Newbie 982 - Shadows of Death, Game Over!

[AurorusVox]

I did answer the moral side of it initially but then removed it from my post because I didn't think that was what you were aiming at and it made my post longer :p My response was thinking about the scenario as though someone else had provided the information, and then talking about what my reaction would be, not judging the value of such tactics.

The short answer to the moral question is that I would find it morally acceptable because it's part of the meta-game and is a null-tell. That is, it's one way of finding out if someone is lurking or just not able to get online, either which can apply to town or scum, and so the player doesn't get any innate advantage from knowing the information, on a purely factual basis.

The long answer is that I personally wouldn't go out of my way to "spy" on someone, because I feel it's not very useful in and of itself, and that there are better ways of scumhunting; that is, it is a bit of a waste of time and a little cheap. That said, I don't think that taking such action would make someone scummy. On the other hand I wouldn't be convinced by their argument unless they backed it up with additional scumhunting - for example, the second half of my post was more concerned with Valk's posting in-thread, or lack thereof. These kind of probes into a player's activity doesn't need "spying" to be useful, but if someone claims that the player in question has been online, it could throw a new light onto the probes. Rather than guessing whether they've been unable to get online and couldn't notify V/LA, or are just avoiding questions, we would be slightly better informed. It could also catch someone out lying - if they say "Oh, I've not been able to get online" for example. Despite all of this, I'd personally still rather wait for the person in question to clarify why they've been unable to post much content. But once someone's made the point of it in the thread, it's impossible to ignore it. I'd rather no one went spying, but if someone does, then you can't just pretend that the player they have spied on hasn't been online if they have.

It's a case of, I wouldn't do it, or encourage people to do it, but if they did do it, I wouldn't scold them.

[AurorusVox]

Preamble

I hilariously ISO'd LoakaMossi, and the results are about what I expected. Apologies for the length of this post, but I've dedicated a lot of space to LM, in an attempt to make up for his lack of posting. Included here for ease...

ISO#1

I also think that the RVS is pointless, becuase it doesn't start good discussion, and it seems to throw suspicion on townies more often than scum. And when someone is randomly voted for, they can't properly defend themeselves, and end up looking like scum.

ISO#2

I'm sorry for not posting, this is the first time I've played any mafia game and I have no idea what I'm doing. I'm not intetionally lurking, although it does look like that I suppose. I don't know what to make of the arguements here, other than it looks like AurorusVox was using me as a distraction.

It would be stretching it to make any real, comprehensive analysis of LM's posts so far, but goddamnit I'm an English graduate and if university has taught me anything, it's that any text can be analysed. So applying the skills I have learnt over the last three years, I will do my best to raise a number of points...

Questions for LoakaMossi

In ISO#2 you say that you "have no idea what [you're] doing" - other new players, when uncertain, have asked the more experienced players for assistance or pointers. Why have you not taken such steps? If you don't know what to make of the current arguments, why not begin your own?

In ISO#1 you suggest at least a little familiarity with mafia games, or at least theory and game mechanics, because you discuss RVS without asking what it is, and you offer an insight as to players' responses with your "can't properly defend themselves" comment. I wonder which of these two posts bests reflects your true abilities? On the point of not "properly defend[ing]" yourself, do you feel that you can properly defend yourself if you make no posts?

My read

Because I don't think that LM will answer my questions, I'm going to posit what I think has happened;

a) Early on in the game, when ISO#1 was posted, LM was feeling confident that he would be able to keep up with the game and get into things, and so he made his first post which shows him starting to get engaged with discussion.
b) The day moved rapidly on, and LM got a little behind. He was feeling lost and so didn't post.
c) He was prodded and told he had to post or face replacement.
d) He posted, explaining why he hasn't posted. By this point, he did not want to read the rest of the thread and catch up, or, alternatively, he was still confused and didn't know what was going on.
e) Rather than asking for help, he made excuses and returned to lurking.

My analysis

Now, if he has been reading the thread ("I don't know what to make of the arguments here" suggests that he has read the arguments here) then he should have seen our numerous questions aimed at him, including my appeal to him to tell us what was wrong so that we might have been able to accommodate his problems. And yet he still has not posted. Which leads me to believe that he might not be reading the thread. Perhaps all he noticed was that my vote was on him? This could either be anti-town newbie-town play (lurking, lying, OMGUSing), or newbie-scum play (lurking, lying, weak reasoning).

If he is competent with some level of understanding as reflected in ISO#1, then I believe it would more likely be the second option (i.e. if he understood that our discussion of scum-lurking introduced WIFOM into the mix). If he is completely lost as he suggests in ISO#2, then I believe it would more likely be the first option (although scum can get lost, I think newbie scum would be more likely to post regardless of whether they were confused or not). I still don't understand why, if LM is reading the thread, he isn't asking for clarification on points he doesn't understand, or taking up our help when we offer it to him; if he isn't reading the thread, then he has been lying and even though it could be a newbie-townie mistake, townie's should never never lie.

I like his ISO#1 where he discusses the downfalls of RVS. His ISO#1 discusses from what could be seen as a townie's perspective - discussion, i.e. scumhunting; and proper defences, i.e. the response to scumhunting.
But he seems an entirely different player in ISO#2 where he backs down and basically concedes defeat and says that he can't or won't post. His accusation doesn't start good discussion

or

enable me to defend myself properly, because he doesn't explain himself enough.

There's not enough content here to enable me to get a read on him. The first post looks slightly townie, the second slightly scummy. So I'm left with a neutral read. Does anyone else have any additional insights from these posts?

Mod: I believe he is due for another prod soon?

[AurorusVox]

I'm going to have limited access over the next two days, but I'll try and get round everyone. I'll be answering everyone elses questions in chronological order, but Guybrush has been waiting a long time, so I though it was only fair to answer him first.

When ISO'ing Valkyrie I came across this, which throws the "Valkyrie is avoiding our questions" argument out of the window.

I'm seeing a potential Valkyrie-Aurorus scumpairing, because of her strong reaction to my vote for Aurorus, and the way Aurorus defended her at the top of page 4 when he didn't really defend anyone else.

Lol, my above isn't going to help this accusation, is it?

But I take issue with your reasoning; Valkyrie only reacted to your vote for me

after

Guybrush had pointed it out. I think you might be referring to the point at which she said "I think Michel should take his vote off" (or something similar) which I definitely found odd, but again, that was only after Guybrush had said he was satisfied with my explanation.

Also, at the top of page four, I was not really a big defence of Valkyrie but me expressing the fact that I had changed my mind regarding an earlier accusation I had aimed in her direction (if I was defending her, it was against my own accusation). It was a vocal retraction of suspicion* more than anything, though I can see why it might look like a defence. You say I've only done this with Valkyire, but I did something similar in my ISO#20 with 2k3 where I say that I feel he has started to scumhunt. More significantly, if you look at my ISO#24, you'll see me defending Zauper against accusations that I felt were unjust. So I don't think that saying I only defended Valkyrie is a fair representation, on either the count of defending or on its uniqueness.

*a VRoS - think the term will catch on?

[ooBAZZoo]

I know I said I'd be investigating Valk, but I've been really busy the last two days. Also, she's been so inactive lately I feel it would be fruitless as present.


I'd like to address another matter:
I've not visited the site the past day or so and I now realise how difficult it is to follow trains of argument when there are more than four or five posts to read. I believe the main reason the newbie players have been so inactive is not because of scum-tactics, etc, but because they can't keep up with the posts. I'd like to think that I've taken to the style of this game well, but since my vote for Zauper and subsequent absence (two pages ago or so) I've really struggled to follow the arguments and discussions.

Conseqently,

I have a big ask about future posting.

Can we stick to Michel's suggestion: Make your posts a concise as possible, i.e. shorter questions and reasons rather than blocks of justification (if someone wants to know the reason behind every single point you make they can ask).

and Guybrush's: don't get involved in matters between two players untill the second player has responded.

I know I've been guilty of all this, but intend to change.
By no means am I suggesting that there is a reduction of inquisition or scumhunting, and I am not trying to stifle discussion (I've anticipated these as a response), instead that this is done in a more newb-friendly way.

I really feel that the thread needs to become more accsesible so that we can have all nine players involved in the game (as opposed to the one or two that dominate it at the moment). x

p.s. Sorry if this sounds bitchy, but I feel the need to stick up for my fellow Newbs. x

[2003041]

Sorry guys, but I may not be able to post for a few days. The wireless was knocked out and until we can get it fixed, I can't get on as much, maybe once a couple of days. I really hope we can fix the problem here by tomorrow, but here's for hoping. I guess this would technically be a

V/LA 7/18-720

(Playing it safe). If I can't get this wireless solved in a few days, I'll ask for a replacement as much as I don't want to.

[ooBAZZoo]

Has anyone seen Valk lately? Seems that Valk is being quiet.

To me this appears too suggestive and not in any way active: Zauper avoiding any direct accusation whilst also directing attention away from himself.
It also shows Zauper conforming (again): this post comes long after a number of players had discussed Valk’s absence.

This could be an innocent statement, but it supports my suspicion of Zauper being scummy. So, for now, my vote stands.

@ 2k3 – (I’m still unsure of your reasons for voting Zauper)
1) do you read this line as I do?
2) Are there any other posts that Zauper has made that a) validate your vote or b) invalidate your vote. x

[Guybrush]

It sure sounds bitchy.
I'll do my best to massacre my posts even more.
2 complaints is my limit.

[MichelSableheart]

@Michel and Aurorus (as experienced players)
What are your thoughts on this:

Has anyone seen Valk lately? Seems that Valk is being quiet.

Do you think it would be fair if someone were now to reply "I saw her online yesterday, but she still didn't respond. Lurking probably."
And how would you treat that argument? Would you accept it or not?

I would consider it poor form if someone used that argument. It's easy for a player to hide his or her online status. If someone doesn't hide his or her online status, that's a service to the other forum members that I'm reluctant to take advantage of.

I might accept it as a valid argument if that player is only involved in this game. If it is a regular MD/GD poster, or if they're also playing mishmash, or other forum games, the fact that someone is online and posting doesn't necessary mean that they have the time to look into this game. I know that I give priority to the games I'm modding when I'm pressed for time.

---

I've said this before: Loaka feels more inactive then lurking to me. And inactivity is in my experience a null-tell, even though it's mightily annoying.

But I take issue with your reasoning; Valkyrie only reacted to your vote for me after Guybrush had pointed it out. I think you might be referring to the point at which she said "I think Michel should take his vote off" (or something similar) which I definitely found odd, but again, that was only after Guybrush had said he was satisfied with my explanation.

I questioned Valkyrie about it first, because I wanted to hear her explanation. That question was made in post #98, and still isn't answered. The fact that you are now (partially) answering for her doesn't really make me happy. I only mentioned the topic because Guybrush accused me of setting up a follow of his reasoning.

I'll get into this topic more when Valkyrie has actually answered my question. I'm not willing to press an Aurorus case over it without seeing a Valkyrie flip first anyway.

[AurorusVox]

The fact that you are now (partially) answering for her doesn't really make me happy.

Fair point. I don't think I've answered the exact questions that you asked her in #98, but what I said could get in the way of her answers so I'll accept the criticism.

Guybrush, I think the request was more aimed at me than at you xD
ooBAZZoo, I understand that lengthy posts are intimidating, and I'll try to keep them as accessible as possible, but if I feel like my/someone else's concerns aren't addressed in a small post, I don't think I can promise to leave all my posts short. I'll experiment with it though

[2003041]

@Bazz:
1) Honestly, I don't see it exactly the way you do, but the botoom line of scumminess is the same. I see zauper's post as a way to throw suspicion off him without answerng questions to someone who is having a tough time getting onlne and posting.
2) I haven't been on in some time and I can't re-read ATM, even with you and Akira having touched on past evidence, there is nothing that really validates more or start to invalidate my vote. The only new evdence that does add to the case is the post you and everyone else is mentioning with zauper concerning Valk. Saying this, I still feel confident that zauper is scum.

[2003041]

[Quote="Professor Farnsworth"]Good News, everyone!]
As an EBWOP, I got the wi-fi working again. Yay!

[MichelSableheart]

A full day passing with only 3 posts? That's disappointing.

Mod:

can we get prods on Loaka and Valkyrie, please?

[Haylen]

Doing my daily prod checks.

Edit: Replacing LoakaMossi and Prodding Valkarie_H

[Haylen]

omnino replaces LoakaMossi. Welcome him! ^_^

[AurorusVox]

Hello Omnino I hope you post more than LM and apologise in advance for the length of some of the posts that you're going to have to read!

[omnino]

I'll read through these posts tonight in between completing the rear-end of my portfolio website.

Cheers Aurorus.

I tend to be pretty scatter gun in my suspicions, only really narrowing them down towards the last week [will need to hurry that up for tonight, I suppose lol].

[Guybrush]

Welcome, omnino.
I guess my predictions about Loaka returning were incorrect.

Omnino, when you catch up and find some time,
could you give us your comment on Aurorus' analysis of your predecessor in his post #201?
Since you know his alignment now.

[ooBAZZoo]

Hello there Omnino. Could you also give us a quick summary of how many mafia games you've played so we have an idea of your experience?

@ everyone else - it may be a coincidence, but it seems like the pace has been killed since my post (which reading again looks more like a rant). I obviously didn't mean for this, only I got back from work really tired and groucy, and was a bit pissed off at how difficult some of the longer winded discussions were to follow. My appologies if people have been put off posting.

I'm becoming increasingly suspicious of Valk. Although she's not the only one to have been inactive the past couple of days, she does have a number of questions that she's avoiding answering. This could be a scum-tell, although it's also likely that she's just not that commited to the game.
x

[AurorusVox]

I'm becoming increasingly suspicious of Valk. Although she's not the only one to have been inactive the past couple of days, she does have a number of questions that she's avoiding answering. This could be a scum-tell, although it's also likely that she's just not that commited to the game.
x

Or her V/LA could have gone on longer than expected. That said, I definitely find a Valkscum more likely than a LoakaMossiscum because Valk does look to be active lurking over just plain lurking.

Do you think that Valk's "lack of answers" is more suspicious that Zauper's "agreeing with answers already posted"?

[AurorusVox]

Also, as for the slowing pace, I don't think it's surprising that this has happened over the last few days. Three players are (or have been) V/LA as far as I know (Akira, 2k3, Valk) and one has just been replaced. So with almost half of the players missing, there's only so much the rest of us can do.

[2003041]

Well, my V/LA is over since I got my wi-fi set back up, but I agree. We're at a standstill. With I believe 1.5 weeks left, we're slowing down talks and questioning. There's a few options that we could take at the moment:
1) Just restart asking questions. This would try to re-kick conversation back to life.
2) Vote Valk out of the game instead of waiting for a replacement. This game just seems too long for someone to try and catch up to for just a Day 1 situation. Omnino might be able to shed some light on that.
3) Forget about short posts and just post like we normally were. Sorry Bazz, but it just seems since everyone's been trying to cut their posts down, the discussions have dwindled.
Feel free to comment on any of these guys. These are just options we could look to take to get the game going again. Add ideas if you want to.

[Guybrush]

1) Just restart asking questions. This would try to re-kick conversation back to life.

How about we answer the questions that still stand first?
For example, in #194, you tried to answer my question, but failed.
I explained it in #195. ("Re: #194" part)
You didn't comment since.
So please do.

2) Vote Valk out of the game instead of waiting for a replacement. This game just seems too long for someone to try and catch up to for just a Day 1 situation.

Wow. Let's check the statistics:

• 2003 interrogated Valk, or even spoken to her: 0 (zero!)
  
• 2003 showed suspicion towards Valk prior to this : 0 (zero!)

And now, you would be willing to lynch her, just like that?
If you think she's scum for not showing up, then what about Loaka? He didn't show up either.
We could lynch omnino using that logic and then Valk's replacement would come during the night, right?
Could you name all the people who would you be willing to lynch today?

[MichelSableheart]

You're missing a very important option, 2003: trying to get a lynch organized on someone we are suspicious of.

I'm currently willing to support a lynch of Valkyrie. Although her latest batch of non-posting suggests inactivity, there are some rather scummy remarks in her posts. Her comment on my Aurorus vote is one of them. Her decission to answer Guybrush first despite my explicit request to answer my questions ASAP is another. Her tendency in the first couple of posts to discuss how random voting was bad without doing anything to actually move the game forward was a third.

I am NOT willing to support a zauper lynch. There are better cases out there then the case against him, and in my memorie, some players were joining his bandwagon far too opportunistically.

I am NOT willing to support a Loaka/Omnino lynch, except when needed to guarantee a lynch at deadline. Loaka seems to me to be a typical new player who signs up enthousiastically, then loses interest. I see no indication of alignement in his disappearance.

I'm willing to support a lynch of 2003. No matter how often I read his early posts, I simply fail to see an indication of scumhunting in them. The only thing I see is a tendency to attack anyone who attacks him, and unvoting as soon as they remove their vote. Also, the way he started supporting BAZZ's case against Zauper doesn't sit well with me.

I'm willing to support a lynch of Akira, though I don't want to push it at this moment. Something feels a bit of with the way how he leaves his vote on Zauper when he goes on V/LA.

I see no reasons to go after Aurorus, Guybrush or BAZZ at this point in time.

[omnino]

Welcome, omnino.
I guess my predictions about Loaka returning were incorrect.

Omnino, when you catch up and find some time,
could you give us your comment on Aurorus' analysis of your predecessor in his post #201?
Since you know his alignment now.

First off, a hearty ROFL at the lengthy ISO analysis of what Loaka contributed. Before I'd checked my role or realised who I was replacing I'd noted two things about him.

-Quiet [abrupt, short].
-Not reading [doesn't understand].

---

I haven't completely read everything yet, I'd managed to skim through to page 8 last night, not going deep in to the wall-o-texts to be honest as I was heading out not long after getting in from work last night. I'm in at work and hopefully it'll be quiet enough to me to make sure I haven't missed a sausage or two. Meanwhile, some notes from what i've got so far;

@2k3
-You appeared non committal early in the game.
-Suspicion of Avox was [IMO] mildly daft.
-Honour unvote moment reeked of scum trying to buddy up.
-at post 99 you seemed like you were trying to fight off a claim, at this stage you had one vote on you [going by AV's table], why even bother to mention claiming?
-Your 'I read these posts but didn't understand them, woah.' post seems to me like active-inactivity, or active lurking, more commonly.

@Akira
-Early you say you believe Mafia are prudent with accusations.
-You later find Avox's tirade on 2k3 [not prudent actions] suspicious. Is this a sign that you may not have been too sure about that prudent line?
-I get that there's no rush, technically' but you've been in this game from the start, and you currently have no vote placed... fix it, please.

I will post again later today with a bit more as I do ISO's, but that's what I have just now.

[omnino]

Woops, HR fail .