Mafiascum.net

I think MagikHorse's defense is fine. Van has made an effort to push MagikHorse... and nothing else. I don't know if that is AI, only focusing on MagikHorse.

In post 210, Fredrick A Campbell wrote:

In post 180, Frogsterking wrote:Hey Frederick, I just thought of a couple of questions for you! Mainly because you replaced in recently and I noticed you had just finished moderating a game.

1) Have you noticed anything telling about lobbies on this site where all of the scum players became among the top 5 most active players in the game on D1?

and

2) Have you noticed anything telling about lobbies on this site where all of the scum players became among the top 5 most townread players in the game on D1?

After going through all that trouble of answering one of you questions, I have got to know what was the point of these questions?

I think they were good questions for someone who had just replaced in. For me, it's easy to answer questions that people lob at me then to dig deeper unsolicited. The latter is more valuable, but I think that it was town-ish to lob you a softball to get you talking, because it's pro-town to have more talking and discussion.

In post 211, MUSHSHAGANA wrote:Considering you didn't even use the right numbers for the generalized probability and you could have used https://www.dcode.fr/picking-probabilities or a similar selection probability calculator to easily re-calculate something at least distantly tangentially useful, I'm not pleased with this by any means.

(That generalized probability for a 7/2 setup, for the record, comes out to roughly a 27.7777...% chance of both scum being in a random given selection of five players. Which means your mistake was genuinely dangerous, potentially risking town deciding not to scum-hunt among actives.)

My vote stays on you.

I'll echo what others have said and say that I don't think it's scummy to give stats from a Normal game in a Newbie game. Newbies are scaled down Normals, right? Even if it doesn't scale perfectly, they're both preconstructed setups with an aim for balance, so there's still value in comparing them.

After re-reading van's post 217, I disagree with most of his points. His strongest points are his last two paragraphs, but I disagree with his push. However, I'm not scumreading him for it at this point.

In post 218, shellyc wrote:Hey Van! Welcome to the thread.

What did you mean by "better ways to get info than voting randomly"? In this site, we usually start by throwing around random votes. In a low information stage,

what else can we do to get info

? I respect any suggestions you may propose.

I think that Van spelled it out pretty clearly. It's not the in RVS that matters, it's how people REACT to the voting. Isn't voting just as powerful of a statement, given that we can see the reactions to it? The more I think about it, the more I am thinking that it's not anti-town to not vote in the RVS stage.

In post 221, MagikHorse wrote:

In post 217, van wrote:I don't like 41, for a couple of reasons:

1. There are many better ways to get information other than voting randomly. The statement made about "

voting is the only way for town to make any headway

" is both a stretch and an overreaction to a non-issue.

Is there some reason not to use your vote? Even if its totally random you should probably be trying to do something with it. Even if it's not the most effective, doing something with it is better than doing nothing.

Okay, it came up again. Yes, voting is good, because we need votes to lynch scum. I don't think it's fair for you to say the same about voting in RVS. We aren't going to (and shouldn't) lynch anyone in RVS. I'm not saying I agree with Frogster's decision to not vote in RVS. I'm not saying that I disagree with your decision to vote for Frogster because of it. But I think you're conflating here the importance of voting vs the importance of voting in RVS. The former being necessary and the latter being preferable.

In post 226, Redados wrote:I think that Van spelled it out pretty clearly. It's not the voting in RVS that matters, it's how people REACT to the voting. Isn't not voting just as powerful of a statement, given that we can see the reactions to it? The more I think about it, the more I am thinking that it's not anti-town to not vote in the RVS stage.

Well, not voting would get less info than voting. You vote for someone. Not voting votes no one.

This whole voting / mathematics trash has allowed scum to manipulate us. I don't know why we are focusing on voting preferences.

Regarding Frogster's questions directed at Fredrick, it was probably just something to understand the posting of scum, which might be relevant in scumhunting.

If I feel like I have a very weak scumread and a whole bunch of nulls, why on earth would I just stay on my scumread early in the game and ignore everything else going on, Shelly? That's a surefire way to miseliminate. So I'll press where I feel will build my reads fastest, and sometimes that's on the other side of the board, sometimes not.

Honestly, feels like you're grasping at straws because you don't get what I'm after here. Which is fine, really -- that is, after all, part of the goal. See, all this talk about voting in RVS or not is circling an important, valuable point: all useful information comes from getting reactions. Everyone can agree on that so far, it is the one universal.

There are many, many ways to get reactions. And THAT is the goal.

I'd recommend for Day 1, if people have townreads on me, that they pay more attention to the ripples from what I do than what it is I'm doing. I'll clear my play up later, but right now there is no MEAT.

In post 227, shellyc wrote:

In post 226, Redados wrote:I think that Van spelled it out pretty clearly. It's not the voting in RVS that matters, it's how people REACT to the voting. Isn't not voting just as powerful of a statement, given that we can see the reactions to it? The more I think about it, the more I am thinking that it's not anti-town to not vote in the RVS stage.

Well, not voting would get less info than voting. You vote for someone. Not voting votes no one.

"Not voting would get less info than voting". Not necessarily, I'm not sure why you make this out to be so black and white.
Mush is right when she says this:

In post 229, MUSHSHAGANA wrote:See, all this talk about voting in RVS or not is circling an important, valuable point: all useful information comes from getting reactions. Everyone can agree on that so far, it is the one universal.

There are many, many ways to get reactions. And THAT is the goal.

This is exactly what I was trying to say, thank you.

In post 229, MUSHSHAGANA wrote:If I feel like I have a very weak scumread and a whole bunch of nulls, why on earth would I just stay on my scumread early in the game and ignore everything else going on, Shelly? That's a surefire way to miseliminate. So I'll press where I feel will build my reads fastest, and sometimes that's on the other side of the board, sometimes not.

This is pretty interesting/insightful, and I feel a little called out here because this is what I am doing with Shelly right now. I don't think it's necessarily to just keep your vote on your scumread, because that's what I'm doing right now. But I also don't think it's wrong to use your vote effectively to push and gain information. Basically I don't agree or disagree with your premise but it made me think.

In post 225, shellyc wrote:Van has made an effort to push MagikHorse... and nothing else. I don't know if that is AI, only focusing on MagikHorse.

He's had one post overall, and quite frankly all his points were worth the call out.

In post 66, shellyc wrote:

In post 64, Redados wrote:I disagree. RVS is a time where you goof off and vote randomly, and then you learn from people's reactions to those random votes. Once people start reacting, RVS is over and then the goofing off ends.

RVS is when we get all the info for the rest of the game. If we don't get info out of RVS, what's the point? You basically said RVS was a time to play around and not be serious, which isn't true.

I do not think that we get all the information for the rest of the game in the Random Voting Stage. Every other part of the game is just as useful to get information.

In post 77, MUSHSHAGANA wrote:...

To be clear: I think keeping pressure low is a good idea to get initial engagement, and then you can dig into that deeply. Since so many are so confused, I'll give the game away: if you're too intense too early and not everyone has checked in and established a pattern of interaction, they get to pretend like they're just playing a quiet game. Once you establish a pattern of interaction, you can press on pattern changes instead of just flailing at a nearly empty corpus of posts for one user. Who might not respond to you, if they just post a single line of near-zero content garbage once a day or so.

...

So, what is the plan now. We just wait till Day 1 is over with no one executed?

EBWOP: So, what is the plan now? We just wait till Day 1 is over with no one executed?

In post 234, Fredrick A Campbell wrote:EBWOP: So, what is the plan now? We just wait till Day 1 is over with no one executed?

Someone has to get limmed on day 1. We shouldn't No Eliminate. Also, in post 66, I was referring to RVS being the basis of info for the rest of the game, like the foundation.

A no-elimination isn't an option for anyone but scum. I wanted to wait until at least all but one player had made enough posts to make reads off of. Weak or even useless reads, maybe, but that's immaterial. I should have enough to say "This player seems to be playing this game like this," and that gives a lot more power to later reads since I have a baseline to start from.

Well, the time has come, and enough players have played enough to satisfy me. You will note that I have gotten much more aggressive since the time has come. Well. Maybe you haven't! But, you in particular SHOULD note this -- because right now, Frederick, you are my favored target.

In the spirit of continuing this: I'd like to note that you were saying nothing interesting (well, nothing "of note") had happened, then now you suddenly dug up a contentious post from around 130 posts prior to you saying nothing of note was going on! Well, which was it? Nothing of note, or was it interesting that I took the stance I did? Otherwise, why dig up a dead discussion that clearly no longer applied to my play?

What's so very interesting about you as a target, Frederick, is that you don't react much, but your reactions tell a whole story of their own. And while even those reactions are minor and small, chaos erupts all around, from corner to corner, when I bear down upon you.

It's incredibly useful.

I have managed to develop multiple strong reads because of this bizarre dynamic surrounding you. I think I'm enjoying it, and I think I'm going to keep the pressure precisely where it is for the time being.

In post 236, MUSHSHAGANA wrote:...

In the spirit of continuing this: I'd like to note that you were saying nothing interesting (well, nothing "of note") had happened, then now you suddenly dug up a contentious post from around 130 posts prior to you saying nothing of note was going on! Well, which was it? Nothing of note, or was it interesting that I took the stance I did? Otherwise, why dig up a dead discussion that clearly no longer applied to my play?

...

I still think nothing of note was going on. Why I suddenly dig up a post from around 130 posts prior is precisely because nothing of note is going on.

In post 237, Fredrick A Campbell wrote:I still think nothing of note was going on. Why I suddenly dig up a post from around 130 posts prior is precisely because nothing of note is going on.

No eliminate only helps scum. Scum will kill one townie every day. No eliminate means we have a 0% chance of killing scum.

Also Mush, are you going to share your reads or what? I am not a fan of how you are keeping your reads to yourself.

I do slightly agree with your Fredrick read however - they are firmly in my lynchpool and that initial interaction with me still sticks in my brain as a scum trying to pressure me, which didn't look that good.

I have no intention of sharing my reads until I'm ready. Keeping them hidden increases pressure on everyone in the game -- as you have noticed, or you wouldn't want to know them. I'll tell you this: I have a fairly solid read on you. My mind isn't fully made up, it could flip, but I have a read on you.

As for whether it's town or scum? That will need to wait.

In the meantime, I'd want to point out that I still never said I scumread Frederick. I'm just finding all of the chaos that falls out of pressuring him highly informative. Ridiculously so. To the point that I can basically confirm the alignment of a player by the end of this little thing I'm doing here, and honestly I'm not sure this would work so well if there was a different game composition.

Still, I might also scumread him. Might also townread him -- the information quality I'm getting would more than justify it, if I am. Could be null too. Frederick is less interesting for what he is than for all those things happening around him, and how far the gameboard tilts when I lean in his direction. Van and his push on MagikHorse are practically background noise at this stage, no one is really putting too much into that despite it being a large and well reasoned push. Somehow it's all about Frederick and me. That's kind of unusual.



Also, a reminder that Frederick's total contributions to the game are a weak scumread on Shelly, the dislike of categorization of playstyles or people, a pointless bit of math geekery, and the constant reiteration that everything in this game is boring. Oh, no, also floating the idea of no-elimination. So five things.

In post 238, shellyc wrote:

In post 237, Fredrick A Campbell wrote:I still think nothing of note was going on. Why I suddenly dig up a post from around 130 posts prior is precisely because nothing of note is going on.

No eliminate only helps scum. Scum will kill one townie every day. No eliminate means we have a 0% chance of killing scum.

...

While I agree with what you are saying, what has that got to do with the post you quoted?

In post 239, MUSHSHAGANA wrote:...



Also, a reminder that Frederick's total contributions to the game are a weak scumread on Shelly, the dislike of categorization of playstyles or people, a pointless bit of math geekery, and the constant reiteration that everything in this game is boring. Oh, no, also floating the idea of no-elimination. So five things.

I was just pointing out that we were practically doing nothing and it seemed like we were headed towards a no-execution.

In post 238, shellyc wrote:

In post 237, Fredrick A Campbell wrote:I still think nothing of note was going on. Why I suddenly dig up a post from around 130 posts prior is precisely because nothing of note is going on.

No eliminate only helps scum. Scum will kill one townie every day. No eliminate means we have a 0% chance of killing scum.

Also Mush, are you going to share your reads or what? I am not a fan of how you are keeping your reads to yourself.

I do slightly agree with your Fredrick read however - they are firmly in my lynchpool and that initial interaction with me still sticks in my brain as a scum trying to pressure me, which didn't look that good.

Finally, why do you think that initial interaction with you seems like scum trying to pressure you?

In post 240, Fredrick A Campbell wrote:While I agree with what you are saying, what has that got to do with the post you quoted?

Oh I didn't mean to quote it. Accidentally quoted the wrong post. Was refering to how you said we should no eliminate.

In post 242, Fredrick A Campbell wrote:Finally, why do you think that initial interaction with you seems like scum trying to pressure you?

1. You entered by saying that I behaved the scummiest but may not be scum. and a good townie would vote out whoever isn't being protown.
2. You then said I was prone to winning arguments. I don't consider it scummy - isn't AI at all
3. Then they speed-retracted their scumread on me in #150 and #152 - they could have interacted / pushed me more, but they after calling me scum a few posts ago... doesn't make any logical sense at all.

Without a solid logical progression and your passivity while interacting with me, I am inclining scum on this slot.

In post 244, shellyc wrote:

In post 242, Fredrick A Campbell wrote:Finally, why do you think that initial interaction with you seems like scum trying to pressure you?

1. You entered by saying that I behaved the scummiest but may not be scum.

This is illogical

and a good townie would vote out whoever isn't being protown.
2. You then said I was prone to winning arguments. I don't consider it scummy -

wanting to win arguments

isn't AI at all
3. Then they speed-retracted their scumread on me in #150 and #152 - they could have interacted / pushed me more, but they

randomly called me null

after calling me scum a few posts ago... doesn't make any logical sense at all.

Without a solid logical progression and your passivity while interacting with me, I am inclining scum on this slot.

1. I believe I have clarified this but I will do it again. Behaving the scummiest does not mean the person is aligned with the mafia. Why should I want to vote someone out whom I don't think is the mafia?
   
2. I didn't say you were prone to winning arguments. I said you preferred to win arguments or, as you put it in the same point, want to win arguments. I consider it scummy behaviour, but like I said, don't think it is alignment indicative.
   
3. In the first place, I just said you behave the scummiest. In the very post I posted indicating whom I thought behaved the scummiest, I have already stated clearly that I thought who I thought behaved the scummiest mattered less than whom I thought was scum.

I've been giving myself a little time away so I can get a fresh look at things. I plan on posting my preferred D1 lunch candidate list tonight or tomorrow morning and a separate list for any players I tr. I plan on responding to posts by Mush, Redados and Frederick.

Rocknil my main FoS for the last few days because of the early post + lurk (which was also done by Tastuye in Frederick's slot), + overabundance of TvT-seeming interactions and general towniness creating a game-state where I'm more open to lunch in the lurker+VI pool. I waited because I was hoping he or his partner would interact with each other (which I figured was less likely after I voted him.) I believe this is a valid case for Frederick's slot and potentially van's slot as well, Rocknil just fit the archetype more purely.

Since then I've reconsidered based on Rocknil's syntax. I believe scum performing a post + lurk will typically use less first-person and write in longer sentences. He could be an archetypal post + lurk scum who just has better lines, it was just enough to make me reconsider. For this reason I'm leaving my vote on Frederick for now.

I think we need to .

In post 247, Frogsterking wrote:I think we need to finalize a few candidates for the D1 lunch.

I have stated my lynchpool - either Redados / Fredrick / you. I would not lim either Mush or Italiano. I am fine with lynching lurkers/VI category.

This sounds creepily like a scum trying to find a compromise elim though. Just a gut feeling that I want to state here.

VOTE: shellyc

I do not like it that you decide to ignore the argument I just made.