Mafiascum.net

VC 1.01

StaplerTowel (2):

Accountant, copper223

Accountant (2):

goodmorning, drealmerz7

drealmerz7 (1):

Astyanaxx

goodmorning (1):

JaeReed

JaeReed (1):

oncilla

Astyanaxx (1):

StaplerTowel

Not Voting:

Kuroshima

With

9

votes,

5

votes to lynch.

The deadline is in (expired on 2016-09-02 15:38:07).

In post 86, copper223 wrote:@All

In post 85, Accountant wrote:The excessive amount of question marks means GM is

almost certainly joking

, which means it reads to me as faked paranoia.

Did everyone else, before GM posted that she was 85% joking, get the same impression as accountant?

Well, it's a rhetorical question regardless, so, while it's not really "joking" I understand GM's characterization of what she said as "joking" and don't think the "faked paranoia" was subversive in anyway (it's not like she was trying to really convince us that she is worried about being buddied.) To me it was a harmless comment and NAI, but I do understand how in some circumstances it could indicate something, but I don't think it is here.

JaeReed is coming off a little scummy to me, nothing to pinpoint, just maybe a little cautious and non-commital and they stayed away from any comment on the NL back and forth.

The NL back and forth was theory discussion. Theory discussion is NAI.

GM pointed out things that are alignment indicative then never followed up with a vote. Which is why I'm voting for her. I find IC's tend to feel guilty drawing scum in newbies and softball it because of that.

Jae: what do you make of GM's vote on accountant?

I think it is time to try and analyze the most important thing we have available to us so far:

We've got a banana split with numerous things going on with it, and I believe it is meant to symbolize the game overall. The table is the forum, the dish is the moderator, we've got the obvious vanilla portion, the chocolate is what? mafia?, and strawberry (can we all agree that the pink one is strawberry?) would symbolize the PRs? What's the banana? If we didn't have an open setup I'd be worried that a SK might exist because of the atypical nature of the banana among the ice cream scoops, and how banana can = bananas = crazy, which can suit a SK "kill them all" personality, but, no, no SK, so, hmmm, the banana...I suggest we all think strongly on this.

I found Jae's entrance so unremarkable that it was, in itself, remarkable.

I'd like elaboration on this. Is Jae known for their explosive openings or something?

@drealmerz, I'm pretty sure 104 was a joke. But if not, then you should know that the banana split is flavor, and not indicative of anything except the mod's whimsy.

Definitely intending to be silly with #104, and I find your comment about it to me rather odd, Accountant. You did read that I've played mafia before, yes? You've got to know that I know the picture is just a picture and is not something to be analyzed. If I were a noob I could see you wanting to make sure I was clear, but, yeh, I find the way you did that very off/odd (so much so it makes me more comfortable in my vote for you. Of course it's not DAMNING OMG YOU'RE SCUM or anything, but, it's just a bit of something to go on at this point, more than anything else.)

I'd like to hear more from oncilla, and of course Kuroshima's absence is notable to me at this point.

In post 9, goodmorning wrote:Hi Accountant! Hello Jae!

Vote: Accountant

This one? It's an RVS "hi I know you" vote. It's as null as it gets as far as reading into an RVS vote goes. There's an argument for it being scummy behaviour by avoiding voting on a wagon but eh... I prefer the benefit of the doubt for those kinds of votes. Now, if you're asking about GM keeping it there?

In post 53, goodmorning wrote:

In post 29, JaeReed wrote:@gm do you always play this cautiously in newbies?

No. Usually I play

even more cautiously.

I asked this question because GM kept her vote on Accountant while noting things that ordinarily would cause someone to move their vote conveniently ignored something else while pointing out those other things.

GM wrote:

In post 31, Accountant wrote:@oncilla: Do you think that JaeReed seriously believes that statement will make them seem townie?

@drealmerz: copper gave a pretty correct math analysis of why no lynching is bad. On an abstract level, the idea is that town exerts influence on the game through lynching - they have the majority so they control the Day while mafia controls the Night. It's strange for them to give up that advantage.

Hmmmmmmmmm.

I actually can't see what GM's trying to get at here unless it's about the "It's strange for them to give up that advantage" in which case it's pretty clear Accountant wasn't talking about this game and talking about town in general.

GM wrote:

In post 41, Accountant wrote:This game isn't just about finding scum - it also acts as a gateway or welcome game into MafiaScum. As an experienced player, I have a duty to help explain game theory and game concepts to newcomers. The concept of No Lynch, especially when it is and isn't viable, is an important part of game theory. Therefore, it's only natural that I'd explain it to everyone. This does not stymie proper discussion of the game like you implied in post #40("trying to keep us from discussing something useful"). That's because it's possible to have multiple threads of conversation in a single game - it's not as though if I'm talking about No Lynch, that means everyone else has to drop what they're doing and also talk about No Lynch. It would only stymie real discussion if it was long, spammy or obnoxious to the point where players find it hard to get to the bits where actual gameplay takes place.

Given that
A. copper already explained all of that
B. dreal already indicated that he's aware D1 NL isn't optimal strategy
C. I already said we could continue NL discussion postgame
D. you're not talking about anything else at this point -

I'm satisfied with the conclusion: namely, that this is scummy behaviour from you.

I can't see GM honestly believing this to be scum indicative this early in the game. Accountant was right here in that it wasn't stifling discussion. This is just GM being frustrated with Accountant for continuing to theory talk.

Like, yes, Accountant has been doing jack sweet all. Is it AI this early in the game? Probably not, imo.

I find the way you did that very off/odd

That would make sense, since I found #104 itself to be pretty off. The joke itself is out of place, so any accompanying investigation would feel out of place.

I understand that you've played mafia before, but given that the only games I've heard of you playing are extremely unorthodox and bastard, and you don't seem to understand why No Lynch is a bad idea, there's a nonzero chance you genuinely were trying to analyze the banana split.

Why did you choose to make a joke there?

drealmerz, do you still believe that our continued talk of theory was alignment-indicative?

In post 109, Accountant wrote:

I find the way you did that very off/odd

That would make sense, since I found #104 itself to be pretty off. The joke itself is out of place, so any accompanying investigation would feel out of place.

I understand that you've played mafia before, but given that the only games I've heard of you playing are extremely unorthodox and bastard, and you don't seem to understand why No Lynch is a bad idea, there's a nonzero chance you genuinely were trying to analyze the banana split.

Why did you choose to make a joke there?

Okay I'll go in order:

1.) The joke is out of place? Why?

We're in typical D1 with nothing to go on and nothing really going on. If there were flavor to analyze in relevance to the game setup now would be the time to be discussing it, but since there is none we're doing not much, and so I made a joke about analyzing the flavor (it's a banana split, all about the flavor!) and emphasized the joke with an obvious (I thought it was super super obvious, others should chime in with if they thought by any chance I was being serious) meaningless ramble. I mean, the table is the forum, the dish is the moderator, etc.??? Profound to a degree, maybe, :þ , but, serious in regards to the game? Not even close, and, I don't see how anyone would think it was an attempt to be.

2.) Most of the forum-mafia games I've played have been "normal." 2 bastard, 1 cult, 3 mini-games, 11 normal games.

3.) woah woah woah...*breathes*...I certainly understand that NL is a bad idea, at times (this being one of them), you still not being clear (or seeming to not be clear) on that point about me is frustrating, and makes me think you are possibly scummy just trying to get under my skin/perpetuate the NL talk. (it happens frequently enough in my experience, that a scum player will make little comments about something to spur rambling about it from a player so that other players get frustrated with that player and become more likely to lynch them)

In post 110, Accountant wrote:drealmerz, do you still believe that our continued talk of theory was alignment-indicative?

I believe the way and extent to which you carried it could be indicative of you being scum, yes. Again, it's not OMG DAMNING of you by any means, but it's all I've got to go on because it felt a bit scummy to me the way you came off. I realize I don't know you at all and I could be completely off/wrong, but, it's what I've got currently, especially given the points in the above section.

EBWOP (edit by way of post)

2 bastard, 1 cult, 3 mini-games, 11 normal games - I'm not sure if that is entirely correct, something like that I think anyway

The joke is out of place because it's in the middle of serious discussion. And not, like, a one-liner remark tossed into a serious post, you took an entire post just to write up and post your lengthy joke for reasons I find difficult to explain. It's a post that serves purely no meaning, and thus stands out when people are starting to move out of RVS(if they haven't already) and consolidate positions on their reads.

oah woah woah...*breathes*...I certainly understand that NL is a bad idea, at times (this being one of them), you still not being clear (or seeming to not be clear) on that point about me is frustrating, and makes me think you are possibly scummy just trying to get under my skin/perpetuate the NL talk.

No. This is not what I was doing. It's a brute fact that you're new to this site and the playstyle and methods of this site. Your earlier ideas about No Lynch was one manifestation of this; I could also have pointed to your newbie status, or your 0 games played on site. This is relevant to my point, because it was a genuine indication that you may be too new to understand that flavor is not indicative of anything(which is something that I have seen actual newbies ask about). Since you've made it clear that you do understand, and that it was a joke, we now return to why you chose to put it there.

Earlier, copper mentioned that off-hand remarks from players might give insight into their thought processes. I am interested in finding out what sort of thought process went into the making of this particular off-hand remark.

In post 99, JaeReed wrote:I see no reason for you to believe I would be so inclined based off our shared game together.

1. The attitude you had towards the game there led me to believe you'd at least be participatory.
2. I tend to expect SEs to come in hot as a matter of course.

In post 102, JaeReed wrote:GM pointed out things that are alignment indicative then never followed up with a vote. Which is why I'm voting for her. I find IC's tend to feel guilty drawing scum in newbies and softball it because of that.

What part of is difficult here?

Also: the only person I softball as ICScum is my partner, which is a bad habit but hard to break.

Also x2: You do realize I'm a pretty sticky voter, right?

In post 105, Accountant wrote:

I found Jae's entrance so unremarkable that it was, in itself, remarkable.

I'd like elaboration on this. Is Jae known for their explosive openings or something?

Not so far as I know, but you and copper both came in and did SOMETHING. Jae didn't. At all.

Looking at the three of you in combined ISO, I get:
copper joining your RVS wagon, explaining NL theory, encouraging Ast to post stuff, and by the end of p2 he's firmly stated his opinion on the indicativity of the NL convo.
You starting off your first real post with a "make them think" question to oncilla, getting sidetracked by NL convo, then arguing with me. I was kind of hoping you'd ask me why I hadn't asked you if you were trying to sound artificial deliberately but oh well.
Both of which are reasonable beginnings.
Jae's first several posts:
1. Requests grammatical clarification.
2. Joins the theory discussion without addressing the concerns about it or the fact that POSTGAME FOR FUCK'S SAKE.
3. Answers the "how many games do you have w/gm" question. Doesn't address anything else, despite the fact that it was already the top of p4.
4. Answers copper's question about their own meta.

Shallow questions, shallow answers.

I think I'm going to dig for scumgames in Jae's past here at some near point.

It's not really a "joke" even, just an amusing flavor-based (I do like flavor) role-play of sorts based on what there is to use to do so, as I stated that I like to do. Because there was nothing else going on and I thought it'd be fun/funny.

What serious discussion was it in the middle of? I don't agree that there was such a discussion going on. If there had been serious discussion going on, I wouldn't have said "I think it is time to try and analyze the most important thing we have available to us so far:" because 1.) the "I think it is time" wouldn't be accurate in the middle of a serious discussion so I wouldn't want confuse things by saying this and, 2.) I'd be talking about the content of the serious discussion instead of amusing myself with some meaningless flavor-talk.

And now you're rephrasing things by saying I'm "new to...the playstyle and methods of this site...[because my] earlier ideas about No Lynch [were] one manifestation of this" which is not true at all and something I thought I made clear (I wasn't purporting no-lynch for this game! AND where I'm from also holds the same general view on no-lynch.)

And now it seems to me you're essentially saying "if you don't agree with the general policy about D1 no-lynch held here on this site, then your opinion/viewpoint on it are simply not going to be taken seriously or considered by me" or something similar, and that is a problem and scummy, to me, regardless that you're not actually taking issue with my no-lynch stance in this game.

*sigh*

can we clear off any RVS votes, please? and of course putting them on someone you actually find scummy at this point is most preferable!

On mobile here. I'll address 115 when I get to a PC and can articulate my thoughts properly. GM/Jae, did 104 catch either of your eyes?

GM, would it be accurate for me to say that you're scumleaning Jae based on 114?

I think drealmerz' heart is in the right place but his actions are making things harder to discern.

In post 115, drealmerz7 wrote:It's not really a "joke" even, just an amusing flavor-based (I do like flavor) role-play of sorts based on what there is to use to do so, as I stated that I like to do. Because there was nothing else going on and I thought it'd be fun/funny.

What serious discussion was it in the middle of? I don't agree that there was such a discussion going on. If there had been serious discussion going on, I wouldn't have said "I think it is time to try and analyze the most important thing we have available to us so far:" because 1.) the "I think it is time" wouldn't be accurate in the middle of a serious discussion so I wouldn't want confuse things by saying this and, 2.) I'd be talking about the content of the serious discussion instead of amusing myself with some meaningless flavor-talk.

Whether or not you agree that there was any kind of serious conversation going on before you dropped that joke, it doesn't excuse the fact that it IS a joke, and a really non-sequitur one at that. I was actually stunned by how late that kind of post was because that's usually the kind of joke you make during an RVS, so then I thought you were just trying to sarcastically prove a point that the NL convo was as fruity and over the top as this joke, but no. Apparently you really did mean to play a straight joke and expected us to accept it as nothing.

Possibility 1: You made an inquiry towards Jae, got bored waiting for 33 minutes of nothing, and decided to further develop your persona as verbosely established (something which you were warned against doing btw because of how counter intuitive it is) by making jokes.

Possibility 2: You made the joke on purpose. I mean even if the playstyle of all 11 normal games over wherever were different from how this one was played, you would know that making that kind of post in that moment was highly inappropriate. So I dunno...a gambit? Or possibly a distraction or deflection? I can't possibly be the only person who's thinking this.

In post 115, drealmerz7 wrote:And now you're rephrasing things by saying I'm "new to...the playstyle and methods of this site...[because my] earlier ideas about No Lynch [were] one manifestation of this" which is not true at all and something I thought I made clear (I wasn't purporting no-lynch for this game! AND where I'm from also holds the same general view on no-lynch.)

And now it seems to me you're essentially saying "if you don't agree with the general policy about D1 no-lynch held here on this site, then your opinion/viewpoint on it are simply not going to be taken seriously or considered by me" or something similar, and that is a problem and scummy, to me, regardless that you're not actually taking issue with my no-lynch stance in this game.

*sigh*

And you know you could've let it go, right? Accountant neatly explained that the the banana split is nothing more than flavor. This terrible incident could have been cleared so easily, but no. You decided "well, it's not in my persona to just not concisely accept things as they are. I'm going to argue about this meaningless tirade and it's not like it's theorycrafting because what the parts of a banana split represents isn't something you'd actively want to discuss post game like NL on D1."

In post 114, goodmorning wrote:

In post 99, JaeReed wrote:I see no reason for you to believe I would be so inclined based off our shared game together.

1. The attitude you had towards the game there led me to believe you'd at least be participatory.
2. I tend to expect SEs to come in hot as a matter of course.

1. The attitude where I waited until like page 8 to post because I didn't feel like phone posting and therefore did a bunch of catch up readslists about a day after the game started?
2. I did come in hot. My vote on you was 100% serious in my first post, based off you ignoring a line of questioning that you should have picked up on, pointing out stuff from the newbies which you'd think would have earned a pressure vote then . You pointedly ignored my vote on you, and now you're trying to pretend that I've done nothing because you ignored it?

In post 114, goodmorning wrote:

In post 102, JaeReed wrote:GM pointed out things that are alignment indicative then never followed up with a vote. Which is why I'm voting for her. I find IC's tend to feel guilty drawing scum in newbies and softball it because of that.

What part of

I was already voting for him

is difficult here?

Also: the only person I softball as ICScum is my partner, which is a bad habit but hard to break.

Also x2: You do realize I'm a pretty sticky voter, right?

I wasn't talking about Accountant. So, the part where you weren't already voting for anyone that you picked out stuff from that early.

Yup, and I do believe you're softballing your partner by ignoring something in the earlier posts which I feel should have at least merited some stance from you.

No, how would I know that without having more experience with you?

In post 114, goodmorning wrote:

In post 105, Accountant wrote:

I found Jae's entrance so unremarkable that it was, in itself, remarkable.

I'd like elaboration on this. Is Jae known for their explosive openings or something?

Not so far as I know, but you and copper both came in and did SOMETHING. Jae didn't. At all.

Looking at the three of you in combined ISO, I get:
copper joining your RVS wagon, explaining NL theory, encouraging Ast to post stuff, and by the end of p2 he's firmly stated his opinion on the indicativity of the NL convo.
You starting off your first real post with a "make them think" question to oncilla, getting sidetracked by NL convo, then arguing with me. I was kind of hoping you'd ask me why I hadn't asked you if you were trying to sound artificial deliberately but oh well.
Both of which are reasonable beginnings.
Jae's first several posts:
1. Requests grammatical clarification.
2. Joins the theory discussion without addressing the concerns about it or the fact that POSTGAME FOR FUCK'S SAKE.
3. Answers the "how many games do you have w/gm" question. Doesn't address anything else, despite the fact that it was already the top of p4.
4. Answers copper's question about their own meta.

Shallow questions, shallow answers.

I think I'm going to dig for scumgames in Jae's past here at some near point.

My first post was a serious vote on you. I came in with something. Whether you brush it aside or not, that is still something.
Requested clarification because I find the stance that I was trying to appear townie with an off-hand comment about my frustration at drawing only town to have scum motivation. Therefore it's useful to know whether it's a view that most newbies have, since that would make it more on the NAI side of things to choose that of all things to pick at.
2-4 I'm fairly sure it was 3am or so since I woke and couldn't sleep again for a bit. I'm not even going to try to contribute anything of worth at that time.

This game has had a lot of NAI stuff so I see no real need to comment on that.

If you'd been paying even a modicum of attention to my posts or copper's you'd realize I haven't drawn scum on this site. Just the Fallout Shelter game I linked which doesn't count for anything as far as meta goes.

You're not trying to read me. You're not trying to sort me. You're not trying to gamesolve. You're scum.

In post 117, Accountant wrote:On mobile here. I'll address 115 when I get to a PC and can articulate my thoughts properly. GM/Jae, did 104 catch either of your eyes?

I agreed with you that it was out of place and bad timing for a joke post. I can't see any motivation behind posting it, scum or town. Therefore the ruling is NAI, personality tell.

VOTE: oncilla

I see Jae's point about him maybe forcing scum-reads on players.

He is also being quite careful in the way he pushes, always giving satisfactory justifications (you're trying to hard to be town for Jae, that comment was so out of place for me, some discussion is better than none for Drealmer) and starting the RVS by picking the first player in alphabetic order.

@Jae
I disagree that GM not going after him for it makes her likely scum though (if that's what you're getting at), nobody else (other than you) seemed to take interest in that comment so why single out GM specifically?

In post 122, copper223 wrote:@Jae
I disagree that GM not going after him for it makes her likely scum though (if that's what you're getting at), nobody else (other than you) seemed to take interest in that comment so why single out GM specifically?

That wasn't what I felt GM should have questioned, actually. It was this:

In post 13, Astyanaxx wrote:Hello all, I am your lovely newbie. I am expected to make you bash your head on the keyboard, particularly in the context of the results of my terrible intuition which will lead to innocent deaths. Towards the pursuit of that goal, I will answer all your questions with dubious, imprecise answers making me look incredibly guilty although i'm only a just a terrified, lost newcomer. (copyright goodmorning)

Which GM took a IC role in instead of addressing the potential motivation behind this.

Calling this shit now. Asty/GM team.

In post 120, JaeReed wrote:Requested clarification because I find the stance that I was trying to appear townie with an off-hand comment about my frustration at drawing only town to have scum motivation. Therefore it's useful to know whether it's a view that most newbies have, since that would make it more on the NAI side of things to choose that of all things to pick at.

That was the initial team I thought you had in mind before reading the above.

I've seen what I call the "whine act" from newbies that happen to roll scum in their first game and that's why I made that comment about coming for Asty if he rolled scum but his reply in 35 wasn't what I was expecting.

Still Asty/GM is not unreasonable, I like Jae as town.