Normal 1934: Civilization Mafia Mafia (Endgame)

[PersephoneSidekick]

Sup

VOTE: Robbnva for not voting. We must have blood.

[PersephoneSidekick]

why is me not voting scummy?

Because we must have blood.

[PersephoneSidekick]

Dude, it's RVS; why are you expecting me to make sense?

[PersephoneSidekick]

Dude, it's RVS; why are you expecting me to make sense?

Because our goal as town should be to get out of RVS.

VOTE: PersephoneSidekick

Exactly.

[PersephoneSidekick]

Fuck I am gonna get roasted so hard this game.

@robbnva I'm not really sure why you're reading Persephone's vote as non-RVS? Unless I'm misreading you here saying "we must have blood" seems pretty obviously a joke to me and you seem to have missed that entirely; is there some reason why you expect that kind of reasoning to be serious? I can see how you might read her as backtracking there if you did take her initial vote on you for not posting seriously but you don't seem to have brought that up; don't really get why you reiterate yourself in 16 without taking into account that she's said it was an RVS vote or why her not making sense is your main sticking point here if she is out of RVS.

@Persephone don't entirely see what you're doing here to get out of RVS if that's what you're genuinely trying to do; robbnva's issue with you seems to be that he thought your vote on him for not voting was something you actually found scummy, rather than an RVS vote; you don't seem to have made much effort to correct that misconception. Unless that actually was the case I'm a little confused by your approach here overall.

Basically I voted for the first stupid reason I could think of because it seemed better than literally no reason. Robbnva then argued for some reason so I decided I could either awkwardly apologize or keep pushing and see if his reaction would be useful. Then people started voting me and so I realized I was inadvertently helping us out of RVS after all.

t

[PersephoneSidekick]

Stupid keyboard; disregard that t there

[PersephoneSidekick]

Also, please stop calling me "he"

[PersephoneSidekick]

I didn't argue anything actually. I asked you a simple question.

You chose to use something game related to vote me, asking you to explain your vote is perfectly acceptable response.

you claim it was rvs, but according to my definition of rvs, it wasn't.

Also I don't really buy the whole "see if his reaction would be useful" because you have to have a familiarity with me to know how I would react as town and scum, and you don't.

my apologies for calling you he, I have issues with pronouns all the time. I will try not to make that mistake again.

There hasn't been enough from you to determine if you are scum or town yet, so I won't put you at L-1 but you are definitely on my radar. Let's see if your play improves.

I don't care what your "definition" of RVS is. And the reaction test isn't just for my benefit; 11 other people will be able to read everything we say. I mean what else is there to do interpret each other's reactions to things, this early?

[PersephoneSidekick]

Hey Persephone, why did you dismiss Robb's challenge of your vote with "lol RVS"? What did you hope to achieve?

That was meant as a flippant attack rather than a flippant defense actually. Like "why are you being so defensive about an RVS" was roughly the intended meaning. Tone is really hard in text. It wasn't a super calculated move beyond just wanting to keep poking at the little micro-conflict in the hopes that it would produce something useful to me or (more realistically) more experienced people than me. I made myself resist the urge to actually justify myself until morning because defusing the conflict early would waste the opportunity to use it to end RVS.

Ultimately, I consider my approach vindicated by the fact that it produced a wagon to talk about, even if it's on me. Unless I actually get lynched it will totally have been worth it.

[PersephoneSidekick]

Is it considered actively better to vote for a blatant joke reason in RVS than for a reason that is "real" but blatantly insufficient, and if so, why? Real question; it's my first non-newbie game.

[PersephoneSidekick]

Is it considered actively better to vote for a blatant joke reason in RVS than for a reason that is "real" but blatantly insufficient, and if so, why? Real question; it's my first non-newbie game.

Irrelevant question. Nothing is better. Whatever you do, if you're scummy, people will call you out on it. Just do whatever you think is best to do as town. This is hard to fake if you're scum. People can smell fake and fake attempts. So if you're trying to fake something, you're probably scum. And people will call you out on it.

I'm mostly just trying to separate the accusations from any criticisms of my playstyle from a practical level, so that I know what to ignore/defend against and what to learn from. As far as I knew I had done something considered bad for town based on community consensus from long experience and was being read as scum for violating that consensus.

[PersephoneSidekick]

Okay, so I'm reading Robbnva as more weirdly dogmatic than opportunistic or anything. Monkey might be being opportunistic but the basis of his read on me is actually pretty reasonable even if the conclusion is incorrect. And from scums point of view right now, an early mislynch against me is probably unlikely though they could be setting up a later one. But if I were scum I'd be trying to hang back and let this conversation continue to be not about me, maybe even defend me. I feel like monkey is exposing himself a lot early for if he was scum.

OTOH is it normal to not announce L-1 in non-newbie games. Because if not then he could have been seriously hoping for a derphammer. Otherwise, I think he's town.

I don't really know who's scum and I don't really know how to find out other than evaluating other people's arguments and looking for slips and it's hard to evaluate arguments when I'm the main topic.

I guess I have some townreads and that's something. Like other than the above, I think that Korts's gamesolving looks genuine. I dunno about the rest and obviously we're waiting for some people to post.

[PersephoneSidekick]

I think I still haven't done a good job explaining my thought process for the stuff that got me wagonned but it's not really that important so I'm just going to let it go.

I buy that Tchill's vote switch could have been a slip. Scum motivation: just trying to lynch somebody and forgetting your previous positions (less than two hours later!) because you don't really mean them. Town motivation: changing your mind as you see things without worrying about seeming consistent because you only care about finding the answer. Being willing to call your own actions scummy if you think you're part of a scummy wagon, because even though you know you're town you recognize you did something scummy and are willing to point that out to make progress. Conclusion: kind of shockingly sloppy as scum but slips happen. But if he can explain their switch to my satisfaction, I'd call it actively towny.

Bleh I have too many townreads. I actually kind of scumread Korts on tone/structure which is unfortunate because he's also the most helpful person. But like he's

aggressively

helpful? Basically he reminds me of the "scumhunting" I did as scum in my last game. Jumping in early and responding to everything, trying to have lots of things to say when there doesn't exist much to say yet. I could vanity wagon him for it but I don't have that kind of confidence. I think I'll VOTE: Tchill because I really do want to force them to explain themself.

[PersephoneSidekick]

I didn't argue anything actually. I asked you a simple question.

You chose to use something game related to vote me, asking you to explain your vote is perfectly acceptable response.

you claim it was rvs, but according to my definition of rvs, it wasn't.

Also I don't really buy the whole "see if his reaction would be useful" because you have to have a familiarity with me to know how I would react as town and scum, and you don't.

my apologies for calling you he, I have issues with pronouns all the time. I will try not to make that mistake again.

There hasn't been enough from you to determine if you are scum or town yet, so I won't put you at L-1 but you are definitely on my radar. Let's see if your play improves.

I don't care what your "definition" of RVS is. And the reaction test isn't just for my benefit; 11 other people will be able to read everything we say. I mean what else is there to do interpret each other's reactions to things, this early?

Do you mean it's too early to do these things or you're suggesting that's all we really have to do this early in the game?

I wanted to "see if his reaction would be useful" i.e. make a reaction test. He basically told me that it was impossible for me to get benefit from reaction tests because I don't know his meta, which was crazy but I did my best to respond to it anyway. My first argument was to point out that even if reactions were only useful if you knew people's meta, other people who did know his meta might be reading the thread and notice useful thing about his reaction.

My second point was to say that reaction tests are one of the only useful things to do extremely early in the game. Now we have more to go on, but at the time in question there was very little existing content to analyse and so the only thing one could reasonably do is create your own content and see and interpret how other people respond, i.e. reaction tests. I wasn't being deliberately scummy, but I was being deliberately provocative in the hopes of making something happen that I or others could analyse.

Does that answer your question?

PEdit: As of the time of this writing, there is more to do than reaction tests, and I'm trying to do it. At the time of the posts of mine that were being criticised, it was all we really had to go on.

[PersephoneSidekick]

I don't buy that really. Plus Perse has twice misrepresented what happened. In one post she says I argued with her which I didn't. She also said I was defensive which I wasn't.

I feel like you knew she was digging herself in a hole and you wanted to get off before the wagon got serious.

You and massive joined suspiciously and hopped off suspiciously as well. Ideally I'd love the scum team to be the 3 of you but I'm not that lucky.

That said I won't object to a lynch from the 3 of you.

why is me not voting scummy?

Behold, Robbnva arguing with me and being defensive. Shall we argue about the definitions of words some more?

[PersephoneSidekick]

Howdy folks!

I think I still haven't done a good job explaining my thought process for the stuff that got me wagonned but it's not really that important so I'm just going to let it go.

I buy that Tchill's vote switch could have been a slip. Scum motivation: just trying to lynch somebody and forgetting your previous positions (less than two hours later!) because you don't really mean them. Town motivation: changing your mind as you see things without worrying about seeming consistent because you only care about finding the answer. Being willing to call your own actions scummy if you think you're part of a scummy wagon, because even though you know you're town you recognize you did something scummy and are willing to point that out to make progress. Conclusion: kind of shockingly sloppy as scum but slips happen. But if he can explain their switch to my satisfaction, I'd call it actively towny.

Bleh I have too many townreads. I actually kind of scumread Korts on tone/structure which is unfortunate because he's also the most helpful person. But like he's

aggressively

helpful? Basically he reminds me of the "scumhunting" I did as scum in my last game. Jumping in early and responding to everything, trying to have lots of things to say when there doesn't exist much to say yet. I could vanity wagon him for it but I don't have that kind of confidence. I think I'll VOTE: Tchill because I really do want to force them to explain themself.

What exactly is going on here? In your post 72, which was your last post in the game prior to this one, you were townreading Korts for the exact same reason. Now you scumread him based on a projection if your own habits...and in the same post criticize TChill for flipping his vote. Contradictions, thy name is Persephone. Can you explain what was going on there to make

you

change your mind?

Also your scumread of Korts and TChill's scumread of Korts are reverberating in my head. You two aren't scumreading him for the exact same reason, but both of them look like attempts to make good behavior look bad, and that's curious to me, mostly because I don't think it's likely you and TChill are both scum.

Basically, I did an "omg who the hell even is scum" reread after a day away and just sort of imagined myself as scum writing the posts that different people wrote and it fit the best. I didn't even

look

at my own previous posts; I just read the stuff I missed and the isos of all the active people. I feel kind of silly now, and even less sure of myself obviously. I just if I spend all my time trying to be consistent and not look bad that will totally bias my thinking and I won't be able to actually come up with anything real.

I just have no squidding idea who is scum in this game. I have nothing. And I'm going to stop before I get into some sort of self-pitying rant about how I'm not good enough for newbie games. But like the reason I sound fake to everybody is that I'm trying to join a new community and fit in at the same time as I'm trying to solve a mystery and trying to decide which of my hypothetical new friends is trying to trick me. I just can't make my brain do those both at once very well.

Honestly playing scum was so much easier because all I had to do was get people to trust me. But now I'm going to be all sorts of things "town would never do" because I'm trying my best and don't know better. But I'm going to get lynched if I keep trying to pretend there's some deeper master plan to my inept flailings; it feels better to be read as scum than seen as incompetent but my wincon demands that I suck it up and admit to my actual stupid thought processes when people ask.

[PersephoneSidekick]

Behold, Robbnva arguing with me and being defensive. Shall we argue about the definitions of words some more?

Asking you a question is neither arguing or being defensive. So yes let's argue about that cause you clearly have no clue what it means.

Spoiler:

Definition of defensive
1
: serving to defend or protect defensive fortifications
2
a : devoted to resisting or preventing aggression or attack defensive behavior He became defensive when I brought up his spending habits.
b sports : of or relating to the attempt to keep an opponent from scoring in a game or contest a player with good defensive skills made a brilliant defensive play
3
card games
a : valuable in defensive play a defensive card in bridge
b : designed to keep an opponent from being the highest bidder a defensive bid

This is an example of somebody being defensive

Dude, it's RVS; why are you expecting me to make sense?

Let's hang this scum please.

That's hilarious. You just said that "asking a question is not argueing or being defensive and that quoted me asking a question and quoted it as definition of defensive. Both of us were asking defensive questions. This is clear from context; there is no regular expression algorithm to prove it mechanically. This the last time I will engage with you on this. Other people will draw their own conclusions.

[PersephoneSidekick]

Somebody who knows his meta, is he always like this? Because the amount he's insisting that my blatantly RVS vote was "game relevant" is really really weird to me. Whatever I did afterward, can we all agree that calling that a "substantive vote" is kind of wack?

Also I second (third? fourth?) wanting Ginngie to talk more. The comment about Korts implies she's been doing some sorting in her head suggesting she's read stuff but she's not explaining any of it at all.

Also also I might declare V/LA soon because work is killing me, so heads up that I might not answer things very quickly.

[PersephoneSidekick]

Somebody who knows his meta, is he always like this? Because the amount he's insisting that my blatantly RVS vote was "game relevant" is really really weird to me. Whatever I did afterward, can we all agree that calling that a "substantive vote" is kind of wack?

Also I second (third? fourth?) wanting Ginngie to talk more. The comment about Korts implies she's been doing some sorting in her head suggesting she's read stuff but she's not explaining any of it at all.

Also also I might declare V/LA soon because work is killing me, so heads up that I might not answer things very quickly.

Your RVS vote is game relevant now.

Is the pressure you're receiving any different from your own words of wanting to reaction test? Seeing you react to this pressure is what will define you to us all. You can't dismiss any person's desire for you to explain yourself to them. Or tell us how it should look.

So far I haven't liked your posts. I don't see a defence of yourself as much as I see a "why me?"

Omgjfk, that's not what I meant! For six fucking pages Robbnva has been insisting that the following post...

Sup

VOTE: Robbnva for not voting. We must have blood.

...was a substantive accusation instead of an RVS with a playful justification just because it referred to literal game state. He has repeatedly accused me of lying on the basis of this disagreement. Things I said since then may or may not have been scummy. Whatever. But the reason I can't talk to him or defend myself is because he's completely detached from reality and half of the group is failing to see it. I can't scumhunt or do anything else because I'm trapped in a fuckign Kafka novel and nothing makes sense anymore.

I can't ignore it and move onto something else because he's made me

the topic

of everything. Everybody else who's being accused is being accused for their role in my wagon or defending me or something. And it's all founded on this ridiculous farce between me and Robbnva.

I made a RVS post, somebody reacted weirdly to it. I made a reaction test and then everybody reacted and reacted and reacted and none of the reactions make any sense. I don't know who's scum and who's just

stark raving mad.

So if the pressure on me is a reaction test then here is my reaction: I will not engage with any questions about my page 1 behavior again. I won't say a word about the wagon against me until it's time to claim before getting hammered. When I finally have some free time I will reread and try to see if there any clues I can hear through all this noise. I will vote Robbnva basically forever because only when he's gone will be able to start the actual game.

I really hope he's scum. If he's town I'm so incredibly mad at him.

[PersephoneSidekick]

What about korts accusing you of wifom? That seemed a little too much in my opinion.

When did korts accuse me of wifom? I only remember him accusing Monkey.

[PersephoneSidekick]

Wait, I forgot I wasn't still voting Robbnva. VOTE: Robbnva

[PersephoneSidekick]

Requesting Replacement

I realize this looks sort of cowardly in context but I've been having a lot of health problems lately and I think the stress of this game (this game meaning forum Mafia in general, not just Normal 1934) is not good for me right now, especially for months at a time. It's nobody's fault.

I'm sorry for flaking like this; I really am.