Mafiascum.net

In post 21, fferyllt wrote:
Day 1s always start fine without me RVSing.

This pretty much. There seems to be plenty of flailing around going on, and I'll be glad to take part. I suppose if people weren't rvsing I'd most likely try to start something...

Who are we missing here?

In post 24, fferyllt wrote:

In post 22, sikon327 wrote:The thing is, though, that RVS is a way to start discussion and allow players to develop reads earlier, right? It seems to me that creating a meta of "does not RVS" simply allows you to escape scrutiny on those occasions when you are assigned scum, and RVSing may prove hazardous to you.

It does the exact opposite of allowing me to escape scrutiny. Not RVSing on a site where RVS pretty much default draws attention. Usually what ensues is a discussion of why/why not RVS and a bandwagon on either me or someone who objects to my not voting ending RVS early.

And that's all good, because it's not RVS itself that provides reads. It's whatever ends RVS, why and whom it involves that gives people material for reads.

Some folks think that there's a tendency for scum to put a "random" vote down on a partner during RVS because it's some minor distancing, and votes for no reason seem easier to take back than votes that come with a case.

^^ though I should say that once people have played with me a game or two, the novelty wears off. There are other things to do at the beginning of a game day, and I do them.

I have a tentative town read on you for instance.

For me its just a distaste for the arbitrary. All the logic behind random voting seems extinguished even on the newbie side here. Then again we need fodder to get started.

In post 27, cAPSLOCK wrote:For me its just a distaste for the arbitrary. All the logic behind random voting seems extinguished even on the newbie side here. Then again we need fodder to get started.

How do you usually start games?

Well, thanks for the vote of confidence, fferyllt, I appreciate that. And your argument for not RVSing does make sense, I suppose.
UNVOTE: fferyllt
The thing is, perhaps due in part to my lack of experience, I don't really know how else you'd start a game on day 1 with no information. It seems to me RVS has to at least , if only to get the ball rolling.

cAPSLOCK wrote:This pretty much. There seems to be plenty of flailing around going on, and I'll be glad to take part. I suppose if people weren't rvsing I'd most likely try to start something...

This is worded in a way that puzzles me somewhat. What is the "something" that you want to "try to start?"

In post 28, fferyllt wrote:

In post 27, cAPSLOCK wrote:For me its just a distaste for the arbitrary. All the logic behind random voting seems extinguished even on the newbie side here. Then again we need fodder to get started.

How do you usually start games?

In post 29, sikon327 wrote:Well, thanks for the vote of confidence, fferyllt, I appreciate that. And your argument for not RVSing does make sense, I suppose.
UNVOTE: fferyllt
The thing is, perhaps due in part to my lack of experience, I don't really know how else you'd start a game on day 1 with no information. It seems to me RVS has to at least

happen

, if only to get the ball rolling.

cAPSLOCK wrote:This pretty much. There seems to be plenty of flailing around going on, and I'll be glad to take part. I suppose if people weren't rvsing I'd most likely try to start something...

This is worded in a way that puzzles me somewhat. What is the "something" that you want to "try to start?"

Conversation. In answer to both questions. And RVS is as good as any starter I guess. I'm a noob here. So the culture of the site is new. In other online frames I've played people will open with random votes too. I just think people need to get talking. Day 1 is tough...

I hadn't noticed that scum can talk during confirmation. UNVOTE: imkingdavid

About pronouns, I prefer singular they or spivak pronouns.

I'll VOTE: fferyllt because he seems like he might be buddying sikon327.

As for how to start day 1, depending on the setup: massclaim, some PRs claim to get doc/watcher protection but others say hidden, hypocopping, in dethy and similar everyone outs their reports, if there's a bulletproof the get told that they get shot, they claim if they got shot, if there's no bulletproof but there's a doc and no kill, sometimes they tell everyone who they saved, etc.
In this particular setup, I suspect that if any of those strategies were worthwhile, people would be doing them instead of the RVS. Our PRs are safer not claiming (with the possible exception of the BP, but in the newbie games I've read noone asks for BP claims d1), and it's day start; noone was saved from a kill and no one has any reports.

Hi everyone. I am likeabauss and I like to ask questions to foster meaningful discussion.

Kueshina - Why waste the energy defending against a pretty silly accusation... that of imkingdavid? (RVS, and clearly the vote and reasoning is frivolous.)

sikon327 - I'm interested in why your first substantial post of the thread has you leaning town on 2 folks, and then "opening a door" on your RVS fferyllt but subsequently clarifying that you are non-committal. I often find that scum opens the door without committing, and lets townies walk through. I also find quite often that scum likes to lean town or confirm town to build allegiance early in the game. Nobody walked through your open door, and you then retracted your vote. I find this intriguing.

JasonWazza - Not to put you on the spot, but I'd like your insights on my questions above.

I'm not a he.

EBWOP: "he seems" should be "she seems", sorry.
Also, do 1SBPs get told when they get saved by their ability in this setup?

In post 34, Kueshina wrote:EBWOP: "he seems" should be "she seems", sorry.
Also, do 1SBPs get told when they get saved by their ability in this setup?

From what I've seen in other matrix-6 games, I think not. But it's worth asking officially.

In post 30, cAPSLOCK wrote:

In post 28, fferyllt wrote:

In post 27, cAPSLOCK wrote:For me its just a distaste for the arbitrary. All the logic behind random voting seems extinguished even on the newbie side here. Then again we need fodder to get started.

How do you usually start games?

In post 29, sikon327 wrote:Well, thanks for the vote of confidence, fferyllt, I appreciate that. And your argument for not RVSing does make sense, I suppose.
UNVOTE: fferyllt
The thing is, perhaps due in part to my lack of experience, I don't really know how else you'd start a game on day 1 with no information. It seems to me RVS has to at least

happen

, if only to get the ball rolling.

cAPSLOCK wrote:This pretty much. There seems to be plenty of flailing around going on, and I'll be glad to take part. I suppose if people weren't rvsing I'd most likely try to start something...

This is worded in a way that puzzles me somewhat. What is the "something" that you want to "try to start?"

Conversation. In answer to both questions. And RVS is as good as any starter I guess. I'm a noob here. So the culture of the site is new. In other online frames I've played people will open with random votes too. I just think people need to get talking. Day 1 is tough...

I still feel like a n00b in some ways too. I played a lot of games in a significantly different game format (12-24 hour days, and plurality lynch). My tactics are honed for that sort of environment, and despite playing here for nearly 6 months I still don't think I have all the necessary nuances down so that I do vote-related things correctly on near-autopilot.

But, day 1 is not as tough as all that. My main problem is that up to 3 weeks worth of day 1 gives me way too much time for second guessing.

In post 32, likeabauss wrote:Hi everyone. I am likeabauss and I like to ask questions to foster meaningful discussion.

Kueshina - Why waste the energy defending against a pretty silly accusation... that of imkingdavid? (RVS, and clearly the vote and reasoning is frivolous.)

[...]

Since it was RVS, I didn't have any better leads. Even in the RVS, ISTM that you should try to make cases that are better than nothing, or at least not worse than nothing, and to me imkingdavid's case looked worse than random, voting me for something that was, if anything, a towntell (at least, that's how it seemed at the time; as sikon327 pointed out scum do have an incentive to stretch out the confirmation phase.).

In these games, and particularly the newbie section how much of the three weeks do the players tend to use on average before reaching consensus?

In post 32, likeabauss wrote:sikon327 - I'm interested in why your first substantial post of the thread has you leaning town on 2 folks, and then "opening a door" on your RVS fferyllt but subsequently clarifying that you are non-committal. I often find that scum opens the door without committing, and lets townies walk through. I also find quite often that scum likes to lean town or confirm town to build allegiance early in the game. Nobody walked through your open door, and you then retracted your vote. I find this intriguing.

Ah, didn't occur to me it could be viewed that way. My vote on fferyllt was just me trying to go for an RVS vote. After that, I asked her a question about her refusal to take part in the RVS, because I'm new and don't fully understand how some things work. Her answer to my question satisfied me, and I figured I ought to take my vote off of her, if only to be, I dunno, civil(?), since I didn't have a real reason to suspect her just yet, and the RVS stage seemed to have petered out somewhat, so why hold onto an RVS vote? I never said she was town, necessarily. I just don't actually think she's the most likely to be scum right now. Although concerns about her behaviour being "buddying" are intriguing.

As for your mention of only having townreads... wouldn't a scum player be LESS likely to have townreads? It seems to me that by declaring a player to be town as a scum player, I'd be closing off potential avenues of people to lynch.

But I guess unvoting this early in the game is also a bit stifling, considering my own belief that seeing who everyone votes for is important. With that in mind...

Since most of the discussion right now seems to be around how the early game should function rather than scumhunting, and, well, these are questions whose answers don't depend on whether one is scum or not. If I wanted to, I could say, ohhhh, he's twisting my actions or whatever, but I can't honestly say you're suspicious, likeabauss, because you're scumhunting, scumhunting IS generally pro-town, and I guess my opening moves were a bit scummy, which helps no one, really. so... hm....

VOTE: cAPSLOCK

You said if people weren't RVSing, you'd "probably try to start something." I think RVS is over at this point, and your posts still don't seem to have a whole lot of content with regards to the current game.

I'd also like to hear from Lynx_Shine and Morthas, who haven't posted since confirmation.

Kueshina, thanks for the reply. Again, I'm confused by your response though. Let me clarify a bit...

imkingdavid, to paraphrase, said "vote you, because you were the last to confirm." I think we all realize that during the RVS, people just toss votes around frivolously without any true belief, and his vote + reasoning seems to be of that nature. You then responded defensively to imkingdavid's accusation against you, even though it wasn't serious. Now, when I myself have made no accusations, your response has a defensive tone again. I only asked why you responded defensively to his vote, not why you voted for him.

Actually, come to think of it, likeabauss, I just noticed something seriously wrong about your post. I initially didn't notice because I was too busy attempting to address the questions you raised about my behaviour, but... let's put it like this.

In your post, you had questions for a few people, but the majority of your post was directed towards me. You formed a clear, concise case with a rather plausible narrative for why my behaviour was scummy. Your post was probably the first legitimate content forming a case for one of the players actually being scum.

But you didn't vote for me. You don't think your narrative justifies putting your vote on me. Why not? Seems to me when you make a claim like that, you accompany it with a vote, but here, you don't seem to have the guts to actually take responsibility for leading a wagon on me.

Now is suspicious.

UNVOTE: cAPSLOCK
VOTE: likeabauss

I'm terribly sorry for jumping from one vote to another so quickly, but... I think I'm onto something here.

In post 38, cAPSLOCK wrote:In these games, and particularly the newbie section how much of the three weeks do the players tend to use on average before reaching consensus?

It varies. Day 1 sometimes goes for close to the whole 3 weeks. In a recent newbie game I hammered with like 4 minutes left until nightfall. I was hoping that someone would join the other bandwagon but nobody did. Fortunately both wagons were on scum.

In post 39, sikon327 wrote: VOTE: cAPSLOCK

You said if people weren't RVSing, you'd "probably try to start something." I think RVS is over at this point, and your posts still don't seem to have a whole lot of content with regards to the current game.

I'd also like to hear from Lynx_Shine and Morthas, who haven't posted since confirmation.

I am really trying to get my legs under me here and my default mode especially early is probably a little lurky on the continuum between posting and not, but similarly I keep my signal to noise down that way to. Or at least try to.

Also, You guys are way better at early game content than I am. I am not used to so aggressive an early game.

Hmm. Also I am having a problem with placing the cursor on my tablet at this forum. I was unable to finish that last post. I would continue:

All that together is going to make me fairly low content and possibly slightly lurky. I can see how that looks scummy and I have no other way to really explain it truthfully.

Shit, was hoping game wouldn't start this fast
I should mention a few things about my posting habits in the following months
I'm currently in the army serving national service which isn't going to stop me from playing consistently but means that I do not have access to the pc on most days which means ill be doing all my posting and browsing through my phone. Posting on a phone is going to make detailed thoughts hard.I will have access to a pc on a few days of the week and on those days I'll try do be more thorough.
I've only skimmed and Ive noticed a few things that help me form reads. I'll share them in a follow up post as soon as I get some free time today or tomorrow.

@Kue: What is your level of experience with mafia?

VOTE: likeabaus
Very strong gut feeling about this
You post like someone trying to stir up trouble while keeping yourself out of it.

sikon327 - thanks for your detailed response to my initial prod. In response to your questions back to me, I'll vote either randomly during a RVS if we need to instigate discussion and create info (prior to my post, sufficient info was generated that I didn't see the need for a random vote alongside my questions.) Or I'll vote when I have more conviction (I have not done enough digging yet to support any of my theories, for or against you or any other player.) So, no vote thus far.

If I may, I'd like to explain the scum tendency of leaning town on multiple people... there are a number of reasons for this. Scum know who is town, therefore they can/will be correct when it suits them (ie, later they can point back and say "Hey, my read on that guy was town... now he's dead, I was right, I'm a good guy.") Also, they can build credibility with town members by leaning/suggesting that they are town... especially with some more novice players. Very often a town player will feel validated like they are doing good, when somebody else thinks they are town. (In my experience, it's more important to find scum than for other people to think you are town. Scum will often NK the most trusted town person to maintain control.) There are a thousand other scenarios, but these are just a few, and we are of course exploring all that we can on Day 1.

In post 40, likeabauss wrote:Kueshina, thanks for the reply. Again, I'm confused by your response though. Let me clarify a bit...

imkingdavid, to paraphrase, said "vote you, because you were the last to confirm." I think we all realize that during the RVS, people just toss votes around frivolously without any true belief, and his vote + reasoning seems to be of that nature. You then responded defensively to imkingdavid's accusation against you, even though it wasn't serious. Now, when I myself have made no accusations, your response has a defensive tone again. I only asked why you responded defensively to his vote, not why you voted for him.

If by not serious you mean that that his case against me was not grave or strong, I agree with that, but if you mean that it was nothing but a joke, I was not convinced of that, and anyway ISTM that in the RVS you should err on the side of responding to things as if they mean something as otherwise you have nothing to talk about and the game stagnates. I don't see how explaining why I voted him doesn't explain why I responded, unless you were talking about me mentioning that I was in bed when the role PM was sent, in which case it was for much the same reason as my vote: I had nothing better to say, and wanted to err on the side of contributing to the discussion.

In post 45, Morthas wrote:[...]

@Kue: What is your level of experience with mafia?

I've played a few games on epicmafia, but that's about it.