Newbie 1289 - Game Over!

[vendetta21]

Hello everyone!

Let's get this show on the road.

So, a random vote for BT from Deltabacon? Hmm... I don't know about a random lynch.

Going no lynch right now until we get more clues.

##VOTE: No Lynch

Getting the show on the road by doing nothing and waiting passively for someone else to do something?

VOTE: PaperSpirit

[vendetta21]

I just wrote something to post in the thread, as I've been waiting a time for this to begin. Also, I didn't think that lynching on the first day would yield anything good, mostly because we don't have any information yet, and it's a wider possibility to lynch a good guy instead of a bad guy.

By the way, is there any chance to change a vote during the day? Just to be sure (I think it does, but I'm not really sure. Looked up around but didn't find anything.)

Okay, so I follow the logic here. We have 21 days to get somewhere and we do this by applying pressure to people and asking them to explain their reasoning for their decisions. Through a process of pendulum swings in votes and forcing people to explain small things they do, we get a better sense of the headspace these people are playing in. At worst if everyone votes randomly we have a 25%ish chance to hit scum. But we don't vote randomly, and neither do scum.

If we go through this voting stage for a bit we can start to see how other people are thinking and get a sense of their motivations.

In my opinion, voting no lynch in Day 1 would put you under the spotlight as doing that really isn't beneficial to the town. Thus, it's a scummy move. Vendetta acknowledges that and voted for you. I just want to chulk it up as a point brought up by a new player and nothing more. I think Vendetta is jumping the gun a bit.

You seem to insinuate that Vendettas vote wasn't random. Is this solely based on post 11?

It wasn't random. And there is no jumping the gun when we have 3 weeks to move along -- we do RVS (Random Voting Stage) to try to find something and run with it.

That being said, his response to me doesn't strike me as that of scum. He is a new player: given the queue time and his join date we can be reasonably certain that his new-playerness is genuine. What I find suspect is how he decided to try to cast a vote and then comes back saying he is unsure if we are allowed change votes. This in itself doesn't strike me as scummy, as he had casted a vote, garnered suspicion, and reviewed his decision. What strikes me as scummy is how he decided to post publicly about how he wanted to get this thing started and then made two moves that do nothing towards that end.

But it doesn't strike me as that scummy and given the context I'm inclined to think he is town for now. So I'm pulling back for now UNVOTE: PaperSpirit

[vendetta21]

I'd say vendetta, he makes not of PaperShift's newbie status, uses that as both a reason for and against voting for him, then backs off. I'm suspicious of anyone that picks an easy target. Plus his wordiness gives me a strange vibe too.
Then again DeltaBacon wanted to kick all of our arses, not a town friendly stance. Most likely a joke. But suspicious none the less.

VOTE: Vendetta

Not what I said:

That being said, his response to me doesn't strike me as that of scum. He is a new player: given the queue time and his join date we can be reasonably certain that his new-playerness is genuine. What I find suspect is how he decided to try to cast a vote and then comes back saying he is unsure if we are allowed change votes. This in itself doesn't strike me as scummy, as he had casted a vote, garnered suspicion, and reviewed his decision. What strikes me as scummy is how he decided to post publicly about how he wanted to get this thing started and then made two moves that do nothing towards that end.

I think this is reasonable. I voted for him on page one making a mountain from a molehill. He responded in a way that caused me to believe he is more likely town than scum, but not in a way that makes me feel he is 100% town. For instance, he has been oddly silent since that whole debacle and is less than 12 hours from hitting his prod timer. His overall tone seems town, his new playerness seems genuine and not like he is acting, but he still isn't behaving in a way that confirms him as town to me.

That being said,

UNVOTE: Deltabacon
VOTE: vendetta21

Low progress : words ratio. Getting some vibes here.

This seems opportunistic. It happens on post 26. BT -- what progress do you feel was made previous to that point in the thread? It appears to me that my action in post 11 has spurred the a lot of things currently being discussed. Essentially you voted me for making a move that took us out of RVS. What is your idea of progress?

[vendetta21]

when scumhunting a player, I need to understand why they're doing what you're doing.

What I don't understand is how Tierce can say something like this, but then go about telling people point-blank the dispositions of others and expecting them to accept that. In this instance we are talking about telling DB that PaperSpirit is obvtown, and telling AirWick that I am null. I would like some clarification here.

Yes, you're obviously twisting my words because it tells me something despite being a null with respect to alignment. For instance, it affects how I estimate his alignment based on his future actions. Generally speaking, any sort of profile/information about the players has the potential to become advantageous at a later point despite currently being null. I pointed it out for these reasons.

You are getting so caught up in little details of logic that are unimportant. You are arguing about whether or not

a thing both of you take the effort to define

is twisting words. Coming to a resolution on a matter like this shouldn't take a back and forth of more than 2 posts unless you are trying to catch BT in a scum-logic-trap, which you don't appear to be. I think you might be scum simply because you are making it so playing this game is incredibly tedious and you are acting as though fully reading and following your arcane and obtuse posts is a litmus test for being town, which it isn't. I don't want to read your crap and I don't see what all your words have accomplished.

I do not believe you can write off Tierce for being on your case about this simply because you have played in a game previous to this with a similar meta. I don't care about your meta, I don't care about whether hammering yourself is inferior to not hammering yourself because

we aren't in that situation

. You are making this game difficult to play, which is in turn making it harder for the town to win, and the bulk of your posts appear to be this silly logic bullshit where you feel the need to get into the nuanced semiotics of "twisting words." And above all this is a

newbie

game, a game that by definition has new players.

I think your sesquipedalian posts are probably a smokescreen. But mostly, I feel like you are focusing on inane topics that have almost nothing to do with the hunt.

VOTE: Buldermar

[vendetta21]

when scumhunting a player, I need to understand why they're doing what you're doing.

What I don't understand is how Tierce can say something like this, but then go about telling people point-blank the dispositions of others and expecting them to accept that. In this instance we are talking about telling DB that PaperSpirit is obvtown, and telling AirWick that I am null. I would like some clarification here.

Yes, you're obviously twisting my words because it tells me something despite being a null with respect to alignment. For instance, it affects how I estimate his alignment based on his future actions. Generally speaking, any sort of profile/information about the players has the potential to become advantageous at a later point despite currently being null. I pointed it out for these reasons.

You are getting so caught up in little details of logic that are unimportant. You are arguing about whether or not

a thing both of you take the effort to define

is twisting words. Coming to a resolution on a matter like this shouldn't take a back and forth of more than 2 posts unless you are trying to catch BT in a scum-logic-trap, which you don't appear to be. I think you might be scum simply because you are making it so playing this game is incredibly tedious and you are acting as though fully reading and following your arcane and obtuse posts is a litmus test for being town, which it isn't. I don't want to read your crap and I don't see what all your words have accomplished.

I do not believe you can write off Tierce for being on your case about this simply because you have played in a game previous to this with a similar meta. I don't care about your meta, I don't care about whether hammering yourself is inferior to not hammering yourself because

we aren't in that situation

. You are making this game difficult to play, which is in turn making it harder for the town to win, and the bulk of your posts appear to be this silly logic bullshit where you feel the need to get into the nuanced semiotics of "twisting words." And above all this is a

newbie

game, a game that by definition has new players.

I think your sesquipedalian posts are probably a smokescreen. But mostly, I feel like you are focusing on inane topics that have almost nothing to do with the hunt.

VOTE: Buldermar

Here is a writing tip: you want to be careful about ironic incongruities. As you may not yet have noticed, the word "sesquipedalian" is self-descriptive, i.e., it is sesquipedalian. Much of the same can be said for "obtuse", a word the majority probably don't understand. So it is somewhat absurd, isn't it, to pose as a champion of "common language" while explicitly deploring "sesquipedalian posts" and "arcane and obtuse posts [that] is a litmus test for being town"? That's a bit like deploring obesity between commercials for soap opera while eating chocolate bonbons as your exercise videos gather dust atop your television.

I was making a display to show that it isn't hard to shit out a thesaurus, to make your posts more complicated than they need to be. My supposed hypocrisy here is not for the major content of my posts, but instead is about word choice. Why is this scummy? You continue to focus on inane topics, completely ignoring the fact that it's what I called you out for. That post isn't a call from the champion of common language, it's a post written and directed intimately towards you.

So let's draw back to the original example: what does a person's opinion on self-hammering tell you about their alignment? I agree with Tierce and RedRabbit on this issue. What does knowing this information about me tell you that you feel the need to discuss it in more than ten posts?

[vendetta21]

This is exactly how I thought you'd attempt to rationalize your ironic incongruity. You've not previously expressed your dislike of the ongoing discussion between Tierce and I, or your dislike of my way of playing. Out of nowhere, in a rabbit-out-of-the-hat sort of way, you compile a bunch of bullshit accusations and deliver them wrapped in fine words to (in my opinion) compensate for the fact that it's bullshit. And now you're asking me questions related specifically to the discussion, the ongoing of which was one of your main reasons for voting me? This is almost exactly what BT did in post 101. Yes, I think it's scummy to contribute to the ongoing of a discussion you pretend to want stopped, and I think it's incredible scummy to come out firering with red herrings the way you did without previously having requested anything or expressed anything related to the matter. I think you saw me as an easy target and took the opportunity to attempt to justify a vote.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: vendetta21

So I asked a simple question that was about steering the discourse you were having from where it was to where I wanted it to be. I redirected my aims towards a specific instance of your play and asked you to articulate. Rather than respond to that question, you are saying my accusations are bullshit. We can point fingers back and forth at stylistic points of play, and you can say that I'm pulling these accusations out of nowhere, but I still asked a simple question that you failed to address. This question intended to cut through the morass of literary analysis on our differing styles and get right down to the meat-and-bones of what I was addressing.

You acknowledge you have had an ongoing dialogue about hammering, what have you learned about players alignments through this dialogue? Do my specific feelings that self-hammering is a viable option if there are no others tell you something meaningful about me? This is not continuing to contribute to the discussion I see as pointless, it is asking you why the hell you thought the discussion was contributing in the first place.

[vendetta21]

You acknowledge you have had an ongoing dialogue about hammering, what have you learned about players alignments through this dialogue? Do my specific feelings that self-hammering is a viable option if there are no others tell you something meaningful about me? This is not continuing to contribute to the discussion I see as pointless, it is asking you why the hell you thought the discussion was contributing in the first place.

As explained in post 113, I think it skews your alignment towards scum. More generally, anyone holding that theory talk and actual scumhunting can't coexist without explicitly explaining why, and all other things equal, has their alignment skewed towards scum (this is a matter of opinion ofc). This is part of the reason that I think the ongoing dialogue about hammering skewed Tierce's alignment towards scum (she never gave me examples of what I supposedly should have, but didn't, comment on).

The fact that you prefer trusting your feelings about self-hammering over asking for an explanation as to why it is not a viable option tells me something meaningful about you. I don't think that you're interested in understanding the underlying mathematical paradigm of this game, for instance. I also don't trust that you'll take a logical approach later on, which means that you're in my opinion most inclined to base day 2 and day 3 votes on something external to actual voting pattherns.

More generally, I don't think much can be deduced

right now

from talk (and statistically, town does worse than chance on lynching scums on day 1, which means that trying to "figure out" alignment is on avarage inferior to tossing a coin). However, this doesn't mean I'm not interested in discussing reads, I just think that many of the reads expressed are way too extreme considering the very limited amount of information available (Tierce reading Paper as "obv town" is an example of a read I consider too extreme). I don't approve to this method of exaggeration, which is why I'm more hesitant of expressing definite reads myself. Theory talk gives me a good impression of what level of competence I can expect from the various players in the game. For instance, general consensus is that Paper is a new player (fwiw I agree with this). If he does some crazy gambit later on, that's going to look incredible scummy.

This is riddled with dumb shit. You state a matter of opinion then call me out for holding an opinion that "doesn't understand the mathematical paradigm underlying the game." Well here you go Professor Smart-Ass: http://projecteuclid.org/DPubS/Reposito ... 1211819786

Even if a town does vote randomly they are at a 25% chance of hitting scum, given the day phases and the fact that we get information from lynches, voting randomly is a superior option to not voting because we gain information from votes. We can adjust in either direction that 25% chance by looking for indicators of wolfish behavior. Self-hammering is superior to no lynch because we glean information from the hammer that helps corroborate analysis of behaviors. We have multiple phases to hit wolves and we are not trying to get 50% chance (which would be ungodly good) but more like 33 to 40%, which is a slight improvement over the 25%ish that exists if players vote randomly.

I am getting into this discussion because you are saying you have gleaned something meaningful from a gut instinct read that is wrong based on this method of information gathering, and I believe it is important to remind people we are currently in the business of investigating.

[vendetta21]

Also, the fact that you estimate an 8% to 15% edge on equilibrium reassures me of the fact that you're delusional with respect to game theory.

I decided to check because you called me delusional, and it appears you are right on this one: http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.ph ... 2of4+stats.

Anyways, just look at the past two days of activity. I have gotten sucked into an argument with you because of it's implications, and that's a bad on my part I should have been focusing on what I was espousing. Really this sort of discussion is

driving people away

. It's hard to read (in both senses), and it doesn't engage in the sort of analysis that tells us anything. It also has a way of commanding center stage. I believe it's worth toning down and trying to do the sorts of things that generate more useful information. You made the claim that people will be encouraged to generate content regardless of whether or not you discuss what has been broadly termed "corner case theory." Do you still believe that to be true?

Furthermore, how do you explain your marked change in tone when I confronted you abrasively? You used your meta to defend your behavior before, but reciprocating my tone doesn't seem like it gels with the type of style you are trying to engage in. I got the sense that it was a nervous lashback because the way I confronted you hit a nerve.

I was also curious about how you voted to put me at L-1, but wanted to wait for a claim. This sort of behavior shows a reservation in the belief that I am scum (which would make sense if you already knew), which doesn't gel with putting me at L-1 when I've already got plenty of "pressure votes" on me and you weren't really generating any new arguments. If you're putting me at L-1 already, and you believe someone could hammer me, you must have a great deal of conviction about your decision amongst all other possible leads. Why would you jump back? It reads out to me as both hoping that I WOULD claim if I had a PR and covering your ass if I did die.

[vendetta21]

Naturel_river has a point actually, why is it that you're so certain of paperspirit's innocents? it is my slot i know, but i'm just wondering how you could be so certain of you're conclusion without having to cheat the game.

...not this again. Go read my posts, I've explained why I'd rather not explain this. I am not going to explain this read when there is no threat to you. As for cheating, rest assured that my moral code is in good health and I would never do such a thing.

Okay, this is an issue of contention that keeps coming up. I, for one, agree with DB and fish. I don't understand why you aren't able to divulge this information. I was going to let it go because of your repeated insistence that it was harmful, but now it is actually a move that I can't really follow your doggedness on. Whether or not you think it is harmful, this move is garnering attention from more than the possible number of wolves, and it is a lingering unrest for me personally. I think you should go into detail about why PaperSpirit was obvtown. I think it is time.

[vendetta21]

It's not time at all. I'm not being voted, and neither is fish-riding-a-bike-2000--neither of our positions is an incentive to clear up that townread. Why is that one townread more important than the others I have given out?

Simply because the fact that you stated it made it a continuing object of interest to multiple people. I can't, and it seems others can't as well, flesh out your motivations there. The enigma surrounding it, if you have a legitimate basis, is causing others to spend time questioning your motives which in turn detracts from the hunt. I suppose you could clarify the need to state townreads without supporting them, i.e. why does you stating a townread without supporting it help the townie cause?