Mini 872: Mafia in Belgrove - That's All Folks

[Faraday]

Darkstrike_11 (2) (JereIC, kikuchiyo ]
walrus helmet (1) [Me.Jester]
Malpascp (2) [crypto, afatchic
cyrpto (2) [Netopalis, Malpascp]


Not voting: (5) [Darkstrike_11, U.N. Owen , Walrus Helmet, Gyro, Ectomancer]

[crypto]

*sigh*

Let me ask you guys something: Do scum often go out of their way to switch votes without reason? How does it not occur to you that I'm

trying to get something done

when I do that? Especially when I give a blatantly obvious response to JereIC in post 59. There's such a thing as fishing for reactions. Voting without presenting an argument is a shoddy reason to jump on someone. It takes the pressure off Malpascp—who, if he's mafia, will probably feel the need to come up with a pitch-perfect reaction—and dumps it on me. Well done.

If I want to wagon someone, I'm going to say so. I did so before, with Owen. Please don't be blind.

(That said, I wouldn't have objected to a wagon on Malpascp.)

Ecto, I'm moving toward Malpascp, not away from Owen.

unvote Vote:Crypto

Please justify your vote Crypto

And the reaction is as awful as I hoped it would be. Here in Amurrica, we call this OMGUS. It is not a good thing and it warrants exploration.

Malpascp, your first post was a blatant mini-wagon on Darkstrike. You regurgitated JereIC's reason

after

Darkstrike said he disliked RVS. There was clearly going to be a followup conversation/debate.

Then you lurk while posting in your other ongoing games. And when I randomly vote for you, you knee-jerk with an OMGUS in a post lacking in any other insight. In case you still don't get it, Mal, that means you didn't even comment on Darkstrike's defense or anything else that went on and cut straight to the OMGUS vote.

You have nothing to say about anything that's happened so far, but then you OMGUS me. My vote stays. Please post convincingly pro-town substance.

Netapolis, your post makes me itch as well. In fact, it looks even worse than Malpascp's, from my point of view. I switch to Mal and have an exchange with Jester, and then you come on and call me "silly" (post 60), focusing instead (again) on Owen's role-playing. But then when JereIC applies pressure to me (significantly more pressure than Jester did), you drop an opportunistic vote on me with the painfully vague reason that my play is "erratic." The catch: Between your post where you called me/us "silly" and your post where you voted for me, I hadn't posted.

So, yeah, looks to me like you were capitalizing on JereIC's pressure. Huh. I guess we'll start with you explaining what about my play was erratic, and then we can start beating each other's points into the ground.

[U.N. Owen]

Well, to explain Owen's post, there's a character in the Agatha Christie novel named U.N. Owen who talks much like he does....

That makes more sense. I'm guessing that he's doing it for fun (personally speaking, I once spent a month writing emails to friends in the style of John Hodgman's blog "Good Evening") but it could be some sort of alt/anti-meta strategy (basically assuming a new personality for each game). Either way, it's a null tell at the moment.

UN, do you intend to post anything out of character?

Exactly what might you mean by...out of character?

Wagon on Owen, please.

Ahem….*in keira knightley’s voice* WHAT ARE THE CHARGES?

Seriously, reasons for why we should wagon?

Oooh questions, I nearly forgot. Although sufficient discussion has already been generated, could everyone answer these questions please?

1. How many games of mafia have you played?
2. Do you prefer Mafia or Town roles?
3. What is your favourite power role to have?
4. What is your opinion on crypto’s call for a wagon this early in the game?

Ah, Pirates of the Caribbean. A favorite.

1. 5 or 6 on this site.
2. Mafia. I prefer to have someone I can trust.
3. Good question! ... Very good indeed. I haven't the foggiest!
4. My opinion is that he should be further investigated.

Ecto, you're right, I apologize - I meant to say Crypto. I also agree that if Owen doesn't post content he should be lynched - the usual tells still apply.

I agree.

Unvote. Vote: malpascp.

To adopt your style,

Vote: crypto

For the record, I think it's a really bad idea to lynch U N Owen just because he talks funny. That may just be the worst reason for a lynch I've heard.

The case isn't that he talks funny but rather he says things that are very scummy.

I have made one post. Have I said anything that I percieve as scummy? No.

*sigh*

Let me ask you guys something: Do scum often go out of their way to switch votes without reason? How does it not occur to you that I'm

trying to get something done

when I do that? Especially when I give a blatantly obvious response to JereIC in post 59. There's such a thing as fishing for reactions. Voting without presenting an argument is a shoddy reason to jump on someone. It takes the pressure off Malpascp—who, if he's mafia, will probably feel the need to come up with a pitch-perfect reaction—and dumps it on me. Well done.

If I want to wagon someone, I'm going to say so. I did so before, with Owen. Please don't be blind.

[otherbs]

ConfirmVote: Crypto

This defense (reaction fishing) is the EXACT defense I have used in the past when I was scum who realized that he had made a dumb move. Nice try.

[crypto]

This defense (reaction fishing) is the EXACT defense I have used in the past when I was scum who realized that he had made a dumb move. Nice try.

Number one, townies do this all the time. Myself included.

Number two, you'll have to link that experience or it isn't worth crap.

[crypto]

Also, you just applied a personal tell to someone else. That's bad.

[U.N. Owen]

This defense (reaction fishing) is the EXACT defense I have used in the past when I was scum who realized that he had made a dumb move. Nice try.

Number one, townies do this all the time. Myself included.

Number two, you'll have to link that experience or it isn't worth crap.

This may be difficult...

[crypto]

I concur. Anyway, it doesn't matter; see the post directly above yours.

[U.N. Owen]

Also, you just applied a personal tell to someone else. That's bad.

I disagree. But this is a discussion for another time.

[Netopalis]

Crypto,
If you want a reaction, generally you want someone to post why they're innocent. Nobody accused Malpa of anything specific - therefore, how can he post a coherent case as to why he's not guilty of that? Your playstyle reminds me a lot of Franz Kafka's "The Trial" - people are expected to justify themselves against claims that they don't really understand or know about. If Malpa posts content and

then

he looks scummy, then sure, attack him for it and look for a reaction. However, he has not posted anything warranting your reaction. In fact, to me, it looks like you're trying to attack anyone who does anything that might possibly start a wagon in an attempt to just stay alive and end the day early. To me, that's rather scummy.

My vote stands on Crypto.

[Netopalis]

Oh, and also, Ecto - my earlier post in response to AFC should in no way be considered a defense of Crypto. Rather, it was an implied attack - he should have to justify it because he implied he had a reason. Likewise, AFC should have to justify it because he's hopping on a bandwagon.

[crypto]

Hello. I didn't ask him to defend himself. I wanted to see how he would react to an unreasoned vote switch onto him. His reaction was an OMGUS. It's obviously not damning, but it's still awful.

Voting without reason is always a useful thing to do. You get double the reaction: one after the unreasoned vote, and one after the case is laid out (if there is one).

[Netopalis]

And the result should always, theoretically, be the same - "Why are you voting me! Give some explanation!"

Voting without a reason is a worthless play and should be discouraged.

[walrus helmet]

In my (limited) experience, vote switching looks shady on the surface, but only because no one understands what the heck you're doing. And any attempt to explain post-vote switch just looks like backpedaling. However, every time that I've seen rapid vote switching being used as a basis for a lynch it ended in a mislynch. Crypto got what he wanted for, anyway, with malpasp responding with an OMGUS, and de-lurking to do so.

Crypto: Are you purposefully trying to be antagonistic? I'm not trying to be insulting or accusatory, I'm honestly curious. In my first game someone was doing this as a way to draw out scum. The reason I suspect that you might be are your tactics (unjustified voting, calls for a bandwagon) and the tone of your posts.

If you are, have you done this before? Was it effective?

[walrus helmet]

Also off-topic aside to U.N. Owen: I just made the connection when I read your location. Is your username a reference to the Agatha Christie novel?

[crypto]

Crypto: Are you purposefully trying to be antagonistic? I'm not trying to be insulting or accusatory, I'm honestly curious. In my first game someone was doing this as a way to draw out scum. The reason I suspect that you might be are your tactics (unjustified voting, calls for a bandwagon) and the tone of your posts.

I'm always aggressive. My mood tends to change every morning. Actually, I wasn't pissed off when I checked up on the thread today, but the responses I got to my vote switch are mind-boggling. People vote without reason

a lot

on this site. It's annoying to see players flip out at a pro-info move.

On the other hand, those reactions are also good for filing away later.

If you are, have you done this before? Was it effective?

Some games I get really frustrated. Abrasiveness often doesn't help— unsurprisingly, other players tend to get uncooperative. It's not a play style, if that's what you're asking.

And the result should always, theoretically, be the same - "Why are you voting me! Give some explanation!"

Voting without a reason is a worthless play and should be discouraged.

Um, no. There are gradations of that response. There's OMGUS, bewilderment, feigned bewilderment, annoyance . . . Seeing how players react to petty jabs, especially coming out of RVS, can be very useful for later reads even if it isn't immediately notable.

[JereIC]

*sigh*

Let me ask you guys something: Do scum often go out of their way to switch votes without reason?

Not often, but sometimes, and town does it less often in my experience.

How does it not occur to you that I'm

trying to get something done

when I do that? Especially when I give a blatantly obvious response to JereIC in post 59.

I asked about your vote in post 63. I'm assuming you mean someone else.

There's such a thing as fishing for reactions. Voting without presenting an argument is a shoddy reason to jump on someone. It takes the pressure off Malpascp—who, if he's mafia, will probably feel the need to come up with a pitch-perfect reaction—and dumps it on me. Well done.

I wouldn't buy the fishing explanation in most situations, and especially not here, where you say you were fishing for reactions, and got them (yay plan worked!) but started your post with "sigh." Your reaction is inconsistent with your story.

And now I'm away!

[afatchic]

Oh, and also, Ecto - my earlier post in response to AFC should in no way be considered a defense of Crypto. Rather, it was an implied attack - he should have to justify it because he implied he had a reason. Likewise, AFC should have to justify it because he's hopping on a bandwagon.

How am i an different than Malpi if you see my vote as just bandwagoning?

Let me break this down for you...

Crypto votes Malpi, without posting any reason.
Neto votes Crypto for "Erratic play"
Malpi all of the sudden pops in with an OMGUS vote on Crypto...

That looks like a weak attempt to jump the popular wagon at the time. Telling him he needs to justify his vote in the RANDOM voting stage is a bit much. Thus...
I vote Malpi..

So, if you think my vote was just wagoning, then what was the difference between my vote and Malpi's vote?

You don't have to justify a vote during the RVS

unless you imply that there is a serious reason for your vote.

Or if you're just hopping on a bandwagon. Which you are doing.

Why did you not ask him to justify his vote?

Also, why are you taking to his defense? I asked HIM a question, NOT you.

[crypto]

Um, no, I didn't get what I wanted. Probing another player and walking out with everyone haranguing me instead is crap when it comes to fulfilling my agenda.

And no, without looking at the (nonexistent) numbers I'd say without hesitation that scum are not more likely to randomly vote switch, especially at this point. Scum have no reason to shine extra light on themselves unless they're very confident (and know people will buy it).

Also, upon rereadx—Mal used "justify" after someone else said something about voting without "justification." Obviously a dicey tell, but more fuel to the Mal fire. Both his votes so far have been really awful mini-wagons.

[crypto]

That was in response to Jere.

[afatchic]

And no, without looking at the (nonexistent) numbers I'd say without hesitation that scum are not more likely to randomly vote switch, especially at this point. Scum have no reason to shine extra light on themselves unless they're very confident (and know people will buy it).

I can assure you that scum do it a lot less than townies.

Generally, in the first few pages, scum are trying to act as smooth as possible and not slip up, so they won't do something as obvious as that. On the other hand, townies do it quite often.

If you would like an example, you can look through almost all of my games. When i was around during the RVS, i probably voted half the players. (As town). As scum, i voted one person and stuck to it.

To sum it up... Its a null tell. It just creates a wifom argument trying to decide whether a town or scum player is more likely to do it.

[Mr.Jester]

Hey everyone! I'm the new Guy0 or something like that.

@Mr.Jester- Can you please elaborate on the case against U.N. Owen in your last post. And also, if you are defending the wagon against him, why are you not on it?

His first post was poor. The wagon on Owen was reasonable based on his first post. Netopalis was making a tangent to the argument that wasn't relevant "wanting to lynch him because he talks funny", but that was never the case against him. Netopalis's argument was very straw man -esque. On a side note, thinking an argument is reasonable, doesn't imply that you're persuaded by it.

1. 5 or 6 on this site.
2. Mafia. I prefer to have someone I can trust.
3. Good question! ... Very good indeed. I haven't the foggiest!
4. My opinion is that he should be further investigated.

Ecto, you're right, I apologize - I meant to say Crypto. I also agree that if Owen doesn't post content he should be lynched - the usual tells still apply.

I agree.

Unvote. Vote: malpascp.

To adopt your style,

Vote: crypto

For the record, I think it's a really bad idea to lynch U N Owen just because he talks funny. That may just be the worst reason for a lynch I've heard.

The case isn't that he talks funny but rather he says things that are very scummy.

I have made one post. Have I said anything that I percieve as scummy? No.

*sigh*

Let me ask you guys something: Do scum often go out of their way to switch votes without reason? How does it not occur to you that I'm

trying to get something done

when I do that? Especially when I give a blatantly obvious response to JereIC in post 59. There's such a thing as fishing for reactions. Voting without presenting an argument is a shoddy reason to jump on someone. It takes the pressure off Malpascp—who, if he's mafia, will probably feel the need to come up with a pitch-perfect reaction—and dumps it on me. Well done.

If I want to wagon someone, I'm going to say so. I did so before, with Owen. Please don't be blind.

[otherbs]

ConfirmVote: Crypto

This defense (reaction fishing) is the EXACT defense I have used in the past when I was scum who realized that he had made a dumb move. Nice try.

Couple of things that jump out from this post.

Firstly, you said that you've finished 5 or 6 games on this site? but your join date is a week old?

Secondly, Cyrpto's original random switch was scummy. He later justified his switch. You however have not justified anything yet, and more over you're copying a seemingly scummy move. This comes off as scummy.

The fact that you don't seem to think your post was scummy doesn't mean anything.

Your last statement doesn't imply anything and moreover its highly scummy. So what if you used that defense when you were scum? How does that imply anything about anyone else? Your argument doesn't conclude that a player is scum if and only if they reaction fish. As an analogy, this is like claiming "Hey guys the communists want to free health care you want free health care? hey you must be a communist"

FOS: Owen

[Netopalis]

AFC: Honestly, I haven't found that scum attempt OMGUS that much - it's usually weak town. That being said, if you had said you were voting him because he OMGUS'd, I wouldn't have attacked you.

In re: Crypto, I still maintain that it's bad play, but I do appreciate the analysis of his play and understand what he was attempting to do.

Unvote: Crypto

Jere: I apologize, I didn't mean to misrepresent the Owen wagon, but I would ask that you see it from my perspective...Here we have a player with 4 posts who names himself after a serial killer from a famous murder novel. All of his posts talk like that character - his statement at the start about wanting to kill us all is just in line with his character's behavior as well, so I don't think it should be considered a scumtell. I have to ask - as scum, what would he achieve by doing this?

[kikuchiyo]

Mr. Jester: Why are you camping your vote?

[Netopalis]

EBWOP: Ugh. In my last post, I meant to aim the 3rd paragraph to Jester not Jere. Sorry, I've been off my game as of late.

[afatchic]

I have to ask - as scum, what would he achieve by doing this?

What would town have to gain from it?

What would a serial killer have to gain from it?

Maybe he is scum and wants to make you think that scum wouldn't do that, so then he must be town.

Its all

Wifom

.