Newbie 1024 -- Minimalist Mafia (Game Over)

[Concission]

@Ghost: Ok I may have skimmed that part but the motive of Mute for claiming is (chain-saw)defending you nevertheless right?
@Neruz: If Mute was mafia, the optimal play would be no kill and accredit it to his protection's successfulness. If someone died in place of Mute today, he would look very suspicious wouldn't he?

[Neruz]

Sort of, killing someone other than the doctor does risk that the doc will protect correctly, which can mess everything up, but at the same time if it's successful it incriminates the doctor, it's a less common gambit than nokilling after a claimed doc, but it's not that rare. It -is- risky, but sometimes the risk is worth it.

Killing the Doc is the safest play, but not

neccessarily

the best.

[Trendall]

Lol, you new guys are funny. Mute seems like obvtown to me, but we need to lynch, and you're obviously all not changing your minds, so I'm hammering on the off chance that I'm wrong.

VOTE: Mute

[Neruz]

...

Wow, Trendall, could that hammer be any scummier?

[Trendall]

...

Yes. By miles.

[Mute]

Thanks trend.
Gonna ninja with a Bah! post.

Game did help me learn some things, and hopefully with my next game my play will be better. Thanks for the game guys, was fun.

[RedCoyote]

ØØOOOOO

X

Mute,

Doctor

, has been lynched Day 3.

Final Vote Count

• Mute

  (Ghostlin - Concission - DLG - Neruz - Trendall)
  
  
  Nachomamma8

  (Mute)

  
  

  DLG

  (Jay)

  
  

  Jay

  (Nachomamma8)

With five votes, that's a lynch and an end to the third day.
Night 3 has a three day deadline and begins now.

New

Deadline: Jan. 1st, 2011 at 12:00 PM (Noon)

[RedCoyote]

ØØOOOO

X

Neruz,

Townie

, was killed Night 3.

Vote Count 1

• Not Voting

  (Jay - Ghostlin - DLG - Concission - Trendall - Nachomamma8)

With six alive, it takes four to lynch.

New

Deadline: Jan. 22nd, 2011 at 2:30 PM

[Ghostlin]

We're at MyLo: there is exactly 4 town and 2 scum right now. I think at this point the wisest thing might be to No Lynch to force Lylo. It would give us another day to analyze and create a higher probabilty of hitting scum on the last day (goes from 1/3=33% at MyLo to 2/5=40% at LyLo). We tried (well, you guys, I replaced in late Day 3) to successfully do this on Day 2 but Mute claimed Doctor, leaving us with no powerroles to preserve.

There is one person in town that's beginning to bother me, a lot. Trendall. There's a few inconsistences in his play that are starting to really be highlighted as time goes on:

1) He goes after Mastin for him declaring Nachomamma scummy but not hammering. Well, Trendall didn't hammer either, and he cast both of the hammers on Day 1 and Day 3: once against Beefster, who he kinda went 'well, I don't believe it but we're out of time' and Mute, where he mocked the replacements with:

Lol, you new guys are funny. Mute seems like obvtown to me, but we need to lynch, and you're obviously all not changing your minds, so I'm hammering on the off chance that I'm wrong.

VOTE: Mute

So, let me posit this: there was a majority on Nacho, you've not declared any reason Nacho's scummy (I'll get to the specifics here in a minute), why didn't

YOU

hammer Nacho on Day 2, instead of people you gave off the impression have been acting protown? It's not the fact you hammered, it's the fact you've hammered 2 days out of 3, after a hot debate about no lynch, you forced one on the day on a person someone thought was scummy.

2) His hammer on Mute saying he's obvtown isn't consistent with his meta this game on Mute. He has an entire post on refutation where he calls an argument Mute posts 'stupid', and asks the question 'Why?' over and over. He also posts earlier in the day something to the effect that even though Mute claimed doctor, doesn't mean he's town. And then, on the hammer, Mute's obvtown with a rather sarcastic lol. Why the change of heart, Trendall?

3) Discards metacase against himself as invalid that Mastin posts, which I don't think is invalid. If something worked once, odds are it'll work again. Past behavior is not always indictive of, but can help dictate future behavior. Ironically, I think there's a part or two he uses meta as well, so this point is hypocritical while he's pointing out Mastin's hypocracy?

(It should be said I don't find hypocracy in and of itself scummy: town is often as guilty as scum for using it. I do find it in this case to be consistent with Trendall's inconsistent play.)

4) Small, almost flavorless posts and then posts paragraphs just enough to not be considered active lurking. There are posts in ISO that are one liners, such as:

That doesn't answer my question.

Jay, am I right in thinking that Mastin is your top suspect here? If so, why aren't you voting for him?

Which is somewhere between helpful and not helpful for town. It's helpful enough to help people clarify their points, but it's not really scumhunting.

Then he posts this wall of text on Mastin:

Kayi wrote:
Everyone: Who are your current suspicions? I'm getting a bit lost here.

Here's a summary. Main two suspects at the moment are:

Mastin
* Didn't hammer on Nacho, despite how Nacho and I were equal top of his suspects list. By his own logic, this should mean he is scum, as he is being cautious/fencesitting.
* Tunneling HARD on me, and only switched focus to Nacho when it became clear that other people were wanting to vote for him.
* Lots of inconsistencies in his arguments
- Says that he pulls examples from off-site if necessary. Says that my argument based on another site is irrelevant.
- Says that he uses examples from past games no matter how old they are. Says my argument based on old data is invalid.
- Says my 'you should know better' argument is invalid. Uses the argument 'you should know better than to play like this' against me.
- Says that my 'fencesitting' is scummy. 'Fencesits' himself when it comes to Nacho.
- Uses minor details in his argument. Writes one of my arguments off as a 'minor detail'
- Uses the argument 'Beefster seems to be making a lot out of nothing'. When I use a similar argument against him later on, he says it's invalid.
* Says that Mute would die in the night for sure, despite the obvious possibility that mafia still have reasons to leave him alive. Does the classic 'omg the mafia did that? I can't believe it' when Mute doesn't die during the night.
* Few if any actual solid arguments against people.
- Arguments based on gut
- Arguments based on Meta
- Arguments based on totally inaccurate and baseless leaps of logic (eg. if Trendall said this, this means he should have acted like this)
- Arguments that are just weird (Jay random voted the doctor)
* Posting lots of information, and far less analysis.
* Uses a lot of semantics arguments to worm his way out of accusations ('that thing I said against Jay wasn't a case so you can't criticise me for it', 'Anti-town, scummy, and scumtell are all separate' etc.)

Some of these are particularly amusing: He again says Mastin invalidates his arguments; and then posts arguments on meta.

Anti voting with your gut wouldn't be quite so bad, but he posts this gem:

I'd never really made that much of a decision in the first place, which you'll be able to see me repeatedly saying in my posts. I came to the conclusion that he was probably town near the end of the day, but then his hesitation to hammer on Nacho seems mega scummy to me, so I now think that he's probably mafia. I'm allowed to change my mind, aren't I?

This is a gut judgement based on one particular behavior and not really quantifable in any way.

* Tunneling HARD on me, and only switched focus to Nacho when it became clear that other people were wanting to vote for him.

This summarizes his play early Day 3, and is something of a nulltell if you read the wiki: but interesting nonetheless. OMGUS?

Something doesn't fit. However, I do not feel OK with outright voting Trendall in this scenario (at MyLo where a wrong lynch might be fatal; I feel comfortable with applying pressure) without input from my other townies. Everyone: who do you like for scum at this point? Do you agree that a no lynch might be the best play, why or why not?

I feel it is the best play, so

Vote: No Lynch

,

Hos: Trendall

[Ghostlin]

EBWOP: Happy New Year, everyone.

[Nachomamma8]

I wouldn't mind a no-lynch, but I'd recommend that all this discussion doesn't accompany it. No reason to tell scum who finds them town and who doesn't.

Vote: No Lynch

[DLG]

I understand the math behind no lynching in this situation. The question for me comes down to whether or not I believe someone is likely enough to be scum to warrant taking the more aggressive approach of lynching today. I am confident enough in one suspect to go for it. I won't muddy things up by laying out that case if the majority of the town wants to no-lynch.

We'll be facing the same pressure on Day 5 as we are now. Get it wrong, and we lose. So, my vote is to lynch today.

I believe everyone should post their preference on this issue at their first opportunity.

[Concission]

No lynch is the best option. And reads should only be revealed tomorrow.

Vote:No Lynch

[Trendall]

I'm really not impressed with how Ghostlin outed his suspicions on me before no lynching. Basically, all he's done is ensured that I'm kept alive tonight. I'll deal with his argument after we're done with all the no lynching, though.

VOTE: No Lynch

[Jay]

Damn, I pretty much missed Day 4. Well, I agree that no lynch is the best option. I would cast a vote for it, but since we've already reached four, I guess that'd be pretty useless.

[RedCoyote]

Final Vote Count

• No Lynch

  (Ghostlin - Nachomamma8 - Concission - Trendall)
  
  

  Not Voting

  (Jay - DLG)

With four votes, that's a lynch and an end to the fourth day.
Night 4 has a three day deadline and begins now.

New

Deadline: Jan. 6th, 2011 at 12:30 AM

[RedCoyote]

ØØOOO

X

Concission,

Townie

, was killed Night 4.

Vote Count 1

• Not Voting

  (Jay - Ghostlin - DLG - Trendall - Nachomamma8)

With five alive, it takes three to lynch.

New

Deadline: Jan. 27th, 2011 at 2:00 AM (CST)

[DLG]

O.K. We have to get this right on this day. So, no rush votes or rash actions. Let's think things through, and get it right.

Analysis and content later today.

[Ghostlin]

Let me start with a question directed at one of our quietest town members, Jay: Who do you like for scum? Do not vote, but give us a case for someone. Include reasoning, even if you have to use an argument someone else has had up until this point. This is your time to shine, really. You've been a little quiet and I don't know what to make about that.

[Trendall]

My additions in bold:

There is one person in town that's beginning to bother me, a lot. Trendall. There's a few inconsistences in his play that are starting to really be highlighted as time goes on:

1) He goes after Mastin for him declaring Nachomamma scummy but not hammering. Well, Trendall didn't hammer either,

I didn't declare Nacho scummy either. I thought he was town at this point in the game, so that's not an inconsistency

and he cast both of the hammers on Day 1 and Day 3

On day one, statistically, the best option was to lynch. I thought Beefster was town, but a lynch is still statistically better, and I could have easily been wrong. That's why I lynched day ONE. On day two, statistically, the best option was to no lynch. That's why I didn't hammer day two. On day three, no lynching risked having the game end in a draw. That's why I hammered day three. There's no inconsistency there, those lynches/no lynches all occored in three completely different contexts

: once against Beefster, who he kinda went 'well, I don't believe it but we're out of time' and Mute, where he mocked the replacements

Yes. I thought it was pretty obvious the maf left Mute alive, and was amazed that you guys all came in and pretty much threw everything scummy that everybody had done out the window and lynched Mute based on the total WIFOM of him still being alive

with:

Lol, you new guys are funny. Mute seems like obvtown to me, but we need to lynch, and you're obviously all not changing your minds, so I'm hammering on the off chance that I'm wrong.

VOTE: Mute

So, let me posit this: there was a majority on Nacho, you've not declared any reason Nacho's scummy

He was Mastin's 'top suspect' and Mastin didn't hammer on him. Mastin was my top suspect, and him not hammering on somebody in that situation was hugely out of character. That was my reason

(I'll get to the specifics here in a minute), why didn't YOU hammer Nacho on Day 2

Because I didn't find him scummy until day 3, plus I was trying to force a no lynch because it was statistucally the best option

, instead of people you gave off the impression have been acting protown? It's not the fact you hammered, it's the fact you've hammered 2 days out of 3, after a hot debate about no lynch, you forced one on the day on a person someone thought was scummy.

2) His hammer on Mute saying he's obvtown isn't consistent with his meta this game on Mute.

Yes it is

He has an entire post on refutation where he calls an argument Mute posts 'stupid', and asks the question 'Why?' over and over.

In the same post, I categorically say that Mute is my strongest town read. There's no way you didn't see that. Just because I say someone makes stupid arguments doesn't mean I think they're mafia

He also posts earlier in the day something to the effect that even though Mute claimed doctor, doesn't mean he's town.

That's true. A claim of doctor doesn't clear somebody. However, I still thought he was town

And then, on the hammer, Mute's obvtown with a rather sarcastic lol. Why the change of heart, Trendall?

Either you're misreading, or you're just conveniently missing out bits that nullify your argument. There was no change of heart. I had a town read on Mute all along, which is explicitly stated in my ISO#44

3) Discards metacase against himself as invalid that Mastin posts, which I don't think is invalid.

My ISO#55 - 'Lol, have you read any of it? Mastin's entire argument against me is based on comparing random things that I've done in this game to random things that I've done in two other games, neglecting the hundreds of other games that I've played off site. I mean, look at his first point about me in post #510. 'Trendall mentions his unusual schedule in both games. This is a consistency, so he's more likely to be town'. As if me mentioning my unusual schedule is in any way relevant to which alignment I am. I mean, seriously? That point alone is just absolutely...there's not even an adjective powerful enough to describe how irrelevant and absurd it is.' .... Do you seriously think that Mastin's arguments are valid?

If something worked once, odds are it'll work again. Past behavior is not always indictive of, but can help dictate future behavior. Ironically, I think there's a part or two he uses meta as well, so this point is hypocritical while he's pointing out Mastin's hypocracy?

No, because I used specific things that Mastin said in the past that were relevant to this game that were contradictions. Mastin just took everything I'd ever done and compared it, no matter how relevant any of that stuff was

(It should be said I don't find hypocracy in and of itself scummy: town is often as guilty as scum for using it. I do find it in this case to be consistent with Trendall's inconsistent play.)

4) Small, almost flavorless posts and then posts paragraphs just enough to not be considered active lurking. There are posts in ISO that are one liners, such as:

That doesn't answer my question.

Jay, am I right in thinking that Mastin is your top suspect here? If so, why aren't you voting for him?

Which is somewhere between helpful and not helpful for town. It's helpful enough to help people clarify their points, but it's not really scumhunting.

Are you serious? If I only have one thing to say, I'm only going to say that one thing. I'm not going to write out reams and reams of unnecessary text. Plus, if you're advocating meta so strongly, go back and read mine and you'll find that I do this in all my games.

Then he posts this wall of text on Mastin:

Kayi wrote:
Everyone: Who are your current suspicions? I'm getting a bit lost here.

Here's a summary. Main two suspects at the moment are:

Mastin
* Didn't hammer on Nacho, despite how Nacho and I were equal top of his suspects list. By his own logic, this should mean he is scum, as he is being cautious/fencesitting.
* Tunneling HARD on me, and only switched focus to Nacho when it became clear that other people were wanting to vote for him.
* Lots of inconsistencies in his arguments
- Says that he pulls examples from off-site if necessary. Says that my argument based on another site is irrelevant.
- Says that he uses examples from past games no matter how old they are. Says my argument based on old data is invalid.
- Says my 'you should know better' argument is invalid. Uses the argument 'you should know better than to play like this' against me.
- Says that my 'fencesitting' is scummy. 'Fencesits' himself when it comes to Nacho.
- Uses minor details in his argument. Writes one of my arguments off as a 'minor detail'
- Uses the argument 'Beefster seems to be making a lot out of nothing'. When I use a similar argument against him later on, he says it's invalid.
* Says that Mute would die in the night for sure, despite the obvious possibility that mafia still have reasons to leave him alive. Does the classic 'omg the mafia did that? I can't believe it' when Mute doesn't die during the night.
* Few if any actual solid arguments against people.
- Arguments based on gut
- Arguments based on Meta
- Arguments based on totally inaccurate and baseless leaps of logic (eg. if Trendall said this, this means he should have acted like this)
- Arguments that are just weird (Jay random voted the doctor)
* Posting lots of information, and far less analysis.
* Uses a lot of semantics arguments to worm his way out of accusations ('that thing I said against Jay wasn't a case so you can't criticise me for it', 'Anti-town, scummy, and scumtell are all separate' etc.)

Some of these are particularly amusing: He again says Mastin invalidates his arguments; and then posts arguments on meta.

Arguments based on meta are fine, but it was the fact that Mastin's whole argument was essentially based on lots of irrelevant meta that bothered me

Anti voting with your gut wouldn't be quite so bad, but he posts this gem:

I'd never really made that much of a decision in the first place, which you'll be able to see me repeatedly saying in my posts. I came to the conclusion that he was probably town near the end of the day, but then his hesitation to hammer on Nacho seems mega scummy to me, so I now think that he's probably mafia. I'm allowed to change my mind, aren't I?

This is a gut judgement based on one particular behavior

No. A gut judgement is based on NOTHING. 'Gut' is when you say 'I think he's mafia but don't really know why'. If you have a reason for thinking someone's mafia, then it's no longer gut

and not really quantifable in any way.

* Tunneling HARD on me, and only switched focus to Nacho when it became clear that other people were wanting to vote for him.

This summarizes his play early Day 3, and is something of a nulltell if you read the wiki

I don't accept 'it's on the wiki so it's true'. The wiki has all sorts of really stupid baseless shit regarding mafia theory on it. I think in this context in this game, the fact that Mastin was so obsessed with getting me lynched and completely ignored everyone else was scummy

: but interesting nonetheless. OMGUS?

[Trendall]

EBWOP: OMGUS means nothing. Mute was OMGUSing all over the place, and he was the doctor.

Ghostlin. Why did you omit the fact that I said that Mute was my strongest town read from your argument?

[Ghostlin]

Because you consistently talk out of both sides of your mouth, Trendall, particularly when it comes to Mute. #436 and the post I cited are sparkling examples of this: you mention Mute is your largest protown read, but the continual FoS's and other things put you off. You also have a post saying you don't trust Mute as the doctor; but he's still town to you.

If I was in this game eariler, I might have shook you and gone, 'which is it? Do you trust him or not? If he's protown, great; stop building a case against him. If he's not, then stop saying he IS protown.'

I almost can't blame Mastin for accusing you of fence sitting: you seem to build cases on people who are your biggest town reads, and you unvote people because they're now in your eyes, protown without reasoning why they'd be such (see: the unvote of Mastin).

After that almost tunnelling case you built against Mastin, I'd expect epic postage or at least an explanation of why you feel Mastin was protown. We get...nothing. That's my problem with you, Trendall: you're not consistent, about anything. At all. Some of these things you post seem to me like half formed cases you can go back to: "Look guys, I did say Mute was protown, but I suspected him all along...really, honest!" OR the opposite: "I did say Mute FoS a lot and OMGUS and did things that weren't necessarly protown, but he was my biggest protown read, so you guys are all fools for voting him."

These are similar to the traits you post against Mastin's case about fence sitting.

Also, I find it very interesting you mention when you voted No Lynch eariler in the day about preserving PRs and doing it as quickly as possible. If No Lynch was about preserving PRs and letting the day pass as quickly as possible, why did you supposedly still support it at the end of Day 2? The two largest arguments you cite for No Lynch had flown, and yet you support it at the end of the day?

I could understand if you quoted statistics to me, even, numbers are unalterable but the situation you cited changed. Also, why even go through the mummery of Day 2, vote and get No Lynch if you feel that was the best option? You might as well, I hate to say it, left your vote on No Lynch.

As for tunnelling: I find it ironic you mention the wiki not being valid as far as it being a nulltell but not really addressing this concern and then throw out the 'OMGUS means nothing with it.'

So, are you saying that tunnelling is more prevalient to scum, and OMGUS isn't a tell? I can buy the second maybe, there's enough evidence that folks do OMGUS without being scummy necessarly (although the mention of Mute AGAIN doesn't track: unless I was scum, I didn't know a day ago that he was the Doctor) but you see, I have to disagree with the tunnelling part mostly because if you make a scumlist of your suspect(s) and focus on one pointing out their flaws: that's scumhunting.

[Trendall]

Where do I accuse Mute of being mafia? Find me a quote.

[Ghostlin]

I didn't say you said Mute was mafia: I said that you had made comments that could have been construed as a case for not trusting Mute (or his claim) and then parrotted he was your biggest town read. You're right, if my entire argument was that you said Mute was Mafia, I would be lying. It's not, though, my argument is based on the fact you flip flopped on Mute's behavior in your arguments:

1) You say he was your biggest protown read but the FoS's put you off.
2) You say he was your biggest protown read but you said we shouldn't necessarly trust his claim as Doctor (which meant you held the possibilty he was lying, which is an anti-town behavior).

I can find and quote

those

posts to you readibly easily.

Bluntly, no, you didn't say Mute was mafia, but that's NOT the argument I was making. The argument I was making is the load of waffle I get reading you in ISO--arguments that could be spun anyway you like as defenses.

No more deflections. No more games. We're at Lylo folks. I ask this of everyone: who do you like for scum and WHY?

[Trendall]

1) You say he was your biggest protown read but the FoS's put you off.
2) You say he was your biggest protown read but you said we shouldn't necessarly trust his claim as Doctor (which meant you held the possibilty he was lying, which is an anti-town behavior).

1. No, I didn't say that. I didn't fos him at all. Not once. I said his arguments were useless. I didn't say I thought he was mafia. Ever. Those two things aren't mutually exclusive. Town can make bad arguments.
2. He was my biggest town read. Of course there was the possibility that he wasn't the doctor. That's why I said he was my biggest town read, not that he was clear. I took that possibility of him being mafia along with all the other stuff against him, and got a town read on him. Just because there was the

possibility

of him being mafia doesn't mean that I had to think he's mafia. I don't know how I can possibly make this any more obvious. There's no contradiction. I thought he was most likely town, but that doesn't mean I was going to be completely oblivious to all other options.