Mini 1281: Walrus Mafia (Game Over)

[Rainbowdash]

No seriously, where is my ML wagon?

His vote switch for a null tell mixed with questions that are more or less theory discussion distraction merits a mini wagon at the very least.

[Hoopla]

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Magister Ludi

[Magister Ludi]

I actually think Elli's no lynch vote was a planned move that looks likely to come from scum.

It allows him to parlay his vote into either a vote on some random townie that ignores his vote under the pretense of 'scum ignoring my controversial move so as not to get their feet wet' Or vote anyone that votes him under the pretense 'scum looking for an easy target, revote; boomheadshot', (since common site metagame is that self voting is scummy,)

Town motivation looks minimal. He doesn't actually want a no lynch, and if he does (lol?) that is vote-able. I suppose he could be trying to 'shake up the waters', but since he doesn't appear to be doing that, I've discarded that avenue of thought.

[Hoopla]

I doubt Elli thought that far ahead with his vote.

[Magister Ludi]

Ninjaed. I'm not asking random off the cuff questions here. I have a purpose, rainbow.

Also, examining the abstract, if you think no lynch voting is a null tell, I have a hard time seeing how you connect the dots to theory discussion being not a null tell.

[Magister Ludi]

Hoopla, the premise you're operating under is that things more likely to come from scum than town should be ignored if we think the player in question is too stupid (which I see nothing to support Elli is stupid) to think about the possible negative ramifications acting in such a (scummy) way could cause them?

[Hoopla]

Elli knows the theory behind why no-lynching on Day 1 isn't a good play. He wouldn't seriously vote for no-lynch if he had the opportunity to make it so.

There is no sneaky thought-out motivation behind Elli's vote. It was likely an impulsive move that he made in less than 10 seconds. I'm pretty sure I've seen him do similar in other games.

[Magister Ludi]

Exactly, the point is his no lynch vote is not a mean to an end to no lynch. He voted no lynch for a purpose, and those are the reasons I outlined above. He can turn around his vote onto a hapless town player (assuming he is scum) with 'legitimate' reasoning. I don't really see any town motivation for voting no lynch. That leads me to believe it is anti-town motivated.

So I disagree that there is no sneaky thought out motivation unless he does this in every game (and I don't believe he does).

[Ellibereth]

I feel like such a mastermind.
Ludi is scum looking for an easy target,

revote;

boomheadshot

Ludi

[Rainbowdash]

Ninjaed. I'm not asking random off the cuff questions here. I have a purpose, rainbow.

Also, examining the abstract, if you think no lynch voting is a null tell, I have a hard time seeing how you connect the dots to theory discussion being not a null tell.

If you can prove to me that Elli does this as scum, I will listen to you on it. Until then, its a null tell since its just as likely for scum or town to do it, maybe even neglegably more likely for town to do it. My bits are on its a null tell though. I really dont mind it even if he is planning to snap vote in response to it since it would kill the insufferable RVS, ive done that already though.

For your questions, attempting to initiate pointless theory discussion is a scum tell since all it really can accomplish is getting everypony up in arms about what is the right thing to do. This isnt an open so theory isnt a page one discussion topic. Its just like when somepony trys to start the RQS, it does absolutely nothing to move the game along and will likely create rifts between camps that disagree over basic ideas of how to play the game. I see no way these questions can even start to accomplish something that will move the game in a forward direction.

[Hoopla]

Ludi, you're misattributing negative consequences for anti-town play. The negative consequences of his play are debatable and incredibly minor - it could just as easily be argued that there are positive consequences of his play and they outweigh the negative. The fact we've got into a debate about it and furthered the game is one.

Again, Elli didn't consciously consider the positive or negative consequences of his actions, because in all likelihood they would be minor. That is why, he, the individual, is not scummy for his action.

[Magister Ludi]

I quickly skimmed through about six completed games of Ellibereth's . The only game where he voted no lynch out of the gates is

Open 328, where he was scum.
Prozacs Basic Theme 3, also scum

Other games I looked at were;
TvTropes
Momento
mini1256
mini1219

all where he was town, no no lynch vote.

Now, I repeat, my questions were not 'pointless theory'. I already said I would explain them, after I was answered.

[Magister Ludi]

Yeah, but Ellibereth hasn't engaged in pro-town debate of any sort. It has been you and me.

[Ellibereth]

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 6#p3243656
At least 3 more

[Magister Ludi]

Another completed game, Mini 1236 he was scum and did not self vote I believe those are now his seven most recently completed games.

[Magister Ludi]

Were you scum in that game Elli?

[Ellibereth]

Yah
You can check an ongoing where I'm dead too.
now wait I'm trying to type stuff

[Hoopla]

Yeah, but Ellibereth hasn't engaged in pro-town debate of any sort. It has been you and me.

It was his action that produced it, though.

You seem to be assigning the negative consequences of what his vote did or could potentially do to him personally, so I think you need to apply the same standard to the positive. Elli could have believed that several players might create a debate about what he did, thus furthering the game.

But it's silly to assign such long-term planning to Elli, just in the same way it is silly to make out it was Elli's plan all along to safely rebound vote onto someone else. It's baseless speculation about the "what-could-happen's", when in actuality, there is probably little beyond the cosmetic with Elli's vote.

[Ellibereth]

I suppose he could be trying to 'shake up the waters', but since he doesn't appear to be doing that, I've discarded that avenue of thought.

Suppose you thought that was my intention
your original vote was like 4 or 5 after mine
and
it's page 2
where I don't know if half of us have even POSTED.
so If I wanted to rock the boat or whatever it wouldn't even be now

So if YOU THOUGHT townElli would "shake up waters" with the vote.
What would you have done since my vote and now if you were me that would be watershaking

[Magister Ludi]

Hoopla, for one thing 3/4 of Ellie's last completed games as scum started with a no lynch vote. I appear to have been (from a quick skim), the only person to actually call this out. You like Empirical evidence, right?

I attribute negative and positive consequences directly to the player in question. If Ellie had parlayed his no lynch vote into something pro-town, he would get townie points. If no one commented on his no lynch vote, it would still have had all of the negative connotations I described, but none of the positive that have sprung from it. I hardly see trying to figure this out is silly.

[Magister Ludi]

Elli, you had seven different players post after you, all ignoring the no lynch vote, or at least avoiding directly commenting on it, since my vote means I wasn't ignoring it. If you wanted to make some argument that scum were 'ignoring your outlandish play' you could have done so. But you didn't

[Ellibereth]

You're trying to find an association between me voting No Lynch and my alignment is really funny.
Especially when I already brought up counterexamples.
Seriously.

I actually think Elli's no lynch vote was a planned move that looks likely to come from scum.

It allows him to parlay his vote into either a vote on some random townie that ignores his vote under the pretense of 'scum ignoring my controversial move so as not to get their feet wet' Or vote anyone that votes him under the pretense 'scum looking for an easy target, revote; boomheadshot', (since common site metagame is that self voting is scummy,)

Town motivation looks minimal. He doesn't actually want a no lynch, and if he does (lol?) that is vote-able. I suppose he could be trying to 'shake up the waters', but since he doesn't appear to be doing that, I've discarded that avenue of thought.

where the hell are the negative connotations here???
that I can move my vote around?
Trust me, I could just fine without any No Lynch or whatever

[Hoopla]

I attribute negative and positive consequences directly to the player in question. If Ellie had parlayed his no lynch vote into something pro-town, he would get townie points. If no one commented on his no lynch vote, it would still have had all of the negative connotations I described, but none of the positive that have sprung from it. I hardly see trying to figure this out is silly.

You're basing his alignment on

what he could do

- which hadn't happened yet. Do you see how that doesn't make sense?

History of no-lynch voting is better, but his Flash Mafia game was as town, so it's actually 2-1. And regardless, it's too small of a sample size. Search 25+ games of his for me.

[Ellibereth]

Elli, you had seven different players post after you, all ignoring the no lynch vote, or at least avoiding directly commenting on it, since my vote means I wasn't ignoring it. If you wanted to make some argument that scum were 'ignoring your outlandish play' you could have done so. But you didn't

7 people ignoring me
they all must be scum.

Say I self-voted
would you be doing the same thing

I mean, you could apply whatever logic you're using here to ANY "OUTLANDISH" thing early game, and to think everyone who does that is scum is errrrrrrrrrrryeah.

[Magister Ludi]

Erm, you only seem to vote no lynch out of the gates as scum. The evidence is there. There seems to be a semi direct connection between Elli scum and no lynch voting, outside of anything else entirely. This is both not funny and pretty important. And to the negative, an easy vote move onto a weak player with crappy reason that appears justified but is actually contrived

I sort of amazed at the number of times you have done it as scum. I actually doubted myself after seeing the number of times that you would do it again. But obviously that didn't stop you on the second or third time, and you weren't directly called out in those games, so I see no reason you would stop on a potential fourth. You probably thought it was really 'townie looking'