a 3 member scumteam). If it's only 2 (which I put at a less than 20% chance), scum is almost certainly off the wagon. This is why I will probably pursue a vote of someone off the Peabody wagon, like CoCo or Col.Cathart.
I still have more reading to do, but this is the majority of my thoughts so far.-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
I agree it looks like a less likely pairing from this angle, mainly because of Peabody jumping on CoCo when his own lynch was becoming likelier. Usually this is a decent town indication - it's uncommon for scum to further an alternate wagon to their own on a partner. But it isn't totally out of the question. If Peabody genuinely thought he was going down, he could easily try to sew some fake interactions. We already have evidence of him attempting it with Vaya at the end of play.le Chat wrote: Pertaining to Hoopla's post, and also @Hoopla: What you said is pretty convincing from the CoCo -> Peabody angle, but what CoCo said in response also makes sense... basically, what about from the Peabody -> CoCo angle? Peabody commented many times that he found CoCo suspicious, that he would be down for a CoCo lynch. I don't think Peabody would have held that belief overtly if he were CoCo's scummate. What do you think?
If we had the perfect candidate that made sense from both ways of interaction, we would be lynching them now. CoCo's scummy play with Peabody outweighs the town probability from the other angle.-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
Good post Sens, but I agree with Vaya. I don't get how his lynch is going to be informative at all. On the off-chance he's scum and we discover Peabody was more cunning than we thought, I doubt that will improve our reads off Peabody's play. We can afford a policy-lynch today. CoCo and Vaya are good choices and probably shouldn't be left alive until lylo.
Reasons for CoCo: Scummy play from the CoCo --> Peabody angle, and otherwise generally difficult to read. Distorts arguments into semantics debates and generally is OMGUSsy.
Reasons for Vaya: Peabody's WIFOM and generally lurky and inactive.
Both are good choices, but I'd really prefer CoCo.-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
This reminds me of a scenario in Mafia 88, where (town) Ectomancer proposed a strategy to counter a miller claim on D1 (here and here). In this case, the claim came at a time where it didn't make sense for scum, and was from a newish player. It was quite likely his claim was true, and Ecto's plan was to either lynch him now, or make a pact to not lynch him ever. This meant it was the mafia's problem to deal with.mathcam wrote:
There's only winning and losing. I don't see how there's any difference (other than making for a good story afterwards) between letting Vaya win as scum and having someone else win as scum.SensFan wrote:there's no way in Hell we can let her win as Scum at this point.
And while I the "we're going to lynch him eventually anyway" argument has some meric, the policy lynch argument is silly --this would be the craziest policy lynch of all time.The policy being advocated is letting a dying scum pick the lynch for the next day. Why on earth would we want to give scum that power?
Cam
It was mostly criticised and shut down - but it seems like it could have been a worthwhile investment. If the town only considered him to be a 5-10% chance of being scum, why not take the punt to save a lynch, and force scum's hand? It probably wasn't worthwhile in the long run for a game that size, but in a smaller game, the lynches have far more importance.
If the majority of people here strongly think Vaya is town, why not take a gamble on his alignment now? We could save a lynch and force scum to NK the wifom if we vowed to ignore it.-
-
Hoopla
-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008
-
-
Hoopla
- Posts: 10788
- Joined: October 12, 2008