Mafiascum.net

Votecount 1.8

callforjudgement(5)

~ RCEnigma(52), SJReaver(49), Nosferatu(58), ItalianoVD(44), Tayl0r Swift(13)

geraintm(2)

~ Gamma Emerald(63), callforjudgement(43)

WaltertheDunce10(1)

~ Raya36(34)

Tayl0r Swift(1)

~ Not_Mafia(11)

Not_Mafia(1)

~ geraintm(40)

Nosferatu(1)

~ Frogsterking(21)

ItalianoVD(1)

~ BananaCucho(53)

Frogsterking(1)

~ WaltertheDunce10(51)


Not Voting (0):

With 13 alive it takes 7 to eliminate.

Day 1 deadline is in (expired on 2020-09-06 11:18:30)

FLAVOR

Did you know? part 1: geraintm's vote on Not_Mafia was his RVS vote (#29). It hasn't changed since.

Did you know? part 2: Although the fact in the previous paragraph would be a horrible scumtell coming from almost anyone, it is a scumtell coming from geraintm. In Mini Normal 2153 (where geraintm was VT), geraintm made an RVS vote in that game's #62, and didn't unvote or place another vote until that game's #1377, almost 11 votecounts into that game's day 2 (despite having moderate scumreads elsewhere in many parts of day 1). So I think any tells on geraintm based on bizarre voting behaviour are invalid. (geraintm sometimes moves his vote sooner, but only upon having a very strong read, which he normally doesn't D1.)

In post 300, geraintm wrote:day 1 I am nothing but shade. you know it will take a lot on day 1 for me to actually vote someone.

Did you know? part 3: geraintm seems to use the same RVS gimmick every game. This might produce interesting scumhunting information if this fact were generally known (because posting at the critical post count is, in effect, volunteering to be D1 Hated when geraintm is playing). However, I think it's highly likely that the playerlist as a whole was unaware of geraintm's tendency to breadcrumb the algorithm by which he'll subsequently cast his first vote, meaning that it's effectively random (weighted by posting frequency) and provably unmanipulatable (possibly even to the extent of bypassing the rules on provable randomness?). Perhaps if geraintm outright stated "I will vote for the person who posts #22 [or whatever] for the entirety of day 1, check my meta, I do this every game", the gimmick would produce more interesting information for scumhunting purposes; as it is, it's basically just a method of playing that's anti-town, but repeated so consistently that it isn't a scumtell for geraintm in particular.

VOTE: Tayl0r Swift

In post 551, callforjudgement wrote:Did you know? part 1: geraintm's vote on Not_Mafia was his RVS vote (#29). It hasn't changed since.

Did you know? part 2: Although the fact in the previous paragraph would be a horrible scumtell coming from almost anyone, it is

not

a scumtell coming from geraintm. In Mini Normal 2153 (where geraintm was VT), geraintm made an RVS vote in that game's #62, and didn't unvote or place another vote until that game's #1377, almost 11 votecounts into that game's day 2 (despite having moderate scumreads elsewhere in many parts of day 1). So I think any tells on geraintm based on bizarre voting behaviour are invalid. (geraintm sometimes moves his vote sooner, but only upon having a very strong read, which he normally doesn't D1.)

In post 300, geraintm wrote:day 1 I am nothing but shade. you know it will take a lot on day 1 for me to actually vote someone.

Did you know? part 3: geraintm seems to use the same RVS gimmick every game. This might produce interesting scumhunting information if this fact were generally known (because posting at the critical post count is, in effect, volunteering to be D1 Hated when geraintm is playing). However, I think it's highly likely that the playerlist as a whole was unaware of geraintm's tendency to breadcrumb the algorithm by which he'll subsequently cast his first vote, meaning that it's effectively random (weighted by posting frequency) and provably unmanipulatable

(possibly even to the extent of bypassing the rules on provable randomness?).

Perhaps if geraintm outright stated "I will vote for the person who posts #22 [or whatever] for the entirety of day 1, check my meta, I do this every game", the gimmick would produce more interesting information for scumhunting purposes; as it is, it's basically just a method of playing that's anti-town, but repeated so consistently that it isn't a scumtell for geraintm in particular.

VOTE: Tayl0r Swift

(added bold)

Thank you. That actually helps a lot for understanding geraintm.

What are you referring to in the part I bolded though?

In post 533, WaltertheDunce10 wrote:

In post 523, RCEnigma wrote:

In post 511, WaltertheDunce10 wrote:Weird though we get a scum then a fan post and before that Nm with a vote on a person who just replaced in

What does this even mean?

I was noting the mixed reactions by people.
The main thing that stuck out to me was italiano's meme and scum post.
It is really weird to have a take based on last slot so quickly in my opinion.

The one thing that has me worried though is the lack of a voting block.
You'd think there would be a second wagon, instead it is cfj and everyone else.
Kinda has me suspicious but if this keeps up this reminds of something, but site rules.
The 4 scum being explained is good.

I feel like you have good things to say and you say them in a way that's like abstract art which often makes them difficult or impossible to understand.

Now that I know you write that way though it's making me appreciate both your observations and the way you write them more.

In post 551, callforjudgement wrote:Did you know? part 1: geraintm's vote on Not_Mafia was his RVS vote (#29). It hasn't changed since.

Did you know? part 2: Although the fact in the previous paragraph would be a horrible scumtell coming from almost anyone, it is

not

a scumtell coming from geraintm. In Mini Normal 2153 (where geraintm was VT), geraintm made an RVS vote in that game's #62, and didn't unvote or place another vote until that game's #1377, almost 11 votecounts into that game's day 2 (despite having moderate scumreads elsewhere in many parts of day 1). So I think any tells on geraintm based on bizarre voting behaviour are invalid. (geraintm sometimes moves his vote sooner, but only upon having a very strong read, which he normally doesn't D1.)

In post 300, geraintm wrote:day 1 I am nothing but shade. you know it will take a lot on day 1 for me to actually vote someone.

Did you know? part 3: geraintm seems to use the same RVS gimmick every game. This might produce interesting scumhunting information if this fact were generally known (because posting at the critical post count is, in effect, volunteering to be D1 Hated when geraintm is playing). However, I think it's highly likely that the playerlist as a whole was unaware of geraintm's tendency to breadcrumb the algorithm by which he'll subsequently cast his first vote, meaning that it's effectively random (weighted by posting frequency) and provably unmanipulatable (possibly even to the extent of bypassing the rules on provable randomness?). Perhaps if geraintm outright stated "I will vote for the person who posts #22 [or whatever] for the entirety of day 1, check my meta, I do this every game", the gimmick would produce more interesting information for scumhunting purposes; as it is, it's basically just a method of playing that's anti-town, but repeated so consistently that it isn't a scumtell for geraintm in particular.

VOTE: Tayl0r Swift

Can you do a Did you know? on Gamma?

In post 551, callforjudgement wrote:Did you know? part 1: geraintm's vote on Not_Mafia was his RVS vote (#29). It hasn't changed since.

Did you know? part 2: Although the fact in the previous paragraph would be a horrible scumtell coming from almost anyone, it is

not

a scumtell coming from geraintm. In Mini Normal 2153 (where geraintm was VT), geraintm made an RVS vote in that game's #62, and didn't unvote or place another vote until that game's #1377, almost 11 votecounts into that game's day 2 (despite having moderate scumreads elsewhere in many parts of day 1). So I think any tells on geraintm based on bizarre voting behaviour are invalid. (geraintm sometimes moves his vote sooner, but only upon having a very strong read, which he normally doesn't D1.)

In post 300, geraintm wrote:day 1 I am nothing but shade. you know it will take a lot on day 1 for me to actually vote someone.

Did you know? part 3: geraintm seems to use the same RVS gimmick every game. This might produce interesting scumhunting information if this fact were generally known (because posting at the critical post count is, in effect, volunteering to be D1 Hated when geraintm is playing). However, I think it's highly likely that the playerlist as a whole was unaware of geraintm's tendency to breadcrumb the algorithm by which he'll subsequently cast his first vote, meaning that it's effectively random (weighted by posting frequency) and provably unmanipulatable (possibly even to the extent of bypassing the rules on provable randomness?). Perhaps if geraintm outright stated "I will vote for the person who posts #22 [or whatever] for the entirety of day 1, check my meta, I do this every game", the gimmick would produce more interesting information for scumhunting purposes; as it is, it's basically just a method of playing that's anti-town, but repeated so consistently that it isn't a scumtell for geraintm in particular.

VOTE: Tayl0r Swift

I’m sorry what the fuck is the point of all this?

Like, the random trivia on geraint + rhetoric vaguely painting geraint as town + unexplained vote on Tay + the fact he was on geraint before then makes that looks extremely suspicious

In post 552, Frogsterking wrote:

In post 551, callforjudgement wrote:However, I think it's highly likely that the playerlist as a whole was unaware of geraintm's tendency to breadcrumb the algorithm by which he'll subsequently cast his first vote, meaning that it's effectively random (weighted by posting frequency) and provably unmanipulatable

(possibly even to the extent of bypassing the rules on provable randomness?).

What are you referring to in the part I bolded though?

So a common rule that you see in games (it's in this game, too: rule 5 in #1) is that you aren't allowed to prove you're making a decision randomly; making decisions randomly is legal, as long as there's no way to distinguish that from making decisions intentionally and simply claiming you're making them randomly.

geraintm's vote on Not_Mafia is provably nothing to do with geraintm's on Not_Mafia, and the provability there is making me a little uncomfortable in terms of rules breaches: it's closer to breaking the rule than most tactics I've seen. (Not alignment-indicative because he does this all the time.)

In post 554, Frogsterking wrote:Can you do a Did you know? on Gamma?

The Did you know? on geraintm came about because I was trying to figure out what was up with the lack of vote changes, checked a few games, and realised that there were strong patterns in geraintm's early voting (the RVS vote is consistent, the failure to rescind it isn't quite as consistent but we have both actions and statements from past-town geraintm that he doesn't change vote D1 without a strong reason). That was enough of a surprise that it was worth mentioning in the thread, as he's likely to be very hard to read without knowing it.

That sort of thing is harder to make without having noticed a pattern already, wanting to check what it means. I checked a few recent games of Gamma's (in addition to a few older ones which I was involved in and thus knew a little better), and there are a few noticeable patterns (a lot of one-liner posts or quote+one-liner posts, with vote changes being rare; and a focus on mechanical/night-play over dayplay), but I'm not sure it's possible to deduce anything from that about this game. (Gamma does seem to be more active this game than is usual for him, but for most players, activity isn't linked much to alignment; there are some players where it is, but that's rare.) If there's something specific that Gamma is doing that you think is townish/scummy, and can describe what it is, then it would be possible to check Gamma's existing games to see if he's done the same thing there too; as it is, though, it's hard to do a "meta dive" (= reading past games) on a player when you don't know what you're looking for.

One fun Did You Know? fact for Gamma, though: did you know that out of all the Mini Normals listed on Gamma's wiki page, Gamma has only been scum once – and the game number listed there is wrong, meaning that I can't find a Mini Normal scumgame for Gamma at all? (There are enough Themes, Micros, Larges etc. to get an idea of how Gamma behaves as scum, but still; there's probably also at least one Mini Normal that I simply can't find.)

In post 555, Gamma Emerald wrote:I’m sorry what the fuck is the point of all this?

In post 556, Gamma Emerald wrote:Like, the random trivia on geraint + rhetoric vaguely painting geraint as town + unexplained vote on Tay + the fact he was on geraint before then makes that looks extremely suspicious

Past CFJ: "geraintm's acting scummy, this is suspicious"
More recent past CFJ: "hmm, I should meta geraintm, the argument against him is stronger if he normally plays more sensibly than he currently is"
Even more recent past CFJ, after meta-ing geraintm: "WTF? I should definitely tell the thread about this, he doesn't play anything like a typical player and won't read like one"

Then I lose my confidence in my ability to read geraintm because his play is of an outlier from typical play, and move back to my previous top scumread (who has incidentally done more scummy things since replacing!). So the trivia isn't random at all: it's a) directly helping other players to read geraintm better (at least Frogsterking seems to have a better view of the gamestate because of it), and b) explaining why I've lost confidence in my geraintm read (which would cause the read to be less strong, thus causing me to revert to an older read that had gotten stronger in the meantime).

The vote on Tayl0r isn't and wasn't unexplained, it was explained in #211 and later #547. I thought the reason for the change would be obvious, and people get annoyed at me when I overexplain things, so I was hoping to avoid having to repeat myself and annoy everyone again in the process, but apparently not?

on the other hand wouldnt scum come up with a better reason for voting me?

cfjs posts are strange. it seems like townie effort but its so random that it almost feels like scum trying to be helpful and pro-town to deflect.

but now cfjs latest post gives me confidence again. thats such bad reasoning for voting someone. voting a slot that replaced out for activity seems so backwards. what exactly about my catchup dont you like?

The only posts of mine you've mentioned are #50 and #357 (and you thought at least the first of those was minor, based on #516.
Based on your stated reads in the catchup, I would have expected you to continue with the walter vote, maybe try to reignite that wagon. Instead you chose to vote me at the end, apparently almost entirely based on #367 (or possibly on some other reasoning you haven't stated), or perhaps simply because it was a large wagon on a townie (which scum would naturally want to push to claim or lynch if they could).

As for voting a slot that replaced out for activity – why do you consider that to be a bad idea? For most people flaking out is not connected with their alignment (and for the few where it's alignment-indicative, it normally indicates scum). sordros didn't post much, and what they react to was pretty much uniquely confined to the least useful posts to react to (normally if someone is town-minded and has limited time to play, they'll try to post about the things where it's most useful, not where it's least useful).

In post 560, callforjudgement wrote:The only posts of mine you've mentioned are #50 and #357 (and you thought at least the first of those was minor, based on #516.
Based on your stated reads in the catchup, I would have expected you to continue with the walter vote, maybe try to reignite that wagon. Instead you chose to vote me at the end, apparently almost entirely based on #367 (or possibly on some other reasoning you haven't stated), or perhaps simply because it was a large wagon on a townie (which scum would naturally want to push to claim or lynch if they could).

As for voting a slot that replaced out for activity – why do you consider that to be a bad idea? For most people flaking out is not connected with their alignment (and for the few where it's alignment-indicative, it normally indicates scum). sordros didn't post much, and what they

did

react to was pretty much uniquely confined to the least useful posts to react to (normally if someone is town-minded and has limited time to play, they'll try to post about the things where it's most useful, not where it's least useful).

>>"For most people flaking out is not connected with their alignment"
>>votes flaky slot

I didn't vote the slot it flaked. My scumreads were on sordros's actions before the flake, and your actions after the flake – not on the flake itself.

You're talking as though flaking makes a slot confirmed town (or at least more likely to be town). That isn't the case, and thus the flake isn't a reason not to vote the slot.

My Taylor vote was a joke but now it’s serious

I like the potted history of geraintm day 1.
It does miss the reasoning for it all though.

Indidnt realise that my way of placing a random vote wasn't 100% kosher. But I think it is a fun way to place a eandom vote so I'm going to carry on.

But you missed why I don't move my day 1 votes much. It just takes a lot for me to place a vote, i rarely see actions on day1 that makes me think scum (have to be things like someone self votjng).
I've said in past games I think town would be better off not lynching day 1, as scum never die day 1.

In post 563, Not_Mafia wrote:My Taylor vote was a joke but now it’s serious

Why?
I dislike you jusybdo this.

I dislike it when you do this

When I do what?

In post 567, Not_Mafia wrote:When I do what?

you've made 12 posts this vame.

You vite Taylor swift with no explanation. And then say you have an explanation in your next post...but don't give it. I've been in another game with you and I find you on day 1 just...hard.

In post 568, geraintm wrote:

In post 567, Not_Mafia wrote:When I do what?

you've made 12 posts this vame.

You vite Taylor swift with no explanation. And then say you have an explanation in your next post...but don't give it. I've been in another game with you and I find you on day 1 just...hard.

I never said I have an explanation

In post 563, Not_Mafia wrote:My Taylor vote was a joke but now it’s serious

You have no explanation, but the vote is serious?
This is why you are so infuriating

In post 571, geraintm wrote:You have no explanation, but the vote is serious?

Yes

this games getting kinda boring can someone fake a guilty?

I'm a Day PT Cop, BananaCucho has a PT

VOTE: BananaCucho