Mini 844 - P-p-plain! - Over

[Plum]

Great, I always seem to miss the RVS but still have basically only that to reference for the scumhunt. Lovely.

Pom, weird vote switch. Ish.

Raivann, gut doesn't like your Keelie vote. What was going through your head when you posted it?

Keelie, you know how to do standard vote form?

CoCo, we depend for the honor system for a good few things in almost every Mafia game played on this site. We're also depending on it from Pom and me, but Pom is

exceedingly

honest about this sort of thing and I like to think of myself as principled, so I think uyou can be comfortable with that. I also trust Kmd, and I'll believe him if he says he and Keelie aren't making illicit communications.

vote: KeelieRavenWolf

but I honestly don't see how one could decide to vote somebody on day 1... I guess this is not even a spread votes strategy: this is the problem with day-start games... if at the end of this BW we lynch someone important, I hope tomorrow we will punish who started it...

Jokingly or not, this reads scummy. Lewarcher, do you honestly subscribe to this sort of theory, out of curiosity? Lew joins Kmd's bandwagon-of-exhortations. Then he seems to imply it's hard to decide whom to vote for on Day 1, then that at the end of this bandwagon (

@Lew - did you mean the Kylie wagon? If not, what did you mean?

). Then he suggests that if we lynch poorly/very poorly today we should 'punish whoever started it' - sort of setting up a position where starting a wagon on what turns out to be a bad lynch is to be viewed as extremely scummy, which is a mighty scummy generalization.

Next post suggests that he wouldn't have voted the wagon if Kyliee had shown more interest in defending herself, but one cannot be expected to defend against an RVS bandwagon. There are scummy reactions to getting multiple votes on yourself in the RVS but not really defending yourself from non-existent accusations is not one of them.

Then he decides the bandwagon is pointless and states out loud that his new vote is fishing for reactions. General note that pressure votes/votes for reactions can be substantially less useful than a vote without actually saying that stuff beforehand.

Kmd's summary of my points against him is pretty decent summary here.

Kmd, I've said it once and I'll say it again: lovely if you get reads for scumteams by Page 3, but generall unhelpful to the town at this point. Leave it for a more pertinent time and I'll be all ears.

I'll have to wait until I have more time (Rushed post here) to comment on the Pom case.

Good job on getting the game started Kmd.It seems like you say you want a wagon on Keelie then depending on whatever the response to the wagon you already had a trap setup.If people jump on they're scummy or if they vote someone else they're scummy, looks like reaching and a possible scum maneuver.

Possible. I remember Kmd using a gambit once . . . I'll need more time to look. Gah, rush.

Vote: Lew

More analysis and picking people's stuff apart, as is my trademark, when I have more time.

[Raivann]

Nothing to say about why you voted Keelie?

Because I think wagons are a good thing.

unvote, Vote Kmd

kinda like your wagon too, I think I'll hop on.

On a side note I'm getting townie vibes off AlmasterGM.

[Raivann]

Or why you didn't comment on Rosso's statement about Plum?

Rosso is right, Plum is scum.

[Kmd4390]

There's still a non-sequitor in your logic. Just because she did what you'd expect her to do as town doesn't make her town (which is what you claim). My argument is that, as scum, it'd be optimal for her to make the exact same play.

It doesn't make her guaranteed, untouchable, town. It

does

give me a town read on her so far though. If she can come into HER FIRST GAME, and know that I'm voting her to gauge her reaction, know what reaction I'm expecting from either alignment, and fake the correct one, then congratulations to her for a scum game well played. I personally don't think that's the case. If she's scum, I'm misreading the situation.

]
It's not a what-if - I'm arguing your assumption that posts by scum always have a scummy motivation. IMO, Russo is just as likely to be scum as he is town.

What? I didn't make that assumption. I assumed that his post was similar to mine as far as looking for reactions, which is a protown thing to do in the second post of the game. Don't make the mistake of thinking that I'm calling Rosso, or anyone else, 100% guaranteed town. It's just where my read was at the second post of the game, and still is until I'm shown otherwise.

That's not what I said at all. You said that CoCo was town because he made a logical play. I argued that scum can make logical plays as well, and that logic isn't a tell either way. You keep mischaracterizing my arguments as attempts to get reads one way or the other, when in reality all I'm doing is showing how your "town" reads are flawed.

How is it flawed? He, like Rosso, made a protown move. Yes, he

could

still be scum, but that's not what I'm seeing so far.

]
What if something makes sense both scum and town, as Scopes' play did?

Elaborate on why Scope would do that as scum.

On Lew:
Tell me how this sounds like a normal random vote:

Because 1) it's not even page 3 yet and 2) he prefaces it by saying there's no way to decide who to vote for, thus implying his vote is random/has little justification.

Little justification or not, he mentions a bandwagon and a plan for the next day. He shows no signs of joking. It's not random.

1. How is it a misquote? I don't see it.

Because he isn't doing or saying what you say he is.

Real specific. . No way to counter this except "Yes he is."

2. How is this only true for daystart and why is it even what you'd look at when looking for scum? I don't know about you, but I'm not going to freak out about suspecting players because "OMG THEY COULD BE A POWER ROLE!!". Anyone could be a power role. Know what else they could be? Scum. It works both ways.

I'm not sure if you only play mafia on mafiascum, but in many games, the game begins with night actions. This reduces the D1 randomness because you have information you can use to characterize power roles. Lew simply seems to be referring to this fact and saying how it doesn't apply here on MS.

You don't rely 100% on power roles though unless it's a crap setup. Also, you don't even touch on my point here. Any player is just as likely to be scum as they are to be a power role. Roles were distributed randomly and any player could have gotten any role. I'm not going to lay off of an unclaimed player just because there is a chance they are a power role. If I thought they were a power role, I wouldn't attack them in the first place.

3. Yeah, that's exactly my problem with Lew. Why suspect someone just because they make a vote, people follow their vote in agreement, and the player happens to flip town? I don't see how someone who makes a case on a town player is any scummier than those who vote the same player later. In fact, I'd be much more likely to suspect people who vote later.

Depends on how hard they tunnel the wagon. If people just pile on, then I am in agreement with you. However, if the person is really pushing for it, then I think suspicion is in order.

Fair enough. But there's a difference between someone pushing bad logic and someone who genuinely believes a case. Usually, if it goes all the way to a lynch, the case is strong enough that the player either believed the case and is town or is scum who made a good argument. Being first on a lynching wagon isn't a scumtell.

I apologize for breaking this quote up, but it's the easiest way to respond to it:

I think your reads are bad. No read is better than a bad read

Strongly disagree. I think giving reads does more for the game, whether people agree with them or not. If the read is truly bad, people can point to why and it allows the player who gave the read a chance to either show more about why they feel the way they do (as I have done) or rethink the position and change their mind.

so I don't care that you have posted more text than the other players.

Neither do I. My point was that I've made it clear where I stand. Who has done a better job of that so far?

If you want to cop out and say it's only page three, then maybe you shouldn't make such definite reads in the first place.

I agree. Which is why I haven't made a definite read on a single player yet. I probably won't have a definite read on a player all game unless I am a power role which I won't get into.

According to you, logical strength of arguments is the mechanism we use to find scum. At the point where, in my opinion, you have the most logically flawed arguments in the game, why shouldn't you be my number one suspect?

Well. That's a debate that could go on for pages in MD. I'm personally on the other side of that argument. I think gut reads are stronger than logic. I'm not going to argue that here though. I'll just keep playing how I have been.

Flawed arguments (which I still don't see how mine are flawed by the way) is not always a scumtell. Town can just as easily be wrong about a player.

Unfortunately, I don't think lew is scum, so I don't think this is an issue.

Unless you are 100% sure on this, the point stands. The only way you are 100% sure, considering it's Day 1 and we haven't had a night yet, is if you are scum. Therefore, let me be blunt for a second. Shut up about my case on Lew and let him defend himself.

Why not respond to my other points?

Gotta go now. Will be back on later.

Pom is actually right, Alm. If you answer for people, you make things too easy for them. This is especially bad if you are town answering for scum, because we don't get their reaction to pressure. You make it easier for them, and they can coast to victory.

Unfortunately, I don't think lew is scum, so I don't think this is an issue.

Personally I don't find Lew to be very scummy, but that's beside the point. you should've let him answer for himself.

So you're back and can respond now?

[Kmd4390]

Oh, there's a 4th page now. And Plum is on it.

Great, I always seem to miss the RVS but still have basically only that to reference for the scumhunt. Lovely.

So Alm, Pom, and myself haven't given you any real content? Ouch. (Ok, I see that you mentioned that stuff. That makes me feel better.)

I'm in complete agreement with those three paragraphs on Lew about the Keelie vote and CoCo vote.

What is wrong with listing my scum reads? I think you are mistaking it for connections between the three players, which isn't what I'm doing. Pom, Lew, and Raiv are my top three individual scum reads.

--------------------------

Raiv, why are wagons good? (I'm not disagreeing. I just want to know your opinion.) I'll have more to say after you answer this.

[Pomegranate]

Why not respond to my other points?

Gotta go now. Will be back on later.

Pom is actually right, Alm. If you answer for people, you make things too easy for them. This is especially bad if you are town answering for scum, because we don't get their reaction to pressure. You make it easier for them, and they can coast to victory.

Unfortunately, I don't think lew is scum, so I don't think this is an issue.

Personally I don't find Lew to be very scummy, but that's beside the point. you should've let him answer for himself.

So you're back and can respond now?

I had time for a quick post. Like right now. Will hopefully answer questions by later tomorrow afternoon.

[Raivann]

Pom, you could shorten it.

Alm, what does Plum have to do with Pom not voting Keelie?

Why are you trying to not talk about Plum?
Why is Plum not in your big post where you present your case on everyone?
I'm starting to notice a slight conncetion between Kmd & Plum

Raiv, why are wagons good? (I'm not disagreeing. I just want to know your opinion.) I'll have more to say after you answer this.

voting patterns, reaction to pressure, and the such.

I had time for a quick post. Like right now. Will hopefully answer questions by later tomorrow afternoon.

Do you need time to make up scum answers?

Kmd's summary of my points against him is pretty decent summary here.

Kmd, I've said it once and I'll say it again: lovely if you get reads for scumteams by Page 3, but generall unhelpful to the town at this point. Leave it for a more pertinent time and I'll be all ears.

Plums whole post seems scummy to me, This part reads like scum talkin to each other. I don't have any evidence or anything , just a hunch.

[Kmd4390]

Raiv, I'm not trying to avoid Plum. I was simply wondering why Alm responded to my question about Pom with a statement about Plum.

Plum hadn't posted yet. I forgot to include her in the list of lurkers.

Ok, I agree with you about the wagons. Now, what do you take from specific wagons that we've seen in this game?

[AlmasterGM]

It doesn't make her guaranteed, untouchable, town. It does give me a town read on her so far though. If she can come into HER FIRST GAME, and know that I'm voting her to gauge her reaction, know what reaction I'm expecting from either alignment, and fake the correct one, then congratulations to her for a scum game well played. I personally don't think that's the case. If she's scum, I'm misreading the situation.

It's open knowledge that she has a friend who has played the game before. You have no clue what her experiences with mafia are. Your gauge of her reaction isn't some extremely advanced theory utilized and known only by you - it's generic town behavior vs generic scum behavior. If you want to underestimate new people, go right ahead. I personally don't think it would be that hard for her to pull a dupe.

What? I didn't make that assumption. I assumed that his post was similar to mine as far as looking for reactions, which is a protown thing to do in the second post of the game. Don't make the mistake of thinking that I'm calling Rosso, or anyone else, 100% guaranteed town. It's just where my read was at the second post of the game, and still is until I'm shown otherwise.

Yes you did. You said "I can't find any scum motivation for CoCo's posts, so he's town." This assumes that every scum post has some deeper implication and that they won't just post things for no reason other than to appear town. I'm glad you don't think Rosso is 100% town, but I don't even see him as 95% town. I think he's 75% town - an even percentile.

How is it flawed? He, like Rosso, made a protown move. Yes, he could still be scum, but that's not what I'm seeing so far.

I'm still confused as to how "logical" moves translate to "pro-town" moves. You keep using these terms interchangeably when they are entirely different.

Elaborate on why Scope would do that as scum.

Why wouldn't he? There have been no negative implications, and you think he's town because of it. Seems like a decent scum play to me.

stuff about lew

I've got a response, but I'll just save it and let lew reply, since that's what you and everyone else seems to want.

Strongly disagree. I think giving reads does more for the game, whether people agree with them or not. If the read is truly bad, people can point to why and it allows the player who gave the read a chance to either show more about why they feel the way they do (as I have done) or rethink the position and change their mind.

I suppose what I meant to imply in my comment was not as clear as I thought. What I meant was "No read is better than a bad read ... when scumhunting." So, if I'm looking at two players - one who gives no read and the other who gives what I consider to be a bad read - I'm going to go after the bad read.

Neither do I. My point was that I've made it clear where I stand. Who has done a better job of that so far?

I don't see why this matters. I agree that it is clear where you stand. I don't like where you stand. So I'm going to disagree with you.

Flawed arguments (which I still don't see how mine are flawed by the way) is not always a scumtell. Town can just as easily be wrong about a player.

This is exactly what I've been trying to say. If this is what you think, then how can you say someone is pro-town because they made a "logical" play?

Unless you are 100% sure on this, the point stands. The only way you are 100% sure, considering it's Day 1 and we haven't had a night yet, is if you are scum. Therefore, let me be blunt for a second. Shut up about my case on Lew and let him defend himself.

Wrong. But OK.

[Kmd4390]

It's open knowledge that she has a friend who has played the game before. You have no clue what her experiences with mafia are. Your gauge of her reaction isn't some extremely advanced theory utilized and known only by you - it's generic town behavior vs generic scum behavior. If you want to underestimate new people, go right ahead. I personally don't think it would be that hard for her to pull a dupe.

Yeah, she knows someone who has played. Me. I'd know if she had experience in the game. She knows a VERY basic version. Nothing that would help her fake a reaction like that.

Yes you did. You said "I can't find any scum motivation for CoCo's posts, so he's town." This assumes that every scum post has some deeper implication and that they won't just post things for no reason other than to appear town. I'm glad you don't think Rosso is 100% town, but I don't even see him as 95% town. I think he's 75% town - an even percentile.

No, I said I think he's town. I didn't say I know he is. And you're right that I don't see scummy motives in his posts, so I don't suspect him. Yes, I do think he is likely town. No, I'm not saying that is a definite read that will never change. 95% would even be a bit extreme IMO. I'm not 95% on anyone just yet.

I'm still confused as to how "logical" moves translate to "pro-town" moves. You keep using these terms interchangeably when they are entirely different.

This is a semantics argument then. Pointless.

Why wouldn't he? There have been no negative implications, and you think he's town because of it. Seems like a decent scum play to me.

You are arguing what would be "good" play while I'm arguing what is more "likely" play. We don't disagree on logic. Just the conclusions.

I've got a response, but I'll just save it and let lew reply, since that's what you and everyone else seems to want.

Good choice.

I suppose what I meant to imply in my comment was not as clear as I thought. What I meant was "No read is better than a bad read ... when scumhunting." So, if I'm looking at two players - one who gives no read and the other who gives what I consider to be a bad read - I'm going to go after the bad read.

Yeah, you were clear the first time. I disagree with this opinion. I'd be more likely to vote someone who isn't giving reads and is coasting through the game than I would be for someone whose reads I disagree with or consider "bad" or "wrong".

]Neither do I. My point was that I've made it clear where I stand. Who has done a better job of that so far?

I don't see why this matters. I agree that it is clear where you stand. I don't like where you stand. So I'm going to disagree with you.

That's fine, but why does disagreeing with my stances on players make me scum?

Flawed arguments (which I still don't see how mine are flawed by the way) is not always a scumtell. Town can just as easily be wrong about a player.

This is exactly what I've been trying to say. If this is what you think, then how can you say someone is pro-town because they made a "logical" play?

If someone makes a play that is logical for town to make, they are doing what town would do, which can be defined as a towntell (if it makes me think they are town) or protown (if it helps the town). Neither is more reason to think a player is scum.

However, different town players will have different opinions. Different town/scum players will push different opinions. Having different opinions, most of the time, is a complete null tell. It's only useful when you try to find connections between players. We don't have any confirmed players, so this is pretty useless right now. So basically, for the time being (Day 1), disagreements on stances are completely null.

]Unless you are 100% sure on this, the point stands. The only way you are 100% sure, considering it's Day 1 and we haven't had a night yet, is if you are scum. Therefore, let me be blunt for a second. Shut up about my case on Lew and let him defend himself.

Wrong. But OK.

Yeah, it's best if we both (yes, including myself) shut up about this.

[xofelf]

god... sorry that i didn't actually post content my first post... sorry, but i like to get at least one joke vote in, whether it has a place or not. Anyways, i shall look all this over in about an hour or so, can't right now as i'm in the middle of other things.
Real content is on the way...

[xofelf]

EBWOP: sorry... my roommate kept having issues so i spent some time with him to cheer him up, so i'm now officially exhausted, this content will have to show up tomorrow... so very sorry.

[lewarcher82]

Ok, now. I am not going to quote everything...
about all the things that have been said about me joining a bw and then switching to a random vote, I will limit myself to this.

Lew is my third suspect. Jumps on the wagon I started. Seems to want it to go all the way to a lynch. Then wants to set up tomorrow's lynch on the player who started it. Terrible logic. Hypocracy as well. Calls the wagon "pointless" in next post (nobody else had even posted yet!), but then says Keeluie hasn't defended herself. Wishy washy stance, especially considering he voted Keelie. Then he changes his mind when nobody else has even posted again! Unvotes and votes CoCo. Lew, what made you switch? I personally suspect that you were worried about how you'd be looked at for voting Keelie.

So, my case on Lew:
-Wagon jump with intent to lynch
-Setting up a chain lynch
-Says to suspect the player who started the wagon, which
----is bad logic
----is hypocritical
-Calls the wagon pointless while still being on it AND making a point against Keelie
-Switches to CoCo for no good reason.

simply consider the fact that I do not know any of you guys, so it is normal that I have to test reactions, in order to understand the meaning of your moves. Moreover, the day is 4 weeks long, do you think I would do a strategic switch after 36 ours????????

a second consideration, kmd: "Hypocracy" is not even a word.

a third: how is changing my mind on a bandwagon on a day-start game "bad logic"?

[Tyfo]

Official Vote Count

Players needed to lynch: 7

CoCo

- 1 - lewarcher82 - (L-6)

KeelieRavenWolf

- 1 - Pomegranate - (L-6)

Kmd4390

- 3 - xofelf, AlmasterGM, Raivann - (L-4)

lewarcher82

- 1 - Plum - (L-6)

Plum

- 1 - KaleiÃ

[Kmd4390]

Lew, if you were simply gauging reactions, tell me what you learned.

If you think the vote made you look bad, then yes, you'd switch.

Ok, did I spell it wrong or something? My bad. I'm sure you know what I meant though.

The bad logic is the logic to suspect whoever starts the wagon.

[KaleiÐoscøpe]

Vote: AlmasterGM

OMGUSSCUM

^^This is a good wagon^^

[lewarcher82]

I do not see any reason why joining a bw would make me look worse than the other players who did the same (moreover, if I was the last to join, it is just because I was sleeping when the game started). This is enough to show that, to me, your argumentation is a sample of converse error (u started with logic ).

As for what I learned, I learned nothing, because I had not expected to become a FoS because of my actions. Casting suspicion upon me prevented anyone from having a natural reaction to my vote. CoCo didn't defend himself, so perhaps he did not have to. Or perhaps he thought it was not in serious danger, yet.

Now, a last observation: I hereby

Unvote

since my experiment is now pointless, and I still have no clue. This does not imply that I regret my attempt or that I am trying to hide. Moreover kmd is starting to look a little scummy to me, since his argumentation to support CoCo being town is based on a semantic and logic fallacy: how is acting coherent an evidence that someone is tow? Kmd was too quick in judging my moves and he was too slow and imprecise in judging CoCo's behavior.

[Rosso Carne]

Vote Rosso Carne

for failing to vote for his top suspect.

What the hell is wrong with you, I HAMMAH!

Why does no one get this yet?

[Rosso Carne]

kmd, youre an idiot, stop writing books on the level of War and Peace for your posts, its fucking stupid.

I'd get ont he tail end of a kmd or alamaster wagon.

[lewarcher82]

kmd, youre an idiot, stop writing books on the level of War and Peace for your posts, its fucking stupid.

I'd get ont he tail end of a kmd or alamaster wagon.

I quite agree, and given the fact that almaster shares my opinion on the posts by kmd, it is quite obvious what is my position if I have to choose.

[Kmd4390]

Scope, why Alm?

-----------------

Lew, the person who starts a wagon decides on their own, "Hey, this is a player who should be lynched". A player who joins a wagon later has a much higher chance of voting because "people want this player lynched". I'm more suspicious of the second of the two scenarios.

I've explained several times. CoCo made the move that I'd expect town to make. If he is scummy later, I'll be all over it. For now, I think he is town. You did some scummy things (listed in my reaction analysis) and I jumped on them. I fail to see anything wrong with this.

--------------

Rosso, my bad. I respond where I see fit.

[Pomegranate]

My vote requested a bandwagon. You could have:
A) Wagoned by voting Keelie
B) Called me out for requesting a wagon.

Rosso called Plum obvscum. You could have:
A) Agreed and voted Plum.
B) Called out Rosso.

^Both Rosso and myself made a vote/statement that was obviously not backed by anything and appeared more confident than we could have been. It's a good place to start.

CoCo made a decent point on Rosso. You could have:
A) Agreed with the point.
B) Disagreed with the point.

Also note that CoCo

did

choose option B regarding Rosso.

When I start a game, I always vote for someone who doesn't have any votes on them. I always just do that, unless there is some reason why not too. Kmd, I think that you're carrying on with this point for too long.

What happened:
During random voting stage I voted for somone. That person didn't have any votes on him. You criticize me for not commenting on other posts/votes, which I didn't see as necessary, considering that it was RVS.

Wait, so you voted Alm for a response, but didn't expect to get one? That seems... off.

I've never played with many of the players in this game, so I chose one randomly (Alm )and voted for him. I didn't have any specific expectations, considering that I've never played with him before. Therefore I didn't know how he'd respond, and not commenting was as good of a response as any, in my opinion.

But making your Keelie vote look random doesn't get a response from her either.

A second vote is more pressure than a first. It's not my fault she didn't respond. Come to think of it, I'd like to hear more from her, as well as other people who haven't posted much content.

I had time for a quick post. Like right now. Will hopefully answer questions by later tomorrow afternoon.

Do you need time to make up scum answers?

I actually (*gasp*) have a life that requires tending to once in a while.

/sarcasm

I had school today, and work to do last night.

[Kmd4390]

You stress that it was the RVS, but none of the posts before yours were random votes. Mine was a reactionary vote. Rosso made a reactionary statement. CoCo voted with an actual reason. Commenting on any of these things is much more productive than a random vote.

Also, you need to clarify. You said your vote was a random vote for someone with no votes. You've also said you were looking for reactions from Alm (but were satisfied with no reaction???). Which is it?

If not commenting was enough of a reaction, what did you learn from it?

No, it's not your fault that she didn't respond. But you really didn't give her anything to respond to. It looks too random to apply any real pressure.

I agree that we need more Keelie posts though. Xofelf as well. I'd add Konowa to that list if it weren't for the V/LA. Raiv also seems under the radar. He is posting, but doesn't seem to say much.

[Pomegranate]

You stress that it was the RVS, but none of the posts before yours were random votes. Mine was a reactionary vote. Rosso made a reactionary statement. CoCo voted with an actual reason. Commenting on any of these things is much more productive than a random vote.

Also, you need to clarify. You said your vote was a random vote for someone with no votes. You've also said you were looking for reactions from Alm (but were satisfied with no reaction???). Which is it?

I chose randomly (from people who didn't have votes on them) one person, who I voted. I wanted to see if there was going to be an interesting reaction, but I didn't really see one coming.

kmd, youre an idiot, stop writing books on the level of War and Peace for your posts

QFT

Also, Kmd, you seem extremely obsessed with getting me lynched. I would ask why, but I don't see the point. Just wanted to point that out.

[Kmd4390]

Doesn't really sound like you were looking for reactions then. Why bring that up?

Also, Kmd, you seem extremely obsessed with getting me lynched. I would ask why, but I don't see the point. Just wanted to point that out.

Well, of course. You are my top suspect, so I want you lynched. That's how I play.