Mini 692: Boost Mafia (Game Over!)

[vollkan]

Hi everyone.

Unvote

, if necessary. I will read up in full shortly.

[vollkan]

@TDC:

I'm not sure I understand your question. I haven't read anything suggesting I "need" to be boosted again...

I've already checked Electra's posts and I see that she has, quite rightly, made public the information that the N1 boost gave her, if that was what you meant.

[vollkan]

Oh I see.

Well, my role PM says that boosts will give me information. Nothing I have received suggests that any information I gain from future boosts will be more useful than that which Electra has given already (ie. general setup information).

[vollkan]

Okay, my reread.

For the benefit of those who haven't played with me before, I rank players

behaviour

on a system from 0-100, 0 being absolute town and 100 being absolute scum. 50 is the default and means "I don't see a preponderance of towntells or scumtells". 50 does not mean "no opinion"/"ambivalent"/etc.

12: sthar8 suggests MC. Almost as a rule, theme games are made so that MC is not a game-breaking strategy; and it surprises me that sthar8 doesn't seem to pay any heed to this risk at all.
15: Not sure why iLord votes Eld for boosting Electra. (Are "unboosts" possible?)
27: In making a valid point about Electra's argument, Skillit presumes that Electra could only have been hasty because of a "thirst for power" or a "thirst for power and blood". He doesn't address the very real objective prospect of it simply being an omission by Electra, or Electra reasonably presuming that scum couldn't start powerless (because that would make a game very hard for scum). More importantly, Electra didn't even say that there could only be scum without power. She just said that mafia, if boosted, would probably get bonuses (+1)
28: Crazy posts and makes no comment on the MC suggestion, despite commenting on the Electra boost, thus making it clear he has read. (+1)
45: SKill makes a massive backpedal from his previous point on Electra. He doesn't repudiate his argument - instead he says he is thorough and that Electra's mistake is no definite tell and he was just being jokey. When, in fact, his previous post made it very clear that he was attributing Electra's actions intentionality. (+2)

2) Green Crayons (replacing Mana_Ku who replaced Skillit) - 53
3) Raging Rabbit - 50
5) TDC - 50
6) Huntress (replacing Crazy) - 51
7) Incognito - 50
8) eldarad - 50
9) Xtoxm (replacing sthar8) - 50
12) icemanE (replacing RandomGem who replaced fuzzylightning) - 50

[vollkan]

EBWOP: Obviously, that isn't the complete reread

[vollkan]

46: I agree with this post by TDC.
56: Skillit votes shtar8 for answering questions addressed to other people. Not only does he fail to explain why this is scummy, but the first example he gives doesn't involve responding to a question addressed at anyone in particular - and the second is on a theory debate (where there is no need for people to have restraint in answering for others). (+2)
59: Oddly unargumentative response from shtar8...
60: I think RR makes a legit point abotu shtar8 possibly being scum panicking, but to vote him for it is unduly speculative; ditto with simply claiming that he doubts that shtar8 wasn't aware he was addressing questions for others (My guess would be that he didn't notice it because he wasn't doing it). (+1)
62: Shtar8 touches on this point here, by saying he wasn't aware that they weren't for him
69: fuzzy doesn't really post anything of substance on any of the real issues, addressing only electra's play and theory.
77: RR doesnt explain what was panicky or scummy about sthar8's post. (+1)
85: I don't have any problems with this post by Incog
86: skill maintains it was jokey. I've already given my view on this
102: Another "I will post soon" from crazy...
117: . What I find odd is that he basically repeats his earlier points here to justify a vote. The fact that this comes after fl casts an FoS for SL makes the timing seem rather opportunistic, as if he is now confident that he can wagon SL and have support. Basically, incog, I would like to know why you didn't FoS/Vote SL in 98, when your reasons there weren't any different to those from this post. One problem I do have is with the attack on SL's "8 out of 10" argument. She's basically making a theory argument, and spinning it like a statistical claim is a cheap way of ignoring the point she is making about scum wanting to kep things open. Also, I think Incog too readily dismisses SL's the point about reserving judgment. Incog did say that he prefers to ask questions and get gut reads, which suggests not making position-claims along the way. (+2)
137: Incog now demands statistics from SL when she was making a theory point. If somebody says "scum do X more than town", odds are they mean to make an intuitive claim which is not inconsistent with observations. That is to say, people make such claims based on what they think would occur, and assess the veracity of those claims in light of experience - rather than tallying up games and reaching positions. The point SL is making is that incog is playing in a way which allows him to go by without disclosing his position. The "I have protown reasons for not disclosing" point is one I always find difficulty with. This is a game of incomplete information and, as such, saying "I have reasons which I can't disclose" is basically asking everybody else to give you, potential scum, the benefit of the doubt. In some cases, there are good reasons for not disclosing, but your reasoning has to get revealed at some point (lest it simply serve as an excuse for not posting details), and I will look for that as I continue reading.

2) Green Crayons (replacing Mana_Ku who replaced Skillit) - 55
3) Raging Rabbit - 52
5) TDC - 50
6) Huntress (replacing Crazy) - 51
7) Incognito - 52
8) eldarad - 50
9) Xtoxm (replacing sthar8) - 50
12) icemanE (replacing RandomGem who replaced fuzzylightning) - 50

[vollkan]

139: Incog. He refers to a post by ilord where ilord uses a point that Incog raised to argue for FL being town. Incog asks how ilord can do this and find incog scummy. There's clearly no reason why incog cannot be scummy for reasons X, Y and Z but can also have a valid point about somebody else. (+1)
146: Incog. ilord has made the same point that I made above (in 142). Incog responds to the rest of what ilord says, but makes no mention of this. It's odd that for a point that his questioning suggests was so obvious, he would shunt it so quickly - his attempt to gather townie-brownies failed, and so he drops the potato. (+1)
151: Crazy posts his read thus far. It's all just very uncontroversial. Out of the entire post, he only really says one thing which can lead to further discussion or anything (a question to skillit about him providing slant). For IIoA (+1)
154: Crazy says RR's attack on sthar8 is "crap and scummy" - no elaboration or anything. It's odd that something he actually has an apparently strong opinion about (which is more than can be said for 99% of his previous post) would be entirely omitted from his previous post. (+1)
166: Eldar makes a very weird vote for Crazy. His first comment on Crazy is "I am surprised that springlullaby pulled Incog up for referring to my opinion, but completely ignored Crazy doing the same in a much more blatant way." (I don't see why this makes crazy scummy and not SL.) and "I also don't like the continued assumption that Electra's "information" will be a cop investigation." (It's a stupid assumption, but it isn't scummy). Especially given that he has a far greater number of points on SL (+1)
172: Incog ignores SL's post, very blatantly. (+1)
193: Jahudo posts his reads: "My current feelings: Electra, iLord look town; eldarad, incog and spring I feel gut town; skillet, TDC and sthar are neutral; RR and crazy getting slight scum. I don't have a read on fuzzy." This increases the odds of at least one of RR and crazy being scum quite substantially (scum will typically place a partner within their suspects so as to enable distancing cred). No number increases or anything for this, but I think it is important to bear in mind.
229: RR accuses ilord of a contradiction. I'm going to have to quote here, to make this point capable of being understood.

Yup, scum make an active effort to appear pro town while town are more concerned with looking for scum, so obviously scum have a much stronger sense of guilt when they are called on an anti-town play. For them, it means their town-act failed, while town are more inclined to think it's the other guy's fault for not reading them correctly.
However, both in hindsight and considering his latest comment, I think sthar's massclaim speculation is a pretty strong sign that he's town. Unvote.

That's weak logic - if one of them had a stronger sense of guilt, it would be town because they would feel guilty for harming to town - their faction.

Good job backing up finally, after someone attacked you for it. My suspicions of you do not falter.

[quote="ilord #2]

I'll ask again since you didn't quite answer this one - much of your reason for suspecting me seems to be that I "pushed" my point against sthar repeatedly. However, I did that because I was repeatedly questioned about it by other players. What is the pro town course of action in this case that would'nt have made me look scummy to you?

Admit that your point was weak once you realized it.
[/quote]

There's no contradiction there. In the first post, RR makes a weak defence of a weak point, but proceeds to abandon the vote for other reasons - the easiest means of dropping accountability for a bad point. If RR had simply said "My guilt argument sucks", then there would be no problem; instead he mounts a defence of that point. (+2)

234: Unclear why Eldar boosts Jahudo or why he votes ilord.

@Eldarad

: Could you clarify these please?
239: incog votes ilord, saying to check his previous posts. He has taken issue with ilord, so I don't have a problem with this right now.


2) Green Crayons (replacing Mana_Ku who replaced Skillit) - 55
3) Raging Rabbit - 54
5) TDC - 50
6) Huntress (replacing Crazy) - 53
7) Incognito - 55
8) eldarad - 51
9) Xtoxm (replacing sthar8) - 50
12) icemanE (replacing RandomGem who replaced fuzzylightning) - 50

[vollkan]

Yeah, I know there's a deadline. My intention at this stage is to continue the read as best I can. I will accelerate my read (ie. minimal notes, etc.). I like to be as thorough as possible, but I am of the view my coming to a proper conclusion at the end of the day is more important than my being thorough. (Also, my past experience is that more recent content is usually more helpful anyway).

280: Incog vote Guardian for SL's dummy-spitting. Her play there was dreadful, but I don't think it is scummy. She was pissed off earlier in the thread IIRC, and there's no real reason to suppose she would be more likely to quit as scum then as town. (+1)
299: Incog attacks ilord's reads. See my previous post for why the argumnet that , becasue ilord used a point of incog's he should see incog as pro-town, is simply untrue. He also says the list seems contrived becasue he couldn't see how players could be ranked so early, passing over (but mentioning) that incog stressed his reads were not concrete. Sure, the rankings didn't mean much, but that doesn't make them "contrived", just tentative. His third point, however, is legit. (+1)
374: The whole "dirty reads" thing. I don't find this scummy, because I've seen the argument before, but it isn't true. Scum benefit from buddying; scum benefit from playing as they think town would - the "dirty read" strategy is one that scum can employ, sure, but it is by no means uncommon for town to also find suspicion globally.
414: @RR: What is the "apparent contradiction" here? I can't see it.

2) Green Crayons (replacing Mana_Ku who replaced Skillit) - 55
3) Raging Rabbit - 53
5) TDC - 50
6) Huntress (replacing Crazy) - 53
7) Incognito - 57
8) eldarad - 51
9) Xtoxm (replacing sthar8) - 50
12) icemanE (replacing RandomGem who replaced fuzzylightning) - 50


I know this post is short; it's just to indicate where I am up to and what I found most notable in what I read.

[vollkan]

Right, I've scanned the thread, and right now, to be honest, I can't see anything other than Max. All day, he's just been posting 6-7 lines max, with little content, and instead of defending himself, he's really just been pointing fingers all day. I can't see any reason to disbelieve the claims, so... might as well Vote: Max

How does Max's play here compare to his meta? If you didn't check out his meta, why?

DGB - I don't give a damn if this is Max as his "town self" - it's the definition of active-lurking, he's posted little-to-no content, and right now, he's the only person I could absolutely, with concrete certainty, say is playing in an anti-town manner. And why is it opportunistic? Because it's the 8th vote on Max? By your reasoning, then, anyone else who votes for Max must be even more scummy, for jumping on even later.

But if Max is playing the same way as he normally is, then it means that his (admittedly bad) behaviour here is not a scumtell. Thus, the nature of the inquiry is changed significantly (basically from a suspicion lynch to a policy lynch)

I'm not here to "whip him into playing by the book", but if someone is playing in an anti-town manner - and it is anti-town to post no content and active-lurk - then I'm going to vote for them. Simple as. I can't help but feel that this is just a massive

chainsaw

on your part, DGB.

Anti-town =/= Scum. See my point above. You aren't looking for scum; you are looking for anti-townness. That is lazy at best, and opportunistic at worst.

And you get a big slap on the wrist from me for using the word "chainsaw" against DGB. For those who aren't aware of the term (and I wasn't until it popped up a few weeks ago):

The general form of this tell is "a player who defends another player by attacking the other player's attacker is very probably scum".
The key to identifying this tell is intent - it is possible to confuse Chainsaw Defense with a player who simply finds the attacker scummy and has no intent of defense. In general, you can be reasonably sure that this tell is involved if a) the player supposedly using Chainsaw Defense has not previously been especially critical of the player he is now attacking, and b) the player supposedly using Chainsaw Defense seems to find the player he is supposedly defending at least reasonably pro-town.
The extreme form of this tell is Mutual Chainsaw Defense, where two players defend each other by attacking each others' attackers. This is a major scumtell, and Tarhalindur would be willing to lynch/vig both players with only this tell as justification.
The Chainsaw Defense is named after the mental image of a player ripping apart another player with a chainsaw for daring to attack his ally. It should not be confused with the Cochrane Defense, which can also be referred to as the Chainsaw Defense (the Wiki refers to the Cochrane Defense this way), which is a gambit made by players investigated as scum. The Chainsaw Defense can also be referred to as the Bodyguard Defense in order to prevent confusion.
UPDATE: After further analysis, Tarhalindur has determined that the Chainsaw Defense is only trustworthy once the player defended has been revealed to be group scum (once the player defended is proved to be Mafia, any player that used Chainsaw Defense on the dead scum should be scrutinized). Otherwise, it is a null tell. Mutual Chainsaw Defense may, however, still be an outright scumtell; more research is required here.

My problem with it in this context is simple: DGB was legitimately attacking poor reasoning in KoC's attack on Max. There is nothing at all wrong with town defending people by shooting down craplogic; in fact, I'd argue that it is often an obligation.

Accusing DGB of "chainsawing" simply serves to place a meaningless negative label on her actions (akin to poisoning the well)

Okay, I'm sorry, but THIS is definitely scummy.
"Don't lynch me, because then no-one can win!" and then threatening people with the no-lynch hanging over our heads. Seriously? Is this your best defence?

He's making a claim of some sort. It sounds very dubious, sure, but it isn't "definitely scummy".

@DGB: WHen you said "just one" investigation, did you mean "just one" in the sense that an OSV has "just one" kill, or that you get one investigation per day?

Quick post to say: Max needs to claim. He needed to claim when he said we didn't want to kill him, but better late than never.

Agreed. He's claimed the power, and we need a full claim to assess the validity of what he's said.

DGB: I'm pretty sure I came up with that theory a while ago... And I don't believe that you're a daycop. Could you nameclaim?

I'm John McCain, The Maverick. I'm a mason with Obama.

Weird claim. I don't see any reason to disbelieve it, though, especialy given that DGB's play thus far hasn't been scummy or anything

[vollkan]

Crap. I posted in the wrong game. Ignore the above.

Apologies

[vollkan]

435: @Incog, you say that "in your experience" scum do tend to push the smear campaign mode of play. About what proportion of the time do you find this to be the case? My problem here is that, whilst your logic is correct (scum stand to benefit from smearing), it ignores the obvious alternative explanation (town having multiple suspicions). Essentially, your argument is inherently unfalsifiable - you are simply claiming that you think a particular interpretation of an apparently innocuous play (there is nothing inherently wrong with having many suspects) is the most reasonable.
458: I don't like Huntress's attack on electra's claim here. Electra claimed vanilla, in the sense that, unboosted, she has no power. She proceeded to state that, if boosted, she would learn information. Huntress paints this as a contradiction - "Here Electra claims to be vanilla but also claims to have a role PM which is clearly not vanilla". (+1)
488: Randomgem uses craplogic to justify suspicion of guardian and ilord. Says that the incog+SL/Guardian argument is too strong for bussing, and so 0 or 1 must be scum. Proceeds to FoS them both, but it's unclear what he actually finds scummy - why not just two townies arguing? (+1)
538: Huntress. Electra explains her alleged misrep of Crazy by saying that she thought Crazy's "play nomrmally, boost later" meant he wanted to ignore boosts. It's a reasonable interpretation. Huntress spins this as "So you called Crazy suspicious based on what you decided he meant, not on what he actually said", which, ironically, misreps Electra in return. (+2)

2) Green Crayons (replacing Mana_Ku who replaced Skillit) - 55
3) Raging Rabbit - 53
5) TDC - 50
6) Huntress (replacing Crazy) - 56
7) Incognito - 57
8) eldarad - 51
9) Xtoxm (replacing sthar8) - 50
12) icemanE (replacing RandomGem who replaced fuzzylightning) - 51

I'm up to page 30. almost done

[vollkan]

Not necessarily. It depends on how you play

[vollkan]

X, nothing I've received suggests that I am an exception to the "2 boosts per person" rule. Since the information I have recieved is very clear that players can are either able to be boosted twice, or not at all, the only conclusion I can draw is that I can be boosted a second time.

I just checked electra's posts as well, and I can't see anything which would give you the idea that I don't get more info.

[vollkan]

I'm reading the last set of pages now, so I'd appreciate it if you could hold off on hammering.

[vollkan]

722: sthar claims secret double voter.
744: Incog claims osv. Doesn't know what happens if he is boosted. (For those who haven't played with me before, claims do NOT lower a person's score. I do, obviously, take full account in my reasoning, but the numerical score is a measure of behavioural scumtells and, thus, claims/lurking/etc. are beyond the scope of my numbers)
756: I don't agree with incog's argument about shtar's claim being suspect. I am naturally a vanilla, but with a role PM which says that I gain a power on being boosted. Shtar's claim, unless I am misunderstanding him, is of the same nature, albeit with a very different boost-power. Shtar also even said he had narrowed his potential power down to two options. I'd like some clarification from X as to what this means (X has the role PM, so hopefully he can work out what Shtar would have thought), but the fact that Shtar's statement suggests a power wasn't specifically identified also matches my own role PM (which, again, says I can learn information, but doesn't specify the nature of that information)
757: Shtar makes a very bad wifom argument here - that his claimed ability makes him more likely town because he has lost the benefit of surprise from it if he were scum. Also, claims that double-voting is a powerful scum ability that wouldn't fit with "what we know of the setup" - which is what, exactly? (+1)
786: I don't like Eldarad's vote for RR here. Eldar's statement that Electra giving two bits of info makes her more likely town is, as RR said, "extreme wifom". WHilst it is true that the whole "leap of faith" thing is also wifom, there's an important risk vs reward consideration involved here (which the blunt label of "wifom" overlooks) - claiming early as electra did, and in the manner that electra did, is a very risky move for scum. Whilst hyposcum electra could have done it for the purpose of appearing pro-town, that possible benefit is, I would argue, very much offset by the huge risks involved for scum attempting such a gambit. Moreover, I can't see why this one point is voteworthy. (+2)
813: <I arrive>
862: X is convinced Eldar is town because his towndar (Why do I get the impression that "towndar" is just "gut" in a cheap suit) told him so :sigh:
879: Hmm...X says shtar's claim was only a partial one. That's certainly not the impression I got. In 878, Incog quotes part of sthar's claim post [the bit incog quotes is in blue font below] but I think he misses what is most important [which I have bolded]:

I think that the best use of my role is to claim now and alleviate any suspicions that my new power might be a kill.

If you recall, yesterday I noted that I did not believe I was the best boost for the day. This was because I had narrowed my

potential powers

down to two options, and I didn't think either of them is particularly helpful to us in the early game, except as a way to potentially confirm me.

I'm a double voter. I have a second, secret vote that I PM to elmo in order to use. From the wording of my boost PM, I believe that once I use this vote, I will not retain the power into the following days. If there are no objections, I'd like to use this today in order to confirm myself. I'd also like to get it out of the way, because it could potentially be devastatingly swingy in a LYLO situation, and I don't want the pressure should it come to that.

Potential powers...He also said, in a later post:

So if you're saying you only got a double vote because you were boosted, how are you a power role?

Maybe we define power roles differently. I define them as having an ability above and beyond the standard town mechanics for a game. How do you define it?
[/quote]
and then:

My role PM gave nonspecific qualities of my character, and implied that boosting me would amplify these charactersitics into a power.

Scum would likely not know this, and if they did their qualities would necessarily be different from town ones. An early claim would force scum to commit to "vanilla," "vanilla with boost," or "normal PR." If they claim vanilla, and no townie has a "vanilla without boost" role, then they are caught. If we have true vanilla townies, we narrow the pool significantly, and know who our safe lynches are right away. If they claim "vanilla with boost," they are forced to lie, and making scum lie is the easiest way to catch them, especially since they have no standard example of how "vanilla with boost" works for town. I would not have discounted scum assuming that "boostees" would be explicitly informed of their powers, before electra elaborated on her claim. If they claim "normal PR," they are stuck in whatever role they chose, we gain information if they continue to live, and we might catch scum through counterclaim. I originally thought that there would be no traditional power roles in this game, obviously that assumption was wrong, and the strategy is weakened considerably. I guessed that if my speculation was correct, other players might come to the same conclusion and support the idea of massclaim, giving us a good chance of catching at least one scum on D1.

There's no explicit statement of "I have no powers except for my boost-power", but the way he describes it (which is similar to my own role PM, as I mentioned earlier) suggests he has nothing else.
921: X concludes that RR's play seems largely pro-town. The kicking point X makes is a valid argument, but I think that RR"s recent crtiicism of X is legit. Overall, therefore, the vote is unjustified and seems to be largely OMGUS, with some weak reasoning behind it. (+2)
930: Incog's explanation of his role PM fits with my own, and what sthar said.
936: X explains the role PM thing as being about charisma and leadership
943: Good point from RR - sthar claimed to have "narrowed it down"; he didn't go anywhere near as specific as X now has.
963: Incog's response to me on the smear campaign issue: The trouble here is that your argument essentially rests on an appeal to "what you've seen". Speaking from theory, and not from observation, there is absolutely no reason why an apparent "smear campaign" should only come from scum, rather than town who happens to find nobody protown (yours truly standing as an example of this ). Your argument presumes that a player intentionally makes their reads universally scummy when, varying game-to-game of course, such reads can simply arise from the nature of people's plays.
964: Eldarad: People who post most tend to end up with higher scores on my system. Taking TDC versus Incog, for instance, I have much less confidence in TDC being at 50 than I do at incog being at 57. IOW, the less a person posts, the more I attach a "margin of error" to my read of them. What I've seen of TDC is not scummy, but his low posting rate undermines that. WHereas, I have serious problems with a lot of Incog's posts. The system punishes people who post more, but I try to overcome that (I haven't been able to quantify the whole "margin of error" thing, however)


This answer pretty strongly implies that the boost-power is his only power.
2) Green Crayons (replacing Mana_Ku who replaced Skillit) - 55
3) Raging Rabbit - 53
5) TDC - 50
6) Huntress (replacing Crazy) - 56
7) Incognito - 57
8) eldarad - 53
9) Xtoxm (replacing sthar8) - 53
12) icemanE (replacing RandomGem who replaced fuzzylightning) - 51

FINALLY!

Something else: I've noticed recently that my replacement readups tend to produce lower scores for people than I get from ranking people as I play. The numbers I've produced here fit that pattern of behaviour (I think it is because, in reading, I don't experience things as closely and, thus, don't get to reason or question in the way I normally would - along with the natural tendency to miss small details when reading).

I'm going to try something new here: to adjust the numbers based on where I think they would be if I had played along throughout - to smooth out the replacement problem

2) Green Crayons (replacing Mana_Ku who replaced Skillit) - 60
3) Raging Rabbit - 55
5) TDC - 50
6) Huntress (replacing Crazy) - 65
7) Incognito - 70
8) eldarad - 55
9) Xtoxm (replacing sthar8) - 55
12) icemanE (replacing RandomGem who replaced fuzzylightning) - 50

[vollkan]

Forgot I even had it until I was asked to claim.

:S Hmm... Fine, you might possibly forget your role at some point, but it begs belief that, at the end of Day One, a protown player in the position of not knowing their role would somehow not think "Oh, gee, it might be a good idea to make sure I don't have a role". Either you are lying, or you are playing absolutely atrociously.

I kinda could believe that except that you replaced in about a day before Night 1.

And this ^

[vollkan]

However, iceman suggested in #916 that I was on the right track, but he also says in #1021 that he had forgot what role he had until he had been asked to claim...
So how could his role be affecting his posting rate prior to that?

In #916, he bolded "something that incentivises them to keep quiet". I don't know what that actually suggests, but obviously it implies very strongly that he had knowledge of his own role at that point in time. Hmm.

Unvote
Vote: Huntress

I've seen enough of your posts this game to know you are a content-rich sort of guy. As such, I find it kind of baffling to fathom how hypotown Incognito could, simultaneously, be convinced of Hunt's scumminess by something to the point of changing his vote, but also not think it worthwhile to either explain himself or, if time was scarce, to post a "reasons shortly" or something to that effect.