Newbie 727: Game Over, Town Wins!

[Burb]

unfos blitzy

well that provoked some interesting responses. Wasn't really looking for anything else. Nothing else to go on w/o the othres posting, but maybe I'll post more after school.

[Ropis]

- Do you feel that Hascow's reasoning for the vote was adequate?

- How do you feel about the dialogue between the two of us thus far?

I think it was an appropriate response. It seemed you were trying to start the game in two directions at the same time and he thought it was fishy, so he applied a little pressure until he was satisfied. I didn't think the Random Vote + Discussion Starting Questions were scummy (I think anything that gets discussion rolling is a good thing) but anything that a player

could

find scummy should be followed up on. It's good scumhunting.

- Do you have any comments about the rest of the game?

Burb is making me uneasy.

Let me make a pre-emptive defense

If you ask someone to justify what might be a hasty accusation then there's no reason to get out in front of a possible counter attack.

Of course a random vote will be needed, but first I'd like to hear both sides concerning your non random vote.

Why do you need to hear anything before placing a random vote? If it's affected by the information you're waiting for then it's no longer random, is it?

Random kills may be unpleasant, but they provide greater information and even have a chance of killing the mafia, slight as it may be

Why on earth would a random voting phase lead to a random lynch? If my vote was on somebody who was at L-2 and my vote was random, you can bet I'd be unvoting unless after my random vote the player actually earned it. By the same token I would say that there is no such thing as a random lynch - if a majority decision has been reached then

somebody

was pushing for it, and if you can't tell immediately who it was then it's almost certainly the scumbags.

I find faulty rationale to be suspicious because only scum would need to resort to that

This game is about making decisions based on limited information, and that can sometimes be coupled with a high-pressure situation (especially in the late game). High pressure + low information leads naturally to poor rationale, so I don't think it's nearly the tell you seem to believe it is. Like other possible tells it should be looked into, but it's certainly not enough to warrant a vote on it's own.

Additionally, in lieu of all other possibilities, voting off the most illogical member is also simply the most logical step; he will be the biggest hindrance in the future.

[clarified later by:]

When I said "in lieu of all other possibilities", I meant that in the absence of all other implications/evidence concerning players' scumminess.

If there is an "absence of all other implications/evidence concerning players' scumminess" then why would we lynch

anybody

unless we're up against a deadline?

While you haven't exactly pushed for either, you have painted "random" lynches and lynching irrational players in a positive light. It seems to me that you are laying the groundwork for later attempting to lynch somebody, anybody, regardless of how scummy they are. I don't like it.

Vote: Burb

[ameyarahane]

Really not liking this. Why exactly do you believe that Hascow had no reason for his vote, especially when he stated multiple times that he has a reason that he will reveal shortly?

I really didn't think he would base his reasoning on the answer to the question:

What do you think is the point of random voting?

Doesn't the name say it all?

I believe a random vote will evoke a response from new players who feel attacked, but for players who are used to playing Mafia games, it should not raise any eyebrows. I would probably ignore a random vote against me.

My initial vote was with an aim of accusing someone (anyone for that matter), instead of just random voting, and hasCow's post gave me a reason to start with him. Though I was but only half-serious while voting him, as can be read in my post:

Also for using a deceptive avatar. You're no cow, not by far Mister!

As for Blitz, somehow playing the thats-how-we-played-games-on-the-old-site card seems more an excuse than analytical reasoning.

FoS: Blitz

Ill keep my vote where it is right now, I'm too sleepy to analyze so many posts. Ill write another one when I'm up tomorrow morning.

[hasdgfas]

Really not liking this. Why exactly do you believe that Hascow had no reason for his vote, especially when he stated multiple times that he has a reason that he will reveal shortly?

I really didn't think he would base his reasoning on the answer to the question:

What do you think is the point of random voting?

Doesn't the name say it all?

I believe a random vote will evoke a response from new players who feel attacked, but for players who are used to playing Mafia games, it should not raise any eyebrows. I would probably ignore a random vote against me.

My initial vote was with an aim of accusing someone (anyone for that matter), instead of just random voting, and hasCow's post gave me a reason to start with him. Though I was but only half-serious while voting him, as can be read in my post:

Also for using a deceptive avatar. You're no cow, not by far Mister!

As for Blitz, somehow playing the thats-how-we-played-games-on-the-old-site card seems more an excuse than analytical reasoning.

FoS: Blitz

Ill keep my vote where it is right now, I'm too sleepy to analyze so many posts. Ill write another one when I'm up tomorrow morning.

So many things to respond to in this post.
I said I was going to explain my vote after the answer to the question, but nowhere did I say that my reasoning was based on the answer to the question. My reasoning was something else completely, I just wanted the question answered before explaining it because my thoughts would change after the question was answered.


Why do you say that a random vote shouldn't raise eyebrows? What if it's a "random vote" that puts someone at L-1? Shouldn't that raise some eyebrows? Why would you ignore a "random vote" against you? Do you feel there are any better responses to a "random vote"?

So, your vote was there to accuse someone instead of random voting, but it was only a half-serious vote? You can't have it both ways amey. You can't be making a serious vote but also joking about it. If there's a serious portion to it, everything said should come into account when explaining the vote, even the "joke" parts, because those can often mean more than most people think.

Why are you FoSing Blitz for playing the game the same way he's always played it and explaining that? Do you think he's lying? Does analytical reasoning have to be the defense for every attack? Why can't you just explain why you did what you did? Are all explanations excuses?

Now, the HUGE problem with this post. You're still voting for me. Why? Your reason for voting for me was:

vote:hasdgfas

for pretending to have a reason for his (apparently) non-random random vote. Also for using a deceptive avatar. You're no cow, not by far Mister!

I explained the reason behind my first vote, now you're just leaving your vote on me. Is there another reason for your vote? If it's the cow thing, I already explained that too, and you didn't respond to it. If there's not another reason for the vote, why is it on there?

I want answers, and this is one of the best ways I know to get them:

vote: ameyarahane

[Spinach]

Although Spinach just posted, he also hasn't said much about the game as of yet so

- Do you have any comments about the game thus far Spinach?

I'm pretty clueless as to who is Scum, although I'm wondering why you, BlitzBall, still have your vote on me. I believe we're past the random voting stage, and I think the votes cast then shouldn't reflect when we're actually 'in the game'.

[hasdgfas]

Although Spinach just posted, he also hasn't said much about the game as of yet so

- Do you have any comments about the game thus far Spinach?

I'm pretty clueless as to who is Scum, although I'm wondering why you, BlitzBall, still have your vote on me. I believe we're past the random voting stage, and I think the votes cast then shouldn't reflect when we're actually 'in the game'.

here's a question, Spinach. How does it help anyone if, after the "random stage" is over(don't get me started on my opinion of how useless the "random stage" is, btw), everyone decides to just unvote because we're out of that portion of the game. And how do we know when we're past that portion of the game? What if different people have different thoughts on when we're out of the "random stage"?
How useful is it to say "unvote because we're out of the random stage" and then not put your vote anywhere else?

[LACivilian]

Honestly, I think the conversation which occurred focusing on Blitz led by Has was sort of pointless. If Blitz wanted to ask questions it fits in perfectly with the tone of a newbie type game. It smacks me as blatant overthinking to find a hidden meaning behind his simultaneously random voting and posing questions. Maybe Has just needed someone to focus on and blitz said enough to find something to latch onto.

As an aside(and excuse me if this goes against the logic of what I just said), but burb's mention of "defense" struck me as an obvious freudian slip the moment I saw it and through the entire thread I haven't seen anything else in the same neighborhood as that in terms of scummy behavior.

Vote: Burb

[Thok]

Official Vote Count

Burb (3): (broncofaninmd, Ropis, LACivilian)

broncofaninmd (1): (Burb)
LACivilian (1): (Sotty7)
Spinach (1): (BlitzBall)
hasdgfas (1): (ameyarahane)
ameyarahane (1): (hasdgfas)

BlitzBall (0):
Ropis (0):
Sotty7 (0):

Not Voting (1): (Spinach)

With 9 alive, it's 5 to lynch.

[Spinach]

here's a question, Spinach. How does it help anyone if, after the "random stage" is over(don't get me started on my opinion of how useless the "random stage" is, btw), everyone decides to just unvote because we're out of that portion of the game

It helps people to unvote their random votes after the random votes stage because then you don't end up with confused people like me wondering why said person has a vote on them, and if there may be more to it. Right now, I don't know if BlitzBall thinks I'm scum, and any person would like to know if someone thinks they're scum, as they would like to shake that off and clean their slate.

And how do we know when we're past that portion of the game?

We know when we're past the random voting stage when the the amount of serious votes outweighs the amount of random votes. In this case, the first serious vote was you, on reply 16. Then we enter into a phase where there is a little reasoning behind votes, but are mostly an element of random. (21, 23, 28) After reply 28, I believe the game enters into the 'serious' phase, in which it doesn't make much sense to have the remnants of the random phase affect the vote count.

What if different people have different thoughts on when we're out of the "random stage"?

If different people have different thoughts, then that is why I waited until now to ask. Most people would say that lengthy posts on page 3 is out of the random stage, if not, then I retract my previous comment. That is, if people can provide evidence of the random phase still existing right now.

How useful is it to say "unvote because we're out of the random stage" and then not put your vote anywhere else?

I don't understand this. Which person are you talking about putting their vote anywhere else? Me, or the person that voted during the random votes stage?

[Sotty7]

unfos blitzy

well that provoked some interesting responses. Wasn't really looking for anything else. Nothing else to go on w/o the othres posting, but maybe I'll post more after school.

This post feels off to me. Major back pedaling in the face of three players disagreeing with you (Has, Blitz and myself) An attempt to pass of what felt like a serious post to me, as one that was just out looking for reactions. Does this mean you don't stand by what you posted in #46?

FOS: Burb

This would be a vote, but putting someone at lynch -1 isn't a good play on only the 3rd page of the game.

here's a question, Spinach. How does it help anyone if, after the "random stage" is over(don't get me started on my opinion of how useless the "random stage" is, btw), everyone decides to just unvote because we're out of that portion of the game

It helps people to unvote their random votes after the random votes stage because then you don't end up with confused people like me wondering why said person has a vote on them, and if there may be more to it. Right now, I don't know if BlitzBall thinks I'm scum, and any person would like to know if someone thinks they're scum, as they would like to shake that off and clean their slate.

Why would you be confused? The reason for the vote is right there in the thread, all you have to do is look back, or ask the player in question. Personally I see votes a tools that the town can use to get information during the day. Some players like to use their vote to simulate pressure to push players into either answering questions that they want answered, or simply to push said player out of their comfort zone to get a reaction and hopefully some kind of read on them.

The random voting stage would be completely pointless if everyone just decided to suddenly unvote after a set amount of time. No fruitful discussion would be started because no one would feel any kind of pressure because they know that soon everyone will just unvote. Then we would all be back at square one looking for a way to push the game forward.

How useful is it to say "unvote because we're out of the random stage" and then not put your vote anywhere else?

I don't understand this. Which person are you talking about putting their vote anywhere else? Me, or the person that voted during the random votes stage?

Correct me if I'm wrong Has, but I believe he is talking in general terms. So how useful do you think it would be in scum hunting terms if you simply unvoted your "random" vote and then didn't actively attempt to put your vote somewhere else?

[hasdgfas]

This would be a vote, but putting someone at lynch -1 isn't a good play on only the 3rd page of the game.

I have to disagree with this, but it doesn't really matter right now.

Correct me if I'm wrong Has, but I believe he is talking in general terms. So how useful do you think it would be in scum hunting terms if you simply unvoted your "random" vote and then didn't actively attempt to put your vote somewhere else?

This is correct. It's more general terms.

[Sotty7]

This would be a vote, but putting someone at lynch -1 isn't a good play on only the 3rd page of the game.

I have to disagree with this, but it doesn't really matter right now.

What part do you disagree with? The possible vote, or the comment about putting Burb at lynch -1 so early?

[hasdgfas]

This would be a vote, but putting someone at lynch -1 isn't a good play on only the 3rd page of the game.

I have to disagree with this, but it doesn't really matter right now.

What part do you disagree with? The possible vote, or the comment about putting Burb at lynch -1 so early?

Putting him at L-1 "so early". I'm not a fan of saying "we haven't reached enough pages to do X yet".

[Sotty7]

Fair enough. I'm not comfortable to push it so quickly so early and when there are still questions Burb can answer.

Play style differences I would suppose.

[broncofaninmd]

Why would I try to force the game to start later, if I were mafia? It makes no sense for me to invent a reason that merely delays the start. If, perhaps, I were delaying the voting process and lurking under the pretense of "busy with schoolwork, soz soz" etc, then that would make sense. At least in that scenario, a possible advantage for me would be to gain information while giving nothing away. However, like I said already, delaying the /confirm process offers no conceivable advantage no matter what my role.

OMGUS

vote bronco

Sorry bronco, but your faulty rationale makes you suspicious. Should you be trying to random vote, then be honest about it: LAL, after all. ATM it seems that you're looking for a reason, any at all, to accuse someone. A townie would've tried to think this through before randomly accuse someone... which you haven't.

First off, my vote was RANDOM. Townie wouldn't random vote? Going by page one, that would put 4 scums in the game and I didnt see that as one of the setups. Second, Yes I was looking for just any reason to accuse. All I know at the moment is im town and there is eight others who could be scum. I put a random vote on you for your excuse of the delay, not the delay itself. With that reaction I think i will keep my vote right where it is.

[Burb]

While you haven't exactly pushed for either, you have painted "random" lynches and lynching irrational players in a positive light. It seems to me that you are laying the groundwork for later attempting to lynch somebody, anybody, regardless of how scummy they are. I don't like it.

Sorry if I said random lynches previously, I meant random votes. If you see my explanation about random voting to hascow earlier, then it should be clear that I don't mean random killings. Random votes, on the other hand, are great for generating discussion.

And I've specifically said I think twice now, that voting for irrational players is SECONDARY to scumminess. Hascow already asked me to clarify that, which I did. Naturally, it'll never happen that everyone has the same level of scumminess and only rationality can be observed. I was merely stating my opinion on the matter.

Why do you need to hear anything before placing a random vote? If it's affected by the information you're waiting for then it's no longer random, is it?

? I didn't really see the point in placing a random vote to generate discussion when hascow apparently had already found something to call blitz on. I later voted bronco because I felt he was being rather silly for not being honest about his vote being a random vote, but that's off the subject.

This game is about making decisions based on limited information, and that can sometimes be coupled with a high-pressure situation (especially in the late game). High pressure + low information leads naturally to poor rationale, so I don't think it's nearly the tell you seem to believe it is. Like other possible tells it should be looked into, but it's certainly not enough to warrant a vote on it's own.

Point conceded. It's not much of a tell, I admit. However, since this is the random voting stage, I didn't think it was a big deal if whatever I voted for him was important.

If there is an "absence of all other implications/evidence concerning players' scumminess" then why would we lynch anybody unless we're up against a deadline?

Well obviously simple discussion can implicate a player and make him more or less suspicious. In this case, I decided to be super aggressive and attack people on the smallest possible tell, and now I appear more suspicious to the majority of players (almost L-1, cept sotty is nice <3).

As for your other concerns, I believe I've already answered most of them. Should you be unsatisfied with my answers, feel free to ask on specific points.

I understand why you'd vote for me, though. I played very noobishly in being overly aggressive early on. Even if the tells really are tells, however unlikely it may be, attacking a person immediately is a bad idea. Should they be innocent, you made a big deal out of nothing and confused the town. Should they be guilty, it's too small to convict them on anything and you're either warning them to be more discreet or making them look innocent by making yourself look so guilty. Instead, one should sit back as much as possible to let any suspicious incidents accrue, at least that's how I see it. Any opinions, ICs? I hope to actually contribute to the next game I'm in, whenever that may be.

As an aside(and excuse me if this goes against the logic of what I just said), but burb's mention of "defense" struck me as an obvious freudian slip the moment I saw it and through the entire thread I haven't seen anything else in the same neighborhood as that in terms of scummy behavior.

Meh. I was treading very cautiously in my first post on this forum, and it seemed logical to me that arguing against an attack is a defense, however mild any of the above may be. Logically then, I would explain my actions so that we wouldn't have to waste time talking about it. Or at least, that's how I saw it. Perhaps my meta may seem odd and out of place, and it's not as if you can check on it on other threads. But compared to every single other of my posts, overly verbose and detailed, how exactly do you think it's so obviously scummy? Oh well, compared to everyone else I'm pretty weird, I suppose. Freudian slip it wasn't, though. I hope you could tell i put more than a modicum of thought into that.

This post feels off to me. Major back pedaling in the face of three players disagreeing with you (Has, Blitz and myself) An attempt to pass of what felt like a serious post to me, as one that was just out looking for reactions. Does this mean you don't stand by what you posted in #46?

Well, frankly, no. If I had truly been resolved on accusing blitz, I would've voted, not fos. But you're right in that it was a semi-serious post; I wanted to know if that reasoning was sound, and the best way to do it is to try to make it stick and then see in which ways it failed. It wasn't "fishing for reactions" in that I was trying to see if people would react scummily or not; I don't have enough experience to do that and I wouldn't have tried.

In retrospect, the tiny opening I had thought i had seen was obviously not there at all. Nonliberal vermont guy's discussoin with blitzy was legitimately the center of the thread at the time, this i concede.

First off, my vote was RANDOM. Townie wouldn't random vote? Going by page one, that would put 4 scums in the game and I didnt see that as one of the setups. Second, Yes I was looking for just any reason to accuse. All I know at the moment is im town and there is eight others who could be scum. I put a random vote on you for your excuse of the delay, not the delay itself. With that reaction I think i will keep my vote right where it is.

Your second and first contradict each other. Either admit you had "just any reason" or that it was random. Random votes, by definition, have no reason behind them. Perhaps you meant that you weren't 100% serious about your vote since this was the random-voting stage; that's the only thing I think you might be trying to say.

You say you put a vote on me because of my excuse. So, then, do you think my excuse was a lie? Why, then, would I lie about something that would give me no advantage, scum or not? I can deal with a "ffs I'm pissed u made the game start late" vote, but I don't understand how my excuse made me any more of a target at all.

just a quick question: at what lenght of time do deadlines start getting pushed on us? Is it a x number of pages kinda thing, set amount of rl time, or a combination of both?

[Burb]

err, that quote tag without referencing anyone was a response to sotty. just for future convenience.

[ameyarahane]

Why can't you just explain why you did what you did? Are all explanations excuses?

First of all, I believe people wouldnt random-vote a person till he reaches L-1 stage. Doing that would obviously appear scummy, and I dont think any scum would want to make it so apparent. And any pro-town person wouldnt want to risk losing a fellow person that way. Also, at that point, someone will definitely unvote to prevent lynching.
The word "random" implies that the voter doesn't have a reason to vote a person! As such, in the very beginning, I wouldn't be worried about a couple of random votes against me.

So, your vote was there to accuse someone instead of random voting, but it was only a half-serious vote? You can't have it both ways amey. You can't be making a serious vote but also joking about it.

I can't be serious at the beginning of Day 1, also since

every

player random votes in the beginning, I really feel it's not going to evoke a defensive reaction. My point of accusing was to draw out a reaction that otherwise people wouldn't bother giving.
Also, i let my vote stay with you because i didn't want to throw it around, or just vote and unvote. It's not that I have made up my mind that you are scum! I can as well

unvote:hasdgfas

.
But now everyone wants to say

Hey, ameya unvoted cuz blah blah blah...

.

Why are you FoSing Blitz for playing the game the same way he's always played it and explaining that?

I'm trying to really be cynical here, not trusting what anyone has to say. Maybe I'm going wrong, but it's still to early to say.

[LACivilian]

Burb I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the word random. "Just any reason" is a perfectly good reason to randomly vote. If you are going to argue such a stringent definition of random it would require that everyone assign a number to each player, randomly pick one of those numbers, then vote for that person. Obviously a random vote isn't so random, but rather it means that the reasons for voting aren't so analytically achieved as they are at a later point in the game. You are using semantics to try to trip us up and you are doing a bad job of it.

[Burb]

Burb I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the word random. "Just any reason" is a perfectly good reason to randomly vote. If you are going to argue such a stringent definition of random it would require that everyone assign a number to each player, randomly pick one of those numbers, then vote for that person. Obviously a random vote isn't so random, but rather it means that the reasons for voting aren't so analytically achieved as they are at a later point in the game. You are using semantics to try to trip us up and you are doing a bad job of it.

People actually do assign everyone random numbers and then use a random number generator to pick them. My concept of "random" is not so outrageous as you think.

I realize that most votes at this point are based on tiny reasons that will be insignificant later on. I have ALREADY STATED that this is what I think bronco meant by random vote, and I never said that doing so would be wrong, I was just pointing out that in the literal fashion he was contradicting himself. That bugs me.

I have no problem with people voting on tiny dumb stuff during the random stage, but you can't both argue that there was a tell, however small, and that it was also completely random. I had also voted on some small action that might not even be a tell, since votes at this "random stage" don't involve as much analytical reasoning, as you said yourself. I'm just kind of annoyed he keeps trying to play it off as both, making them each separate points in his post. Choose one explanation and stick with it, ffs.

The only reason it seems like I'm doing a bad job of "tripping you up" is because I'm not trying to do so at all.

[hasdgfas]

I'm trying to really be cynical here, not trusting what anyone has to say. Maybe I'm going wrong, but it's still to early to say.

Well, IMO, that's not a good way to play. You have to remember that the majority of people aren't scum and have good intentions. It works a lot better if you attempt to figure out the intentions of the person posting. Look for things that you think scum would do, don't just fully distrust everything everyone says.

People actually do assign everyone random numbers and then use a random number generator to pick them.

BTW, if someone does this, I will immediately serious vote them.

[Burb]

Well, I meant only for like first post/random vote of the game sort of thing. Although even then it can be kinda sketchy. Meh.

[hasdgfas]

Well, I meant only for like first post/random vote of the game sort of thing. Although even then it can be kinda sketchy. Meh.

yep, I don't like it at any point, which includes first post/random vote.

[Sotty7]

just a quick question: at what lenght of time do deadlines start getting pushed on us? Is it a x number of pages kinda thing, set amount of rl time, or a combination of both?

Depending on the mod, but deadlines tend to come when there is a significant lull in discussion in order to keep the game moving. In games outside of newbies some mods like to give each day a time limit, like say three weeks for example.

On the subject of post 65, it just felt off to me. Just how quickly you seem to be to put down your own play. You even seem to talk about your lynch like it is a certainty. Calling yourself a newb and even agreeing with your attackers:

I understand why you'd vote for me, though. I played very noobishly in being overly aggressive early on. Even if the tells really are tells, however unlikely it may be, attacking a person immediately is a bad idea. Should they be innocent, you made a big deal out of nothing and confused the town. Should they be guilty, it's too small to convict them on anything and you're either warning them to be more discreet or making them look innocent by making yourself look so guilty. Instead, one should sit back as much as possible to let any suspicious incidents accrue, at least that's how I see it. Any opinions, ICs? I hope to actually contribute to the next game I'm in, whenever that may be.

For the record I see nothing wrong with going on the attack right away as long as you know when it's the right time to intensify or recall the attack. In fact a lot of information can be gathered from any kind of attack inculding how other players react to what you do.

I still find your back pedaling very telling at this point in time. I'm not buying the whole thing that it was a test to see what would happen. Especially with how quickly you just gave up on it.

[Burb]

You even seem to talk about your lynch like it is a certainty. Calling yourself a newb and even agreeing with your attackers:

Reasons why I am not particularly upset
1) I understand, if not necessarily agree with the attacks on me.
2) I've learned a bit on what not to do, therefore this game is not a waste.
3) I'll be able to join other games, having completed my first noobie one. It's not as if I'm trying to get lynched on purpose; if I wanted that, I'd lurk a whole lot more. I'd rather live through this game and participate. But well, it's nice to know that I'll be able to join more games than one if I die.

In fact, you might even say that my lack of defensiveness would be a townie tell, since those who are mafia would probably care more, having a special role and all.

Watch me regret saying the above when someone attacks me for attempting reverse psychology or something. And then they'll claim that this prediction of what people will say is scummy. I wonder is this further prediction is yet another scum tell; does it degenerate into some kind of vicious cycle? (okay, so perhaps I'm still harboring a spot of bitterness.)

In fact a lot of information can be gathered from any kind of attack inculding how other players react to what you do.

Like I said, wasn't fishing for reactions about blitzy in particular, rather to the argument itself. No point in continuing it.

Other than that, we're just treading old ground. I can't help it if you find it suspicious, sotty. It was a rash act, certainly. All you have to ask yourself now is whether that it was a scummy act or simply a stupid one.