Mini 942: Gonzo Mafia - Game Over!

[xRECKONERx]

Something I've learned about Vi from an ongoing game:

Vi is going to look pro-town no matter what, town or scum. It's really hard to break her posts apart.

[Locke Lamora]

flinter: I just don't see how asking about the rules is a tell either way. There was absolutely nothing that was inherently pro-town about the question ekiM asked and it's not even investigative interest in another player. As far as I'm concerned, it has no bearing on his alignment whatsoever and town is not in the slightest bit more likely to ask a question about whether players can post in twilight than scum.

I agree that scum are not as likely to have genuine interest in investigating a player (exceptions being multiple scumteams or PR hunting) and that sometimes this can be discerned by looking at motivations and responses to information. What I think is totally flawed is your idea that because someone looks like they're investigating

anything

, they are more likely to be town.

[VP Baltar]

He was a loser. A wimp full of fear with no pride and sure as hell no Money....But I let him go anyway, and we talked for a while in the Men's Room about his problem. We were both nervous, so I went out to the car and got a bag of warm beers, along with a wooden pipe about half-full of good marijuana.

Soon we were both in a better mood, and I told him I was not really the Police, but just another good old boy with a yen to Read Law for a while and a few hours to spare before my next court appearance.

---

Vote Count 1-6

:

flinter ~ L-2 (Percy, Zachrulez, ortolan, Debonair Danny DiPietro, kyle99)

Percy ~ L-5 (Vi, hohum)
kyle99 ~ L-5 (flinter, ekiM)
Sotty7 ~ L-5 (xRECKONERx, Locke Lamora)
Locke Lamora ~ L-6 (Sotty7)

Not Voting:

With

12

alive, it takes

7

to lynch. Deadline is March 31 at roughly 3 p.m. (GMT -4).

[kyle99]

Questions:

My opinion on xReck is fairly town. I've never played with him as scum, but I've played with him many times as town and his current playstyle fits his town meta well.

If you've not seen someone play as both town and as scum how can you possibly draw meta conclusions?

You can't definativly draw conclusions, I just think his playstyle fits his town meta well.

I'm gonna unvote my RV, and FoS: Zack. His vote seems to be going every which way, but I don't think it warrants a vote yet.

Bad. That's the most significant thing you see after 5 pages, and you don't think it's worth a vote? More aggression please.

Why do you think moving your vote around in the early game would ever be worth a vote?

That was the only thing of importance I had picked up so far, and I didn't think it was worth a vote because it's somewhat common in the beginning of the game. And as for your last question, that's why I didn't vote him

I've played with xReck before, and he always plays like this, which is why I'm not sure he's scum. I will admit some of his playing so far this game is quite scummy though. I can't remember seeing xReck wagoned like this so early either.

So is he "fairly town" or is he "quite scummy"? Hmm.

I said he has made some scummy moves, but I've seen him do similiar things in games where he was town, so I didn't make to much of it.

I don't have any definite reasons for why Zack is scum, and I'm not even convinced of it myself yet. Swinging around your vote, especially in the beginning, isn't terribly scummy, I just don't have any other leads.

So you don't have any leads. How do you fix that? Not by playing totally reactively, which is what you're doing right now.

I honestly read the thread and didn't have any major scumvibes, so I didn't post anything. I don't know what to respond to that with.

You make some decent points on me, but Flinter's reasoning on me is completely crap and full of holes. In his post where directly following ekiM's post, he votes me and his only reasoning is "But defending (buddying to) other players? It is not his style."

I don't know where your getting this "style" thing from, but defending players who you don't think are scum is not scummy. It's called playing mafia.

[Vi]

I still like my Percy vote by virtue of knowing he has been onsite since my last post.

I

dislike

Sotty7 and her Locke Lamora vote. I'm not reading Locke Lamora as scum; the reasoning behind Sotty's vote (and flinter chiding him) isn't convincing and his "tone of voice" reads Town.

I'm not particularly up to lynch kyle99 as of this five minutes.

flinter's posts squeeze every drop of incredulity out of my favorite smiley ( ).

@flinter:

How experienced are you with Mafia?

I almost regret derailing the xRx wagon. Actually, if Percy flips scum I would definitely go for xRx.

I'm getting the impression of hohum-Town; with that said, quite a few of the positive reads I'm sensing are

in spite of

how the people I'm reading are playing.
"Fear And Loathing in Gonzo Town Imminent; Unlimited Daykills Apparently Out Of Stock", end quote.

[Percy]

Answers

@Vi

:
1. Demonstrating to hohum that you had answered the question and whether I believe you are two different things, so I don't see the inconsistency.
2. I think scum are more likely to be paranoid in a theme game, but I agree with your assessment, which is why I called it a weak scumtell.
3. I FoS. I do it in all my games. And I remember New Age Mafia very well.
4a. I don't believe flinter commented on the weak agreement with xRx's early vote, which develops the picture flinter was painting.
4b. Either way, I don't see why you're saying my behaviour is scummy. Even though flinter has brought up some analysis of kyle that I agree with, I was still happy with my vote.

Also, I like to devote a good hour to a post at least. I spent two hours last night on my moderation duties, and another on a game I'm in with an approaching deadline.

@hohum

:
I've said all I wanted to on the subject. Blaming me for this conversation

continuing

is also ridiculous. I've made my position clear.

@ekiM

:

I don't want to put xRx at L-1 yet, but I understand that early bandwagons are designed to pile on the pressure, and xRx has reacted poorly. His "Unvote whoops well are you going to kill me because if not let's forget it ever happened" is another example of that.

Why didn't you want to do that?

For me, L-1 = claimtime. I liked (and still like) much of the case against him, but I wanted the game to develop a little more so I could be sure of my read on xRx and get a better read on the other players.

Questions

@flinter

:

@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'm confused. What did you mean by this?
(My first thought is that you're suggesting zachrulez is town, but that's very bizarre and inconsistent)

@kyle99

: As has been pointed out, you have no idea of xRx's scum meta. I just spent thirty minutes reading xRx's most recent scum games, so I think I have a good handle on it. Could you articulate exactly what aspects of xRx's play "fit his town meta well"?

@xRECKONERx

: You have mentioned twice that you have a meta-town-read on Vi, but you've retracted that now. What made you think that her play was town-Vi?

[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

[ekiM]

@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?

Apparently this was less clear than I thought.

Examples of you playing as scum please.

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13353

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13008

Those are the two most recent.

The only vote change I can recall from the recent newbie game was forced by a cop claim.

Hmm.

But you're obviously aware of your own scum meta, which means you could be playing against it.

Here xRx discounts meta.

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.

Here he puts a lot of stock into it.

I was pointing out the inconsistency in his thinking. I should have been more direct.

Sotty: I'm taking a particular interest in Zach's early vote-hopping because we literally just finished another game with each other, as you might know (Mini 918 for those who don't). He replaced into that as scum and I remember him putting his vote about very little. He also wasn't particularly active (although part of that was completely out of his control). As for whether I find it scummy, not particularly. What Vi called his 'activity police' act after only 24 hours I thought was unjustified, but I can see why town-Zach would be looking at me for lurking early on when in his experience I've been active as town and lurky as scum. What I found a little odd is that he said his random vote was completely arbitrary when he was obviously interested in pressuring me early on in the game. In short, getting a mild town read off Zach early on, I get the impression he's genuinely interested in finding scum.

So let me get this straight. So you pushed and questioned Zach because his behavior (vote-hopping, lots of posting) was the exact opposite of your scum experience with him? So what was the point to the questions? If you are getting a town read off him shouldn't you be looking else where? The way you questioned him made it look like you were trying to make him look scummy but you didn't commit and now you are backing a away from it when other players have called him likely town.

Unvote, Vote: Locke

You think Zach playing the exact opposite of the game I just played with him is good reason to look elsewhere? I think a deliberate effort to play differently is more likely to be scum-motivated than town-motivated. Zach's scum flip at the end of 918 came at almost exactly the same time as the start of this game and any attempt to play differently would quite clearly be affected by that. I questioned him because I wanted to hear his motivations; they sounded genuine rather than contrived so I got a town read. As far as I can see, you misrep me here on two fronts: first of all, you say that I was questioning Zach even though I had a town read on him, a read which I developed in response to his answers; and secondly you say I was questioning him to try and make him look scummy when what I was actually trying to do is work out whether his motivations were scummy.

Unvote;Vote: Sotty

The order of events was unclear in your explanation. Try for clarity.

ekiM's willingness to agree with Sotty's conclusions also noted. You can assume that I'm trying to cast aspersions all you want, but what I actually asked was simply whether Zach normally put his vote about a lot at the start of a game. I didn't say 'Zach's vote hopping is scummy'.

You implied it. Intentionally or not.

Something I've learned about Vi from an ongoing game:

Vi is going to look pro-town no matter what, town or scum. It's really hard to break her posts apart.

xRx: still active lurking.

flinter: I just don't see how asking about the rules is a tell either way. There was absolutely nothing that was inherently pro-town about the question ekiM asked and it's not even investigative interest in another player. As far as I'm concerned, it has no bearing on his alignment whatsoever and town is not in the slightest bit more likely to ask a question about whether players can post in twilight than scum.

Agree! Even if town did have more reason to care, then scum have reason to pretend to care.

Questions:

My opinion on xReck is fairly town. I've never played with him as scum, but I've played with him many times as town and his current playstyle fits his town meta well.

If you've not seen someone play as both town and as scum how can you possibly draw meta conclusions?

You can't definativly draw conclusions, I just think his playstyle fits his town meta well.

If you don't know how his scum play might differ from his town play, you can't draw any conclusions.

I'm gonna unvote my RV, and FoS: Zack. His vote seems to be going every which way, but I don't think it warrants a vote yet.

Bad. That's the most significant thing you see after 5 pages, and you don't think it's worth a vote? More aggression please.

Why do you think moving your vote around in the early game would ever be worth a vote?

That was the only thing of importance I had picked up so far, and I didn't think it was worth a vote because it's somewhat common in the beginning of the game. And as for your last question, that's why I didn't vote him

Why is it important? If you think it's worth a FoS, you think it's suspicious. Why?

I don't have any definite reasons for why Zack is scum, and I'm not even convinced of it myself yet. Swinging around your vote, especially in the beginning, isn't terribly scummy, I just don't have any other leads.

So you don't have any leads. How do you fix that? Not by playing totally reactively, which is what you're doing right now.

I honestly read the thread and didn't have any major scumvibes, so I didn't post anything. I don't know what to respond to that with.

You're allowed to play pro-actively, you know. You can ask people questions. You can exert pressure. Waiting around until scum reveal themselves isn't a good strategy for a townie.

I still like my Percy vote by virtue of knowing he has been onsite since my last post.

...

I'm not particularly up to lynch kyle99 as of this five minutes.

...

I almost regret derailing the xRx wagon. Actually, if Percy flips scum I would definitely go for xRx.

Is the Percy-hate all predicated on his talk about post restrictions?

What's the link between Percy and xRx? Percy attacking xRx in ISO 2,3,4,6, but not voting for him?

@ekiM

:

I don't want to put xRx at L-1 yet, but I understand that early bandwagons are designed to pile on the pressure, and xRx has reacted poorly. His "Unvote whoops well are you going to kill me because if not let's forget it ever happened" is another example of that.

Why didn't you want to do that?

For me, L-1 = claimtime. I liked (and still like) much of the case against him, but I wanted the game to develop a little more so I could be sure of my read on xRx and get a better read on the other players.

Bah. Claims should only happen if everyone on the wagon + 1 other makes it clear they're ready to lynch. L-1 is not automatically claim time.

Would you be happy with an xRx lynch today?

[ekiM]

Hey, xReckonerx, what do you think of Percy?

[Percy]

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.

I just went to check on that post to find out what happened to the xRx wagon, and it disappeared quite quickly. He has

no votes

on him right now.

Unvote
Vote: xRECKONERx
HoS: flinter

(inb4 Vibaawww)

I like the lynches of both of these players.

Looking at the two wagons, I think DDD is the easiest to criticise for wagon-jumping. I've been very wrong in my reads of DDD before (as I'm sure he'll be happy to attest to), and I know he's a fan of the wagon, but it seems like he's phoning in his performance in this game so far.

@ortolan

: You unvoted and re-voted xRx in this post. Explain?
Also, why did you abandon the xRx wagon in favour of the flinter wagon?

@Mod: It appears as though there is an error in this votecount - ortolan was voting xRx.

[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.

[Percy]

@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.

[Percy]

EBWOP: ...towards xRx

whom

you are excusing with

your playstyle

.

[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.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

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

Yeah, that's about the least compelling reason ever to unvote.

~~~

I

dislike

Sotty7 and her Locke Lamora vote. I'm not reading Locke Lamora as scum; the reasoning behind Sotty's vote (and flinter chiding him) isn't convincing and his "tone of voice" reads Town.

I actually like Sotty's vote because I've seen LL play from the deep background once or twice as scum and never really be questioned. So I like Sotty's attempt to drag him into the light.

~~~

Looking at the two wagons, I think DDD is the easiest to criticise for wagon-jumping. I've been very wrong in my reads of DDD before (as I'm sure he'll be happy to attest to), and I know he's a fan of the wagon, but it seems like he's phoning in his performance in this game so far.

Very wrong? It's more like have you ever been right, amirite?

[ortolan]

Percy: I voted xReckonerx again because my first vote wasn't counted, apparently because I didn't unvote first. I will properly catch up with the game tomorrow.

[Percy]

@flinter

: Do I support the notion that you should scumhunt "effectively" from the start of the game? Of course. But "effectiveness" is judged at the end of the day, not the start.

@DDD

: You are right. I think I've played two games with you, and I've found you scummy both times

@ortolan

: OK, that makes sense. Still would like an answer to my other question, but that can wait until tomorrow.

@Mod: Please disregard that last post, I didn't know Unvotes were necessary, apologies.

[xRECKONERx]

I can't really tell you guys why I'm changing my mind on Vi's meta because it's an ongoing game.

[Sotty7]

An easy wagon? Was Zach being wagoned at the start of the game and I missed it? I don't know Zach's play all that well and I certainly don't know whether he likes to put his vote about at the start of games. From my perspective, I'd just lynched him as scum and here he was playing completely differently from what I'd seen in that previous game. That was my primary focus at the start of the game because naturally that was fresh in my mind and the first thing I picked up on when reading through. If my failure to acknowledge other players in the first two or three pages is scummy to you, there's not a lot I can say about that.

Vote hopping is often seen as scummy, that's what I mean by easy wagon. I can kinda see your point to a degree, but my gut reaction to your questioning of Zach was that you found it scummy. only then to come back and say it was probably town. It just doesn't ring true to me.

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.

Oh my bad, I must have missed where she said that. Thank you.

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 actually use (or try to) both methods of scum hunting you listed here. The logical and the mental. Why are you willing to discard one whole section of scum hunting? Do you not think using both can give you a better overall impression of someone?

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.

Kyle

Alright, I looked at it again, and Flinter's reasoning on me is enough for me to

vote: Flinter

Your reasoning is because of the fact that I usually just follow the town, and never do anything that stands out, and because I'm standing out more this game, I'm scum. That is honestly terrible reasoning, and makes no sense whatsoever.

If the reason is so terrible why wait so long to vote?

I

dislike

Sotty7 and her Locke Lamora vote. I'm not reading Locke Lamora as scum; the reasoning behind Sotty's vote (and flinter chiding him) isn't convincing and his "tone of voice" reads Town.

I'm not seeing his post 104 in the same light as you then. I would ask you to explain exactly what you mean about tone of voice with examples, but it is probably one of those things you can't really explain.

flinter what do you think of reck now?

[Locke Lamora]

Sotty: I was unsure of Zach's motives, so my tone was naturally a little suspicious. I asked some questions, got a better read on his motives and drew my conclusions. That's it. Anything else is just you reading into it what you want to read into it.

Kyle: have you got any leads apart from flinter yet?

Reckoner: that's less than helpful. It would be better if you started talking about someone other than Vi. Sotty, for instance, who you voted and have subsequently said nothing about.

[xRECKONERx]

Yeah, I'll try to catch up and get some content here soon. I'm posting this in all my games: this is an incredibly stressful/busy week for me. Two mid-terms, a six minute short film project to edit, a ten minute oral Spanish presentation, and a ten page script are all due within the next five days.

Mafia has to take a backseat for a bit.

[hohum]

I don't like all these excuses for lurking.

"Need to take a break from mafia, will catch up"

"MODDING GAMEZ LULZLULZLULZ" <-- srsly, how many games are you modding at once that it takes 2 hours to get through? If you're really this busy perhaps you should rethink taking on additional games.

[hohum]

To expand on my last post:

This game has more people (12 vs 9) and tighter deadlines (14 days vs 3 weeks) than normal games, so lurking is definitely a more egregious offense.

[hohum]

@hohum:
I've said all I wanted to on the subject. Blaming me for this conversation continuing is also ridiculous. I've made my position clear

.

But it is your fault, so how is that ridiculous? It's one thing to clarify your position but it's a whole different thing to go on an offensive based on shit that you yourself are throwing on the fan.

This thread needs more percy lynching.

[Sotty7]

Sotty: I was unsure of Zach's motives, so my tone was naturally a little suspicious. I asked some questions, got a better read on his motives and drew my conclusions. That's it. Anything else is just you reading into it what you want to read into it.

So are you saying I have no legitimate reason to question your tone or method of investigation at all?