Mini 805 - Betrayal House - over!
Forum rules
@Slicey: Are you accusing Kast of posting but not taking a stance on anything, or enabling a scumbuddy to do so?
@Banana: Would there be any need to pressure someone if they are not at least a little scummy?
@Sniper: I hope you aren't expecting some "Due to that topic, the obvscum are ____." I asked when I did for 3 reasons:
1. Someone might have come up with a good reason for us to reveal names right away. I wasn't certain how I felt at first.
2. Considering it could be more effective than a random wagon at creating groupings.
3. In some other games (both Polygamist Mafia games) people started revealing how they were paired before a consensus was reached on whether it was a good idea. So I wanted people to not start doing so until we decided whether it was advantageous.
@Banana: Would there be any need to pressure someone if they are not at least a little scummy?
@Sniper: I hope you aren't expecting some "Due to that topic, the obvscum are ____." I asked when I did for 3 reasons:
1. Someone might have come up with a good reason for us to reveal names right away. I wasn't certain how I felt at first.
2. Considering it could be more effective than a random wagon at creating groupings.
3. In some other games (both Polygamist Mafia games) people started revealing how they were paired before a consensus was reached on whether it was a good idea. So I wanted people to not start doing so until we decided whether it was advantageous.
- farside22
- farside22
-
farside22
- Mafia Mum
- Mafia Mum
- Posts: 35785
- Joined: October 24, 2007
- Location: Buffalo, NY
vote count:
PsychoSniper (3) Oman, AshMC1984, claus
banana 563 (2) Grandi, Herodotus
Grandi (1) banana 563
Slicey (2) Kast, Namttam
skitzer (1) PsychoSniper
Kast (1) Slicey
Not voting:
Seraphim
skitzer
with 12 players it takes 7 to lynch
day 1 deadline is June 21st , 9:00am PST
Sarcasm is just a way of saying how stupid you think someone is but in a more polite way.
FYI, just because you see one scum player suggesting something in a single scum QT in a single game, does not mean that all instances of that behavior are scummy. In this case, I have not been engaging in the behavior you describe, so your source example is pretty irrelevant. I can see your mistake as a newbie mistake, I can also see it as scum attempting to jump for a pretty craplogic case.Slicey wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember reading the QT in Majora's Mask Mafia
Thematic discussion is not equivalent to setup discussion. I have posted some information that is purely thematic and I have tied some thematic discussion with potential setup and game mechanics, but primarily I have argued that we don't know what the setup is and should not make hasty assumptions about it.Slicey wrote:and I remember someone telling their scummates to do setup speculation because it makes it look like they're contributing, even when they're not.
Further, in your example, the scum tells his buddies to engage in setup speculation to appear to be contributing without actually contributing. If I limited myself to purely setup discussion, you might have a valid case. If you are arguing that, then please show examples.
Are you accusing me of posting without taking stances on anything? I think it's fair to say I've taken more of a stance than most if not all other players and have touched on practically every issue that has been discussed.Slicey wrote:Thematic discussion on D1 is bad for the town, as is name claiming, because it gives scum a chance to post but not take a stance on anything.
-Mass name claiming on D1 is not inherently bad. There are many games where it is neutral, and some where it can be beneficial to the town. I don't believe that this is either one of those games.
-Thematic discussion on D1 is not bad; it has helped us arrive at the conclusion that mass name claiming is probably not a good course of action for D1. It also has not prevented us from scum hunting.
@I'll post some thoughts on PS and the rest tomorrow. Good to see things have been moving.
- banana 563
- banana 563
-
banana 563
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 308
- Joined: December 3, 2007
- Location: 1 Relocation: 0
- Contact:
That's the general feeling I got in my last game. I think someone said that a good way to find out who the mafia were was to pressure each person in turn, and see how they react. Do you think that would work though?Herodotus wrote:@Banana: Would there be any need to pressure someone if they are not at least a little scummy?
"I wont be posting for 2 days becuase i have a spelling bee" - Muh316
@Kast: I don't dispute any of what you said, but I'm not sure your defensive approach will accomplish much, i.e. working out Slicey's alignment.
How do you feel about your current vote?
In retrospect, my question was a matter of playstyle, though I was trying to get you to open up. That is one approach, and there must be some people who feel it works. Do you?banana 563 wrote:That's the general feeling I got in my last game. I think someone said that a good way to find out who the mafia were was to pressure each person in turn, and see how they react. Do you think that would work though?Herodotus wrote:@Banana: Would there be any need to pressure someone if they are not at least a little scummy?
How do you feel about your current vote?
- PsychoSniper
- PsychoSniper
-
PsychoSniper
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 359
- Joined: August 30, 2008
Apparently, my last vote wasn't registered, probably because i forgot to unvote. To do this properly:
At any rate, no damage of this nature has been done, but I'm a little wary of your bringing up the nameclaim issue early.
@banana 563: why do you need others to tell you whether to vote? It's something you need to form your own opinion about. Sounds to me like you're wantig something to share the responsibility when/if you finally vote.....
unvote, Vote: Claus
Nah, I'm not expecting you to provide obvscum list, just your motive behind raising the issue this early. As to your reasons.....first, I would think that if anyone thought they might have a good reason for immediate reveal, they would have brought it up anyway, with or without your question. Your third reason is also a little curious (IMO), because if anything, I think drawing attention to the issue might be more likely toHerodotus wrote:
@Sniper: I hope you aren't expecting some "Due to that topic, the obvscum are ____." I asked when I did for 3 reasons:
1. Someone might have come up with a good reason for us to reveal names right away. I wasn't certain how I felt at first.
2. Considering it could be more effective than a random wagon at creating groupings.
3. In some other games (both Polygamist Mafia games) people started revealing how they were paired before a consensus was reached on whether it was a good idea. So I wanted people to not start doing so until we decided whether it was advantageous.
prompt
an early claim like the one you mention. Some people might consider that pairing mechanism you described to be a good reason for claim, and as a result bring it up prematurely.At any rate, no damage of this nature has been done, but I'm a little wary of your bringing up the nameclaim issue early.
@banana 563: why do you need others to tell you whether to vote? It's something you need to form your own opinion about. Sounds to me like you're wantig something to share the responsibility when/if you finally vote.....
- PsychoSniper
- PsychoSniper
-
PsychoSniper
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 359
- Joined: August 30, 2008
- banana 563
- banana 563
-
banana 563
- Goon
- Goon
- Posts: 308
- Joined: December 3, 2007
- Location: 1 Relocation: 0
- Contact:
I don't mind two votes if that's less than what psycho got. Two votes is L-5, so nothing to worry about there. I don't think that strategy would work.Herodotus wrote:In retrospect, my question was a matter of playstyle, though I was trying to get you to open up. That is one approach, and there must be some people who feel it works. Do you?
How do you feel about your current vote?
I can't take this seriously...Namttam wrote:*hic*@banana 563- Y-y-y-you're asking alot of q-q-q-questions, but *hic* without t-t-t-taking any real st-st-stances. What d-d-d-do you think of the w-w-wagon on *hic* psycho? Do you f-f-f-find something *hic* else m-m-m-more suspicious?
I wasn't asking others to tell me who to vote for, just making a point that it would be stupid for me to bandwagon someone just for the sake of bandwagoning.Psycho wrote:@banana 563: why do you need others to tell you whether to vote? It's something you need to form your own opinion about. Sounds to me like you're wantig something to share the responsibility when/if you finally vote.....
Banana
"I wont be posting for 2 days becuase i have a spelling bee" - Muh316
Response in bold.Kast wrote:FYI, just because you see one scum player suggesting something in a single scum QT in a single game, does not mean that all instances of that behavior are scummy. In this case, I have not been engaging in the behavior you describe, so your source example is pretty irrelevant. I can see your mistake as a newbie mistake, I can also see it as scum attempting to jump for a pretty craplogic case.Slicey wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember reading the QT in Majora's Mask Mafia
That was just one example. You're not necessarily doing it, but promoting it, saying that there's nothing wrong with setup/thematic speculation (which kinda tie hand in hand). Doing that kind of discussion helps the scum in that they can post without giving many opinions.
Thematic discussion is not equivalent to setup discussion. I have posted some information that is purely thematic and I have tied some thematic discussion with potential setup and game mechanics, but primarily I have argued that we don't know what the setup is and should not make hasty assumptions about it.Slicey wrote:and I remember someone telling their scummates to do setup speculation because it makes it look like they're contributing, even when they're not.
Further, in your example, the scum tells his buddies to engage in setup speculation to appear to be contributing without actually contributing. If I limited myself to purely setup discussion, you might have a valid case. If you are arguing that, then please show examples.
Again, you yourself are not only discussing the setup, but you're saying it's not necessarily a bad thing. It is on D1, when we have absolutely no information to go on
Are you accusing me of posting without taking stances on anything? I think it's fair to say I've taken more of a stance than most if not all other players and have touched on practically every issue that has been discussed.Slicey wrote:Thematic discussion on D1 is bad for the town, as is name claiming, because it gives scum a chance to post but not take a stance on anything.
I'm accusing you of saying that thematic and setup discussion on D1 is good. It isn't. You're trying to say it is, but it isn't. It does very little for the town, and it lets scum participate without giving opinions on anything.
-Mass name claiming on D1 is not inherently bad. There are many games where it is neutral, and some where it can be beneficial to the town. I don't believe that this is either one of those games.
Mass name claiming on D1 is almost never good. Especially in this game. Yes, I was originally for it, but I thought it over some more and realized it could only help scum and there's a very small chance of it helping the town.
-Thematic discussion on D1 is not bad; it has helped us arrive at the conclusion that mass name claiming is probably not a good course of action for D1. It also has not prevented us from scum hunting.
See above
Isn't OMGUS if I didn't realize you were voting for me. >________>
@I'll post some thoughts on PS and the rest tomorrow. Good to see things have been moving.
My original vote on him was not very strong, I admit, but his reaction is telling, IMHO. I'm going to keep my vote on him for the time being.
Also, someone please explain to me why Claus and Oman want a bandwagon on PS because I'm not seeing it.
@PS-
-I think there was a difference in tone between your "parroting" post and other players who have posted agreement. However, I see a change between your initial post and later posts.
Post 42 sounded like you were espousing my ideas but doing so in a way that you could quickly drop them and point at me as the source if the ideas weren't well received by the town.
Your later posts you act as though they were your completely original ideas. You've taken ownership of them (which is good to commit yourself), however, by that point most of the town had already chimed in similar thoughts (which makes the commitment to an already accepted PoV less meaningful).
-I do get an impression that you are thinking about things though, and I don't think there is a particularly strong case against you.
-I agree with the viewpoint that it is not scummy to be unable to form strong suspicions of players early in the game (and often it is impossible for townies to have those).
@Pressure and Wagonning-
As others have stated, it is a commonly used strategy to create wagons even when not very suspicious of the player who the wagon is targetting. I don't subscribe to that playstyle; I think it is unnecessary and allows scum to easily excuse their votes on townies without committing themselves to positions.
Also, the way different players react to pressure tells more about their personal play styles than their alignments. I don't object to the PS wagon, although I don't think his behavior has been significantly more scummy or anti-town than Slicey. I don't think he has reacted in any way that indicates his alignment.
Ultimately, we will need to have a solid wagon to successfully lynch someone. At that point, it should be on the player who you are most suspicious of if possible.
@Slicey-
How is my reaction telling?
You posted a craplogic argument and aren't addressing my points.
-To be clear:
You claim I am suspicious because I am promoting behavior that scum would tend to engage in.
You are admitting that I am not actually engaging in that behavior.
Your argument needs to address several points:
-Explain how thematic discussion is "bad" for the town. I have shown examples of how it has helped already, and it doesn't take a genius to think of more examples. You have done nothing to show that it hurts us.
--The closest you have come is to claim that scum who participate in thematic discussion might be able to appear to be contributing without actually doing so. If we assume your fears are valid, then we have a new criteria for catching scum; we should allow thematic discussion and watch for players who engage solely in that.
-You also fallaciously argue that simply because a behavior is beneficial to scum, it is automatically bad for town. If we extend your craplogic, then the proposition that it is good for scum to post and vote in a logical manner so they blend with the town would mean that posting and voting in a logical manner is bad and we should lynch anyone who engages in that behavior.
-You are attempting to limit/prevent discussion. This is extremely anti-town.
-Provide some backup for your assertion that mass name claiming on D1 is almost never good; provide some reasoning for why that is especially true for this game. So far, the only reasons I've seen for why it would be bad in this game rely on thematic discussion.
-I think there was a difference in tone between your "parroting" post and other players who have posted agreement. However, I see a change between your initial post and later posts.
Post 42 sounded like you were espousing my ideas but doing so in a way that you could quickly drop them and point at me as the source if the ideas weren't well received by the town.
Your later posts you act as though they were your completely original ideas. You've taken ownership of them (which is good to commit yourself), however, by that point most of the town had already chimed in similar thoughts (which makes the commitment to an already accepted PoV less meaningful).
-I do get an impression that you are thinking about things though, and I don't think there is a particularly strong case against you.
-I agree with the viewpoint that it is not scummy to be unable to form strong suspicions of players early in the game (and often it is impossible for townies to have those).
@Pressure and Wagonning-
As others have stated, it is a commonly used strategy to create wagons even when not very suspicious of the player who the wagon is targetting. I don't subscribe to that playstyle; I think it is unnecessary and allows scum to easily excuse their votes on townies without committing themselves to positions.
Also, the way different players react to pressure tells more about their personal play styles than their alignments. I don't object to the PS wagon, although I don't think his behavior has been significantly more scummy or anti-town than Slicey. I don't think he has reacted in any way that indicates his alignment.
Ultimately, we will need to have a solid wagon to successfully lynch someone. At that point, it should be on the player who you are most suspicious of if possible.
@Slicey-
How is my reaction telling?
You posted a craplogic argument and aren't addressing my points.
-To be clear:
You claim I am suspicious because I am promoting behavior that scum would tend to engage in.
You are admitting that I am not actually engaging in that behavior.
Your argument needs to address several points:
-Explain how thematic discussion is "bad" for the town. I have shown examples of how it has helped already, and it doesn't take a genius to think of more examples. You have done nothing to show that it hurts us.
--The closest you have come is to claim that scum who participate in thematic discussion might be able to appear to be contributing without actually doing so. If we assume your fears are valid, then we have a new criteria for catching scum; we should allow thematic discussion and watch for players who engage solely in that.
-You also fallaciously argue that simply because a behavior is beneficial to scum, it is automatically bad for town. If we extend your craplogic, then the proposition that it is good for scum to post and vote in a logical manner so they blend with the town would mean that posting and voting in a logical manner is bad and we should lynch anyone who engages in that behavior.
-You are attempting to limit/prevent discussion. This is extremely anti-town.
-Provide some backup for your assertion that mass name claiming on D1 is almost never good; provide some reasoning for why that is especially true for this game. So far, the only reasons I've seen for why it would be bad in this game rely on thematic discussion.
I'm finding it hard to get into this game, but I'll post what thoughts I can squeeze out of my head.
Namttam's post restriction should not bother us, and we should let that be known. Namtam should still post as normal, no matter how annyong it is.
I'm in the Garden, and It's dark, so I can't get out until someone brings a light source.
Namttam's post restriction should not bother us, and we should let that be known. Namtam should still post as normal, no matter how annyong it is.
I'm in the Garden, and It's dark, so I can't get out until someone brings a light source.
QFT. I know banana has somewhat answered this but I think PS' point is a good one. I was getting this impression myself:PsychoSniper wrote:@banana 563: why do you need others to tell you whether to vote? It's something you need to form your own opinion about. Sounds to me like you're wantig something to share the responsibility when/if you finally vote.....
banana 563 wrote:Would you still love me if I joined it?Claus wrote:Learn to love bandwagons.
banana 563 wrote:Why do we need to bandwagon psycho? Is it because he is scummy, or because we need to pressure him to see how he reacts?
The first post could be fishing for a reaction masked as a joke.banana 563 wrote:That's the general feeling I got in my last game. I think someone said that a good way to find out who the mafia were was to pressure each person in turn, and see how they react. Do you think that would work though?Herodotus wrote:@Banana: Would there be any need to pressure someone if they are not at least a little scummy?
The second post - you remove the threat from the Psycho-wagon if you come out and say it's merely a pressure wagon.
Third post - extending from the second - well if it
was
going to work it certainly won't now! Forewarned is forearmed.Win / Loss record
Town: 2 / 0
Scum: 1 / 1
Town: 2 / 0
Scum: 1 / 1
@Slicey: Can you speculate on possible scumbuddies for Kast?
@Banana: I was referring to the vote you placed, and are holding, on Grandi.
@Banana: I was referring to the vote you placed, and are holding, on Grandi.
Huh?banana 563 wrote:I can't take this seriously...Namttam wrote:*hic*@banana 563- Y-y-y-you're asking alot of q-q-q-questions, but *hic* without t-t-t-taking any real st-st-stances. What d-d-d-do you think of the w-w-wagon on *hic* psycho? Do you f-f-f-find something *hic* else m-m-m-more suspicious?
@Banana-
Sometimes moderators create post restrictions as part of a role, or some mechanism within the game.
Sometimes the player who is post restricted will be modkilled for breaking the restriction. Sometimes they may have some lesser penalty (ie. loss of vote, loss of night action, ...). Sometimes they get a power-up for following the post restriction.
In any event, Namttam has claimed to have such a restriction. If you are seriously having trouble understanding Namttam's posts, then say so. If not, then just ignore the restriction for now.
Sometimes moderators create post restrictions as part of a role, or some mechanism within the game.
Sometimes the player who is post restricted will be modkilled for breaking the restriction. Sometimes they may have some lesser penalty (ie. loss of vote, loss of night action, ...). Sometimes they get a power-up for following the post restriction.
In any event, Namttam has claimed to have such a restriction. If you are seriously having trouble understanding Namttam's posts, then say so. If not, then just ignore the restriction for now.
Show
T: 9/6.5/0
M: 8/2/1
O: 0/3.5/0
V/LA Pretty much all Weekends and Holidays
M: 8/2/1
O: 0/3.5/0
V/LA Pretty much all Weekends and Holidays
Yay! OMGUS from PS! Let me tear it down.
Also, the way you overreact to an accusation that I did not make is scummy. I caught scum once on this tell
You are some clever scum.
No really, you big post and vote on me is nothing more than "Your vote sucks. Waaa! Waaa!".
How about we play a game? You tell me (us) who else you find scummy in this thread. Pretend you're looking for "my partners". I know it will be hard to you to talk about the other players, because you'll have to be careful not to out your partners, but the town would appreciate the effort.
Neither did I. I accused you of being scummy for completely different reasons -- reasons which I did spell out in the post. I do however, find it scummy when you attack me (call my post parroting) for something that you just admitted doing. Double standards and all that jazzPsychoSniper wrote: Did I accuse you of being scummy because you parroted me? I didn't. (...) but apparently, according what you posted above, youdoconsider it scummy, so why are you doing it yourself?
Also, the way you overreact to an accusation that I did not make is scummy. I caught scum once on this tell
Because scum wants to find easy cases. They make weak attacks and see if other people will follow with them. Then back down of those attacks that don't work out immediately. This is called "Staying on the wall".And again, that's wrong because....?Except that, when he said "I'll say it later", you just said "ah, ok". Weak.
Funny that you base your entire strategy on a post by someone else. So if someone makes a "bad" answer to his question, or doesn't answer - and you end up lynching them -- hey! It wasn't your question to begin with, it was Herotodus!- There are lurkers/inactive guys that have yet to voice their opinion on his question. If Hero's answer was an excuse not to answer, getting everyone to speak up takes away that excuse.
You are some clever scum.
That one is easy - You're not even trying. Answer: Because I'm voting you, who I find much scummier.why would you expect me to vote on Hero for not answering my questions, when you're not doing it yourself?
The wagon on you is not a townie wagon. Big differenceFunny, the only one who's jumped on a convenient town wagon so far is you, how I love the irony.Claus wrote: An when I ask you your opinions on the players, after three pages, you have none. None? Really? Are you playing the game? Or are you just waiting for a townie wagon to form so you can find an excuse to jump in?
Really? I see more, but then again, I'm town and I'm trying to look for scum. You are just trying to find a convenient excuse to attack someone. Let me fix that. You are just trying to save your ass, because I'm not going to let go off you so easily.There were only 3 things of note in that 3 pages:
I love being OMGUS'ed in such a pompous manner - it is a sign that I'm caught scumVote: Claus
No really, you big post and vote on me is nothing more than "Your vote sucks. Waaa! Waaa!".
How about we play a game? You tell me (us) who else you find scummy in this thread. Pretend you're looking for "my partners". I know it will be hard to you to talk about the other players, because you'll have to be careful not to out your partners, but the town would appreciate the effort.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVVmAG0RXmo
Multi-part post - find your underlined name below and read it
That said, it seems that this game does not suffer of this problem so seriously at the moment, so how about we agree to disagree on this point for now and move on?
*************
I like your Slicey vote. I agree that his vote on you was pretty non-sensical, and slicey has climbed quite a few places on my scum-o-meter after that post.
*************
I don't like, however, your post 115. You explain too much about your game theory, but talk too little about this game. I would appreciate if you posted more of your opinions on the other players, specially those who are not under the spotlight.
My personal opinion on aggressive styles is that scum are much less likely than townies to spearhead an attack on someone - because they know that their arguments will be greatly scrutinized once their target flips. Scum are much more likely to follow than to lead.
==============
Like others have said already - you have asked plenty of questions on what you should do, but you have given very little from yourself.
Specially, I would like to see you answer Nattams question. I will rephrase it to you:
What do you think about the PS wagon? Do you find anything else more suspicious?
If I told you that I mind control the other two players on the wagon, and would move the votes to whoever you find most suspicious, who would you choose?
==============
him scummy. Could you be more specific about what you don't like about the bandwagon?
What do you think about Oman and Herotodus?
==============
I Like Nattam's 95. I'm glad to see that he is not using his PR as an excuse.
===============
I know you will be busy man. But use that for our advantage. If you don't have time to post, give us a scum/town list.
===============
Herotodus seems Okay to me at the moment.
================
Here is a simple summary of the game to help you contribute
The main suspects right now are:
Psycho - being pushed by me
Slicey - being pushed by Kast
Oman - being pushed by AshMC1984
What do you think about these 3 cases?
@Kast
Yup. You can see the recent "Nasubi Mafia" as an example of a game where thematic discussion completely destroyed the ability of town to scumhunt. That was not my only experience with this, and I feel pretty strongly about this subject.Kast wrote: @Claus on thematic discussion-
-Is it accurate to say you oppose thematic discussion (...) because you think it distracts from much more useful discussion (ie. more traditional scumhunting)?
That said, it seems that this game does not suffer of this problem so seriously at the moment, so how about we agree to disagree on this point for now and move on?
*************
I like your Slicey vote. I agree that his vote on you was pretty non-sensical, and slicey has climbed quite a few places on my scum-o-meter after that post.
*************
I don't like, however, your post 115. You explain too much about your game theory, but talk too little about this game. I would appreciate if you posted more of your opinions on the other players, specially those who are not under the spotlight.
My personal opinion on aggressive styles is that scum are much less likely than townies to spearhead an attack on someone - because they know that their arguments will be greatly scrutinized once their target flips. Scum are much more likely to follow than to lead.
==============
@Banana
Like others have said already - you have asked plenty of questions on what you should do, but you have given very little from yourself.
Specially, I would like to see you answer Nattams question. I will rephrase it to you:
What do you think about the PS wagon? Do you find anything else more suspicious?
If I told you that I mind control the other two players on the wagon, and would move the votes to whoever you find most suspicious, who would you choose?
==============
@Slicey
- I don't like Slicey vote or post. I think he is misrepresenting Kast with this "trying to promote setup speculation". Oh, I want a bandwagon on PS because I find him scummy. Could you be more specific about what you don't like about the bandwagon?
What do you think about Oman and Herotodus?
==============
I Like Nattam's 95. I'm glad to see that he is not using his PR as an excuse.
===============
@Oman.
I know you will be busy man. But use that for our advantage. If you don't have time to post, give us a scum/town list.
===============
Herotodus seems Okay to me at the moment.
================
@Skitzer, Grandi and Seraph.
Here is a simple summary of the game to help you contribute
The main suspects right now are:
Psycho - being pushed by me
Slicey - being pushed by Kast
Oman - being pushed by AshMC1984
What do you think about these 3 cases?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVVmAG0RXmo