Mafiascum.net

In post 40, geraintm wrote:

In post 39, Vivax wrote:

In post 36, Alexcellent wrote:

In post 29, Vivax wrote:Gettin scum feels from George Bayleys series of posts as entrance.
Leaving it at that.

May I enquire what gives you the scummy vibes? Also why not vote for George?

He deliberately split the posts (or in other words, spammed), that looks to me like he tried too hard to appear casual during his joke entrance.
I'm not willing to vote just for that early in the game. We've got time, and instant majority lynch.

your reasons are very loose. It feels performative.

also, the L word is not allowed on this forum.

My reasons may be loose but they are useful, with a lucky long shot even right. Don't feel like pushing them now though.

In post 42, Crescent wrote:

In post 39, Vivax wrote:

In post 36, Alexcellent wrote:

In post 29, Vivax wrote:Gettin scum feels from George Bayleys series of posts as entrance.
Leaving it at that.

May I enquire what gives you the scummy vibes? Also why not vote for George?

He deliberately split the posts (or in other words, spammed), that looks to me like he tried too hard to appear casual during his joke entrance.
I'm not willing to vote just for that early in the game. We've got time, and instant majority lynch.

I technically did the same thing. I often think of something extra to say after I've already posted something and end up double or triple posting (which I've already done this game, and is part of why my post count was easily #1 in MN2272) One of the fluff posts was baited by a fluff post of mine.

It feels like both a lazy reason and a reason that should include me given I played right into it.

I don't think you did the same thing at all. You replied to a question, then in the next post added something you remembered afterwards. That's not the same as trying hard to appear casual. If anything your intention was to be or appear cooperative.

That said, I think that you are too eager to draw parallels here and assume that Bayley doesn't deserve a finger of suspicion, so if that's Alexcellents reason to call you mafia (which I don't know but if I had one, that'd be it), I think that's a decent reason.

In post 49, Crescent wrote:'Cause an entire day had passed and his "sticking with the basics" line suggests having an actual reason to vote that wasn't strong enough to actually go into detail on.

His "sticking with the basics" line is a direct copy of what elsa said in the first post of the game, I don't think there's much more to it that that.

Cooperative is kind of a stretch. Self-meta in new places is unreliable testimony. I mean like, I could tell you I've never in my several years of mafia fakeclaimed a scanner regardless of my role or alignment, so when I do claim one you murder the person I've claimed it on. It's not like you really have any actual reason to believe me on that, though - It's only my play over time that will establish that.

It's that kind of loose behavior that tends to draw aggro to me so early on. I could self-meta for hours if I felt like it.It's weird that it didn't in that previous one. Gamma somehow immediately townread it. The only thing I've really added to the game is that, based on my personal history, that guy who voted me is town. Which, at this point, is now more than almost every player in the game has added.

People were complaining the last game was slow. This is so much worse I'm already scrapping together any thought I can just to stay engaged.

Like for reference previous game was on page 6 in under 24 hours. I feel like this game already needs several prods.

Reading soon.

Ok, there's not much to analyze but Vivax looks good (t) to me in these few pages.

The is something I see more often coming from town than scum in my personal experience (although I don't sympathize with his read about George).

Also, Crescent's seems towny to some extent, but the sudden focus on self-meta gives me a bad impression. Not enough to classify the act as tendentious, but I don't think I can consider the slot a townlean from what I've seen so far.

The rest of the discussion that goes on didn't suggest much in the AI ​​sense. Feels like almost everyone who posted so far is literally dancing in null variations tbh.

I need to read more to be able to infer something more expressive, which implies the need for more posts, interactions and etc.

Interactions would be fun to read. The Queen demands entertainment.

There is one player in particular that I'd consider voting for but the reason is so moonlogic that the chance of the read being right would be as accurate as voting randomly, so not helpful at all.

Anyways, I have two questions:

@Gibus
Why did you vote Crescent if you said that your vote was ''bad''?

@Geraint
Which part of the description of why Vivax was voting George struck you as performative? why?

pedit: Yep

We can always do the age old "vote out whoever posts last" thing. That's worked out before.

In post 57, Elsa Jay wrote:Interactions would be fun to read. The Queen demands entertainment.

In post 59, Elsa Jay wrote:We can always do the age old "vote out whoever posts last" thing. That's worked out before.

Are you saying this to try to get people to post, or is this actually a serious suggestion?

I mean genuinely sometimes it's best to cut the weak links early when we can afford it like lurkers and such. And usually the person who posts last was either busy IRL or (90% of the time) is a player who doesn't contribute as much. But a general low poster after 10ish real days will do.

I don't like political eliminations, but I've experienced incredibly difficult games due to absent players.

It'd be a hemorrhagic pleasure not have to deal with that again, although I still prefer to play the traditional way and eliminate scum if viable.

In post 61, Elsa Jay wrote:I mean genuinely sometimes it's best to cut the weak links early when we can afford it like lurkers and such. And usually the person who posts last was either busy IRL or (90% of the time) is a player who doesn't contribute as much. But a general low poster after 10ish real days will do.

We had one replace day 1 and two replaces early day 2 last game... All were town, and all were members of the hood. It was somehow a scum neighbor with 3 inactive town neighbors.

I am not against murdering someone who doesn't post if for some reason they're not being replaced, but I did town read day 1's lowest poster last game and was against voting for them. He came off as (and was) completely clueless town who was way out of his depth.

I consider it a really bad sign that a 2 day old game is already talking about inactive hunting. This doesn't feel like a discussion that has a place this early in a day.

Days are 168 hours (7 days); nights are 48 hours (2 days).
36/24 prod timers; naked prod dodges are not counted.
Majority elimination mechanics.

Copying this from the rules though, this game is the one week variety instead of the normal 2 weeks I'm used too so accelerating the timeline would be... Hmm.

Stating my plan early I guess since it's best to be on the same page, but if town doesn't really come to a consensus with like 24 hours left I'm voting the player with the lowest post count. Unless that player is one of those folks who write literal essays per posts like some do, then it'll be the second person.

So if you'll wanna follow my plan when that happens, great. If not, guess we should find scum then.

Edit: it's not like I want it either. I want us all to contribute. So it's like a safety net to have. I've just been burned to much from lurkers turning out to be scum that just rode their way to victory.

And it's also my way to get the ball moving here.

Well, now Crescent undid the bitter taste of self-meta earlier.

But Elsa's backup plan makes practical sense to me, assuming we don't reach a consensus, which is perfectly possible.

Looking at the numbers, I had more posts on day 1 last game than any scum had for the entire game, and the top 7 posters were all town. I'm not used to playing this format, but I can't deny it's a suggestive data point.

Actually thought they were more mid-tier active until looking that up.

Right, I'm waiting for you Gera.

VOTE: geraintm

I'm curious how you notice something is performative so early in the game.

In our last experience, town!you took a bit longer to develop reads. Maybe you know something else that I don't?

In post 63, Crescent wrote: I consider it a really bad sign that a 2 day old game is already talking about inactive hunting. This doesn't feel like a discussion that has a place this early in a day.

I agree, the game has barely started we can't identify lurkers.

Ger had issues last game actually responding to questions quickly and directly and it's one of the reasons I suspected him for so long. He also had a habit of saying he'd do things and just... Didn't actually do them. He was the one town player who lived to endgame less active than the entire scumteam.

Last game he voted Scorpious at post 11 (4th vote on him) and said something about "always random voting" to justify it. I do find it curious that he sussed someone so early but apparently did not "randomly vote" anyone. He doesn't have a content post in the other game until #168 where he pokes me for poking him.

There is a post that gives a potential reason for this difference in early behavior, but I want to see what he says about it before I bring it up specifically.

In post 68, GoldfishFromTheMoon wrote:

In post 63, Crescent wrote: I consider it a really bad sign that a 2 day old game is already talking about inactive hunting. This doesn't feel like a discussion that has a place this early in a day.

I agree, the game has barely started we can't identify lurkers.

For reference:

Crescent 16
Elsa 12
clidd 7
Vivax 5
Alexcellent 5
Not_Mafia 4
GeorgeBailey 4
Umlaut 4
GoldfishFromTheMoon 4
geraintm 3
Corwinoid 2
UNOwen 2
gibus 1
Eiralox 1

I actually thought we had 0 posters, but apparently we don't.

Bailey, Cori, NM, and Eiralox have no game advancing content. Eiralox was basically "checking in" and never posted again.

You'd be surprised how quick you can identify people who wanna hide. And "lurker" is more strict in a week long game instead of a two week one.

For example, Eiralox has one post and did a basic forgettable introduction. While Gibus also has one post they specifically decided to be a troll about it. I won't forget that anytime soon.

Just look for the people who wanna post and phase into the background to not stand out. That'll help you find scum.

Edit: and Crescent even pointed out said people to look out for. I may just take her up as my apprentice/buddy cop.

I get "reaction test" vibes from Gibus. Would still look better if he'd actually done something since.

I would though think it's easier to root out lurkers in this format. What I'm used to is 48 hour days with over 1,000 posts (Day 1 can go over 2,000), and lurkers can fall through the cracks for significant amounts of time if people aren't careful. It's why I make a specific note to hunt them.

7 days with less post volume kinda makes it hard to hide unless basically nobody is posting.

Normally strong personalities bust heads first instead and lead to the players taking sides. Generally though it's not 100 percent best for just getting lurkers because even now you listed 4 people and in a 13p game there's 3 scum. So a town lurker already.

But yeah it's still my main plan for now to try and find scum among the low posters first. Or at least force activity. But if you see one of the middle posters not doing anything let me know too.

5 days to solve a game. This'll be fun.