|
Day One
Jul 27, 2007 8:33:19 GMT -5
Post by Mad The Swine on Jul 27, 2007 8:33:19 GMT -5
Vote Drain Bead
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2007 8:39:52 GMT -5
Post by Mad The Swine on Jul 27, 2007 8:39:52 GMT -5
;D Sorry couldn't resist the drive-by vote. My reason for voting such is I am voting for the poster that raised a flag. Day1' have HOS's have been pretty accurate,though sometimes I did not follow them.I will follow it this time,plus I do like story's ideas on the subject also......course I find that odd ...not use to people agreeing with me. Glad I was able to check in..will try again tomorrow if possible,back home on Sunday.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2007 8:40:36 GMT -5
Post by JSexton on Jul 27, 2007 8:40:36 GMT -5
unvote dotchan vote GreedySmurf Call it...gut.
|
|
Blaster Master
Mome Rath
The player formerly know as BLAM!
Now 34.788% less repellant to Sharks! :( [on:I WANT TO DIE!][of:I WANT TO LIVE!]
Posts: 0
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2007 8:59:05 GMT -5
Post by Blaster Master on Jul 27, 2007 8:59:05 GMT -5
I also think the distinction between "vote Kat" and "random.org says vote Kat" is so small as to be irrelevant. Voting based on random.org is voting without a reason; it's just giving your reasonless vote an artificial authority behind it. Pursuing Mad on this basis while giving a pass to the random.org voters and the color-of-the-name voters doesn't really make sense to me. I don't want to rehash the whole random voting argument, but there is an important distinction on which support of random.org and my distaste of colored random voting lies and it bothers me that this point keeps getting discarded. While it is not provable that random.org was used, it is knowable that IF it was used the vote is truly random. Clearly, scum can manipulate this to their needs but, as I pointed out earlier, it is not to their advantage to do so. Any vote that is not generated through a provably random means (e.g., I don't like your name, color, etc., I ALWAYS vote for you...) is decidedly NOT random and defeats the theory of random voting. To bring up a term I've used in the past, these votes are psuedo-random. That is, on the surface, they appear to be random, but are most likely compelled by internal biases (known or unknown). For instance, those who voted based on people who chose name colors, since not everyone has decided to go with one, it generates a subset of players that is not necessarily representative. In fact, I would hypothesize that chances are that scum are not randomly distributed between these two sets. Thus, even IF one can generate a truly random sample from the chosen subset, it is decidely NOT random versus the whole population. Further, in a case like this, obviously, it would be difficult to justify a random vote, based on color, for a color combination that is appealling, thus now allowing the scum to have potentially have had a hand in generating the sample population. The entire point of random voting is to entirely remove any potentially for internal bias with the possible exception of scum. Since any method other than random.org (or some other unbiased randomizing method) will necessarily generate biased results, it will not acheive the desired results. Now, obviously the merits of random voting are consistently under debate, and I think those on either side have essentially come to a point of agreeing to disagree, but, because random votes ARE being used, I think this is an important point to keep in mind specifically for interpretting today's results.
|
|
Blaster Master
Mome Rath
The player formerly know as BLAM!
Now 34.788% less repellant to Sharks! :( [on:I WANT TO DIE!][of:I WANT TO LIVE!]
Posts: 0
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2007 9:19:40 GMT -5
Post by Blaster Master on Jul 27, 2007 9:19:40 GMT -5
Okay, since I've seen responses from Malacandra, though I can't say I'm pleased with his level of participation, I see nothing to either raise or lower his suspicion. So I'll unvote Malacandra. Him aside, looking at the other vote getters, the only one that seems any bit compelling to me at this point is drainbead, but I'm as of yet unable to determine whether her moves are motivated by insanity, or simply lack of game experience.
For the rest, I'm really not getting the votes for JSexton, dnooman, and MHaye. Each of these has played at least one other game with the dopers, and I haven't seen anything that seems inconsistent with their play styles.
With MHaye, for instance, it looked like he was being called out for having a low post count but, if memory serves me correctly, in M4 and M5 he is generally one with a lower post count but a pretty decent level of content. Like capybara, I falsely suspected him because of his posting style (not that his style is like capybara, only that I falsely suspected him because of it), and was the one who spearheaded his lynching, and the loss of a good pro-town player.
Yes, consistency CAN be a tool used by clever and nefarious scum, but on the first Day, I'm inclined to give them a pass, even though their styles seem naturally suspicious to me, because they're consistent. If they're faking consistency, then they'll eventually screw up and we can always get them later.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2007 9:21:07 GMT -5
Post by capybara on Jul 27, 2007 9:21:07 GMT -5
. . . but, because random votes ARE being used, I think this is an important point to keep in mind specifically for interpretting today's results. Ah. This is a good point to state explicitly at this time. Beware: In three Days someone will be looking at this raw data as if it means something. Few will bother looking past the spreadsheet to see WHY X stated they were voting for Y. Something to keep in mind. Vote with care.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2007 10:29:57 GMT -5
Post by diggitcamara on Jul 27, 2007 10:29:57 GMT -5
What? No BreakDowns yet? You call this an Aslyum?
So far I can't exactly point even a FOS at anyone, which means that, collectively, we seem to be getting better as players... which is bad because we are facing a group of crazies who can pass as normals.
I think one thing we need to avoid is a "last minute vote rush", since it would probably be spearheaded by scum and, obviously, would guarantee a townie getting lynched. And it would even possibly force a Power Role to claim, which, obviously, is something we need to prevent.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2007 10:39:19 GMT -5
Post by capybara on Jul 27, 2007 10:39:19 GMT -5
unvote dotchanvote GreedySmurfCall it...gut. It's getting later in the Day. . . wanna elaborate on this at all? I'm just not seeing it, and you don't seem like one to throw something random out. Anything in particular? Feels to me like a new townie so far, so I'm not picking up on whatever you seem to be picking up on. WARNING: [random.org discussion] While it is not provable that random.org was used, it is knowable that IF it was used the vote is truly random. Clearly, scum can manipulate this to their needs but, as I pointed out earlier, it is not to their advantage to do so. Any vote that is not generated through a provably random means (e.g., I don't like your name, color, etc., I ALWAYS vote for you...) is decidedly NOT random and defeats the theory of random voting. To bring up a term I've used in the past, these votes are psuedo-random. That is, on the surface, they appear to be random, but are most likely compelled by internal biases (known or unknown).[. . .] The entire point of random voting is to entirely remove any potentially for internal bias with the possible exception of scum. Since any method other than random.org (or some other unbiased randomizing method) will necessarily generate biased results, it will not acheive the desired results. Thinking about this. . . if I may beat this horse into a frothy, reddish waxy byproduct of a smear on the ground, "Clearly, scum can manipulate this to their needs but, as I pointed out earlier, it is not to their advantage to do so. Any vote that is not generated through a provably random means (e.g., I don't like your name, color, etc., I ALWAYS vote for you...) is decidedly NOT random and defeats the theory of random voting. " In what way wouldn't it be to their advantage to manipulate it? Scum don't WANT random-- they certainly do want to defeat the theory. I know you're speaking in ideal, hypothetical terms, but anyone who says that their vote is random can simply not be necessarily believed. A claim that a vote is random means zero, again. It is impossible to make the "IF it was used" into something useful. Random dot org, in my opinion, can only be beneficial for scum-- the model is broken from the start because there are extant scum at all. (I've never stated a position on this and and only now really thinking it through-- my apologies). [/random.org discussion]
|
|
Hockey Monkey!
Borogrove
This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let's not bicker over who killed who.
Posts: 371
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2007 10:40:07 GMT -5
Post by Hockey Monkey! on Jul 27, 2007 10:40:07 GMT -5
Okay, since I've seen responses from Malacandra, though I can't say I'm pleased with his level of participation, I see nothing to either raise or lower his suspicion. So I'll unvote Malacandra. Him aside, looking at the other vote getters, the only one that seems any bit compelling to me at this point is drainbead, but I'm as of yet unable to determine whether her moves are motivated by insanity, or simply lack of game experience. For the rest, I'm really not getting the votes for JSexton, dnooman, and MHaye. Each of these has played at least one other game with the dopers, and I haven't seen anything that seems inconsistent with their play styles. With MHaye, for instance, it looked like he was being called out for having a low post count but, if memory serves me correctly, in M4 and M5 he is generally one with a lower post count but a pretty decent level of content. Like capybara, I falsely suspected him because of his posting style (not that his style is like capybara, only that I falsely suspected him because of it), and was the one who spearheaded his lynching, and the loss of a good pro-town player. Yes, consistency CAN be a tool used by clever and nefarious scum, but on the first Day, I'm inclined to give them a pass, even though their styles seem naturally suspicious to me, because they're consistent. If they're faking consistency, then they'll eventually screw up and we can always get them later. My vote for dnooman is only to get him in here and posting. Does not seem to be working so far. He's popped in, but barely said anything at all. There is no other reason for my vote than that. Roosh and storyteller make some very valid points about Drainbead, but I'm not inclined to hop onto the wagon yet. I don't know much about Roosh or Drainbead. storyteller always sounds reasonable, intelligent, and sane that no matter what side of the padded door he's playing on. Problematic only in the fact that if he is scum...he is going to be very very good at it. Please don't take that as a smudge, it's not intended that way. It's a compliment to his skills. I'll leave my vote where it is until dnooman checks in or something else compelling comes up.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2007 10:40:31 GMT -5
Post by Hal Briston on Jul 27, 2007 10:40:31 GMT -5
What the hell...is everyone choosing their words especially carefully today, or am I just having an off Day when it comes to reading people? Generally by this point I at least have a slight twinge of possible suspicion for someone. This time around, I got nuttin'.
Of course being off work yesterday, leading to me just quickly skimming the thread, couldn't have helped. I think a full thread reread is in order later today...
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2007 10:44:57 GMT -5
Post by cowgirl on Jul 27, 2007 10:44:57 GMT -5
I think one thing we need to avoid is a "last minute vote rush", since it would probably be spearheaded by scum and, obviously, would guarantee a townie getting lynched. And it would even possibly force a Power Role to claim, which, obviously, is something we need to prevent. Good point. We are making ourselves vulnerable to a scummy bandwagon by not making our own choices. Vote dnooman to get him in here and talking, and to be sure I don't vote according to a scummy bandwagon. Please don't support any bandwagons without good reason. I can't see any good reasons for a bandwagon today, so I will be suspicious of any that I see.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2007 10:49:21 GMT -5
Post by JSexton on Jul 27, 2007 10:49:21 GMT -5
I also think the distinction between "vote Kat" and "random.org says vote Kat" is so small as to be irrelevant. Voting based on random.org is voting without a reason; it's just giving your reasonless vote an artificial authority behind it. Pursuing Mad on this basis while giving a pass to the random.org voters and the color-of-the-name voters doesn't really make sense to me. I don't want to rehash the whole random voting argument, but there is an important distinction on which support of random.org and my distaste of colored random voting lies and it bothers me that this point keeps getting discarded. While it is not provable that random.org was used, it is knowable that IF it was used the vote is truly random. Clearly, scum can manipulate this to their needs but, as I pointed out earlier, it is not to their advantage to do so. Any vote that is not generated through a provably random means (e.g., I don't like your name, color, etc., I ALWAYS vote for you...) is decidedly NOT random and defeats the theory of random voting. To bring up a term I've used in the past, these votes are psuedo-random. That is, on the surface, they appear to be random, but are most likely compelled by internal biases (known or unknown). For instance, those who voted based on people who chose name colors, since not everyone has decided to go with one, it generates a subset of players that is not necessarily representative. In fact, I would hypothesize that chances are that scum are not randomly distributed between these two sets. Thus, even IF one can generate a truly random sample from the chosen subset, it is decidely NOT random versus the whole population. Further, in a case like this, obviously, it would be difficult to justify a random vote, based on color, for a color combination that is appealling, thus now allowing the scum to have potentially have had a hand in generating the sample population. The entire point of random voting is to entirely remove any potentially for internal bias with the possible exception of scum. Since any method other than random.org (or some other unbiased randomizing method) will necessarily generate biased results, it will not achieve the desired results. Now, obviously the merits of random voting are consistently under debate, and I think those on either side have essentially come to a point of agreeing to disagree, but, because random votes ARE being used, I think this is an important point to keep in mind specifically for interpretting today's results. Man...this argument is sooo old. I can't help myself, though: I think you're taking the word "random" here much too literally. It's doesn't need to be truly random. Random in this context means "not based on anything game-related." It could be a dice roll, or random.org. It could be text color. It could be an in-joke, and a joke grudge. It doesn't matter, as long as it's not based on a perceived scum tell, unlike the votes that will follow later in the day. Maybe this is why there's been unneeded focus on "provable randomness". It's not necessary in the slightest.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2007 11:08:39 GMT -5
Post by JSexton on Jul 27, 2007 11:08:39 GMT -5
Case against GreedySmurf: First, I'll cheerfully admit that it's a very, very loose thing. But since it's day one, and deadline is approaching (and wow, that's bloody short), you gotta make do with what you can. Everything bolded (er, make that italicized, because bolding apparently doesn't work in quotes?) below is a subtle scum tell to me. There's a few mannerisms that make me mark people down as slightly scummy. They're not surefire, of course, but I try to look for ones that add up fast. And they sure piled up in this post. Shall we? Hmm, voted for because of a perceived light-on posting history. Bit harsh, but meh what ya going to do. I guess it is better than coping a vote just because. Takes a single vote personally, and it's a vote for good reason: not posting. He also responded to that vote pretty fast, indicating that he's reading but not posting: textbook lurking. "Honestly". There's a few phrases that often signal deception: "Honestly", "Frankly", and "to be honest". People who are telling the truth and under no pressure shouldn't feel the need to reinforce their truthfulness. This shows an hyper-awareness of how his posting will be viewed. That's something scum is generally more concerned about than town. This whole paragraph is justifying not contributing, even though everyone else is having no problem doing so. More awareness of posting perception. Another deception tell. And he also plays the n00b card, even though he promptly denies doing so. Hint: saying "Not to play the race card, but I'm ~minority~ so cut me some slack." is still playing the race card. Whew. So, there we are. No one thing is damning, but taken together reads as n00b scum to me. Given the amount of time we have, I doubt I'll see anything better.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2007 11:10:30 GMT -5
Post by JSexton on Jul 27, 2007 11:10:30 GMT -5
Oh, and his next post is to suggest a no-lynch day one, which is strictly anti-town. He may or may not know this, but it's a mark against him nevertheless.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2007 11:33:43 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on Jul 27, 2007 11:33:43 GMT -5
With about 27 and a half hours left of Day, here are the votes currently:
drainbead (3) - storyteller0910, Roosh, Mad The Swine dnooman (2) - Hockey Monkey, cowgirl JSexton (1) - Malacandra Mhaye (1) - kat GreedySmurf (1) - JSexton
|
|
Blaster Master
Mome Rath
The player formerly know as BLAM!
Now 34.788% less repellant to Sharks! :( [on:I WANT TO DIE!][of:I WANT TO LIVE!]
Posts: 0
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2007 11:52:16 GMT -5
Post by Blaster Master on Jul 27, 2007 11:52:16 GMT -5
Man...this argument is sooo old. I can't help myself, though: I think you're taking the word "random" here much too literally. It's doesn't need to be truly random. Random in this context means "not based on anything game-related." It could be a dice roll, or random.org. It could be text color. It could be an in-joke, and a joke grudge. It doesn't matter, as long as it's not based on a perceived scum tell, unlike the votes that will follow later in the day. Maybe this is why there's been unneeded focus on "provable randomness". It's not necessary in the slightest. I can't resist... I understand your point, and it is valid; however, I am actually referencing a hypothesis I started working on in M4 that is not only relevant to the early "random voting" stage, but also to actions much later in the game. Essentially, I want to draw a comparison between true randomness (i.e., having no or limited information) and psuedo-randomness (i.e., having information, but trying to pretend you don't). Namely, there are patterns that will naturally arise in a truly random sample simply by pure chance. To illustrate a very simplistic example, pick 10 random numbers between 1-10 off the top of your head (sequence 1, from my head) and again using random.org (sequence 2): 7 4 1 5 3 6 8 2 1 9 9 6 9 1 2 2 9 3 4 5 Can you tell a difference? There are two glaring differences between what I pulled out of my head and what random.org came up with, but they are not obvious. First, a human is predisposed to be much less likely to pick the same number twice in sequence, while true random always has equal chance. Second, humans have a much lower probability for clustering, because clustering appears decidedly non-random when, in fact, it is. Notice how my sample hits every number except for 10 and only clusters on 1, meanwhile the random.org sampel is missing several numbers, and has two clusters. Obviously, in theory, either of those sequences COULD have come from random.org, and either is theoretically equally likely; however, the point is that true randomness does tend to have these certain patterns, and that there's going to be more patterns generated that look like the second than look like the first. Granted, detecting these sorts of patterns takes a very discerning eye and it becomes exponentially more difficult as the dimensionality of the sample space grows. Further, we ARE dealing with social interactions, and not simple voting patterns, so there's intracacies there as well. But to tie it all back together, if we can refer to this game as operating in various spaces (voting/FOS space, content/posting space, etc.) then I could analogously say that a townie will be very close to truly random in these spaces, meanwhile, scum will be distributed in a more psuedo-random fashion in these spaces by virtue of having additional information. How this relates specifically to voting is that a townie's votes will gravite from very close to truly random early in the game, toward a less chaotic distribution as knowledge is gained, meanwhile, scum will ALWAYS be a directed distribution, which is specifically designed to appear psuedo-random early, and approach (but never achieve) the current townie distribution. Hence, an early random vote is in the town's best interest by ensuring a truly random distribution from which to start AND, it is clearly in the scum's best interest NOT to lie about random.org because any non-random information he adds to the pool will ultimately either create this distribution rift or, when he's discovered, leave tells as to who may or may not have been his fellow scum. This hypothesis will apply later in the game as well, so I'll point out related examples as necessary.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2007 11:55:32 GMT -5
Post by cowgirl on Jul 27, 2007 11:55:32 GMT -5
Oh, and his next post is to suggest a no-lynch day one, which is strictly anti-town. He may or may not know this, but it's a mark against him nevertheless. I am with you on all Smurfy's other tells. This one, not so much, because an honest townie newbie could feel precisely the same way. It's not obvious why it's a bad idea until you really think about it.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2007 12:06:58 GMT -5
Post by Hal Briston on Jul 27, 2007 12:06:58 GMT -5
Gaaa...I blew the coding somewhere in here, so I'm just going to revamp this one and simplify it: "Honestly". There's a few phrases that often signal deception: "Honestly", "Frankly", and "to be honest". People who are telling the truth and under no pressure shouldn't feel the need to reinforce their truthfulness. While I generally can get behind that point, I don't see it making sense in this context. "I honestly don't believe there has been a massive lot of substance in the thread to date". Ok, if we think he's misusing "honestly" here, then what? We think he does believe there has been a massive lot of substance in the thread? But that he's hiding his thoughts on it? I just don't see it fitting in here. "This shows an hyper-awareness of how his posting will be viewed. That's something scum is generally more concerned about than town" AND "More awareness of posting perception." Fully agree on both counts. Another deception tell. And he also plays the n00b card, even though he promptly denies doing so. Now in this case, I think it's a legit deception tell. "To be honest I really don't feel comfortable just throwing out strategy posts at the moment"...this reads very much to me like something newbie scum might toss out there. I tend to cut newbies a lot of slack, but this one is really blinking at me. I can see Greedy Smurf being an innocent townie just looking to contribute, and I'll be the first one to apologize if that turns out to be the case (after picking through his bones, looking for clues, of course). But I think he's our best candidate so far. Greedy, my truly hope is that you're town, and that you don't get lynched today...no fun to have your first game experience be one of dying on Day One. However, what I hope for and what I believe are two different things. Vote Greedy Smurf.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2007 12:09:34 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Jul 27, 2007 12:09:34 GMT -5
Man...this argument is sooo old. I can't help myself, though: I think you're taking the word "random" here much too literally. It's doesn't need to be truly random. Random in this context means "not based on anything game-related." It could be a dice roll, or random.org. It could be text color. It could be an in-joke, and a joke grudge. It doesn't matter, as long as it's not based on a perceived scum tell, unlike the votes that will follow later in the day. Maybe this is why there's been unneeded focus on "provable randomness". It's not necessary in the slightest. I can't resist... <snipped> OK, but there's a problem, which is that scum are just as capable of reading what you just wrote as non-scum. With such small numbers of players involved, and given that a comprehensive picture of who is doing what won't really start to emerge until the end-game - if ever - it is as easy for the scum to create patterns resembling randomness as it is to fake an even distribution. Which means: (1) analyzing vote patterns is as likely to be fruitless as it always is; and (2) this presumed benefit to "random" voting is not really much a benefit at all.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2007 12:16:00 GMT -5
Post by diggitcamara on Jul 27, 2007 12:16:00 GMT -5
Well... like I said in my former post, I don't think we should wait too long 'til we vote to avoid a last minute scum-bandwagon. And since JSexton has made a pretty compelling argument against GreedySmurf, so I'll vote GreedySmurf
|
|
Blaster Master
Mome Rath
The player formerly know as BLAM!
Now 34.788% less repellant to Sharks! :( [on:I WANT TO DIE!][of:I WANT TO LIVE!]
Posts: 0
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2007 12:16:08 GMT -5
Post by Blaster Master on Jul 27, 2007 12:16:08 GMT -5
JSexton, you make some very good points with regard to Greedy Smurf and I fully understand your voting for him; however, many of these tells come across more to me as inexperienced townie rather than scum. Takes a single vote personally, and it's a vote for good reason: not posting. He also responded to that vote pretty fast, indicating that he's reading but not posting: textbook lurking. How many newbie townies didn't react similarly? I know I started to take votes against me personally in M2. As others have pointed out (unsure if it's been said in this game or not), especially for new players, the only information a townie has is that he is innocent, so when he's attacked, someone going against that knowledge, even if they're just a misguided townie as well, would inherently seem scummy. I think this seems like a fairly advanced tell. Namely, how does someone, who knows they're telling the truth, but probably won't going to be believed, get their point across? They're going to do it the same way, aren't they? No offense to Greedy Smurf, but I have a hard time seeing a newbie scum being quite that manipulative. This is definitely misleading. IIRC, he has been following some of the mafia games on the dope, and so he'd be well aware of the importance of tone and post appearance, but not necessarily reflective of it on himself. So, I have to ask, if he's SO hyper aware of how his posting will be viewed, shouldn't he also be aware that that sort of thing comes across as very scummy? This posting style is reminding me SO much of capybara in M4. There, she had a tendency to pretty much speak her mind, reitterated a few times that she was new (has even done so in this game ), and it all looked so scummy to me. OTOH, also did this with a very high post count, and yet your point about lurking does make me somewhat concerned that this could be deliberate. This doesn't seem like much, but it's really the lurking part that gets me and doesn't make him simply a think-out-loud newbie townie. Then again, there's seldom enough for a solid case against scum on the first day.... so it looks like I'm going to have to look back between him and drainbead. Hmm...
|
|
Blaster Master
Mome Rath
The player formerly know as BLAM!
Now 34.788% less repellant to Sharks! :( [on:I WANT TO DIE!][of:I WANT TO LIVE!]
Posts: 0
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2007 12:23:19 GMT -5
Post by Blaster Master on Jul 27, 2007 12:23:19 GMT -5
OK, but there's a problem, which is that scum are just as capable of reading what you just wrote as non-scum. With such small numbers of players involved, and given that a comprehensive picture of who is doing what won't really start to emerge until the end-game - if ever - it is as easy for the scum to create patterns resembling randomness as it is to fake an even distribution. Which means: (1) analyzing vote patterns is as likely to be fruitless as it always is; and (2) this presumed benefit to "random" voting is not really much a benefit at all. You're right, voting patterns in and of themselves are relatively useless. It is, in fact only one part of a larger picture. But the whole point is, no matter how hard we try, we cannot perfectly simulate true randomness, and scum, unless they're also using random.org, will be completely incapable of simulating it. Now, I'm not claiming this is some kind of game-breaking strategy, only that I believe that there is potential for legitimate tells here when the various saces that make up the "mafia space" are unified.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2007 12:31:13 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Jul 27, 2007 12:31:13 GMT -5
I can't see any good reasons for a bandwagon today, so I will be suspicious of any that I see. This seems to be a fairly common sentiment, and I want to ask: why? It would seem to me that the normies assiduously avoiding a bandwagon makes it easier for scum to hide while still influencing outcome. With only a few votes on each player, the vote of a single individual scum can turn the outcome dramatically without really forcing him/her to take responsibility for that vote. Bandwagon votes are votes like any other. The fact that a lot of people voted for a given player doesn't mean that any individual vote for that player can't be scrutinized on its own merits. I think voting explicitly to avoid bandwagoning, as well as voting explicitly to join a bandwagon, is playing into scummy hands. I've been saying this every game, but I'll say it again here because I believe it: If you are a good guy, vote for who you think is most likely to be scum. Don't vote for meta-reasons, like avoiding bandwagons. Vote for who you think is most likely to be scum.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2007 12:33:21 GMT -5
Post by Hal Briston on Jul 27, 2007 12:33:21 GMT -5
I think this seems like a fairly advanced tell. Namely, how does someone, who knows they're telling the truth, but probably won't going to be believed, get their point across? They're going to do it the same way, aren't they? No offense to Greedy Smurf, but I have a hard time seeing a newbie scum being quite that manipulative. But, doesn't that run counter to this situation? GS is new. As such, he may not realize that using phrases such as that may be looked at as scum tells. Therefore, he uses them. The fairly advanced tell would be one that is not a tell at all -- not using those phrases. Dropping things like "to be honest" from his posts would not change the meaning, but would change the perception. On a reread, I see what you're saying here BM, and that's why I noted that there is every chance GS is town and this is an innocent slip. Still, it's the best lead I'm seeing right now.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2007 12:38:46 GMT -5
Post by Drain Bead on Jul 27, 2007 12:38:46 GMT -5
I have a really bad feeling that all three of our leading vote getters are town--I know my own role, of course, and I'm pretty sure that Greedy Smurf's errors are more the mistakes of newbie town than scum. I'm not sure about dnooman, but only because we've been given very little to go on there. I don't necessarily think Lynch all Lurkers is a good plan this early in the game, but then again, what is?
What I would like to see us discuss a bit is the fake dnooman guest post.
Why was dnooman the one targeted, and do we think it was scum setting something up, or just some jackass messing with us? I'm really not sure what to think of it, and that's why I'm leaning toward dnooman being town as well. This post makes no sense whatsoever. It's way too cheap (and seems like cheating) for it to be a scum gambit to set dnooman up to look like a power role to gain the trust of the town. But why would someone come in and randomly disrupt the game by pretending to be someone who turned out to be one of the lurkers so far? It just doesn't make any sense one way or the other.
I'm thinking right now that the scum are people who are not sticking their necks out, but not outright lurking either. They're posting a moderate amount, agreeing with the vocal townies who have fingered other townies, but not really providing much of substance. I'm going to give the thread a re-read and see if any names jump out at me.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2007 12:40:14 GMT -5
Post by JSexton on Jul 27, 2007 12:40:14 GMT -5
Man...this argument is sooo old. I can't help myself, though: <snip> I can't resist... <snip> When I talk about voting patterns, I am certainly not saying "Blaster Master's received more votes over three days than anyone, so he's more likely to be scum!" Voting patterns are what you use when you look back in time after knowing some alignments via death. Examining who voted for townies and scum, and when, and what their stated reasons were at the time. Early-game "random" votes don't really factor in much.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2007 12:42:47 GMT -5
Post by Hal Briston on Jul 27, 2007 12:42:47 GMT -5
If you are a good guy, vote for who you think is most likely to be scum. Don't vote for meta-reasons, like avoiding bandwagons. Vote for who you think is most likely to be scum.Hear, hear!* Bandwagons often form around someone noticing someone posting something that rubbed them the wrong way. If they see a scum tell and point it out, then why is it a bad thing if others say "Huh...lookit that, you're right. That's a scum tell, and I'm going to vote that way"? The only time I have a problem with bandwagons is when someone thinks "Oh, <Player X> already has six votes...that must mean everyone thinks he's guilty, so I'll go with the crowd without even researching why they're voting for him". *I originally typed out "Here, here!", but realized that I had no idea which spelling was correct. So I did a Yahoo search for "here here or hear hear" -- Result #1.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2007 12:43:05 GMT -5
Post by JSexton on Jul 27, 2007 12:43:05 GMT -5
While I generally can get behind that point, I don't see it making sense in this context. "I honestly don't believe there has been a massive lot of substance in the thread to date". Ok, if we think he's misusing "honestly" here, then what? We think he does believe there has been a massive lot of substance in the thread? But that he's hiding his thoughts on it? I just don't see it fitting in here. Mmm, I think it's a fairly subconscious thing. It's not that he's trying to drive home one particular falsehood, it's that his whole post is generally deceptive, and this is one indication of that. Deception =/= lies, after all. The best lies are mostly true.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2007 12:49:40 GMT -5
Post by JSexton on Jul 27, 2007 12:49:40 GMT -5
JSexton, you make some very good points with regard to Greedy Smurf and I fully understand your voting for him; however, many of these tells come across more to me as inexperienced townie rather than scum. Takes a single vote personally, and it's a vote for good reason: not posting. He also responded to that vote pretty fast, indicating that he's reading but not posting: textbook lurking. How many newbie townies didn't react similarly? I know I started to take votes against me personally in M2. As others have pointed out (unsure if it's been said in this game or not), especially for new players, the only information a townie has is that he is innocent, so when he's attacked, someone going against that knowledge, even if they're just a misguided townie as well, would inherently seem scummy. No argument there. Like I said, no single point is OMG SCUM! But it's just one factor. I think scum tend to take votes more personally than townies. Maybe it's only a 60/40 lean, but it's something. Addresed above. I think it's a subconscious tendency, not an intentional manipulation. You'd think so. But scum, especially n00b scum, often slip up like this. This game is hard, it's easy to slip as scum, and giving new players too much slack can burn you.. I've been having to re-learn to trust my gut. I just got hideously burned in another game by allowing myself to get talked out of my gut feelings by co-townies, folks I have great respect for. Had I listened to my gut, I'd have lynched scum back-to-back days. (This one's still kinda fresh, and stings)
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2007 12:54:25 GMT -5
Post by JSexton on Jul 27, 2007 12:54:25 GMT -5
I have a really bad feeling that all three of our leading vote getters are town--I know my own role, of course, and I'm pretty sure that Greedy Smurf's errors are more the mistakes of newbie town than scum. I'm not sure about dnooman, but only because we've been given very little to go on there. I don't necessarily think Lynch all Lurkers is a good plan this early in the game, but then again, what is? There's a bit of a contradiction here. Early bandwagons tend to form on the vocal. (see mafa 2 on SDMB) If you think them to be town, then going after lurkers is the right play. But you don't want to do that either...so what's your plan, given that days ends tomorrow? [quoteWhat I would like to see us discuss a bit is the fake dnooman guest post. [/quote] I don't. We have no idea who posted it, we don't even know if it was posted by a player. All we can do is talk ourselves in circles, and any conclusions drawn from it will be in the shakiest of premises. Ah. That's certainly a good possibility, and I have one name on that list already. We'll see how the nest day goes.
|
|