|
Post by NAF1138 on Feb 2, 2009 17:11:32 GMT -5
I'm not going to jump on the NAF bandwagon, since it looks like he's just conducting his psychological experiments right now...and so far...they look like the conclusion follows the evidence. Unvote DorianphoenixThis, I find suspicious. He's backpedaling quite quickly, and from something that doesn't exactly need backpedaling...it looks more like a knee-jerk reaction to accidentally posting anything suspicious...something that happens far more with scum than with town, IMO. Vote SeattleGuyHow is this back pedaling? I am asking peoples opinion on something. After reading the responses I beleive that I was not clear in my position. To me voting for me because I am asking questions, then clarifing is anti-newbie. This voting behavior makes it so people are afriad to dialog, in the fear of getting votes. I have to agree with you on this on seattleguy (can I call you SG?). That being said, to me that is Pede's MO as town in the early game these days. But, not a great vote from Pede. *hums, getting to know you smiling and wondering if all this talking is going to get him lynched or NK'd first.*
|
|
|
Post by DorianPhoenix on Feb 2, 2009 17:11:32 GMT -5
Not in the least. Not agreeing with your premise, at least to me, implies that I need more information on the premise.
So not agreeing with your premise (vote) and not feeling you're fully explaining your entire reasoning (vote) are, to a degree, one in the same.
|
|
|
Post by NAF1138 on Feb 2, 2009 17:12:13 GMT -5
Not in the least. Not agreeing with your premise, at least to me, implies that I need more information on the premise. So not agreeing with your premise (vote) and not feeling you're fully explaining your entire reasoning (vote) are, to a degree, one in the same. I don't follow. Please go on.
|
|
|
Post by Chameleon on Feb 2, 2009 17:14:00 GMT -5
And yes NAF, I know you changed your vote to TL, but changed it to someone else who had also been away/busy (although it wasn't stated here). Just wanted to clear that up. I am totally with you on that. It doesn't change the fact that, in the absense of a better vote, the person who has contributed the least information to the game is the one who needs to die. It is not my fault that they aren't able to play. if they were unable to play for the next 3 weeks would you still be ok with allowing them only 2 posts? No, I agree that a commitment to play should be taken with at least some responsibility. I guess I would say a mod-kill would be the most appropriate action in that case though (does/can that happen here? I've only played on facebook). I also agree that there isn't much else to go on - which is why I'm not using it as a reason to vote for you even though it's one of the more suspicious things I've seen so far (even if only mildly so).
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Feb 2, 2009 17:15:29 GMT -5
All of the above is taken with a huge grain of salt by the way. There isn't much going on in the game yet, so this is just where my head is right now. Notice I find none of these damning enough to get me to move my vote away from Total Lost who is doing some hard core lurking/nonparticipating. See, I can't decide if you're being Scummy, or if your perspective is just so opposite to mine as to make it seem scummy. Lurking, I think, comes in multiple flavors, and we make a mistake, when we talk about it, lumping lurking together when we consider whether or not it's a Scum tell. Pure, low-post-count lurking, I think, is a null tell. I have seen dozens of these games now, and there's just no evidence that a player with a simple low post count is any more likely to be scum because of it. Low post counts are usually a function of being busy, or having RL problems that preclude involvement. In Total's case, I note, she actually said that she'd be away until Monday; a vote for her simply makes no sense. It's not going to encourage her to participate more, because she can't participate more if she's not around. There are other ways to lurk, though. You can post a middling number of posts but make them predominantly fluffy. This certainly can be Scummy, because it's a way of masking nonparticipation with a post count that won't stand out to someone doing what you're doing (picking out the person with the low post count and voting for them). Even Scummier - though harder to pick out until there's a record - is the person who maintains a solid post count and even manages to produce faux contributions - voting, engaging in game theory discussions, and so on - without ever really adding to the discussion in a meaningful way that can be traced to them. And now to you. What you're doing with total lost makes no sense to me. Voting for her, maintaining your vote on her in spite of claiming to have what you consider to be actual (potential) scum targets, is patently illogical for a Townie. What is a hypothetical Town NAF hoping to accomplish by this vote? Again, it won't encourage total to participate more, because in this case she wasn't participating because she wasn't around to participate. It doesn't give you a good shot at identifying Scum. From a certain angle, it looks like option #3 above: you want to look like you're doing something, contributing something, but really, you're not. On the other hand. Because of the low participation of the game overall so far, what you're doing does qualify as sticking your neck out - even if in a normal game it wouldn't. Fuck, I dunno. Sometimes this game gives me agita.
|
|
Trepa Mayfield
FGM
Does Not Follow Directions
The only kind of panda worth preserving.
Posts: 989
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Trepa Mayfield on Feb 2, 2009 17:18:01 GMT -5
How is this back pedaling? I am asking peoples opinion on something. After reading the responses I beleive that I was not clear in my position. To me voting for me because I am asking questions, then clarifing is anti-newbie. This voting behavior makes it so people are afriad to dialog, in the fear of getting votes. I have to agree with you on this on seattleguy (can I call you SG?). That being said, to me that is Pede's MO as town in the early game these days. But, not a great vote from Pede. *hums, getting to know you smiling and wondering if all this talking is going to get him lynched or NK'd first.* Okay, this has officially crossed the line from intriguing to creepy. Anyway... .... ..... ...... BEWARE!
|
|
|
Post by DorianPhoenix on Feb 2, 2009 17:19:22 GMT -5
NAF, lets see if I can explain clearly because I know I'm not always the most eloquent.
Lets assume the following, for arguements sake.
I don't feel that lowered activity on day one is suitabale for a vote. a lack of activity could be due to the weekend, could be due to personal complications. Could be a matter of not wanting to talk too much and give away anything or could be due to soaking everything in before commenting.
Any one of those things.
Letsalso assume, for arguements sake that your premise, IE: Not talking = reason for vote. Is sound. I know my reasons for thinking why it isn't but not your reasons for thinking why it is. Thus more info needed.
So disagreeing with your premise has a small amount to do with you not fully divulging why you believe it to be a sound one.
|
|
|
Post by DorianPhoenix on Feb 2, 2009 17:20:33 GMT -5
Story teller said it better than I did.
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Feb 2, 2009 17:25:24 GMT -5
It is not my fault that they aren't able to play. if they were unable to play for the next 3 weeks would you still be ok with allowing them only 2 posts? NAF is your strategy in this game to throw out as much fallacious, funky reasoning as possible and see who calls you on it and who doesn't? Because posts like the above, or your own post calling me out, or the weird paternalistic way you're condescending to everyone else and playing your own games instead of actually engaging in an up-front conversation... I feel like you're making a concerted effort to be scummy and off-putting. As you know, I prefer my Townies to be up-front, and this is frustrating the holy hell out of me. But just in case it needs saying explicitly: the implied argument above sucks. Three weeks is not the same as two days, and every single player in this game, if they live long enough, will eventually go two or three days without posting much. It is just not the same, qualitatively, as going a very extended period without participating. Going nuts here.
|
|
|
Post by Chameleon on Feb 2, 2009 17:35:38 GMT -5
Ok, I know that I did mention that I found NAF's "you're not posting and deserve to die" votes suspicious...but now I'm finding the exceptional analysis of it suspicious as well - specifically from Storyteller and Dorianphoenix. I understand it is essential to analyze a lot in this game and also that some people are naturals at it while others prefer to play more instinctually. However, I also wonder if a scenario like this can't be used by scum to gang up on and plot against one particular town player (which I suspect is what happened to my sorry town ass in the last game I played - live and learn - I hate cliches!).
This is now a more "official" reason to keep my vote on Dorianphoenix.
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Feb 2, 2009 17:38:54 GMT -5
I I do agree that you need to provide justifaction for a vote!! Don't get me wrong.. This, I find suspicious. He's backpedaling quite quickly, and from something that doesn't exactly need backpedaling...it looks more like a knee-jerk reaction to accidentally posting anything suspicious...something that happens far more with scum than with town, IMO. Vote SeattleGuyBig problem with this vote. Here is SeattleGuy's original post (#122; introductory stuff elided): Here seattleguy is asking a very specific question. Can you find the question? I'll give you a hint: it's not "should you justify your vote?" I'll give you another hint: it's the first sentence quote above. He is asking whether players who are constantly pursuing justifications - aggressive, mouthy bastards like me who want everyone to explain everything - are more likely to be Town or Scum. A few posts pass. NAF answers his actual question, but also answers the question he didn't ask ("should I justify my vote?"). roxis answers the unasked question but not the asked one. So seattleguy clarifies, as quoted above: he agrees that you need to justify. That isn't backpedaling, at all, because he didn't ask about that.pedescribe, can you justify your vote in light of this?
|
|
Trepa Mayfield
FGM
Does Not Follow Directions
The only kind of panda worth preserving.
Posts: 989
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Trepa Mayfield on Feb 2, 2009 17:41:45 GMT -5
No. I didn't read his first post.
Unvote SeattleGuy
|
|
|
Post by roxis on Feb 2, 2009 17:57:38 GMT -5
Oh, yeah, I didn't answer his question directly. It was clear in my head, but going back and looking at it, I didn't really say much of anything.
I think that putting pressure on others for reasoning is a good thing, very pro-town. Town benefits from research. Scum does to an extent as well, but voting patterns and such help town immensely. To answer your question, if you have a player who is consistently not giving reasons for their votes, that's terribly anti-town, and scum love that, because town will get no information on that player's death. Therefore, telling someone to provide reasoning is a pro-town move.
However, because I think you're specifically talking about the current game over on facebook, which I am also involved in, I refuse to answer further.
|
|
|
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Feb 2, 2009 18:40:06 GMT -5
That said I sometimes wonder if scum is more likely to be uber defensive than town. Which makes me a little less suspicious of you DP. Defensiveness is a null tell. I've seen uber-defensive scum and town. Frequently in the same game. Take a look at SMB. bufftabby (Town) was very defensive. Sinjin (scum) was the same. Both were so defensive they launched a concerted attack against a Town player. (Bufftabby against Story; Sinjin against me, however, Sinjin knew I was town, Bufftabby didn't know what story was.) Defensiveness means nothing. And the lack of defensiveness doesn't mean much either, typically. Though due to the quirks in a role, not being defensive can occasionally indicate the person doesn't fear the lynch for whatever reason.
|
|
|
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Feb 2, 2009 18:40:36 GMT -5
Oh, and NAF, you didn't answer my question.
|
|
|
Post by NAF1138 on Feb 2, 2009 18:58:47 GMT -5
And now to you. What you're doing with total lost makes no sense to me. Voting for her, maintaining your vote on her in spite of claiming to have what you consider to be actual (potential) scum targets, is patently illogical for a Townie. What is a hypothetical Town NAF hoping to accomplish by this vote? Again, it won't encourage total to participate more, because in this case she wasn't participating because she wasn't around to participate. It doesn't give you a good shot at identifying Scum. From a certain angle, it looks like option #3 above: you want to look like you're doing something, contributing something, but really, you're not. I don't think we disagree philisophically I think we just disagree as to what is necessary in a game that has been this quiet with so many unknown entities. This isn't normal mafia and it hasn't been played like normal mafia up until this point. Normal mafia solutions do not apply. I wasn't voting for TL because I thought she was scum, I was voting for TL because she was hurting town most by not being in the game. The fact that she wasn't around to participate doesn't mean she wasn't the most damaging player to the townie cause. That player is now brokentree/(and BilMc actually I just now noticed.) So given that roughyl 80% of all lynches end in the lynch of a townie and that this is a small game where that lynch will hurt us worse than normal, and that it was crazy lurky up until today when you and I started taking shots (mostly at each other but also at the game in general, and frankly I would have started sooner but I was busy this weekend) there wasn't anything to be done. There is no good lynch, so go with the safe lynch. I had hoped that the weekend would show something other than fluff, but it looks like not. I don't like the case against the people I see as scummy more than I like the idea of removing non participants. I don't really care what there reason for not participating is. This may seem overly harsh, but in a 12 person game Day 1 is the only chance we have to trim this sort of dead weight. Additionally peoples reaction to the lynch and the lead up to the lynch generates information like crazy (note today's activity) and will help us get to know each other more quickly. You know I don't pull this shit for no good reason. The above is actually irrelevant. You are overthinking, and I am not sure if you are trying to fake a frustrated storyteller or if you really are frustrated by not understanding where I am coming from. I hope it's the former, but on the off chance that it's the latter, I still don't think I will move my vote to you.
|
|
|
Post by NAF1138 on Feb 2, 2009 18:59:53 GMT -5
Oh, and NAF, you didn't answer my question. Sorry, would you restate?
|
|
|
Post by NAF1138 on Feb 2, 2009 19:06:26 GMT -5
Because posts like the above, or your own post calling me out, or the weird paternalistic way you're condescending to everyone else and playing your own games instead of actually engaging in an up-front conversation... I feel like you're making a concerted effort to be scummy and off-putting. As you know, I prefer my Townies to be up-front, and this is frustrating the holy hell out of me. Ok, sorry. I am not intending to be condesending of paternalistic, so clearly I missed my mark. Let us start again. Unfortunatly, like I said, now is not really the time for me to go into an explination of what I am trying to do, but I will do my best to knock off the weird condecending bullshit and go back to transperant play. I don't think there is anything more to gain from strange behavior at this point.
|
|
|
Post by NAF1138 on Feb 2, 2009 19:09:40 GMT -5
But what exactly in my post pings you as out-of-character to any other fluffy posts I've done over the past games in mafia, other than the ill-reasoned vote, which I don't see as being any worse than anyone else's ill-reasoned vote in this game? This was probably the post you were talking about. It's hard to say. I wouldn't vote for you for it, but if this were a normal game I would mentally (or these days more likely actually) write your name down as someone to keep an eye on. Sort of neutral leaning to scum read. More scummy than neutral, but more neutral than anything, if that makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by NAF1138 on Feb 2, 2009 19:18:37 GMT -5
on reflection, since brokentree and BillMC both share only 3 votes I think it is less fair to vote brokentree than BillMC, so I am going to make that change.
unvote brokentree
vote billMC
|
|
|
Post by storyteller0910 on Feb 2, 2009 19:19:28 GMT -5
Unfortunatly, like I said, now is not really the time for me to go into an explination of what I am trying to do, but I will do my best to knock off the weird condecending bullshit and go back to transperant play. I don't think there is anything more to gain from strange behavior at this point. You know what? I haven't played a game in a while, and sometimes I need to remind myself that "plays differently than I" doesn't necessarily mean "has a different alignment than I." I think you should do what you do. If you're Scum, you're on the radar now, and we'll get you eventually. If you're not, well, fuck - if you're actually Town, then you doing things your way and me doing things my way might screw up the bad guys something fierce. (This, of course, is assuming that there are any Scum. So far that is not firmly established and must be treated as a likely, but not certain, hypothesis).
|
|
|
Post by NAF1138 on Feb 2, 2009 19:25:15 GMT -5
(This, of course, is assuming that there are any Scum. So far that is not firmly established and must be treated as a likely, but not certain, hypothesis). I am glad I am not the only one who wondered about that. You are now officially on my town list story, way moreso than Pede. Congrats. If you are actually scum that was a crazy brilliant move.
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Merestil Haye on Feb 2, 2009 19:34:39 GMT -5
Reading the thread just now, I noticed two players have a tendency to switch votes at the drop of a hat; NAF and Pedescribe.
Blue-sky hypothesis. One of them has a role requiring that he vote for a minimum number of players in a Day, so he's hopping around like a cat on a hot tin roof trying to disguise this.
I don't agree with NAF's voting plan, because I think it is fundamentally flawed - but that may be the fatigue poisons talking. In brief, I think voting for nonparticipants - people who, for whatever reason, don't post much - is fundamentally flawed as an early game strategy. The flaw I see is this; if someone has not posted much, then the amount of information developed from their death is insignificant. It won't help find the mafia, because there are no links or patterns to develop.
As a late game strategy it can work, if there are sufficient pointers to the innocence of all the active players then the lurker has an increased chance of being Mafia.
I need to sleep before developing this further.
Now differing strategy is not, on its own, grounds for voting NAF. So I'm willing to pay out a bit of rope, hoping to hoist him on his own petard later.
However, I have to say that pedescribe's actions strike me as random voting for little or no reason. So, I'm going to Vote Pedescribe.
|
|
Trepa Mayfield
FGM
Does Not Follow Directions
The only kind of panda worth preserving.
Posts: 989
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Trepa Mayfield on Feb 2, 2009 19:53:12 GMT -5
Reading the thread just now, I noticed two players have a tendency to switch votes at the drop of a hat; NAF and Pedescribe. Blue-sky hypothesis. One of them has a role requiring that he vote for a minimum number of players in a Day, so he's hopping around like a cat on a hot tin roof trying to disguise this. I don't agree with NAF's voting plan, because I think it is fundamentally flawed - but that may be the fatigue poisons talking. In brief, I think voting for nonparticipants - people who, for whatever reason, don't post much - is fundamentally flawed as an early game strategy. The flaw I see is this; if someone has not posted much, then the amount of information developed from their death is insignificant. It won't help find the mafia, because there are no links or patterns to develop. As a late game strategy it can work, if there are sufficient pointers to the innocence of all the active players then the lurker has an increased chance of being Mafia. I need to sleep before developing this further. Now differing strategy is not, on its own, grounds for voting NAF. So I'm willing to pay out a bit of rope, hoping to hoist him on his own petard later. However, I have to say that pedescribe's actions strike me as random voting for little or no reason. So, I'm going to Vote Pedescribe. I do that all the time. Moreso in minigames, because I like to act silly here. Well, sillier. That you haven't picked up on this isn't a scumtell, since if it were, it would implicate NAF, and the two of you are smarter than to work in tandem so obviously. So ... ... ... ... ... ...
|
|
|
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Feb 2, 2009 19:59:36 GMT -5
But what exactly in my post pings you as out-of-character to any other fluffy posts I've done over the past games in mafia, other than the ill-reasoned vote, which I don't see as being any worse than anyone else's ill-reasoned vote in this game? This was probably the post you were talking about. Yep. In other words, on a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 is confirmed town, and 10 is confirmed scum, you'd put me somewhere at 6 or 7. Is that what you're getting at?
|
|
|
Post by Captain Pinkies on Feb 2, 2009 20:05:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by NAF1138 on Feb 2, 2009 20:09:37 GMT -5
That you haven't picked up on this isn't a scumtell, since if it were, it would implicate NAF, and the two of you are smarter than to work in tandem so obviously. So ... ... ... ... ... ... Huh?
|
|
Trepa Mayfield
FGM
Does Not Follow Directions
The only kind of panda worth preserving.
Posts: 989
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Trepa Mayfield on Feb 2, 2009 20:40:42 GMT -5
I ran out of things to say...
|
|
|
Post by NAF1138 on Feb 2, 2009 21:48:08 GMT -5
I ran out of things to say... Sorry, let me rephrase. That you haven't picked up on this isn't a scumtell, since if it were, it would implicate NAF, and the two of you are smarter than to work in tandem so obviously. Huh? @ Hooopy I would say like 5.75 to 6.5ish. 7 is too high. Maybe we should make the scale 1-100?
|
|
|
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Feb 2, 2009 22:03:42 GMT -5
Ok, I know that I did mention that I found NAF's "you're not posting and deserve to die" votes suspicious...but now I'm finding the exceptional analysis of it suspicious as well - specifically from Storyteller and Dorianphoenix. I understand it is essential to analyze a lot in this game and also that some people are naturals at it while others prefer to play more instinctually. However, I also wonder if a scenario like this can't be used by scum to gang up on and plot against one particular town player (which I suspect is what happened to my sorry town ass in the last game I played - live and learn - I hate cliches!). This is now a more "official" reason to keep my vote on Dorianphoenix. Of course it can be used to gang up on a town player. But it can also be used to show that the town player is employing bad logic. I think it comes up in a lot of games that anytime someone takes heat from multiple people that the thing is always scum driven. The thing is, that's usually not true, at least, not when it comes to multiple scum. Townies are more than capable of pushing a townie lynch, and usually much better at it then scum. Most gang-ups are a lot of town with maybe one or two scum at most on the gang-up. Often times, scum don't even get involved. So really, your confirmation of your fluff vote on dorianphoenix is weak. And for that reason, I'm replacing a joke a vote with one that isn't strong by any stretch, but at least has a valid reason. unvote roxis
vote Chameleon
|
|