Newbie 2016: Snapdragons (Game Over)

[ClarkBar]

Can’t wait to hear your thoughts.

My what?

Your thoughts. What you think about the game. What you think about your predecessor and other players. What you think about wagons, reads, and cases. You know...your thoughts.

[JamSV]

Spoiler:

• Clark calling me "hostile" is a bit exaggerative.
  
• What's "ART"?
  
• Bearing on nothing? How can my response to someone not have any bearing on the topic? These approaches are confusing me.
  
• It made no sense to flip Raya yesterday when my suspects were Porkens and JamSV.
  • Scum are JamSV and Raya

Feel free to explain any of your suspicions, still waiting.

---

• I don't get it. Is Clark saying I was being rude?
  • Also, I saw the acronym in several posts; it just wasn't spelled out. And, yeah, I've skimmed a couple of the pages; I focused more on votecounts.
  • I actually replaced in to win, despite belligerence and insults. These are some awkward scumhunting tools. I think that might explain why your replace rate is so high.
  • And Raya hasn't been here. You can't really do anything with 0 reaction.

Once again still haven't explained the %s

. I already debunked how silly it is to apparently go off of votecount~
Is asking for an explanation of reads so immeasurably insane or something?

[Dunnstral]

https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.p ... #p11957546

[JamSV]

https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.p ... #p11957546

Past games are irrelevant, every game is different, quoting previous games or going based off of meta is lazy. No offence.

[Dunnstral]

He did the same thing with unexplained %'s in that game and he was town

[JamSV]

He did the same thing with unexplained %'s in that game and he was town

Once again, invalid reasoning, every game is different, people have things they do regardless of alignment. Let him explain his readlist.

[Dunnstral]

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's "invalid reasoning"

[JamSV]

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's "invalid reasoning"

Just because you like it doesn't make it valid reasoning either.
All he has to do is explain his read list and %s, that is all we've been asking for. He's refusing to answer them or being ignorant, both of which don't help town and can't be seen as NAI because of just how many times its been ignored. It's also not a matter of liking it or not. Its objectively invalid reasoning. I've looked over your games, all you do is post single sentences with little impact to fly under the radar, regardless of alignment. That's just an example of how going based off of previous games and meta is invalid. Regardless of that one again, town Dunnstral surely should be wanting an explanation from Looker. The more information town has, the better, you're just providing him excuses and reasons not to explain his % read list. Stop.

[72offsuit]

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's "invalid reasoning"

Just because you like it doesn't make it valid reasoning either.
All he has to do is explain his read list and %s, that is all we've been asking for. He's refusing to answer them or being ignorant, both of which don't help town and can't be seen as NAI because of just how many times its been ignored. It's also not a matter of liking it or not. Its objectively invalid reasoning. I've looked over your games, all you do is post single sentences with little impact to fly under the radar, regardless of alignment. That's just an example of how going based off of previous games and meta is invalid. Regardless of that one again, town Dunnstral surely should be wanting an explanation from Looker. The more information town has, the better, you're just providing him excuses and reasons not to explain his % read list. Stop.

Why ask him to stop? Just vote and kick him.

[72offsuit]

How am I OMGUSing you? Please explain.

I'm certain you don't actually need me to explain this, but Clark hasn't come back to me yet, so I'll bite.

Your vote on me appears to be because you're skeptical of my suspicion on you. Certainly, the crux of it seems to be about my response to you on Day 2, which is slightly anti-climactic after your comprehensive ISO analysis of me earlier. The reality is that I haven't been that suspicious of you at all (not sure if that's a good or bad thing) and you ended up in my possible-lynchbloc by default because of POE (ruled out who I thought were masons, and Looker largely as a policy play). I've been perfectly candid about that throughout.

Have I misunderstood your rationale here?

I did a whole ISO on you, where I concluded you wre null leaning scum
Since then you ahve scummed it up.
And now you say I';m OMGUSing you. lol.
Total garbage.

More votes on BM needed.

[72offsuit]

Lol. At the time of my I r winnar post above, BM was logged on, as per the bottom of the "board index" page, which lists the players currently logged on.

At the time of this post, he is no longer on.

Zero posts after logging in and seeing he has votes on him.

Scum.

seriously?? I was responding in detail to a post as above.

And in any case, I'm V/LA (i.e. I may have time to see something and not respond because I'm busy).

I'm done for today if this is the kinda crap I'm contending with.

No. Your name DISAPPEARED OFF THE LOGGED IN PLAYERS list,
BEFORE you posted.

As if you realised you had logged in without hiding status, so logged out and then relogged in.
Scummy +++

[Dunnstral]

As if you realised you had logged in without hiding status, so logged out and then relogged in.

This isn't the only game he's in though. And hiding status isn't scummy

[ClarkBar]

Agree with 1136. I believe there is a more legit and compelling reason to be on BM's wagon.

[ClarkBar]

At the risk of seemingly always agreeing with Jam I want to weigh in here...

This site seems to be brimming with players who like to foster some kind of persona/playstyle for... reasons. Maybe to have a chaotic meta, probably because they think they're super intelligent and cool. In both Newbie games I've been most slots got replaced, probably because of my toxic, insulting, and belligerent tone. Those slots have been filled by players who are

not

newbies. In some cases those players have completely hijacked these games with play whose purpose seems more to serve their own ego than their win-condition.

And maybe they're right, and I don't appreciate their brilliance. Regardless, this is a newbie game. In theory players should be here to learn the basics. Looker posts infrequently, does not respond to basic questions, and does not use reasoning when presenting reads or placing votes. He isn't even reading the thread. To a new player (or any reasonable person) his behavior is anti-town, and verging on trolling. And that leads to this problem:

Why ask him to stop? Just vote and kick him.

At this point in the game we should be voting for people for reasons outside of "that's the way they are". If Looker is town he is providing wonderful cover for scum. And given that this is a newbie game I think that's unfair.

[Battle Mage]

Lol. At the time of my I r winnar post above, BM was logged on, as per the bottom of the "board index" page, which lists the players currently logged on.

At the time of this post, he is no longer on.

Zero posts after logging in and seeing he has votes on him.

Scum.

seriously?? I was responding in detail to a post as above.

And in any case, I'm V/LA (i.e. I may have time to see something and not respond because I'm busy).

I'm done for today if this is the kinda crap I'm contending with.

No. Your name DISAPPEARED OFF THE LOGGED IN PLAYERS list,
BEFORE you posted.

As if you realised you had logged in without hiding status, so logged out and then relogged in.
Scummy +++

This is factually untrue and self-evidently untrue given I posted a huge post, seconds after you falsely declared I'd disappeared off the site.

I have no idea about how the "logged in players" list works - if you're being straight, perhaps it doesn't record you as being online anymore if you are 'inactive' which I would have been if just typing? Also I've never hided my login status - and have no idea what you're suggesting my motivation would be to do so, given it's quite obvious I was responding, as I eventually did. This is a ludicrously weak avenue to be pursuing, and stands in stark contrast to your detailed ISO of me earlier where it was pretty obvious I was town, barring some implausible swerve.

[Battle Mage]

As if you realised you had logged in without hiding status, so logged out and then relogged in.

This isn't the only game he's in though. And hiding status isn't scummy

it's not even true though

Agree with 1136. I believe there is a more legit and compelling reason to be on BM's wagon.

I haven't seen one?

[ClarkBar]

Ok BM. Let's say that you are town. What do you think are the best two options for an execution today and why?

[Battle Mage]

At the risk of seemingly always agreeing with Jam I want to weigh in here...

This site seems to be brimming with players who like to foster some kind of persona/playstyle for... reasons. Maybe to have a chaotic meta, probably because they think they're super intelligent and cool. In both Newbie games I've been most slots got replaced, probably because of my toxic, insulting, and belligerent tone. Those slots have been filled by players who are

not

newbies. In some cases those players have completely hijacked these games with play whose purpose seems more to serve their own ego than their win-condition.

And maybe they're right, and I don't appreciate their brilliance. Regardless, this is a newbie game. In theory players should be here to learn the basics. Looker posts infrequently, does not respond to basic questions, and does not use reasoning when presenting reads or placing votes. He isn't even reading the thread. To a new player (or any reasonable person) his behavior is anti-town, and verging on trolling. And that leads to this problem:

Why ask him to stop? Just vote and kick him.

At this point in the game we should be voting for people for reasons outside of "that's the way they are". If Looker is town he is providing wonderful cover for scum. And given that this is a newbie game I think that's unfair.

I think this is an unfair assessment. I've played seemingly dozens of games with Looker, and he's one of a minority of people who always strives to be respectful and courteous. He's basically a good dude and doesn't flip out, or get overly emotional. For that reason, I would happily have Looker in all my games (although not sure he'd say the same given our history!). I don't think his frequency of posting is an issue - I've not long finished a game with TTJT where we had an SE who deliberately and openly lurked his way to a victory as scum with his only posts being versions of "Oops, got prodded again, will post later". This has been a particularly active game. Generally Looker responds to most things I think, although he's a bit of a maverick too. You won't find many people with more experience with him than me, and I can't tell scum-Looker from town-Looker. The inference that his playstyle gets him lynched early is factually incorrect - Looker normally survives late into games, which is why I adopt a blanket policy across all games of "deal with Looker in LyLo" unless there's a strong reason to the contrary. Incidentally he's the sort of player I'd be checking if I was a cop. I also don't think Looker is an ego player at all - especially compared to someone like me. If we're talking about a good example for newbies, I think Looker has some very positive attributes, without perhaps being the prototype mafia player. In fact, if Looker is town he's only providing cover for scum because he's being pursued with a silly case about using %s in lieu of a more standard readslist.

[ClarkBar]

Also ps clark maybe next time you are cop don't out a town unless 100%needed.

This is my first rodeo in this position, and I'm sorry if I endangered you needlessly. I was concerned that I was going to be hammered at any second and felt that it was important for town to have that information. It would have been annoying to see a big D3 push on you from the graveyard, like my entire role ability was for not.

I guess I'll check back in a few hours. This game sure did die. Also, it's my birthday (thank you thank you) and as BM and Jam know I'm a bit of a drinker. So...if there is something to reply to later this evening there's a

slim

chance I'll be a little, uh, loose.

[Battle Mage]

Ok BM. Let's say that you are town. What do you think are the best two options for an execution today and why?

I'm going to re-read some bits tomorrow when I have proper thinking time, and will come back to this then. I'm not sure you should really care too much for my reads though, given my form here?

[ClarkBar]

1142 was a very good rebuttal. I'll yield to your experience on Looker. And apologies to Looker if he feels I'm being insulting. I'm just frustrated with the lack of answers/input.

[Battle Mage]

Also ps clark maybe next time you are cop don't out a town unless 100%needed.

This is my first rodeo in this position, and I'm sorry if I endangered you needlessly. I was concerned that I was going to be hammered at any second and felt that it was important for town to have that information. It would have been annoying to see a big D3 push on you from the graveyard, like my entire role ability was for not.

I guess I'll check back in a few hours. This game sure did die. Also, it's my birthday (thank you thank you) and as BM and Jam know I'm a bit of a drinker. So...if there is something to reply to later this evening there's a

slim

chance I'll be a little, uh, loose.

I don't think there's any question that you were right to confirm your results once you'd claimed, as it narrows down the pool, and we don't know if there is a protective role or not (if there is, you could potentially justify not confirming the read today on the basis you definitely could tomorrow).

Happy birthday dude!

[Battle Mage]

How am I OMGUSing you? Please explain.

I'm certain you don't actually need me to explain this, but Clark hasn't come back to me yet, so I'll bite.

Your vote on me appears to be because you're skeptical of my suspicion on you. Certainly, the crux of it seems to be about my response to you on Day 2, which is slightly anti-climactic after your comprehensive ISO analysis of me earlier. The reality is that I haven't been that suspicious of you at all (not sure if that's a good or bad thing) and you ended up in my possible-lynchbloc by default because of POE (ruled out who I thought were masons, and Looker largely as a policy play). I've been perfectly candid about that throughout.

Have I misunderstood your rationale here?

I did a whole ISO on you, where I concluded you wre null leaning scum
Since then you ahve scummed it up.
And now you say I';m OMGUSing you. lol.
Total garbage.

More votes on BM needed.

I read the ISO in full. It was full of pretty convincing arguments as to why I'm town, and some conjecture about why I could be scum because I'm wacky and you know I can make unusual plays as scum (which is perfectly fair). On balance, the conclusion I would draw based on your assessment and evidence, is that I'm probably town. So I agree with your analysis, almost to a fault, but your conclusion diverges from the evidence it's based on.

I haven't said you're OMGUSing me - I said that you

think

you're OMGUSing me because you mistakenly thought I was shading you when I wasn't.

Would you be able to explain how I have "scummed it up" since your analysis? And maybe helpful to explain why you go to the trouble of such a detailed and thorough review, only to basically ignore all that work and start pushing for me to be lynched based on some crap about logging out without posting, which is a fail on so many levels?

[Battle Mage]

https://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.p ... #p11957546

Past games are irrelevant, every game is different, quoting previous games or going based off of meta is lazy. No offence.

This is definitely not true. Meta can be hugely useful if used right.

[Battle Mage]

Why you: Well there were 3 options really. Probably you and TTJT would have been my top scumreads ahead of 72o

You pretty much town-read me all D1 and then all of a sudden I'm in your top two scum candidates?

I basically town read everyone Day 1 apart from my 2 scumreads.

That's cool, but if your read switches from a town-read to a scum-read I think it's nice to say why. Maybe give the player in question something to work with? Have a dialogue?

As noted, I didn't have a strong scum-read on you at all (nor was I feeling minded that it would be helpful to do so, given how poor my reads had been to date). I did quite clearly acknowledge this, without trying to make it seem like a complete farce, which would have resulted in no meaningful pressure and you not claiming, which was the purpose of the gambit. Try and see from my perspective - I'd just blown my load on Day 1 with 2 nailed on scumreads both of which flipped town. I was therefore inclined to change tack and look for a mechanics based solve, rather than going back to the well again, especially as I thought the masons were going to be a proverbial ace-in-the-hole.

Tldr; as a general matter of courtesy and scumhunting, you're absolutely right. This was an exceptional circumstance, and you could argue I was trying to be too clever and failing.

If I get lynched today for being consistently wrong about everything reads-wise, I'm fairly cool with that, although it hasn't been the argument presented by anyone to date.
To be clear, because I think this point has been lost somewhat - the wagon on you would not have resulted in a lynch on you unless you claimed PR

and

the players I thought were masons indicated you were scum for doing so, allowing me to lead that charge (i.e. unless I had some reasonable assurance you were fakeclaiming). As a result, the criticism of me for failing to engage in dialogue, isn't really relevant here as I wasn't actually planning to lynch you based on anything which had happened to date. It's not a completely outlandish or risky gambit if your reads are half-decent, and obviously mine weren't. It doesn't risk a mislynch, it shouldn't out a PR (if reads are decent). It COULD result in a false positive, although clearly I wouldnt have taken you as literally conftown for claiming vanilla, so that isn't really a problem.

It could only be considered anti-town in the sense that it outted a cop unnecessarily.

There's no reason for me to make an aggressive play like that as scum, where my stock is at rock-bottom anyway - although this bit is somewhat WIFOMy, it's also just reality that it would be way too conspicuous and high risk with too little reward (and if you were to disagree with Jam and look at my meta, you won't find a BM-scum game where I've done anything like this). In my 3 completed scumgames this year, I got lynched in one for lurking, I survived another despite lurking, and in the final one I fakeclaimed Cop on Day 2 to bus both of my partners (one of whom was 72o). The key thing with the latter, is it was a bold play with HIGH reward, because it basically made me near to conf-town and I was able to win the game. And you could argue the risk was fairly low given I knew I was going to be proved right.

As above, if I was scum and thought you were a PR, why would I want you to claim? ESPECIALLY if I thought you were a cop, because in claiming, you'd be guaranteed to be protected at night by a doctor if there is one.

I don't want to get into a WIFOM quagmire. Why would town!you want me to claim? I think my argument for your scum motivation is stronger and simpler than yours.

This bit isn't WIFOM really - it's basic logic. What is simple, isn't necessarily right - and particularly true where I'm concerned (as TTJT can attest). You argued that I suspected you were a Cop. If I was scum, and suspected you were a Cop, I would NOT want you to claim. Although you hypothesised I might have been expecting the claim, and wanted to pre-empt you or force us into a 1v1. First issue with that it, it wasn't the immediate daystart when this happened, so I can't see why I would have been expecting a claim. Additionally, it would also be a completely stupid strategy, given I wouldn't have actually known your results and what I was contending with (i.e. if you had a guilty on my partner, I'd be literally throwing the game in this scenario). Lastly, as noted, if I was going to do this strategy you suggest, why didn't I actually do it? When your hypothetical scenario played out, I did not do anything like what you suggested I intended to do. Even aside from the above, the idea that as scum I would push for a cop to claim because I think he has a guilty on me and I want to basically cc and undermine him (and again, I have no idea where you think that is borne out in the thread), and then after he claims, not cc him, is completely ridiculous. I'd be offended you think I suck that bad as scum, if it wasn't for how bad this game has gone for me as town.

I'm not saying this makes me the towniest conftown ever. But I am saying that there is no organic scum motivation for me to push for you to claim there, so it is in fact a towntell even without the added weight of meta.

What you refer to as a "bizarre and confusing" POE gambit, is a staple of my game nowadays, and it can be very effective. I can't refer to ongoing games, but there is nothing to stop you reading.

Would you be willing to point me to a completed game where this gambit was effectively used? I find it difficult to believe that pushing a wagon on a player to see what kind of claim they make is a tried and true winning method. The risks are enormous. The most obvious of which is what happened here, which is you force an actual PR to claim. What if scum!me made a VT claim? Then you'd be giving town-cred to scum. Your gambit also relies on there being 2 masons, and there is only a 22% (see Looker, percentages can mean something!) chance of that being the case in this game. It also relies on your suspicion of who those masons might be to be correct. And in turn it relies on them to somehow know to "signal" to you that a fake claim had been made without outing themselves as PR's. All the while leaving open the possibility of a quick hammer or an "oopsie-poopsie" hammer on a potential town slot.

Unless I'm fundamentally missing something I cannot see the risk/reward ratio of your gambit to be in town's favor. I do see what the goal of the gambit is, I just can't see that goal justifying the myriad of risks and potential misfires.

I was very confident on there being masons, and the statistical odds weren't a factor - it was predominantly based on their reaction to LL's "I'm a PR" claim. They both completely disbelieved it, and didn't seem to give it much thought at all. In almost all cases, it's pretty standard practice to avoid lynching a claimed PR on Day 1 if at all possible, and it's pretty normal for people to give them the benefit of the doubt (really nothing about LL's play to that point suggested he shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt). The fact they didn't do that, made me think they must be masons, as masons would be the only scenario in which each of them would know 100% that the PR claim was fake.

As an approach, there is risk, but generally if timed right and based on a reasonable expectation about the role structure (which could be based on having a PR myself, or some insight about the mechanic etc), it is +EV i think. As noted above, I'm not scared of a false-positive - it's possible to think someone is more likely to be town, without completely taking them out of the equation. I also don't think them signalling would have been an issue - I figured that essentially it's what they did on Day 1, and scum didn't figure it out then as they didn't NK one of them. All it would have needed was a bit of lowkey but clear skepticism about the claim - not a precise science but again, didn't really worry me.

All that being said, whether the gambit is a good one or not, isn't really the crux of what we're discussing. The question is, is it something I would do as scum or town? And how likely as either alignment? A bit of deduction is required here which goes beyond the right or wrong of the play, and thinks about the motivation for town-BM and scum-BM to act as I have done.

There's a perfect example of this exact gambit which I can't currently refer to, however the rules are clear that you would be able to find and read if you so chose, and you may find that helpful.

On recent completed games:

I planned a gambit in my last one with TTJT (Newbie 2009) to fakeclaim cop (as town) in order to get control of the lynch for the following day (with no mechanical idea of who the scum actually were). It never got used because I got NKed. TTJT can however confirm that was the plan. I'd argue that was higher risk than this.

In Large Theme 'Jigsaw's Revenge', I fakeclaimed a PR in order to strengthen a case against another player I believed was scum, based on the setup mechanics.

In Large Theme 'Twice Baked Wrestling', I fakeclaimed Day-vig which resulted in somebody claiming (although that wasn't really my intention).

Please do me the courtesy of actually giving this some thought and reading and responding to my points above.

I'm giving it thought, relax. I didn't respond to everything due to time purposes/I feel I already addressed it. But if there is something glaring you want me to discuss I'm happy to do so.

I think I've covered most of it above, but I would also come back to this point:

Additionally, if I was scum and thought you were a cop, and investigated me or my partner (and you havent really explained to me why you think I would have thought either of those things) I would sooner be claiming first with a guilty on you, rather than pushing you to claim a guilty on me and ccing you. Taking the initiative is valuable.
Although in reality, I'd do neither, because

Spoiler:

I don't play recklessly as scum, and wouldn't run a gambit which would be guaranteed to get me killed before the end.