Mini 942: Gonzo Mafia - Game Over!

[flinter]

ah, a friendly face! thank you for replacing, kyle.

And hi reckoner!

I don't think I know the rest of you. But I hope we have a fun game!

[flinter]

Vote: flinter

She probably didn't even read her role PM!

Don't be so mean. I always read my role pm.

Sometimes I just forget it, when I'm too busy finding scum

and I forgot you, sorry. But that was because you played with an other account there. And I'm happy you are here!

[flinter]

VI, what did you mean by that? Do you think Hohum is scum for saying that?

[flinter]

flinter, why no vote yet?

I really dislike "pure" random votes. I like to have some reasoning, no matter how weak, to use before I vote. I think works better then a vote that is purely random, as nobody can ask you thinks about that.

The reason why I don't yet have a vote out, is because I haven't really read into the game yet. I have read the game, but nothing really stood out. So I would need a good read of the game first.

I find xreck to be inproductive. Voting for votehopping is not so great, asking for games and then saying the person clearly is concious about his scumplay, is almost setting someone up. But this doesn't have to be done by scum, and I think it is "bad" play.

[flinter]

I find recks action antitown, but not scummy. So I have a neutral read on him. And that is the problem with most that I could comment on.

If I was really reaching for a conclusion, I would call zachs town: votehopping is almost never scummy, but it is good to show what you are thinking. If he didn't do this in previous games, this towntell gets stronger: he is rather using his vote for information discussion etc, then trying to find a good excuse for a vote whenever he votes (that would generally mean that he would vote less)

But, the use of votes is mostly a playstyle thing, so it isn't really a great tell. Random votes don't tell me a thing, tbh. VI's play is ok, but I think that is expected from him. Reck has already been named, and Hohum is quite unreadable for me at the moment.

So I'm trying to investigate, but there is nothing scummy that stands out for me yet. It would also help if I got to know some of the players better.

if you are scum, and someone makes a point against you that is quite ridiculous, what do you do:

A calmly explain why it is ridiculous.
B call that person a moron, etc.
C something else (please explain what you would do)

[flinter]

Zach, I know reck a bit already, but would you please answer that question? I don't think I have played with you before.

[flinter]

oh, sorry, yes that was a question for everyone. Thank you for answering.

How this helps me? I like to know if someone is usually arguing with a calm mind, or if that person has the habit of being more extreme in his/her opinions. On this moment, I have no suspicions.

One thing that I notice in your answer: you answered it for the town point of view. Did you miss that I wanted to know about your scum-play? (you don't need to answer for your scumplay now, I know enough)

[flinter]

you mean I missed one? I did say what I thought about reck.

Or did you mean my own question?

[flinter]

I think I know what you mean, VI. The difference was that there, pretty early (I checked, with my fourth post), I got the idea that xscorp was scum (because he had played different in another game I had played with him, as town) That was my first vote there.

Percy: I would have voted if I thought that action made Reck more likely scum.

Sotty: I would try to explain it. I don't like people thinking badly about me, and such things are better explained then left there. I think I'm going to try to play more like Ekim this game, although I fear I wouldn't be so objective when I tried to find out the motive of someone making a ridiculous point against me.

[flinter]

I just answered, percy

and the only person who worries me is Kyle. In the previous games I quite soon thought him town, but here his play... worries me (I can't say it better), but I want to see more of his posts before I'll tell you (and him) what my problem is.

Other then that, I really have no idea yet.

[flinter]

Plus I think she likes antagonizing me, so I'm more or less done liking her on a personal level.

I hope you aren't serious here If you were, I would like you to know I didn't intent to. Sorry.

I do agree with her opinion on xRx at least; it's just a shame that that's half of her stances from post one.

that is a start


Now, the promised post about Kyle, seen that he has made another post that has as only point the meta-defense of Reck.

I have never seen Kyle do that before. As I know kyle, he is not a leader in town, and you'll generally see kyle agreeing with one or the other. Taking a stance against a bandwagon is not something kyle does often. I have never seen him do it, and if he did it, I would expect him to follow someone else who would have a good reasoning. There is no good reasoning in his defense. "I will admit some of his playing so far this game is quite scummy" would normally be all kyle would need to get on that bandwagon.

Further, the kyle I know, gets into trouble in the early game quite often (bandwagonning is one of the things he gets into trouble with, and also the weak explanation of his votes), as he plays "risky". Nothing of that here. I think this is because kyle is scum:

vote kyle

(I have nothing against your playstyle btw, if this would make it seem so)

[flinter]

ortolan, I usually think Kyle town. I don't have that here.

and a town needs leaders and followers, kyle is more a following type: there is nothing wrong with that, as long as he is helping as town. And staying of the major bandwagons is quite logical, since I don't like the case on Reck, and Ekim is actually trying to answer and ask questions.

[flinter]

is everything I'm going to do now seen as "trying to look active"?

Further, I'm not populartajo.

@the people saying I should search for points against people: if I do that, I fear I go the reckoner-way: trying very hard to find something, and as a result making cases on town just as easily as on scum.

But, lets have your word in this: would you prefer I did that? I think I could make a nice post that way, and maybe it helps, but I wouldn't be confident in it myself.

[flinter]

VI: would you mind if I didn't answer that question?

I considered asking if it was a post restriction a good idea. If it was done by scum, faking it, then this would force him to stick with it (while he could get caught if he failed). I think a postrestriction would normally most given to town, so asking if that was it, would semi confirm him.

Percy's action of attacking Hohum for it is mostly induced by "roleclaim is bad" idea's, which are not relevant here (as a postrestriction is already obvious, and scum knows). His trying to go against hohum, in stead of not thinking about it, or buddying with hohum makes Percy more likely town (though I think he is wrong)

[flinter]

Congratulations, your second argument essentially is to basically eliminate the concept of a scumtell. "Just because other people regularly do this as scum doesn't mean I do it as scum" is extremely unconvincing.

the concept of general scumtell is great for arguing, but isn't relevant in scumhunting. There each person is different. For some, selfvoting is a scumtell. For some it is not. You named

one

particular case where someone did something as scum, but it doesn't follow that everyone doing that is scum.

[flinter]

reread, using small tells as a start of scumhunting:

Mod:

"16) If you have been lynched, you are dead. You are not allowed to post in the thread any more until the game is over. This includes ‘Bah!’ posts. Violation of this rule may result in repercussions against your faction."

Does this mean after enough votes have been reached, or after you've announced the lynch?

He reads the rules: he is eager, and he is in a state of mind where he is paying attention to the game. Town.

Vote: ekiM

He was very pro-town looking scum last time I played with him. Early pressure might sort that out.

already making people doubt ekiM. I dislike this.

FoS Locke

ekiM has no problem with reasoning and logic, and that could indeed make him a good scum player. Because that looks good. He isn't uncatchable though, and you simply have to understand that ekiM will argue well. However, he will have other scumtells.

I don't get the early Hohum case.

And random voting someone for personal reasons isn't anti-town?

Or is this more because I random voted in a manner that's DIFFERENT than everyone else?

I dislike how he makes sure that people know he is different. Different is usually viewed as towny, and that makes this post most a roundabout way of saying: "I'm towny, really!"

FoS zach

Zach his posts on page three are seriously weak: Reck had a point here. Zach is making 2 active lurking cases already, and saying Hohum isn't aggressive enough. Sorry, 3 active lurking cases: on me too. (locke and sotty were the others). Votehopping isn't the problem, it is that the votes are not very different, and weak.

Sotty's deflection is noted:

Anyway...

Unvote: Vote: Sotty7

One random vote, one question toward me, (That feels like it's buddying up to Vi.) and no scum hunting. Her play feels off to me.

Eh it's the start of the game, I was finding my feet. Questing is how I do that.

Right now I don't see your RVS vote as scummy as Vi seems to find it. I was wondering what your point was about "you're clutching at straws" but your right she could be voting Hohum. But I see Vi just being Vi, she's like a dog with a bone when you're in her sights. I don't find it scummy.

What do you think of flinter Zach?

- edited -

flinter, why no vote yet?

Vi: are you under some sort of post restriction?

Good question. Townpoints.

@ekiM: I've seen Vi play as both, and I think she tends to be a bit more cautious/reserved when scum. She's kinda just letting it fly here without any thought of "Oh shit, will this get me flak/get my lynched?" Basically, when I've seen Vi-scum, she flies under the radar, something Vi is not doing here.

Do you think she's aware of her scum meta? Could she be playing against it?

ekiM

, was this a serious question, or were you sarcastic?

I named kyle already.

So me not bandwagoning and defending a baseless bandwagon is scummy? I'm simply saying that xReck's current playstyle fits his meta quite well, not that I'm completely assured of his towness. Your post basically reads, "Kyle is taking a stand, something I've never seen him do, so I think he's scum." No offense, but that's some pretty weak reasoning.

Lets call it buddying, so everybody understands what I'm saying.

kyle got mislynched on day one in roccisi winter as town doc (along with a whole bunch of other policy lynches), mainly for lurking and being noncommittal if memory serves. I don't see the difference to how he is playing here. flinter's case is basically "kyle usually plays like a sheep and because he's not doing so here he is likely to be scum". Sure it's uncharitable but I also can't shake the feeling flinter is just coming up with a convoluted excuse to vote someone who she thinks is an easy target (and conveniently avoid more populous/viable bandwagons).

Unvote
Vote: flinter

You didn't read my case well enough, I think. Noncommittal happens. Lack of scumhunting too. But defending (buddying to) other players? It is not his style.




And I think kyle is the most likely scum.

[flinter]

sotty, it was the one Vi already used. http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... c&&start=0 I thought you would already have read Vi's post. The other game is ongoing.

flinter: your assumptions about ekiM are based on flawed criteria. Do you think scum are reluctant, never read the rules or pay attention to the game?

Scum, per definition, doesn't investigate. ekiM did. That is a minor town tell. He had the right mindset.

Locke (and sotty, and others, if they want to be in this group), I think we disagree about how someone should find scum. You are looking for general scumtells: (active) lurking, bad logic, connections between two players where you don't know either allignement etcetera. But scum know these tells too, and are avoiding them. Town can make a mistake. All this makes that mislynches are quite common (at least, in the games I read)

I think this is ineffective. I believe that you find scum by looking at someone's motivations. "Why did he do that?", taking in consideration how he or she is as a person. I don't expect big cases from kyle (though I would be positively surprised if he made one), for example.

I am actually quite disappointed in you, Locke. You don't understand it, and then you say it is flawed. Mafia is a game where no one playstyle is best, everyone has its way of finding scum.

[flinter]

Are you still referring to ekiM asking about the rules when you say he investigated? Last time I checked, scum still had to play by the rules too.

They are also capable of investigating

and often need to because they don't have all the information either. In any case, perhaps you can tell me why ekiM must have had pro-town motives for asking for clarification about that particular rule?

Town has to investigate
Scum has to hide, and survive.

nothing says ekiM

must

be town. He is just more likely town, because he clearly shows he is here to investigate.

What makes you disagree with this?

You keep saying scum could do it too. What makes this that scum does it just as often as town?

[flinter]

And random voting someone for personal reasons isn't anti-town?

Or is this more because I random voted in a manner that's DIFFERENT than everyone else?

I dislike how he makes sure that people know he is different. Different is usually viewed as towny, and that makes this post most a roundabout way of saying: "I'm towny, really!"

FoS zach

Weaksauce.

I was right? Although it was weak, I was right?

Zach his posts on

page three

are seriously weak: Reck had a point here. Zach is making 2 active lurking cases already, and saying Hohum isn't aggressive enough. Sorry, 3 active lurking cases: on me too. (locke and sotty were the others). Votehopping isn't the problem, it is that the votes are not very different, and weak.

Active lurking is scummy. Besides, the reason I voted you was because you weren't scumhunting. The efforts you've been putting forth are just really weak at this point. I don't really feel like they are genuine and are more forced suspicions in response to the fact that people find your lack of scum hunting suspicious.

I have bolded the two key words: page three. Oh, and they are. I already said that. But seemingly, they did make sense, as you are not even trying to argue, you are only trying to discredit me.

how did we call that: ad hominem?

[flinter]

@Vi, I have played on another forum before, with a small group of players.

@Percy: the harder you are going to look for scummy people, the more likely you are going to find town who made a small mistake. So I usually refrain from doing that, but if you people like that better, I could do that. I did that in my large post, making practically everything in that a weak tell. I don't like that post that much.

DDD, do you still think me scummy? In case you don't, could you please unvote, because your name is so long that I thought I was lynched when I saw that votecount

[flinter]

Would you be happy with an xRx lynch today?

Yes.

I think flinter's attitude of "scumhunting leads to dead townies" and what may very well be as slip on her part regarding knowledge of zach's alignment is what is keeping my scumdar pinging like crazy, but I think xRx's fading into the background when the heat came off him is scummy as hell.

If you are going to nitpick, you are going to find townies. Thank you for twisting this as far that I seem to be against scumhunting.

Please quote where my "slip" is. As far as I know, the only thing I have said about zach was that his votes on pages 3 were badly reasoned.

Reck is not playing scummy, he is making mistakes. Percy goes with the flow. That is scummy.

[flinter]

@flinter

:
I already quoted it for you:

@the people saying I should search for points against people: if I do that, I fear I go the reckoner-way: trying very hard to find something, and as a result making cases on town just as easily as on scum.

I took "the reckoner-way" to mean that you thought he tried too hard to find something, and made a case

on town

through nitpicking.

Now if you said "through nitpicking, you can make bad cases", then that's closer to what you're trying to imply that you've been saying all along. But it's not what you said. You've said things like this:

the harder you are going to look for scummy people, the more likely you are going to find town who made a small mistake.

See, the thing is, no-one is going to get lynched over a "small mistake" - whilst that first mistake might attract votes, its their subsequent play after a wagon forms that really determines whether they're going to be the lynch or not, compounded with the reactions from other players etc., so I simply don't understand this attitude. I want to avoid criticising your playstyle (it might work for you), but I am concerned at the attitudes you've displayed towards xRx which you are excusing with it.

Also, your characterisation of my play as "going with the flow" is a ridiculous knee-jerk.

ok, I'll forgive you. This doesn't have to be malicious. It should be "just as easy on town as on scum" where you italicized "on town" (scum make just as many mistakes as town, I think. If you are going to nitpick, and are more looking for mistakes that way, your scumhunting becomes less effective)

You say people are going to look at the subsequent play. If you already assume someone to be scum because of earlier cases, then you are more likely to find them scum again. Meaning that you should also scumhunt effectively during the first part of the game, something you say is not necessary.

[flinter]

Sotty: logic is better for arguing, and bringing your point across, I think.

Zach his posts on

page three

are seriously weak: Reck had a point here. Zach is making 2 active lurking cases already, and saying Hohum isn't aggressive enough. Sorry, 3 active lurking cases: on me too. (locke and sotty were the others). Votehopping isn't the problem,

it is that the votes are not very different, and weak.

Active lurking is scummy. Besides, the reason I voted you was because you weren't scumhunting.

The efforts you've been putting forth are just really weak at this point.

I don't really feel like they are genuine

and are more forced suspicions in response to the fact that people find your lack of scum hunting suspicious.

I have bolded the two key words: page three. Oh, and they are. I already said that. But seemingly, they did make sense, as you are not even trying to argue, you are only trying to discredit me.

how did we call that: ad hominem?

Nothing you quoted there by Zach amounts to an ad hominem attack if that is what you are suggesting.

I've bolded my first suspicion of zach, and I italicized his response.

This is a full ad hom. In stead of answering my argument, zach says I'm not honestly suspecting him, and I shouldn't be active lurking.

Hohum becomes more towny for me.


Vi: I'm still voting for my scum, who hasn't posted a lot lately.

Further, other suspects like locke have posted, but I didn't find this interesting.

I think going for Reck is wrong. I was going to look at what was said about Percy, because I didn't fully understand it always, but I'm afraid I forgot to do that.


Oh, and I think I'm moderately experienced. But I notice the way you play here is a little different.



Although I like that DDD is finally off me, his vote makes me doubt him a bit. He bandwagons.

[flinter]

Reck is making mistakes, not being scummy. The wagon might be appealing, but is quite a random one.

I know very well what ad hominem means. As far as I know, Zach didn't even read my accusations, he just went on how bad I am as a player.

Now, he may think that fun, and all, but that doesn't mean that his votes on page 3 were well reasoned, or that there was any need for a votechange between them (the cases were very similar) Zach never replyed to this.

unvote vote zach

. You may have a friend in Sotty, but that doesn't mean you are right. Please tell me why you needed to votehop there.

[flinter]

Although I like that DDD is finally off me, his vote makes me doubt him a bit. He bandwagons.

What is your obsession with Triple D's vote?

I am pretty important.

He just made that vote. I am pretty sure I am allowed to comment on that, but maybe Sotty has a reason why I shouldn't?

[flinter]

Also just remembered that your vote was still on Kyle. I can't remember a good reason for it being there, but it feels like the safest lurker vote ever. (He is lurking, but to me it his play looks exactly the same as his play in Kittymo's mini 922, where I replaced him as a town mason.)

So yeah... why are you voting for him again?

are you blaming me because you can't read well? I didn't mention lurking as a reason for it, nor was kyle lurking at that moment. He was, however, defending Reck in a wishy washy manner, which is absolutely not his style. And that was my case.

(it wouldn't have been too hard to iso me, I hope?)

[flinter]

I actually read it in the way I replyed to it, but I don't expect you to believe me.

Why wasn't that reason in the original post where you voted? Because that was a simple active lurking case.

[flinter]

K. Lynch me. This game does not interest me in the slightest.

Please, don't do this Reck. Lets just play, for fun. This is not the right way to do that

[flinter]

My post 190 was me questioning my two top suspects, I think it is ridiculous to call it “fluff” Getting answers from flinter is like pulling teeth. I have asked her on several occasions what she thinks of reck and each time she gives me nothing but vague crap. I want to know if she thinks he is town or not at this point. She is defending his wagon without really taking a firm stance.

I am sorry if you think it crap, but then I'm afraid it has more to do with your reading capabilities. I say there is nothing scummy about him, that what he has done are just as easily bad scum play as bad town play. Call it vague: it is what I think.

Reck is making mistakes, not being scummy. The wagon might be appealing, but is quite a random one.

I know very well what ad hominem means. As far as I know, Zach didn't even read my accusations, he just went on how bad I am as a player.

Now, he may think that fun, and all, but that doesn't mean that his votes on page 3 were well reasoned, or that there was any need for a votechange between them (the cases were very similar) Zach never replyed to this.

unvote vote zach

. You may have a friend in Sotty, but that doesn't mean you are right. Please tell me why you needed to votehop there.

No, this is just bullshit. How can you reason that he never read your post? He called it weak that doesn't mean he didn't read it. It more likely means he read and thought it was weak like he said. Ad hominem is a buzz word you're using here to make your vote look good. It doesn't work.

The problem is, I am accusing him that multiple votes of him were not very good, and since they were very much the same, it made no sense to switch between them: how is calling me an active lurker an answer to that?

Why are you defending Zach?

You have also abandoned your case on Kyle for this. Why?

you haven't heard me say I thought him town. Kyle isn't interesting on the moment, because he is gone. There is no use in pressuring someone who isn't here.

The reck wagon isn't random, don't claim that it is. Reck has done things that people find scummy, that's why he is getting votes. You also say the wagon is appealing, why do you think that?

then those people are wrong. They are voting for mistakes.

Although I like that DDD is finally off me, his vote makes me doubt him a bit. He bandwagons.

What is your obsession with Triple D's vote?

I am pretty important.

He just made that vote. I am pretty sure I am allowed to comment on that, but maybe Sotty has a reason why I shouldn't?

Sure, but it was the second time you mentioned triple D in particular. Why the focus on him and not the others on your wagon?

Why is this a point? You can read why I picked him the first time, so I think you try to make a point here. Don't do it by going around it, just say what you think.

[flinter]

flinter, what is the difference between xRx playing badly and xRx playing scummily?

I'll tell you when I find him playing scummy.

Playing badly is when something doesn't benefit you as scum, but does give you a lot of negative attention.

I still don't care if flinter lives or dies. Between the continued let's-be-friends cheese and being entirely wrong about everything, I'm starting to doubt she has an ulterior motive; but at the same time she's unhelpful at best. With xRx giving up today, though, I don't think she's the best lynch.

and thank you. Why am I scum again? You are just saying I'm a bad player, because you disagree with me.

[flinter]

I'm saying you're tunneling and coasting. I don't think it is like you to ignore the rest of the player list this much even when you do tunnel.

So fixing that would be great.

If there weren't already great reasons to lynch Flinter, the above is another great one.

Ceterum autem censeo, Carthaginem esse delendam

[flinter]

Flinter, you're scum because by your own admission you don't think he's scummy, yet you've kept the option to bandwagon him open by saying his bandwagon is appealing.

Please die quickly scum.

you misunderstand me.

with all those mistakes, his wagon might be appealing. But I don't believe there has been any tell that shows it is on scum.

[flinter]

Flinter, I'll ready admit that I have been defending Zach because your case on him has no basis. His vote hopping wasn't scummy and he didn't personally attack you. So there is no credible leg for you to stand on, I'll defend any player who comes under such crap attacks.

Percy also called your case on Zach bad. Why didn't you ask him why he was defending Zach?

Because it wasn't percy who came long after again with an "you suck, and it wasn't a ad hom"

Then why did zach only reply to my case a few pages later?

Because he didn't do it then.

[flinter]

then those people are wrong. They are voting for mistakes.

You say that like you know for a fact that we're wrong.

Good towny.

But no. I very strongly believe that, yes. And people tend to listen better when you abandon reason, and just say in absolute terms what you think.