Newbie 1024 -- Minimalist Mafia (Game Over)

[Jay]

@Yenros: Isn't placing a random vote late in a stage where people have already begun to put some logic behind their votes something scum would not want to do? It would surely draw attention to yourself, and the only reason for scum to place random votes is to slip by unnoticed. Placing the random vote when I did was exactly what scum would want to avoid doing, and, if anything, it only shows my inexperience.

[Lateralus22]

Isn't placing a random vote late in a stage where people have already begun to put some logic behind their votes something scum would not want to do? It would surely draw attention to yourself, and the only reason for scum to place random votes is to slip by unnoticed. Placing the random vote when I did was exactly what scum would want to avoid doing, and, if anything, it only shows my inexperience.

This is WIFOM.

[Kayi]

@L22 - How is the "I've agreed with him, what's your point?" line pro-town? It would have been a lie. I knew the point he was trying to make and I wasn't going to pretend I didn't. Most of my posts on this game have been long-winded and I struggle to keep them shorter for the reader's sake, but I don't understand what's wrong with trying to explain oneself correctly. Also, Meta can be found and used to support nearly every argument, which is why I'm so strongly against it. If you're using a Meta that doesn't even include me how is that even valid?
Now, if it's just your

gut

telling you that the

tone

of my posts is fake, what can I even say about that?


The whole Mute vs. Yenros thing is very confusing to me at the moment. I don't get exactly what they're arguing about. I still don't like Jay's arguments (as in, they don't seem Townie) and now I'm waiting to read more on Trendall. He seems to be afraid of saying more than strictly necessary.

[Neruz]

Kayi: On a note of you being against meta. Dismissing meta offhand is even worse than taking meta too far. Metagaming is an integral part of Mafia and scumhunting, the trick is to remember that it is not the be-all end-all of the game. Like everything, metagaming should be used in moderation and always in comparison to the rest of the game, never in isolation.

[Kayi]

Taking into account that my attack on his meta usage is about the "I don't trust anyone" line, well, I can find Meta to find town has used it as well. It leaves me wondering what L22 is trying to accomplish by using such a small comment to make a case. All his comments against me are along the lines of "I think town wouldn't have said that, but this this and that, this is why Kayi's arguments

sound

fake." I don't see how this makes Meta a reliable tool, specially in a Newbie game. Meta usage of this sort seems more like a last resort thing to me, when it should be something to maybe support a well-established argument. But basing your arguments on Meta (and one that doesn't even include the player in question) just seems dangerous, and even anti-town.

[RedCoyote]

Vote Count 5

• Beefster

  (Kayi - Mastin - Neruz)
  
  
  Kayi
  (Beefster - Lateralus22)
  
  
  Mute
  (Jay)
  
  
  Jay
  (Yenros)
  
  
  Yenros
  (Mute)
  
  
  Not Voting
  (Trendall)

With nine alive, it takes five to lynch.
Current Deadline: Nov. 17th, 2010 at 12:00 AM (CST)

[Neruz]

Oh hey i miscounted, Beefster's at L-2. That makes his 'claim' post even

less

likely.

[Neruz]

Taking into account that my attack on his meta usage is about the "I don't trust anyone" line, well, I can find Meta to find town has used it as well. It leaves me wondering what L22 is trying to accomplish by using such a small comment to make a case. All his comments against me are along the lines of "I think town wouldn't have said that, but this this and that, this is why Kayi's arguments

sound

fake." I don't see how this makes Meta a reliable tool, specially in a Newbie game. Meta usage of this sort seems more like a last resort thing to me, when it should be something to maybe support a well-established argument. But basing your arguments on Meta (and one that doesn't even include the player in question) just seems dangerous, and even anti-town.

That's why i said using it requires moderation and always in comparison to other evidence.

[Lateralus22]

How is the "I've agreed with him, what's your point?" line pro-town? It would have been a lie. I knew the point he was trying to make and I wasn't going to pretend I didn't.

A clear cut answer would have made more sense instead of continuing to assert you have no idea what his motives were when it was such a small matter.

Plus You and Neruz have

both

stated you agreed on certain things, I'm not sure why you're still trying to swat down this suspicion Mastin suggested when it isn't actually scummy. Can you honestly tell me it isn't true?

According to your post, we've agreed with voting for Beef. I mean, his RVS vote way before my question, my joke suspicion, and way after that, my actual vote.

We've matched opinions on alignment fishing as well as the RVS, you also concured with me about Beef leaving himself an escape route and that was in fact one of the three reasons why you voted him.

============================

Most of my posts on this game have been long-winded and I struggle to keep them shorter for the reader's sake, but I don't understand what's wrong with trying to explain oneself correctly

You're blatantly strawmanning my argument to make look weaker than it is. I already explained this. If you didn't just dismiss it "this, this, and that" you'd be able to argue against my gut read when I've logically laid it out to support my reasoning. Interesting to note how you haven't actually directly denied anything I said, but instead tried to bash the credibility of what I said.

If you're using a Meta that doesn't even include me how is that even valid?

I don't even consider what I used as Meta, it's game theory. If I was using meta it'd be more along of

"Ok since she did this in her last game as scum and did that here so she must be scum"

, but that isn't what I did. I didn't even place much stock in that being from another game and I put reasoning from

this

game in my case.

============================

It leaves me wondering what L22 is trying to accomplish by using such a small comment to make a case.

Way to beat around the bush, do you think I'm scum or not?

He seems to be afraid of saying more than strictly necessary.

Elaborate

Btw, Beefster and Kay, both of your latest posts are completely ignoring each other despite being eachother's top suspects. Why?

[Kayi]

The debate on the agreeing thing is over, I don't get why you're bringing it up again. If Mastin suspected me for it, it's because he found it scummy. Neruz started suspecting me then. It all grants a defense. That's it. No more, no less.

What would my "denying anything you've said" include? As if my saying it will make you magically believe it. I'm not scum, and every word I've written is sincere. I think that at this point, I'm just going to laugh when you guys find I'm town.

If that wasn't meta usage to some degree, why did you link to that other game? You're trying to engage me in a battle of concepts and theory ignoring the actual content of my words. I definitely don't like that.

On the Trendall thing, what is there to elaborate? He seems to be posting just enough to not be "lurking" but not enough for me to get a read on him. Which I don't like. He said he'd be posting more this week, let's see if he delivers.

The one thing I've seen that makes me strongly doubt you is that, even when you seem to have found more in-game evidence to attack Beefster, you're just sticking to your gut and trying to explain it. I don't know what to think about that.

My points on Beefster were made clear, I don't see why I should repeat them ten times over. Other than his claim and his sudden disappearance, I don't have anything new worthy of mention at this point. Still find him scummy, still keeping my vote.

[Mastin]

Just a note: I'll have less time on today than normal, however, I think I can catch up. (With luck, without walling. Conciseness is something which we all should strive for. )

[Mastin]

...By the way what does HoS mean? I'm pretty sure FoS means finger of suspicion but I'm not sure of this one. [/stupid newbie question]

Apparently, you didn't catch my SEssion on the subject in my first real game post. (Second post.) Hand of Suspicion, basically treated as something ALMOST worthy of voting, more so than a Finger of Suspicion, which is a second suspect. HoS implies the two suspects are almost equal; FoS implies the FoS'd isn't as suspicious. Basically.

I honestly have no idea how to get a game started, and get conversation going, so I didn't know what to do there, but when I saw Jay's random vote I thought it was scummy.

[SE]

Spoiler: SEssion

Generally, you did the right thing. Random voting at the start is the norm. Other options have been tried, but the end result is pretty much the same: the game always begins pretty much on page two, regardless of RVS, RQS, or the "Debate Tactic"--a strategy where the first poster proposes they do not RVS and instead discuss immediately. There's pretty much no way to end it earlier than that without looking extremely bad. (Such as, my old Signature Move, voting myself and claiming scum.

That

always

got discussion going...on me. Do Not Try This

At Home, Kids

In A Game, Folks. )

So, an RVS was fine. When you saw Jay with a late RV after most thought the RVS to be over, you did the correct thing in pointing out how it's suspicious. Pursue any possible lead you have as to who the scum are, or--if you have the misfortune of being scum when a newbie--try your best to appear as if you are. Voting Jay when you thought him to be suspicious I believe was the correct move to do, because it was something which seemed like a genuine attempt at scum hunting--something which, regardless of alignment, is a good thing.

[/SE]

Though that could just be my opinion.
Anyway, that's page six; I don't have time for page seven at this time, but will come back, soon.

[Beefster]

Oh hey i miscounted, Beefster's at L-2. That makes his 'claim' post even

less

likely.

Explain.

[Yenros]

@ Jay: like Lat said, that's WIFOM. Scum could think exactly what you said, and decide to do it to try and look town by saying scum don't want attention. So such an argument doesn't really point towards either side, well at least not in a newbie game, in a normal game using a WIFOM argument may look scummy. Also, scum don't have to post random votes to slip by unnoticed. Kay and Mastin didn't random vote, and if it wasn't for our discussion on your vote I don't think their lack of random votes would have been mentioned. The thing is, you are right about scum not wanting to draw attention to themselves, but that is how the town catches them, when they slip up and post something that does draw attention to them.

@ Kayi: I agree with mastin about that not being meta. Meta, at least as far as I understand it, is using someones past game play styles to determine if they are scum or town in the current game. In your last post you said, "It all grants a defense," what do you mean by that?

[Beefster]

Sorry for the disappearance. To be completely honest, I'm not all that interested in this game. I thought ICing would be cool at first, but I lack motivation to play this same setup over and over. I don't want to replace out or flake because ICs are hard to come by. However, this will probably be my last newbie game ever.

Mastin's a better SE than I am an IC, anyway. Listen to his advice.

unvote

VOTE: Trendall
You've flown under the radar too long. Do something useful. (yay, hypocrisy!)

[Mastin]

Lateral sums up pretty much what I'd say about Jay's post. However, Jay is a newbie, and so, might not even know better. (Yes, this means it's time for another...)

[SE]

Spoiler: SEssion

WIFOM is an unusual acronym. Princess Bride, Wine [not whine] In Front Of Me: Wes versus "Inconceivable"-guy. On most sites, this kind of defense is actually fine, and many see it as valid. So, people on other sites tend to be shocked when what was once their best defense and one of their greatest tools turns out to be completely worthless at best, a scum tell at worst. As I mentioned early-on, I play Werewolf on another forum. In this forum, it was one of my main defenses, and--guess what?--it worked beautifully. It's an attractive concept.
Here's an older version of the current article. I've since also found it [WARNING! MastINC is not responsible for lost time on the following website!] useful to read a similar concept--simply put, it's such a psychological battle to be pretty much worthless.

I've seen articles which tend to disagree. Simply put, WIFOM is a very complex subject. People have argued both ways for WIFOM. It can be seen as a good thing, it can be seen as a bad thing. This one I found is an example of a middle ground--it recognizes that in most cases, WIFOM is bad, invalid, really. However, in its given example, you can tell it works, because it's risk-reward. My stance on this is somewhat similar, in some aspects: Look at this quote, from the EpicMafia article on WIFOM:

WIFOM is virtually everywhere in Mafia; therefore, the better is player is at WIFOM, the better that player is at Mafia. Expert Mafia play is about using WIFOM continuously to make oneself unpredictable and unreadable, being able to determine the roles of and predict the choices of other players, and manipulating the actions of the other players subtly yet efficiently to ensure your victory.

I agree with some of it--basically, anything can be made WIFOM if someone wants to argue hard enough against a point by calling it WIFOM, so WIFOM everywhere (as stated). The article referring to WIFOM making a good player also holds true, if speaking of night actions. It relates to Meta; if one is very good at manipulating their meta and night-actions, other players trying to play the WIFOM game* will end up losing. That kind of WIFOM is a valid scum tactic, something scum should do.

*Don't bother denying it: we all know that every single player in pretty much every game will try to guess who did what night actions, and why. It's almost always futile to determine things about the night actions--especially in Newbie Games--however, people still do it, regardless. Sometimes, it works. If the scum are even semi-good at night-WIFOM, it almost certainly won't.

However, during the day, I say that WIFOM is as the original articles say: not a good thing, ESPECIALLY applied to your own arguments. You could plan something out from the start, and later argue "scum would never do that!"--it's not going to convince anyone. It is a bad idea to employ this form of WIFOM. WIFOM has basically boiled down to a psychological battle, so there are multiple forms. Night-kill WIFOM is a valid scum tactic. Claiming so in-thread, not so much. I've used kill-WIFOM before: I killed people SUPPORTING me as Scum, and brought it up. Bad Move. Had someone ELSE pointed it out, it'd be a valid move. Basically, never use WIFOM to defend yourself. Similarly, try to avoid using (particularly, night-)WIFOM as an attack against someone; it rarely ends well.**

**Though as mentioned, we'll do this anyway. So, while you might not be able to avoid trying to figure out night actions, you can at least limit their influence on attacking another due to it.

There are so many articles on the subject that you could spend a week or two reading about the concept. We have a MD thread on it. I'm currently reading This Wiki Page I found on the subject. However, again, to me, it boils down to what kind of WIFOM you're talking about.
Back to the original post...that is bad WIFOM.
-You're defending yourself. If another did it, it wouldn't look as bad. (It would still be WIFOM, and of course, the person doing the defending might be linked to you. This is why post-WIFOM is almost always bad, as opposed to night-WIFOM only being mostly bad. )
-The nature of your actions. You could've planned that from the beginning, for all we know, and planned this as your perfect defense. We have no way of knowing any differently.

Sorry for the length of the SEssion. I guess I went overboard, because WIFOM is a huge subject. Basically, however, it boils down to this: Jay, your post was bad WIFOM, and it made you look more suspicious. Try to avoid WIFOM, unless you know what you're doing really well, and how to distinguish between the different types of WIFOM. My ramble about it is just my opinion, after all; it is not necessarily fact. (I am no expert on WIFOM. I might be good at reading emotions, but that's as far as my psychological skills go.)

[/SE]

I agree with Neruz's position against Beefster.

Mastin's a better SE than I am an IC, anyway. Listen to his advice.

Wow, uh, well...that's...I guess I should be honored?

[Mastin]

Anyway, to further my thinking:
Beefster: Get you head in the game. No, seriously, I'm going to rant on the subject to show you why that is really necessary.

Spoiler: I never thought I'd give a SEssion to an IC...

I can understand how doing the same thing over and over again might be a bit of a monotone, so I recognize you might never do another newbie game, but you still have to give this game your all. Remember what you said in your IC post? That this game was your top priority no matter what?

Live up to that promise

. I, for one, will never get tired of newbie games--there are four different setups, you can be multiple roles, experience the game twenty times each from a different angle, and--while not required (apparently) from a SE--you can teach newbies how to play, and that's one of the best things in a game, to me: knowing that you helped another player grow in their skill.
I understand how you might not like the idea of teaching. I understand how you might think you're not very good at it. But for Mod's sake,

do your best

! I'm not a perfect teacher; you won't be, either--that doesn't mean you shouldn't teach at all. That means you do whatever you can to teach. An IC who doesn't play and teach to the best of their ability can be worse than an IC who replaces out of the game. Simply put, you might not like the pressure of being the person people look up to...but that doesn't change the fact that they're still going to look up at you. You might think you're a terrible example to newbies...well, then, turn yourself around and do your best to make yourself a good example. It doesn't matter if you succeed or not; you just have to TRY.
So, yeah. You might've lost your motivation. I don't like being rude, but quite frankly, TOUGH LUCK. Just because you

think

you have no reason to play, doesn't mean you

don't

. You may have no interest in this game--that doesn't change the fact that you have to give it your all, you HAVE to play your best, because otherwise, you staying? Would be worse than you replacing out.

Also:

unvote
VOTE: Trendall

Why did you drop your case on Kayi, Beefster? Why change your vote, yet again? I know you stated your reason for Trend:

You've flown under the radar too long. Do something useful. (yay, hypocrisy!)

...But

why

do you find his pattern to be suspicious? Of course, to me, the answer is already there, but look at the newbies: they might not. This is a perfect example of something you can teach, Beefster. Why is flying under the radar for so long bad? Why do you think Trendall has flown under the radar at all?
These are all things you can easily answer.

[Neruz]

Oh hey i miscounted, Beefster's at L-2. That makes his 'claim' post even

less

likely.

Explain.

You honestly expect me to believe that you thought you were being hammered when you were put to L-2?

[Jay]

@Mastin: Thanks for the advice (at least, I think it's advice). I had an idea of what WIFOM was, but now I understand it a lot better. I'll try not to use it anymore.

[Beefster]

I thought I was put at L-1 or hammered, honestly. IIRC, Trendall had a vote on me for a while, as did L22's predecessor.

@Mastin: I like the teaching aspect, but I find explaining myself and being an example player to be a challenge, as I have a strange playstyle and I get my poor explanation powers from my dad. Then the aforementioned repetition gets to me.

[Neruz]

You'll have to forgive me Beef; i don't believe a word of it.

[Mute]

*sigh*
Well, I am sorry because of my inactivity, but like I said before I'm used to days only lasting 24 hours. I'd like to advance the game, so

unvote: Yenros

and

vote: Beefster

, as it just seems like, after being put into scrutiny for his playstyle so much and his motives and actions questioned and picked down to the bone that he's buckled from it all.

[Kayi]

Yenros: If I think I'm being attacked/suspected, I'm going to defend myself. You're putting too much emphasis on the way I used the word 'Meta' and completely ignored what I'm trying to convey. In the future, I'll limit myself to using the word like you all have suggested, but it still doesn't change my actual point. Do I really have to explain myself again?


On the Jay case, I don't see WIFOM as inherently scummy. But this case of WIFOM isn't even valid, as no one wants to draw negative attention to oneself. Because of that, and the fact that Jay used it after endlessly arguing about the subject on a different way, it came across as scummy. Like he had felt cornered.
I'm basically a Newbie as well, but I hope my two cents on the subject are helpful.

[Neruz]

When people invoke WIFOM, they usually mean it as the kind of WIFOM Jay used; aka the person invoking it on themselves. "Scum wouldn't do X, therefore i'm not scum!" That is negative WIFOM.

Attempting to work out the decisions and reasons for those decisions that other players make is also technically WIFOM, but stays 'safe' so long as no-one invokes it on themselves. Once invoked, WIFOM becomes 'unsafe' as doing so immediately confuses the issue beyond possible understanding.

What's what people 'round these parts usually mean when they talk about WIFOM; they mean players invoking 'but that's what he wants me to think' loops on themselves or on other players. It all stays safeish and above-board so long as no-one draws attention to it, but the instant someone

does

the entire issue becomes opaque and at that point it's safer to just lynch the person in question.

[Neruz]

Typo, meant "That's", not "What's" on my third paragraph :\