Mini 1258: Marionette Mafia (Over)

[DeltaWave]

/CONFIRM

Hi everyone. I didn't realize the game started. Will read up.

[DeltaWave]

Okay, sorry about that. I somehow missed the start of the game, but don't worry, I've never flaked out and I'm not about to do so now.

To answer the various questions posed:

1) What timezone are you in? - EST
2) What role do you enjoy playing as? - Town Roleblocker by far. My gut reactions tend to be really accurate.
3) Does anybody have any work/school conditions that can hinder posting at times? - My school schedule makes Tuesdays and Wednesdays tight for me. You might not see me on those days past 3pm.
4) What are your opinions on Policy Lynch? - I've had it work spectacularly well in a game I played off-site. I firmly believe in "lynch all liars."
5) Has the game so far produced any helpful information in your mind? - Yes; explained below.

My observations thus far:

I want charter to explain why he thinks there's a 50% chance of shinki being scum, because that's completely out of nowhere. Charter you are the most suspicious right now because of that.

I like RedPanda's scumhunting style.

[Shinki]

I guess the confusing issue here is that Shinki acknowledges that she doesn't need a solid reason to vote randomly; she acknowledges that, by convention, she really should be voting randomly at this point in the game; she acknowledges that there's no reason not to vote randomly. And yet she refuses to place a random vote. It's the disconnect between substance (the townie's goal) and appearance (the mafia's goal) that can make RVS so valuable for scumhunting. Is a player struggling to make meaning out of nothing or is he simply putting his vote in its most innocuous place? Where Shinki's play gets confusing is that she is doing neither. Having placed an arbitrary random vote would have kept up appearances and avoided the votes on her now, but at the same time, she is not making a good-faith effort to find a substantive place for her vote. Ultimately, I think this goes back to the problem where players think they cannot make substantive votes until "RVS is over," but RVS doesn't end until players start making substantive votes.

IGMEOY

for now. I'll be watching Shinki to see if we get any substance after this blockage clears.

For the record, out of the two votes on Shinki, I thought Hermano's was helpful because it came with questions, the answers to which helped me develop my position. Charter obviously has a position, but he didn't bother to tell anybody how he arrived at it.

Unvote; Vote: Charter

I really like your line of thoughts, it's clear and objective.
And I can't really use the RVS info in games yet, that's why I feel kinda lost in it :/

[charter]

So, you give her good odds being scum based on what? Her not voting in the first post? I'm not quite clear on what the reasoning is here. And you didn't exactly give any.

She's worried about these "events". You know who would be worried about something like that? Scum who are afraid it will nail them and they won't see it coming.

I also don't like how she posts constantly, but has yet to do anything. Skating by.
Shinki, who do you feel is most suspicious right now?

[Shinki]

Sorry if I'm curious.
Suspicious? No one.

[charter]

Parama, you know what to do..

[Parama]

I have to start caring about this game first.

Reading from page1.

[Parama]

Shinki's 19... yeah, not voting = not cool. Newb tell if anything though.
Nabnab's 24 irks me... it's like he's trying to be really helpful without providing anything of real value. Bad vibes about that one.
RedPanda's accusation in 31 almost looks too much like a serious vote to be considered RVS... giant waste of time either way. Yeah I think it's a serious vote, but I think it's just Panda being stupid.
ALSO redtail will be called red and redpanda will be called panda from now on.
Holy jesus hell Nabnab 36 is full of the biggest logical fallacies this side of the mississippi. Confirming after game starts = newbie who will flake? You think 3 players are gonna flake based on a ridiculous short period of the game? Observations about players are okay, I guess. Though it does tell me that you're paying attention really well at the very least, which is also a moderate towntell.
Okay, 39's making me quote.

Not enough posts and people to vote someone for random reasons. I could vote for Painkiller 'cause of his gun, but I already did that in another mafia we're playing :/

Lesson #1: The point of RVS is to get people to vote more and to spark discussion. You DON'T need to have a reason to vote.

That's probably part of RVS..

Nice, dismissing charter's vote as RVS even though it's the only serious vote thus far. Yeah...
@44: Yes, you're stifling discussion and making yourself the center of attention.
Hey Nabnab I can tell you one thing; charter doesn't explain crap. Ever. Usually he plays pretty well though.

I like RedPanda's scumhunting style.

...I want you to elaborate on this one. Just that this seems rather random.

Sorry if I'm curious.
Suspicious? No one.

...try reading?

Charter I think you fished for scum and caught a newb here, but that doesn't mean Shinki's town or scum yet. That still remains to be seen.
I mean, honestly, at this point in time?
I can't see anyone doing anything legitimately scummy either. Nabnab's the only one who's pinged my scumdar, and he's also gotten a towntell to counterbalance that.

[Parama]

Though now that I think about it I'm still voting the only player who's done anything I can see as scummy thus far. Eh.

[Shinki]

I like RedPanda's scumhunting style.

...I want you to elaborate on this one. Just that this seems rather random.

Sorry if I'm curious.
Suspicious? No one.

...try reading?

Charter I think you fished for scum and caught a newb here, but that doesn't mean Shinki's town or scum yet. That still remains to be seen.
I mean, honestly, at this point in time?
I can't see anyone doing anything legitimately scummy either. Nabnab's the only one who's pinged my scumdar, and he's also gotten a towntell to counterbalance that.

I guess the confusing issue here is that Shinki acknowledges that she doesn't need a solid reason to vote randomly; she acknowledges that, by convention, she really should be voting randomly at this point in the game; she acknowledges that there's no reason not to vote randomly. And yet she refuses to place a random vote. It's the disconnect between substance (the townie's goal) and appearance (the mafia's goal) that can make RVS so valuable for scumhunting. Is a player struggling to make meaning out of nothing or is he simply putting his vote in its most innocuous place? Where Shinki's play gets confusing is that she is doing neither. Having placed an arbitrary random vote would have kept up appearances and avoided the votes on her now, but at the same time, she is not making a good-faith effort to find a substantive place for her vote. Ultimately, I think this goes back to the problem where players think they cannot make substantive votes until "RVS is over," but RVS doesn't end until players start making substantive votes.

IGMEOY

for now. I'll be watching Shinki to see if we get any substance after this blockage clears.

For the record, out of the two votes on Shinki, I thought Hermano's was helpful because it came with questions, the answers to which helped me develop my position. Charter obviously has a position, but he didn't bother to tell anybody how he arrived at it.

Unvote; Vote: Charter

I really like your line of thoughts, it's clear and objective.

And I can't really use the RVS info in games yet, that's why I feel kinda lost in it

:/

I think that clarifies that I can't have scum reads based on randomness yet.

[Parama]

Well if you don't ever try, you'll never improve. common sense. TRY TO MAKE SOME CONCLUSIONS. You're wasting your slot right now.

[dank]

Shinki, there is PLENTY to start analyzing in the last few pages. You have the second largest number of posts in this game, yet all of them are you defending yourself for not contributing to the game.

I took a look at another game of yours where you voted someone on page one for a very random reason (http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=19255). Why did you vote there and not here?

[Shinki]

#Parama

So.. you want me to try and struggle for random reasons/deflect to someone else even if I'm not suspicious of anyone? Nah.
But I'll keep reading, yes, if I'm suspicious of someone through RVS or not, I'll certainly let you guys know, but I won't be deflecting just because someone told me to.

#dank

...

[quote=Shinki]Not enough posts and people to vote someone for random reasons. I could vote for Painkiller 'cause of his gun, but I already did that in another mafia we're playing :/
[/quote]

These kind of posts could be avoided, don't you think?

[Parama]

I want you to reread the thread more closely and try to find things that you feel may be suspicious.

[dank]

You're avoiding my question. You voted for painkiller in the other game on page 1 for random reasons. Why didn't you do the same in this game? Lets say you don't want to vote for painkiller twice for some reason, why not vote *anyone* else this game?

[Shinki]

You're avoiding my question. You voted for painkiller in the other game on page 1 for random reasons. Why didn't you do the same in this game? Lets say you don't want to vote for painkiller twice for some reason, why not vote *anyone* else this game?

By #19 only three people posted something, I like to random vote at least for someone that already posted anything. In DartYoshi's mafia I voted Painkiller without his post 'cause he is a friend of mine, and I didn't wanted to do the same here. That's a little metagame, but if you're asking me I'll answer.

I want you to reread the thread more closely and try to find things that you feel may be suspicious.

We're just in page 3 of this game, there's hardly 2 pages of RVS, do I

really

have to suspect someone this early in the game? -_-
Trying to impose this on me isn't a cool thing to do, is it?

[Parama]

If you're not looking for someone to suspect, you should be. I guarantee you that scum have posted by now.

[Shinki]

Also, about Parama's post yet, I already said that if I find something scummy, I'll certainly let you guys know. [2]
Plus, if I have no suspicions so far, I'm not magically going to have some just because you asked for it.

Ninja'd by him.

Anyways, I'll keep that in mind

[dank]

By #19 only three people posted something, I like to random vote at least for someone that already posted anything. In DartYoshi's mafia I voted Painkiller without his post 'cause he is a friend of mine, and I didn't wanted to do the same here. That's a little metagame, but if you're asking me I'll answer.

Alright, that's fine. By now, we have pages of information though. If you like to vote for someone that already posted, you've got pretty much everyone to choose from. Why didn't you cast a random vote in page 2 or 3. A random vote isn't an auto lynch; its a chance for you to put pressure on a player and see how they react. You've chosen to put pressure on no one, and that, like parama said above, is a waste of a spot here. You don't have to auto-lynch anyone D1, but you really have to get the pressure on if you want to find out more about them.

I'm taking the above more as a noob tell than a scum tell. I like that despite town pushing her, she didn't bend to town's will to appease it. I think noobscum would more likely try to blend in faster than keep pushing an unpopular viewpoint.

Charter, do you think that by repeatedly posting that she doesn't find anyone suspicious yet, Shinki is scummier than those that have been more or less lurking through rvs (painkiller, delta etc..)?

[RedPanda]

My vote wasn't a random vote. and it wasn't a serious vote. Just a vote to get a reaction. I dont know why i have to explain it to you parama considering your experience. Anyway il take that as a null read.

[vijay2vasandani]

@redtail: no. I think that questioning combined with random voting achieves the best results. One example is how I didn't like how you responded to redpanda's random vote on you for liking VT as a role. IMO, that came off as a bit of a joke, but your response seemed a little too jumpy for my liking.

VOTE: redtail

@shinki: while I respect your opinion about not choosing to vote, there must be something you can add to the game. It doesn't have to be any suspicions regarding scum, it could be who seems the most town. Another thing you could do is give your views regarding redtail's reaction (sorry if you did that already)

[Parama]

My vote wasn't a random vote. and it wasn't a serious vote.

There are no inbetweens. There cannot be, by definition. Thanks for trying, please come again.

[DeltaWave]

Charter, your reasoning for suspecting Shinki is valid. My FOS on you has been removed temporarily, although I disagree with the idea that there's a "50% chance" that she's scum.

Charter, do you think that by repeatedly posting that she doesn't find anyone suspicious yet, Shinki is scummier than those that have been more or less lurking through rvs (painkiller, delta etc..)?

I wasn't "lurking through rvs", I was unaware that the game even started. The moment that I realized the game began, I made my first declaring my presence and affirming that I would go back and read the thread.

I like RedPanda's scumhunting style.

...I want you to elaborate on this one. Just that this seems rather random.

RedPanda was obviously reaction-testing with the "you don't like to be special?" line of questioning. I like it because pressure tends to bring out people's true colors.

It's all about psychology. It's like what they do in police interrogations; they sit the suspect down in a chair, and walk in with a manilla folder that's labelled "(Suspect Name's) Criminal Activities" and slam it down on the table right in front of the suspect. The folder is full of random print-outs, but the suspect knows that he's guilty so he exhibits an "OMG I'M CAUGHT" reaction caused by his paranoia and the knowledge of his own guilt.

Redtail was obviously startled by this in Post #38. I'll pick apart the post:

Redtail said: "Even if that were true, why is that a reason for a vote? You think I'm scum based on the fact that I like playing VT?"

The part that really stands out to me is when Redtail says "Even if that were true." I would expect that an innocent reaction would simply assert the truth of the matter and leave it at that. But saying "even if that were true" is dodging the matter, being squirmy instead of confronting it head on. Especially in a matter as trivial as liking to play VT. Townies don't start talking in those terms until the stakes are higher, but to be slippery in RVS and especially when confronted with such an inconsequential question is another thing.

I've seen this kind of behavior IRL as well. Ever catch someone in a lie, and you ask them some question and they start dodging around saying "even if what you're saying is correct, blah blah blah." Those who tell the truth will confront directly, while those who are lying will try to step lightly.

For bonus scumpoints, redtail never actually denies being scum. Redtail is more interested in

whether or not he is perceived to be scum

rather than declaring his innocence. This reflects an "OMG you're on to me" mentality. Ever call someone out as guilty of some bad act, and instead of saying "that never happened!" they say "who told you that?" This is that kind of situation. They're more interested in how they got caught rather than saying "I didn't do it."

tl;dr - innocent people don't need to muddy the waters or be evasive

This is why reaction testing (well, anything that generates substantial pressure really) is the best scumhunting method EVAR.

At this point I'm very comfortable with voting for redtail.

VOTE: Redtail

[dank]

I wasn't "lurking through rvs", I was unaware that the game even started. The moment that I realized the game began, I made my first declaring my presence and affirming that I would go back and read the thread.

I know its far too early to say someone is lurking; I was looking for reactions, and I'm glad you quickly jumped in to defend yourself. You shot down the fact that you hadn't contributed yet, and quickly build a new case on redtail to focus the attention elsewhere.

Speaking of which, your whole case on redtail is the fact that he was surprised that he wasn't believed when he said VT was his favorite role. You try to build this into a full case, which I find pretty laughable. "Even if that were true" is in response to the accusation of "not being special." Sounds like a guy sarcastically defending a silly personal attack? You say redtail never denies being scum, so he must be scum. Do you want us to post that we're all not scum on P1? No one in the game has said, "I'm not scum". Are they all scum too?

I love post 72. It's someone already rattled by the slightest pressure of my suggesting that they're lurking being very defensive, and bullshitting a case together to divert attention elsewhere. Scummiest post i've seen, thus

unvote, vote: DeltaWave

Also, weird compliment of RedPanda's scumhunting, and then adding your vote to the guy he's voting. Additionally, in the very post that you build your case from,

Even if that were true, why is that a reason for a vote? You think I'm scum based on the fact that I like playing VT?

He asks

RedPanda

to explain his vote, which turns out to basically be your whole attempt at a case. RedPanda never answered this, but you answered it for him, and made your case from it. I find that interesting.

[redtail896]

My vote wasn't a random vote. and it wasn't a serious vote.

There are no inbetweens. There cannot be, by definition. Thanks for trying, please come again.

This. Also,

I dont know why i have to explain it to you parama considering your experience. Anyway il take that as a null read.

I'm not sure what the comment directed at parama means, but I'm disturbed that you wouldn't feel the need to explain a vote.

@redtail: no. I think that questioning combined with random voting achieves the best results. One example is how I didn't like how you responded to redpanda's random vote on you for liking VT as a role. IMO, that came off as a bit of a joke, but your response seemed a little too jumpy for my liking.

As I've said, I didn't interpret it as a joke. More below on my reaction to that:

Redtail was obviously startled by this in Post #38. I'll pick apart the post:

Redtail said: "Even if that were true, why is that a reason for a vote? You think I'm scum based on the fact that I like playing VT?"

The part that really stands out to me is when Redtail says "Even if that were true." I would expect that an innocent reaction would simply assert the truth of the matter and leave it at that. But saying "even if that were true" is dodging the matter, being squirmy instead of confronting it head on. Especially in a matter as trivial as liking to play VT. Townies don't start talking in those terms until the stakes are higher, but to be slippery in RVS and especially when confronted with such an inconsequential question is another thing.

Yes, I was startled in Post 38. I was startled by an ad hominen psychological question. "You don't like being special" has nothing to do with the game; it's a purely personal psychiatrist-like question. I didn't want to engage with it, so I dodged.

Put more simply, regardless of whether Redpanda was right or not, it has nothing to do with the problem at hand. I don't

have

to answer that question. When I responding with an "even if that were true" sentence, I was demonstrating that it didn't matter. The question was irrelevant, because it's not a reason to be voting for me.

For bonus scumpoints, redtail never actually denies being scum. Redtail is more interested in

whether or not he is perceived to be scum

rather than declaring his innocence. This reflects an "OMG you're on to me" mentality. Ever call someone out as guilty of some bad act, and instead of saying "that never happened!" they say "who told you that?" This is that kind of situation. They're more interested in how they got caught rather than saying "I didn't do it."

tl;dr - innocent people don't need to muddy the waters or be evasive

You are absolutely right: I never denied being scum. I didn't really think that was necessary. I just assume that everyone in the game has a standing denial in that regard. But if you want it made explicit, fine:

I'm not scum.

You're right in another regard: I'm more interested in the "how" than just a flat denial. This is true for 2 reasons: a) knowing the "how" allows me to build up a better defense; b) I want to understand peoples' thought processes, as that helps me evaluate whether they are scum.

Re: Shinki, I agree with the view that the not-voting is more of a null tell. Shinki's reasoning (that she asked what the "events" were) is a bit ridiculous. She could have been genuinely curious. It's not that unreasonable of a question. I do think that there's plenty running around to find people suspicious though, and the single thing I find most odd is her denial that she has anything to go on.

Preview Edit: Wow, that whole defense was Ninja'd by Dank.