Mini 580-Uprising Episode 1- Game Over!!!!!

[lord_hur]

I think that everyone here is quite experienced with being both on the Town and Scum sides of the game. If I am wrong, feel free to prove me so. With that said though, I think that looking into any possible slip ups due to lack of experience is either 1. WIFOM, or 2. Craplogic.

I am new to both sides (only 1 completed, in which I was town). I don't expect any special treatment though.

[kabenon007]

I have always called sarnath'd ninjaposting. Sounds cooler.

Nocmen, I have much more experience as scum than as town. It really sucked. I was in like five games, and I was scum in every one of them. So it's like I'm relearning how to play the friggin town side all over again. I really should keep track of my record... but I don't. Oh well.

[vollkan]

I think that everyone here is quite experienced with being both on the Town and Scum sides of the game.

I've got 10 completed town games and 6 completed scum games.

Nocmen, I have much more experience as scum than as town. It really sucked. I was in like five games, and I was scum in every one of them. So it's like I'm relearning how to play the friggin town side all over again. I really should keep track of my record... but I don't. Oh well.

I feel somewhat responsible for your lack of town experience

[kabenon007]

Yeah, you ended my last two townie games prematurely... you had a premature votaculation. It's okay, everyone does at some point.

[Nocmen]

You know, when I said that I thought that everyone had both town and scum experience, it meant I pretty much assumed that. No need to tell me how many games you've played as each side.

[shaft.ed]

The risk of my rules acting as a "What not to do" list is something I seriously wrangled with. However, anyone that has played with me knows that I hunt scum more by argument and interrogation than by attacking the tells identified in my rules.

Not sure that everyone here has played with you yet.

My theory is (and, please, correct me if you think this is garbage) that if I establish ground rules right away than I am basically pressuring scum to play the game the hard way (ie. goodlogic not craplogic). Knowing the rules gives them no excuse and nobody can pass off hunching as a reasonable mistake (eg. there is no scope for "Sorry. I didn't know hunches were unacceptable.") This forces them to play the game in the way that I like.

I still don't see the advantage in giving out your methods of scum hunting. How do you think I managed to stay alive in House Mafia so long? You were a confirmed innocent so you carried a lot of weight, and I knew what you looked for in scummy and townie players. This knowledge is critical for the scum to pull off their charade. I'd say a single pass at you calling someone for hunching etc. is not a great trade off for this info. But as I said I think this is slightly anti-town, this is more input for future reference. The only way it's scummy is if you didn't have time to communicate with your partner. I don't recall how long the confirmation stage lasted.

[Kison]

With regards to Gorrad - I can see his slip being interpreted both as he claims he meant it, and how Shafted interpreted it. However, the defense of "I'm experienced enough not to make that mistake" is not one I am willing to give any merit to, in part due to the example I provided on the last page of a player who's been here for nearly a year who made an even

worse

slip in a game with me. That's proof that those "cock-ups"

do

happen.

However, aside from that, I am fairly comfortable with Gorrad's response to the attention he's been given recently. Again with the "links" thing, please just keep in mind that not all

interactions

are not indicative of links, so use a smart filter as you keep track of them.

I've been scum many times. Keep an eye on me.

[lord_hur]

My theory is (and, please, correct me if you think this is garbage) that if I establish ground rules right away than I am basically pressuring scum to play the game the hard way (ie. goodlogic not craplogic). Knowing the rules gives them no excuse and nobody can pass off hunching as a reasonable mistake (eg. there is no scope for "Sorry. I didn't know hunches were unacceptable.") This forces them to play the game in the way that I like.

I still don't see the advantage in giving out your methods of scum hunting. How do you think I managed to stay alive in House Mafia so long? You were a confirmed innocent so you carried a lot of weight, and I knew what you looked for in scummy and townie players. This knowledge is critical for the scum to pull off their charade. I'd say a single pass at you calling someone for hunching etc. is not a great trade off for this info. But as I said I think this is slightly anti-town, this is more input for future reference. The only way it's scummy is if you didn't have time to communicate with your partner. I don't recall how long the confirmation stage lasted.

I agree with shaft.ed there : your list can be viewed as advice to scum (though I don't personally believe it). Still a minor anti-town.

Also, craplogic is quite easy to fight against, and not very likely to work with experienced players, which we have plenty of.

On the other hand, being in a game not polluted with this kind of tactics is quite alluring. I must admit I resorted myself to one of them in a game I was scum in (which we just won, yay).

[vollkan]

My theory is (and, please, correct me if you think this is garbage) that if I establish ground rules right away than I am basically pressuring scum to play the game the hard way (ie. goodlogic not craplogic). Knowing the rules gives them no excuse and nobody can pass off hunching as a reasonable mistake (eg. there is no scope for "Sorry. I didn't know hunches were unacceptable.") This forces them to play the game in the way that I like.

I still don't see the advantage in giving out your methods of scum hunting. How do you think I managed to stay alive in House Mafia so long? You were a confirmed innocent so you carried a lot of weight, and I knew what you looked for in scummy and townie players. This knowledge is critical for the scum to pull off their charade. I'd say a single pass at you calling someone for hunching etc. is not a great trade off for this info. But as I said I think this is slightly anti-town, this is more input for future reference. The only way it's scummy is if you didn't have time to communicate with your partner. I don't recall how long the confirmation stage lasted.

This basically comes down to how you and I predict the list will work. I think it will force scum into a corner where they will be pressured to either use logic rather than the crappy stuff I outlawed, or else they will need to justify any apparent breaches of my policies and an "I didn't know/mistake" will not suffice (because now EVERYBODY knows). You think it is basically just a "What not to do" list that can only help scum avert suspicion.

It's worth remembering that the list is only a broadcast of what

I

find suspect. I am in my element in logical argument, and dislike murky players that bend the rules (Adel, Pooky, extreme newbs, lurkers, etc.) You've seen it yourself, shaft.ed, that that is the environment I work best at scumhunting in (compare my success in Mini 495 to my failure in House, for instance). Thus, my policy list forces the environment I work best in.

[kabenon007]

But vollkan, your policy list, if applied to a player who bends the rules, will most likely result in the lynch of a townie.

[Nocmen]

I don't really think it would always cause the lynch of a townie. Scum umany times are making their assumuptions and offenses based on craplogic that they find and blow out of proportion. By going straight up and bringing a policy that will negate much of that, I feel that vollkan has given a nice gambit. If he's scum though, that could be a problem.

[shaft.ed]

But vollkan, your policy list, if applied to a player who bends the rules, will most likely result in the lynch of a townie.

This is truth. By "broadcasting" in such a way you also end up negating certain playstyles.

In addition, I would have preffered scum NOT know that they're going to be called for certain plays that way they're MORE likely to make them and get called out. I think you will just be forcing them (and everyone else) to play more conservatively here, which could slow the game and I think will make scum hunting more difficult.

[Kison]

Here's the question : Does Vollkan view those traits as scummy if and only if done without warning, or does he fear that such behavior is more distractive and unhelpful than it is scummy? If he views it as scummy if done without warning, then I do not think it was wise to broadcast those certain elements of the rules. If, on the other hand, it's something he views as more of a distraction, then I think he made the right move.

Personally, I have seen both town

and

scum pull off rule #3 and #5, so I'm not exactly sulking that it was announced that it's off-limits in his book. Makes true intentions easier to read.

[Battle Mage]

Vote Count

Kabenon007 2 (Lord Hur, Shaft.ed)
Nocmen 1 (Gorrad)
Shaft.ed 1 (Nocmen)
Gorrad 1 (Vollkan)
Lord Hur 1 (Kabenon007)
Vollkan 1 (Kison)

Not Voting: Nobody

With 7 alive, 4 votes are required to GUILLOTINE.

BM

[Gorrad]

Unvote

, we have discussion going.

[shaft.ed]

Unvote

, we have discussion going.

Care to take part in it?

[Gorrad]

Well, y'all are talking about Vollkan's system, seems to me I've already shared my thoughts on it. I REALLY think he shouldn't have made it public, but seein' as he has, I don't see what more harm could come of it.

[vollkan]

This is truth. By "broadcasting" in such a way you also end up negating certain playstyles.

I allowed for "justifiable gambits" (eg. Adel usually). All I am "negating" are playstyles which don't help.

In addition, I would have preffered scum NOT know that they're going to be called for certain plays that way they're MORE likely to make them and get called out. I think you will just be forcing them (and everyone else) to play more conservatively here, which could slow the game and I think will make scum hunting more difficult.

Ye of little faith. Remember rule 7. That applies to active lurkers as well. If I think someone is being anally-retentive, they will get slapped with 7.

Here's the question : Does Vollkan view those traits as scummy if and only if done without warning, or does he fear that such behavior is more distractive and unhelpful than it is scummy? If he views it as scummy if done without warning, then I do not think it was wise to broadcast those certain elements of the rules. If, on the other hand, it's something he views as more of a distraction, then I think he made the right move.

Those traits are anti-town, not directly scummy (if they were obv scummy, there is no way in hell I would make a list of them). I have seen town do them - and I have seen scum do them. As I have said, when I scumhunt I do it by argument, not by those little oddities. The problem is that the traits I identify require probing and may well just be an unnecessary distraction.

[Nocmen]

Those traits are anti-town, not directly scummy (if they were obv scummy, there is no way in hell I would make a list of them). I have seen town do them - and I have seen scum do them. As I have said, when I scumhunt I do it by argument, not by those little oddities. The problem is that the traits I identify require probing and may well just be an unnecessary distraction.

But from your list post, you say about how you are using the % system to figure out who is scummy, and yet you are using those tells to up the % suspicion someone has. While here you go and say you will hunt scum by argument and not that list?

[vollkan]

Those traits are anti-town, not directly scummy (if they were obv scummy, there is no way in hell I would make a list of them). I have seen town do them - and I have seen scum do them. As I have said, when I scumhunt I do it by argument, not by those little oddities. The problem is that the traits I identify require probing and may well just be an unnecessary distraction.

But from your list post, you say about how you are using the % system to figure out who is scummy, and yet you are using those tells to up the % suspicion someone has. While here you go and say you will hunt scum by argument and not that list?

You're drawing a false dichotomy. You haven't played with me before, though, so it makes sense.

I prefer to play this game through argument and reasons and so on - BUT I will attack play such as the things I identified. Think of it this way:
I prefer scumtells through argument to scumtells such as instances of reliance on gut and so on (ie. I can't recall ever voting someone for using the word "hunch", despite the fact that it makes me grind my teeth).

Such things aren't obv scummy, as I said, (because town

can

do them in a moment of idiocy), but they should not be used by town unless there is some legit justification (eg. someone is trying to gauge reactions).

[Gorrad]

Now, here's my stance. Vollkan, you've made a GREAT scumplay here, but I can't think of how it helps you as town. By telling us, you've made it so that scum can avoid your tells. However, you ALSO, as the creator, are in a position of significant influence in the town. If people had just automatically said 'ok, good system, let's all use it', then you'd be in place to direct their suspicions without them falling on yourself.

Now, if you're town, you've made a pretty good system. However, as stated earlier, saying it couldn't really help the town. It COULD help you as mafia significantly. This is never a good sign.

Vote: Vollkan

. Very loose vote. If I find your response satisfactory, I'll take it off.

[vollkan]

Now, here's my stance. Vollkan, you've made a GREAT scumplay here, but I can't think of how it helps you as town. By telling us, you've made it so that scum can avoid your tells. However, you ALSO, as the creator, are in a position of significant influence in the town. If people had just automatically said 'ok, good system, let's all use it', then you'd be in place to direct their suspicions without them falling on yourself.

Now, if you're town, you've made a pretty good system. However, as stated earlier, saying it couldn't really help the town. It COULD help you as mafia significantly. This is never a good sign.

Vote: Vollkan. Very loose vote. If I find your response satisfactory, I'll take it off.

If I understand you correctly, your issue here is that you don't think my behaviour helps town and that it can significantly help scum.

I have comments to make on both of these, and I shall address them separately (and in considerable length). I shall also address the issue of my own influence.

'On the Advantages to Town'

[/u]
Now, as stated, my rules basically serve to mold play in such a way as to render inappropriate a variety of things, ranging from hunch voting to lurking. Unless this is done for some sort of specific purpose (reaction-seeking, usually), such things are essentially anti-town. I assume that I don't need to engage in a refutation of hunches or lurking being in any way good for town (but I shall do so if any of you object). The sad fact is that town do engage in this sort of behaviour. Whether it be the case that they don't know something is bad, or they don't care, such behaviour is hardly uncommon, from town or scum.

Faced with the above, the obvious remedy is to develop a means to eliminate that play. The above play, when accepted, is at best a distraction and, at worst, an excellent hiding space for scum. My rules have a simple purpose: To make those behaviours intolerable. There is no longer any excuse for

anybody

to use hunches. There is no longer any excuse (excepting things like real life crises and so on) for

anybody

to lurk.

So where does that leave us? My intention was to basically trim down the sphere of acceptable conduct in such a way as to best suit the way I scumhunt. Arrogant? Perhaps it might seem that way. But I note that nobody here has protested that my policies have proscribed conduct which should be allowable. Nocmen raised concerns about my attitude towards emotionality, which I have responded to. This suggests that all I have done is effectively set down in writing what we all think to be intuitively correct.

The sphere of play has, thus, been shrunk to the environment where I find scumhunting most effective. No more rubbishy messing about with hunches, defensiveness and so on - just proper logical debate. This leaves room for all the scumhunting gambits and so on that I know people like Adel love to indulge in (because gambits are a "justification" not an "excuse"). And I do think that this environment greatly benefits the town. There becomes less likelihood of town being anti-town and more likelihood of scum being forced into exposing debate.

'On the Lack of Advantage to Scum'

[/u]
The objection to my declaring policies is the "alerting scum" concern - that I have basically just broadcast a guide for what scum shouldn't do. This was something I paid serious thought to before deciding to post the list, as I have already said. In the process of discouraging town from doing the sorts of plays I proscribed, the drawback is that scum are also discouraged. And yes, this, in isolation, seems to help them. However, I reject this for two reasons.

Firstly, such tells are rarely going to be decisive anyway. Town can and do make hunch votes, for instance. Much as I hate hunch votes, they aren't vote-worthy in isolation. Logic-based faults - such as reaching, misrepresentation, lack of reasoning, ignoring other players, and so on - which come out through the argument I have waxed lyrical about, are much more potent and form the preferential basis for scumhunting for me.

Secondly, by forcing "logical play", the game field does, in fact, become substantially more difficult. There is less scope for weak justification of votes, suspicion and so on. Nobody has expressed disagreement with my policies. And I have made everybody aware of them. Thus, there is no way scum can wriggle an excuse for crappy play.

Let me explain, with two examples. Example 1 is a normal game. Example 2 is a game where policies (in this case I shall use the example of "Over-reaction is not scummy") have been pre-declared.

{Let X=Fool that uses over-reaction as a justification for vote, V=Yours truly}

• Example 1
  
  X: "Vote:Player for being over-reactive."
  V: "Over-reaction is a scumtell how?"
  X: "Scum have more to lose. That means they will react more."
  V: "*headdesk* Bullshit! The very fact scum have more to lose is a reason to play in a more dispassionate manner, so to avoid suspicion for emotion! Emotion is a null-tell. Unless you have meta-evidence, my intuitive assertions negate your own. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
  X: "I disagree. <Insert glib rephrasing of original assertions>" or "Let's just agree to disagree" or "Sorry. My mistake."

• Example 2
  
  X: "Vote:Player for being over-reactive."
  V: "I stated in my rules that justifying a vote for over-reaction is unacceptable. You didn't protest, despite my invitations for objections. Thus, you consented by implication. Either explain in lucid detail how your position came to change, unvote and be noted for this contradiction, or face suspicion."
  X: Will respond in one of those 3 ways.

Notice the difference? In Example 1, scum can provide slippery excuses. In Example 2, scum need to either meet a hard onus of proof (since they also need to disprove their previous consent to my policy) or commit a blatant contradiction.

There is no risk of town falling prey to this because town are

genuine

. Any townie that objects now will raise an objection, or have a reasonable argument. Now, had I not announced my policies, any attempt to enforce them would be horridly anti-town - but since I have announced them, everybody is aware. There is no risk of a confused newbie town falling under attack for a blundering attack on someone for being "over-defensive", because that newbie now knows just what to expect. Declaring the policies is far more pro-town in this area than not declaring, since it ensures that there can be no mistakes by town or "mistakes" by scum.

'On Vollkan Becoming a Leviathan'

[/u]
I get no personal power from this except when I am town. The environment is one that suits me as a

scumhunter

. I have even made sure to allow for Adelling - a playstyle that I find immensely difficult to deal with.

I don't get any serious personal "influence" from this. I have hardly codified the entire game by any means. I have simply proscribed a few things which we all seem to be in general agreement upon.

[kabenon007]

Vollkan, are you planning on periodically sharing your percentage values with the rest of the town?

[vollkan]

Yes, I plan on sharing my % values.

Why do you specifically ask me this? I mean, you are effectively just asking me "Do you intend on sharing your suspicions?" The % values are just my way of expressing suspicion, rather than saying "slightly scummy"

[shaft.ed]

Such things aren't obv scummy, as I said, (because town

can

do them in a moment of idiocy), but they should not be used by town unless there is some legit justification (eg. someone is trying to gauge reactions).

Which means they can't be used by town unless someone is trying to gauge reactions. Which means it will be patently obvious that someone is using them to gauge reactions. Which means they will be rendered useless. Have you ever been lynched on a hunch, because that would be the main benefit of such a system for scum. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt since I know very well you hate hunch votes, but I find this position antitown and I would recommend you don't make this opening statement in future games.