Random Mafia [Archive] - Page 3 - Straight Dope Message Board

Meeko

03-24-2010, 01:53 PM

Time for another brain dump.

Would say mind meld, but those aren't as good in Mafia.

As always, the scroll bars are to your right of this discourse. It's all you can eat on understanding my points here, but feel free to leave with the clock strikes midnight, don't want you to become a pumpkin on me.

Snipped Snipped and Snipped. Everything is probably snipped.

but here is the real deal meeko. i was plankton. i am town.

This implies the problem is on the voter, not the votee.

Our mislynch, and, for the sake of argument, our pending mislynch will never happen if you do not draw negative attention to you. You are cursing the symptom, but nourishing the cause. Two problems here. Tackling the voter only solves one problem. Tackling the votee solves both. Two birds, one stone.

I saw that argument coming, am I better or worse for letting us both take the additional cycle to address it ?

No

Firstly I was voting for him because I saw the misspelling as something he had done, ie made a mistake when composing a fake claim. The number of misspellings elsewhere later made this seem much less likely.

People who have played in games on the dope with me before know I go after perceived slips aggressively, even when it draws me a lot of heat.

Again no. If I am convinced player A & player B are scum, and I am equally sure for each, then under your rationale, because I can't justify one over the otehr, I should in actuality vote player C. I don't see it that way myself.

I went hard and long on a player once, for an apparent GLARING error. I dropped the "You edited your role!" bomb more times than Biden drops the F Bomb. Not to rehash it, I won the letter of that argument, but not the spirit. The Spirit caused me to go full out on a fellow town player.

The word of Mod is just that, Mod, not God. Mods are people too. Errors happen.

Yes. you can argue the "But I didn't know that at the time" angle. I will argue back "It doesn't matter either way, as you unvoted" angle.

This will leave us with my point on transferring a vote.

Not exactly what I said.

I started my reasons by stating that you can't move a vote 100% from one player to another (you can't or at least shouldn't move a vote to another player, unless you have unique reasons on the second player[/B]]).

If you have reason to vote player A, and those reasons can not transfer to player B, then by all means, vote player A. If you CAN transfer all of those reasons to player B, then I would suggest you have a weak case on player A. [And by extension, a weaker case on Player B.]

How many games have more than one "vanilla" scum [goon] ? What are the odds that both of them would slip in similar ways? If they slip at all?

Not likely.

Scum power roles might slip at the same time a goon slips. I would bet that the power scum would have different and ""better"" PIS to slip on. Hence, you would have unique reasons to vote one or the other of these two scum.

If you suspect player A and player B to both be scum, please voice your reasons and vote for one of them. Don't move on to Player C at all.

I would assume you have reasons to vote A and B in the first place. That's fine.

Now if you want to move your vote from A to B, you are going to need reasons to do so. They would need to be different, hopefuly better reasons to vote B over your orignal voting for A reasons.

If you don't have better reasons, then simply don't move your vote, and hope that you were right on Player A. We can only lynch one scum a day, and if they are equal, I don't really see a reason to move votes. -- If B was power, there would be different and better reasons to vote them. [[[Hopefully you guys see my logic here, it might be flawed logic, but at least it is a logic.]]]

What do you mean by this?

You are going to tell me that Kelly drew scum twice in a row, for his first two games? I don't buy it.

Also, remember he is Noob. Take that under consideration with your vote. --- And it was a Day start, so Kelly is freewheeling it right now, either way, town or scum.

NETA: :dubious:

Meek, for the first time ever in the games I have played with you or watched you play you are [I]actually pinging me.

I am fully aware of the implications on what I will say next.

Thanks for the compliment. I need a backbone. Someone once said the best players look the same Town or Scum.

If I didn't ping some of you guys, it would mean that I became predictable. It would mean I didn't change. You can't grow with out change.

I need to grow, I need to change. I need to get someplace new with my Mafia.

But seriously, I'm town. And I think I'm doing a good job overall so far in this game.

If I get lynched, well at least I already know what parts of my game I am gonna keep for the the next one. [[The outline]]

I came here for the entertainment, I got to find and keep a souvenir*. I'm good.

*I use the term souvenir to mean a lesson learned when you didn't expect to learn anything. I keep paper journal, and if I had a paradigm or epiphany, I write it down in that day's entry.

This game has taught me to use outlines. They will be in my future games.

I think I'm having the best game ever, so far. Not bad for wanting to sit this one out.

This is ironic coming from you, Meeko. You;'re the first to complain that almost every vote on you is for personal reasons and is therefore wrong. And now you back up your vote with personal reasons.

I don't think I have an argument for that. I just know that I feel incredibly played by Peeker for the grand sum of my Mafia experience with him. One Day 1 vote on him is the least I can do. [No threat here, beyond the vote I already have.

To say nothing of the fact that I agree to the "Real" points other people have made, especially the Youtube claim, and Chronos' obersavation on the timing of """evil""". Good catch by Chronos. If you hate my personal reasons to vote peeker, then scratch it out and make it a "Me too!" under Chronos. But, you would hate that vote too.

And, To address your "Why is everybody always picking on me" question ::

I am not Chuck Brown. I am a guy who wants to play Mafia.

You guys get down and dirty, and sling mud.

I gotta catch up.

That is, It is better for me to dish it back out to all of you, than to hold it in.

peekercpa

03-24-2010, 01:57 PM

Again, you mis-state why most people didn't like your 'claim' It wasn't that it was in a video (though that can cause problems for some players) but it's because you did NOT identify it as a claim.

I'm not sure how I can make that more clear. so stop calling it something else.

sorry ed.

you are wrong. my video post and subsequent posts would characterize it as a claim. the fact that you and others can not latch on to that is really sad. but, and i don't want to beat a dead horse any deader, if you decide to lynch a townie then hopefully some scum will be caught and if not then hopefully some townies will be enlightened or at least stop with the personal vendettas.

look what happened in pede's most recent game. i was the nightmare from hell for the scummies. so yeh, i can see why scum want me gone. i am their worst cataclysm. and when i flip town i sure as heck hope that town will look back on this interchange and get rid of the folks that know that I am not going to put up with their nonsense.
kthnxbye

Red Skeezix

03-24-2010, 01:58 PM

You are going to tell me that Kelly drew scum twice in a row, for his first two games? I don't buy it.

Heh. It happens. I drew scum (politician in both too) my first two games, Heroes and Space Hijack.

Jimmy Chitwood

03-24-2010, 02:05 PM

How many games have more than one "vanilla" scum [goon] ? What are the odds that both of them would slip in similar ways? If they slip at all?

Not likely.

Scum power roles might slip at the same time a goon slips. I would bet that the power scum would have different and ""better"" PIS to slip on. Hence, you would have unique reasons to vote one or the other of these two scum.

If you suspect player A and player B to both be scum, please voice your reasons and vote for one of them. Don't move on to Player C at all.

I would assume you have reasons to vote A and B in the first place. That's fine.

Now if you want to move your vote from A to B, you are going to need reasons to do so. They would need to be different, hopefuly better reasons to vote B over your orignal voting for A reasons.

If you don't have better reasons, then simply don't move your vote, and hope that you were right on Player A. We can only lynch one scum a day, and if they are equal, I don't really see a reason to move votes. -- If B was power, there would be different and better reasons to vote them. [[[Hopefully you guys see my logic here, it might be flawed logic, but at least it is a logic.]]]

I'm not sure it is.

This is a very perplexing way to look at what happened. Why are you making a distinction between vanilla scum and power roles in terms of slips? Why do you think there can't be more than a couple of vanilla scum?

And what did that long discussion have to do with whether OaOW was justified in voting when he saw the first typo and not the one in your post? You're talking about OaOW's vote as if he should have made a distinction between a vanilla scum and a power role scum. Why is that relevant to what actually happened, which was that he saw a typo, voted on it, and then realized there was another typo and unvoted?

You are going to tell me that Kelly drew scum twice in a row, for his first two games? I don't buy it.

Also, remember he is Noob. Take that under consideration with your vote. --- And it was a Day start, so Kelly is freewheeling it right now, either way, town or scum.

That isn't how probability works. The first game is gone. In this one, Kelly has the same chance of being scum as anyone else.

Rysto

03-24-2010, 02:06 PM

You are going to tell me that Kelly drew scum twice in a row, for his first two games? I don't buy it
That's the gambler's falacy, Meeko. The fact that Kelly drew scum in the last game has no effect on whether he drew scum in this game.

And Darth Sensitive drew scum Godfather in his first two games.

Freudian Slit

03-24-2010, 02:06 PM

Actually, I don't think you're the worst nightmare for scum. Town has a motivation to get rid of you. And since you inevitably act scummy, it's not like scum has much of a motivation to kill you off--they know that someone will be voting for you in the day time.

I also don't know why you think that people who vote for you are scum. Last time you were all over special ed for voting against you and he turned out to be town/pond. Newsflash--people aren't all just voting for you because they know you're town. Most people are town. But you do manage to draw attention to yourself. Maybe you should reflect and evaluate?

Freudian Slit

03-24-2010, 02:08 PM

Heh. It happens. I drew scum (politician in both too) my first two games, Heroes and Space Hijack.

Indeed. Also in terms of weirdness, in Colorless, Meeko, Drainbead, and I (along with...crap, I'm forgetting who else) were all scum. In the next Scum Mafia game, the three of us were also Masons. It was kind of bizarre, but I guess it happens.

So Meeko, we definitely shouldn't be deciding anything based on what happened last game. These are separate games.

NAF1138

03-24-2010, 02:14 PM

You are going to tell me that Kelly drew scum twice in a row, for his first two games? I don't buy it.

Also, remember he is Noob. Take that under consideration with your vote. --- And it was a Day start, so Kelly is freewheeling it right now, either way, town or scum.

I don't know Kelly from Adam, but I will say this. Random is random. If you flip a coin 100 times and it comes up heads every time, the odds of you getting the coin to land on heads on the 101st flip are still 50/50.

I was taking the fact that he(?) is a noob into account with the vote. I don't think experiences scum would have made that particular move and then followed it up with an absence, but noob scum might make a mistake and then hope to hide by lurking for the rest of the Day when called on it.

The initial vote/unvote was scummy, the following up with lurking was equally scummy. I like my vote still. I am 75% of the way through a re-read and I still like it.

I am fully aware of the implications on what I will say next.

Thanks for the compliment. I need a backbone. Someone once said the best players look the same Town or Scum.

You're welcome?

NAF1138

03-24-2010, 02:17 PM

NETA: It would seem that I type too slowly. Everyone beat me to the punch on the probability question.

Freudian Slit

03-24-2010, 02:17 PM

You are going to tell me that Kelly drew scum twice in a row, for his first two games? I don't buy it.

Also, remember he is Noob. Take that under consideration with your vote. --- And it was a Day start, so Kelly is freewheeling it right now, either way, town or scum.

IS he noob? I feel like we've been over this and people have pointed out he's not quite as green as we think, and that he's played other games. Generally, the "No, it's OK, he's just a new guy" thing really does ping my radar because I've seen it used before. Mostly by me--when I was a newbie AND scum. It's so easy to just try and cover it up with "It's my first day." For me, not good enough.

This also reads to me like you're defending Kelly. And both your arguments are weak, but what sticks out to me most is that you're making them. Why are you defending Kelly?

I'm not sure I want to move my vote from peeker because I do like Chronos's theory about the video Wicked Witch.

FOS Meeko

But seriously, I'm town. And I think I'm doing a good job overall so far in this game.

You're sounding more and more like peeker. Remember, we're all going to say we're town.

And it's not personal or anything--we really are all operating under the impression that WE'RE town. Even if we're scum we're going to try and act as though we're town. Goes without saying but, "I REALLY am town, REALLY" just makes me sort of roll my eyes and go, "Sure. Yes. Me too. Anyone else?"

Jimmy Chitwood

03-24-2010, 02:27 PM

I was taking the fact that he(?) is a noob into account with the vote. I don't think experiences scum would have made that particular move and then followed it up with an absence, but noob scum might make a mistake and then hope to hide by lurking for the rest of the Day when called on it.

On top of that, even though it isn't something I'd hang my hat on, there's the fact that the scum haven't had any communication window yet. It would make a lot of sense for a new player who felt she* had stepped in it to want to try to clam up and hold out and get some advice, figuring, as it were, that the odds were in her favor for the first day if she laid low.

*(she? -- sorry Kelly, I'm pretty good with genders but we haven't played together)

Meeko

03-24-2010, 02:36 PM

[][]FOS Meeko[][]

You're sounding more and more like peeker. Remember, we're all going to say we're town.

I love how you took my comment out of context.

I made the "I am Town" bit right after thanking NAF for the entire "This is the first time you've ever pinged me" line.

I felt it was a compliment.

I felt that my Thanks! needed to be paired with my alignment. -- You apparently did not.

Now, I could continue with this attack, or I could go back and address all the others. Please excuse me.

Freudian Slit

03-24-2010, 02:40 PM

Meeko, you said the best players play the same, town or scum. NAF said you're only pinging him in THIS game. That doesn't speak to your predictability.

Mahaloth

03-24-2010, 02:42 PM

Good Lord, Meeko, why would you think Kelly has any less chance of being scum in this game?

He has the same chance anyone else did and is equally eligible to be scum.

:confused:

Meeko

03-24-2010, 02:43 PM

Meeko, you said the best players play the same, town or scum. NAF said you're only pinging him in THIS game. That doesn't speak to your predictability.

If this is the only game that I am pinging NAF in, then it would stand to reason that I am doing something differently.

Doing something differently doesn't wash with being predictable.

It does speak to my predictability - inversely.

Freudian Slit

03-24-2010, 02:46 PM

If this is the only game that I am pinging NAF in, then it would stand to reason that I am doing something differently.

Doing something differently doesn't wash with being predictable.

It does speak to my predictability - inversely.

If this is the only game you're pinging NAF in, couldn't it just as easily be construed in the opposite manner? That is, it's not complimentary because you're pinging NAF because you genuinely are scum? OK, OK, I know, this is where you cite that for you it's a compliment because you know you're town and thus it must mean you're doing something right by not playing as a townie, or whatever. I'm just saying that's not really how it comes across to me is all.

special ed

03-24-2010, 02:52 PM

sorry ed.

you are wrong. my video post and subsequent posts would characterize it as a claim. the fact that you and others can not latch on to that is really sad. but, and i don't want to beat a dead horse any deader, if you decide to lynch a townie then hopefully some scum will be caught and if not then hopefully some townies will be enlightened or at least stop with the personal vendettas.

No, your subsequent post, after 11 other claims, WAS a claim. The youtube clip was not a claim. In no way did it look like a claim. Taken by itself, it was not a claim. When combined with your actual claim, then yes, there's a claim in there.

But if you combine your claim with any other post by any player or non-player, or even if you combine your claim with a jar of stale salsa, it is a claim. Is that what you are saying?

look what happened in pede's most recent game. i was the nightmare from hell for the scummies. so yeh, i can see why scum want me gone. i am their worst cataclysm. and when i flip town i sure as heck hope that town will look back on this interchange and get rid of the folks that know that I am not going to put up with their nonsense.
kthnxbye

special ed

03-24-2010, 03:17 PM

OK, peeker, I think I get it.

You're saying the video was a breadcrumb and then your claim exposed the breadcrumb.

That I can get on board with.

Of course, why would you feel the need to breadcrumb your name claim?

Goodness, I'm so hesitant to vote for you because it seems like I always vote for you, but then, you always act so odd on Day 1. But right now, you're my most suspect player.

sachertorte

03-24-2010, 03:31 PM

storyteller (0): peekercpa 116 201

peekercpa (4): Zeriel 151 190, TexCat 314 356, Chronos 360, Meeko 383, Freudian Slit 478, Mahaloth 482

NAF1138 (0): One And Only Wanderers 179 288, KellyCriterion 242 244

One And Only Wanderers (0): Chronos 180 360, Jimmy Chitwood 184, Meeko 220 291

Mahaloth (0): Meeko 291 298

KellyCriterion (2): NAF1138 313, Jimmy Chitwood 484

TexCat (2): Red Skeezix 316, Tom Scud 328, peekercpa 346 450

Oredigger77 (1): Drain Bead 347

Red Skeezix (1): TexCat 356, Freudian Slit 364 478

Chronos (2): storyteller0910 416, peekercpa 450

MHaye

03-24-2010, 03:45 PM

A little less than a Day to go. I need to put a vote up soon because I won't have much time tomorrow – only about an hour after I get home. I also need to go through the Day again before voting; I usually need to read everything twice to make sense of things, and so far I haven't started Second Read.

So I'm off to do that.

Back soon.

Chronos

03-24-2010, 04:00 PM

For what it's worth Kelly had fairly low activity in the last game, too. This is at least partly caused by time zone issues: IIRC he's in the British Isles. Of course, last game, he was Scum, so maybe he just lays low when he's Scum: Insufficient data, as of yet. On the matter of him jumping onto and then off of the NAF case so quickly, that looked to me like an overeager (relative) newbie who wasn't paying as close attention as he should have on the first read, and then realizing his error. It's not commendable, but it seems fairly consistent with either Town or Scum, and I certainly don't think it's the Scummiest thing toDay.

Quoth Freudian Slit:IS he noob? I feel like we've been over this and people have pointed out he's not quite as green as we think, and that he's played other games.I think he said that he's played face-to-face before, but that Cecil Pond was his first online game. The formats are different enough that I would feel comfortable calling him a newbie on that basis. Still, I'd rather have it from the horse's mouth: KellyCriterion, how much experience do you actually have?

Meeko

03-24-2010, 04:04 PM

I hope I am clear enough to be understood here. I had another brain melt moment somewhere in the middle. The longer I sat with this post, the more and more pinged I got by Jimmy.

I do find it interesting, that no two Mafia jobs are the same, yet the game demands the use of past expereience. Seems like all of my experience is just going fttttttttp for this game.

Jimmy, I think I got to all of your points, and they read fine by me, Hopefully I covered everything, one way or another. I might have things a bit out of place. -- A LOT of revisions on this one. I wasn't timing, but, this one took me a while.

Seems like my Outline kinda shatters upon my "hour long" posts.

I'm not sure it is.

This is a very perplexing way to look at what happened. Why are you making a distinction between vanilla scum and power roles in terms of slips? Why do you think there can't be more than a couple of vanilla scum?

And what did that long discussion have to do with whether OaOW was justified in voting when he saw the first typo and not the one in your post? You're talking about OaOW's vote as if he should have made a distinction between a vanilla scum and a power role scum. Why is that relevant to what actually happened, which was that he saw a typo, voted on it, and then realized there was another typo and unvoted?

That isn't how probability works. The first game is gone. In this one, Kelly has the same chance of being scum as anyone else.

Drain slipped because she was a Mason. She was not scum. But she slipped. Different Roles allow for different types of slip. If the slip is on PIS, and PIS is perfect information, you can only slip based on the PIS you know. Scum of different roles could slip on different PIS.

In my experience, past games have averaged four scum. One Goon is nearly a given. An alpha and a role blocker, sure. A Cop or Doc? Not out of the question.

I don't see how scum as a team can work, or what the balance would look like, if scum can have multiple goons.

You're talking about OaOW's vote as if he should have made a distinction between a vanilla scum and a power role scum. Why is that relevant to what actually happened, which was that he saw a typo, voted on it, and then realized there was another typo and unvoted?

NO, I'm Not.

Is this the Third or Fourth time at this?

I am asking OaOW to make a distinction in his vote. FULL STOP. I am not saying he has to distinguish between goon and power scum. [I wonder how Town could do that.]

It is because there was no distinction, of ANY kind, that I got on OaOW's case.

If you can't make a distinction with your vote -- if you can't marry your vote for a player EXCLUSIVELY to a unique list of reasons to vote for that player, you probably should not vote for that player.

Thus, the vote was not Justified at all. [[Why did you want me to say that an OaOW vote on NAF Was justified? Why are you trying to smudge?]]

OaOW's vote on NAF could have been transferred to me 100%.

The fact that there wasn't a vote on me doesn't change anything.

A product is still defective, even if it doesn't hurt anyone.

[Sorry, I only took one semester of Law, and it was Business Law at that, hopefully someone knows what I'm talking about.]

I believe that most [if not all] Mafia games would not have two scum acting in an identical manner. Therefore, you shouldn't use the "same" vote over multiple players. Since Scum CAN'T [Note I said CAN'T and not WON'T] play that identical to each other, it is probably a good bet at least one of the two players is town.

If you believe that you can spread the same vote (and reasons) over more than one person, then you are probably looking at two players with the same alignment and role. And, I believe at that point, you are looking at Two town players, who both happen to be mason or both happen to be vanilla. [Dare I speak of Odds and probability, but I would put money down on the latter.]

You guys know what I mean to say here, I just put another definition on to "weak vote".

So, because one vote can't be transfered to another player you need to look for additional or Unique reasons if you want to change a vote.

So, If town needs Unique reasons to vote on additional scum, where would those reasons come from ?

Different scum roles would have different slips. See Drain as Mason, in my opener. Hence, voting for them SHOULD use these bring these slips in as reasons for voting them.

There is no way a town player can know what role they are voting for when they switch votes. I am just saying their would be, different reasons to vote different people. Those reasons, for any given player should appear in a post where you make a vote for that same given player.

Mafia isn't Baseball.

Thankfully, we don't have to be Babe Ruth, and have a called shot when ever we vote.

Jimmy, how do suggest we would have called shots? How is that possible for town?

Ok. So. Let me get this straight

1. Meeko brain-farts and falls for Gambler's fallacy. [Which, I was familiar with.]
2. Everyone and their brother points it out.
3. Therefore Kelly MUST be Scum.

I KNOW it doesn't work that way.

Gambler's Fallacy states that one event has NO memory of past events. I don't understand all the heat on me from merely suggesting Kelly is Town. I mean, you guys all cite examples of past events, that Kelly wasn't even a player in. If my statement on Kelly was Gambler's, then all the examples that came after it, also fall victim.

I find it interesting that my reason to not vote Kelly on Day 1 apparently means that I am Scum Protecting Scum. I said I would give him a Pass on Day 1. But no, apparently, any and all "protection" ((I'm not sure how much protecting I can do by simply stating that I wont vote for him on day 1.)) is scum motivation.

Or are you guys going to tell me that Town "protecting" Town never happens?

OR, does everyone except Meeko forget how historically bad Day 1 Votes are?

FOS Jimmy

For having me rehash a entire discourse on a Vote that has been unvoted.
For suggesting that Town have "called shots" in their votes. I'm not sure that can ever happen.

special ed

03-24-2010, 04:28 PM

Meeko

03-24-2010, 04:36 PM

holy crap. I read that twice and it just got worse.

Never mind.

Meeko, can you point out where exactly someone suggested that you were a cum protecting another Scum?

I don't see it anywhere, and yet you brought it up in defense of yourself.

in fact, I think most people were only pointing out the fallacy of your thinking without accusing you of anything.

I put the FOS and Protecting together.

This also reads to me like you're defending Kelly. And both your arguments are weak, but what sticks out to me most is that you're making them. Why are you defending Kelly?

I'm not sure I want to move my vote from peeker because I do like Chronos's theory about the video Wicked Witch.

FOS Meeko

Meeko

03-24-2010, 04:37 PM

What should we make of our dead Mayor?

special ed

03-24-2010, 04:38 PM

I put the FOS and Protecting together.

gotcha

Jimmy Chitwood

03-24-2010, 04:39 PM

I'm sorry, Meeko, but I don't see much there to respond to. I didn't say we could call our shots, in fact I said the opposite. My question was why you introduced the distinction between vanilla scum and power scum at all. It seems irrelevant to your ultimate point -- one which you're being very rude about, considering that I've manifested no misunderstanding of it. Sure, you should have exactly one reason to vote for a person if you vote for that person, and I take your point about how if it could be applied to you as well, it probably wasn't likely to be a big scum tell. I get that. I promise you that you don't have to explain that any further.

I'm asking what is the nexus between that point and your introducing this:

How many games have more than one "vanilla" scum [goon] ? What are the odds that both of them would slip in similar ways? If they slip at all?

Not likely.

Scum power roles might slip at the same time a goon slips. I would bet that the power scum would have different and ""better"" PIS to slip on. Hence, you would have unique reasons to vote one or the other of these two scum.

Because, see, as special ed just pointed out, nobody else, not OaOW in the post you were answering, ever suggested that there were two scum who made slips. He just saw what he thought was a slip, and then noticed that somebody else had the same thing going on, and unvoted. Nobody ever suggested that both were scum. Until you did in order to say it was not the case.

special ed

03-24-2010, 04:40 PM

What should we make of our dead Mayor?

nothing

Jimmy Chitwood

03-24-2010, 04:41 PM

I put the FOS and Protecting together.

And just to point out that I'm referring to your post from before Freudian's, and so the above doesn't explain it.

MHaye

03-24-2010, 04:42 PM

What should we make of our dead Mayor?Nothing.

ShadowFacts is dead (hi, old horse ;)). He has no part in the game. It's just a standard bit of colour intended to convey the fact that the town is threatened by outside forces, who have started by trying to weaken the cohesion of the community by killing the perceived head man.

peekercpa

03-24-2010, 04:48 PM

No, your subsequent post, after 11 other claims, WAS a claim. The youtube clip was not a claim. In no way did it look like a claim. Taken by itself, it was not a claim. When combined with your actual claim, then yes, there's a claim in there.

But if you combine your claim with any other post by any player or non-player, or even if you combine your claim with a jar of stale salsa, it is a claim. Is that what you are saying?

i am rubber and you are glue. whatever you say bounces off me and sticks on you.

i ain't a real big fan of "breadcrumbs". maybe more subtlety would be my style.

so if you see some inconsistency please share. it was a claim and the fact that you don't want to admit it is really annoying. but that's the way it swings. when i flip town then maybe other folks and yourself, depending on alignment, will realize that this was a humongous strawman.

yasee i'll give you this ed we understand each other. in your mind i will always be a conninving little shit and i will always think the same of you. but yaknow what sometimes maybe stuff is as it appears and you could be flat ass wrong.

special ed

03-24-2010, 04:58 PM

OK, peeker, this will be my last comment on this:

If this series of posts is equivalent to a name claim, then one of us needs some communication lessons. Because truly, I don't see anything in any of these posts that indicates anything is a name claim. If you really don't see it, then I sorta feel sorry for you.

vote story

i've just got to vote a strong player on the chance that they are scum or not.

Are you making a joke, or are you just suicidal?

vote peekercpa for blatantly anti-town play.

hey this should help z

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxevBjM0l7I

especially when compared to the series of posts that led to my name claim:

If we're going to mass name claim, how do we set up the order?

We use random.org's incredibly handy list randomizer (http://www.random.org/lists/?mode=advanced).

or we just claim, like this:

You are Guy de Maupassant (Writer). You win with the Town.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_de_Maupassant

peekercpa

03-24-2010, 05:00 PM

oh, and just to add. i always liked shadow. he cracked my cherry, so to speak, when it comes to this game. we were a two person masonry in my first game ever. i think nook might have been there as well as another player. i swear he spent about 75 percent of his time smoothing over my screw ups. probably why he has never played again.

peekercpa

03-24-2010, 05:04 PM

and then we claim like this.

hey this should help z

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxevBjM0l7I

special ed

03-24-2010, 05:07 PM

you have my sympathies, peeker.

peekercpa

03-24-2010, 05:17 PM

you have my sympathies, peeker.

hey, ed i am playing for a town win. anything less than that is unacceptable.

Meeko

03-24-2010, 05:33 PM

How do you Un-FOS someone ?

I would like to UnFOS Jimmy.

In general, I feel as if I will never be able to breakthrough and play as you guys do. That may or may not be a good thing, but, If I can never get there, no point in debating it.

To me, It just feels like so much of an uphill battle, trying to reach a point where we all can understand each other, at times I wonder if its not 90 degrees or more.

To Jimmy's point:

I felt like the vote stunk to high heaven. I felt I could explain why it was a bad vote by starting up the entire "you can't switch a vote" discourse.

Perhaps I made my point, and took a few steps too many gilding the lily, tying to make it into a

I can haz ultimate Mafia winz?!

calculus / gaming system.

Either way, that vote no longer stands, and I think we ran this moot conversation into the ground.

Drain Bead

03-24-2010, 06:48 PM

Maybe this will help. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Spy3Nd2D6w)

Chronos

03-24-2010, 07:01 PM

Wait, so you're Madonna? Now I'm confused.

special ed

03-24-2010, 07:01 PM

Wait, so you're Madonna? Now I'm confused.

maybe this will help

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYHpP0b5FMU&feature=PlayList&p=F43EA150905E184B&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=40

TexCat

03-24-2010, 07:02 PM

Are you claiming Madonna now, Drain? :dubious::D

Meeko

03-24-2010, 07:03 PM

OOG:

Of all nights for my Internet connection to act up.

I just want the 360 Game Room, is that too much to ask?

apparently.

MHaye

03-24-2010, 07:58 PM

This is taking a ridiculously long time, and Ive got to get to bed as I have two hours manning a stall to publicise the people I work for tomorrow morning. So here's the abbreviated version of what I've done so far.

1. The nameclaim.
This was decided on very quickly, in something like 2½ hours, and by one-third of the players. If, when we start learning rolenames and powers, we discern a pattern, we might find one of the nefarious forces pushed it. If there's no pattern, then I doubt anything will be learned.

2.Peeker's "roleclaim."
It's in quotes because I did not see it as a claim at the time, and still don't. Most of the reason is that this :hey this should help z(which is the sum total of information I get from the post) is not a roleclaim. YouTube links are, to me, utterly meaningless, since I can't watch the videos.

Peeker, if you try and convey a concept to someone else, you have to consider not only how you want to articulate your message, but also how the intended recipients might interpret the message. If a significant portion of your audience does not understand the message, then the problem lies with your choice of method, not with their reception gear.

Or, to say it another way, you need to avoid elliptical and misleading statements coupled with meaningless links if you want to get your message across. I had no idea that was your claim until you came out and said so explicitly. None.

That's all I want to say on that entire episode.

3. OAOW and the misspellings.
I don't think you can tell, form the fact that two letters in a word are transposed, who mistyped. It's the sort of mistake anyone can make, unlike the mistake which should have, but did not, feature in my lynch in Pollux's bastard game. The word "neutralise" was not spelled in the American fashion (ie with a "z"), a clear pointer to the author being non-American. Sach might have transposed the letters while working up the PMs (and, if he was using a spellchecker it was probably being ignored owing to the high number of false positives it would generate from the strange names.)

OAOW also collected at least one vote for role-fishing. I can see why a bad guy might want to go fishing for indications of a nonscum being non-vanilla, as that would indicate Town power, or possibly third party. Or it might be a Townie pushing for something which indicates non-vanilla status, and who could thus be a bad guy. The problem with this is that the nefarious forces would learn more than the Townie would, hence it is a decidedly anti-Town action.

4. KellyCriterion.
Kelly's had only one spurt of participation. I read his posts as being made as he read the thread - read this, post that - and his vote for NAF to arise from his lack of online experience meaning he failed t realise the fundamental weakness in OAOW's accusation. I'm not sure that this is the sort of mistake that one of the nefarious forces is particularly likely to make, so I'm going to cut him a little slack.

I need to read the rest of the thread, and I can't afford to sit up all night. Ill try and put an hour in over morning coffee.

Zeriel

03-24-2010, 09:29 PM

Well, it seems I DIDN'T as intended post that I was going to be out of town for two days at a blackjack tournament (at which I got stomped hardcore. =P) so yeah.

On the other hand, I'm glad I missed it, upon re-read.
Man, Peeker. I like him personally but his playstyle drives me up a wall. I think both is opening gambit of "arbitrarily vote a strong player" and Chronos' analysis of his pseudo-claim are the best thing we have going right now--and I think they both kinda suck as reasons. Grant that it's day one.

I'm going to re-read this again and vote tomorrow. I'm normally an early and often kind of guy but meh, vacation screws up the rhythm.

Drain Bead

03-25-2010, 07:19 AM

GuiriEnEspaña

03-25-2010, 07:32 AM

FOS at everyone who brought up peeker voting story straight off as a reason to vote him.
/snipped

Do you mean to FOS Zeriel alone or have others used the vote on Story as part of their reasoning for their vote on Peeker?

vote peeker
for being so cagey about his name and parenthetical description (which we still don't know). It's distracting town at best, scummy as hell at worst.

OK, back home with my notes. It's funny, just the act of taking the notes helps me pay better attention to the game.

A few points: First, a few pages back, from Freudian, post 270 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12249599&postcount=270):That looks to me like a vanilla claim, and Freudian is a good enough player that she should know better than to claim a role, even just vanilla, without reason. Care to explain?

Moving on: I'm currently voting for someone for making a weak vote. But then peeker goes and votes TexCat (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12254274&postcount=346), apparently for trying to make sense of his gibberish (which it looks to me like he's saying we should all be doing), saying that in doing so TexCat mischaracterized him. Well, peeker, when you make yourself hard to understand, it's inevitable that some folks will understand you incorrectly. Nor is it just a matter that that's just the way he is: He's proven in previous games that he is able to write coherently; he just apparently chooses for some reason not to. Given that all Wanderers did was cast a weak vote, but that peeker has both cast a weak vote and is adding considerably to the noise in the thread, I think the latter is a better lynch right now.

Unvote Wanderers
Vote peeker

Moving yet further along, I'm also suspicious of Guiri. He says (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12254260&postcount=345) that peeker was the second to claim, but the earliest point at which peeker could be said to have claimed was post 174 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12244767&postcount=174), by which time special ed (140), Freudian Slit (154), Tom Scud (155), Oredigger (156), NAF (157), Red Skeezix (159), TexCat (160), Chronos (161), Mahaloth (162), Drain Bead (166), and Meeko (168) had all claimed. I'm having a hard time seeing why anyone would defend peeker on this point, so I'm also suspicious of Guiri.

Let's Water the Witch.

Unvote (Not sure if I had one)

Vote Peeker.

Pure and strict policy vote.

Yes. I said it.

And I said it it terms that Peeker will hopefully understand. If I get more coherent information out of him, then we can begin to talk Unvote.

FTR : Peeker, I Said you indirectly insult me. I would like to think that outside of Mafia we still understand each other.

It's just, even more so in this game, than in recent memory, I think I have lapped you bud.

It's sad. I will get over it, I don't know if you will or not.
That actually makes a lot of sense to me. It also explains why he was so vague. And the Elizabeth Berkeley photo--if he got the sense that other scum was NOT posting their real IDs, he could play coy and act like it was just a game, he was just playing around--see, he posted a pic of the chick in Showgirls. Why are you taking this so seriously? But since there were other "evil" roles, he could be all, "Yeah, that's my role, wtf? How is that not obvious! fsalkfjsaf!"

So. unvote red

vote peeker

You can't really say that someone is scum every time they vote for you, dude. It smacks of OMGUS. Anyway, why is it that he's flawed, and yet the fact that you get votes all the time on day one doesn't mean that you as a player are flawed?

Man, this is a tough game. Having said that, it has had more activity for me to read and try to interpret than any other Day One I've had.

I have to say, I'm leaning toward either Chronos, Peeker, or both being scum. I tend to think it's unlikely both are scum, as they are heading toward ensuring the kill of one of them, which is a pretty foolish move so early in the game. Obviously, it's possible both are town, as well, but there is no way to tell.

Having said this, I believe Chronos made a very good argument in post #466, where he walked through the timing and motivations of Peeker.

Read it yourself:

Vote Peeker

Now that I've previewed, I see that Freudian has made the same observation. I swear I started this post more than an hour ago, but have wandered away and worked on my job in the meantime. Anyway, there it is.

Tom Scud

03-25-2010, 07:50 AM

So not much in the way of new arguments since my last post - two votes for peeker, one for Kelly (Jimmy, also citing the "i don't believe OaOW is catching so much heat" remark) and a small blow-up surrounding Meeko and the gambler's fallacy.

I still haven't had a chance to really go back and reread Chronos' interactions with peeker to evaluate story's argument about him.

I will note that there are about 7 players who haven't voted yet - please vote, townies.

storyteller0910

03-25-2010, 07:55 AM

Ugh, ugh, ugh. I worked from home yesterday, and was gleefully anticipating spending a good hour developing a case. I had time, I had my own computer with a better connection so I could browse the thread more easily, it was going to rock. Then a tree in my backyard freaking fell down.

So I'm going to need to be a bit abbreviated. I don't like the case against peeker, which at this point is starting to border on an arbitrary "let's just lynch peeker on general principles" thing than any kind of actual game play. How many times do we have to go along with a shitty argument and lynch peeker Day One before we stop doing that?

I mean, he might be Scum, and I hope he is, because at least then this Day won't be a total lost (see what I did there? Hi, Total! You never play any more!). But we're collectively on the same path we stumbled down for Days in the Cecil Pond game, and it's a terrible idea. For everyone who's on about peeker being a distraction - which is more of a distraction: the guy who makes one single sort of confusing post then clarifies it, or the people who keep banging on about that single confusing post for real-life days on end?

storyteller0910

03-25-2010, 07:58 AM

Oh, and by the way, peeker:

Seriously, Elizabeth Berkley? She's scary, and I think I got a social disease just from looking at her picture.

sachertorte

03-25-2010, 08:04 AM

Hmmm.... no change in vote count. That's probably not a good sign.

storyteller (0): peekercpa 116 201

peekercpa (4): Zeriel 151 190, TexCat 314 356, Chronos 360, Meeko 383, Freudian Slit 478, Mahaloth 482

NAF1138 (0): One And Only Wanderers 179 288, KellyCriterion 242 244

One And Only Wanderers (0): Chronos 180 360, Jimmy Chitwood 184, Meeko 220 291

Mahaloth (0): Meeko 291 298

KellyCriterion (2): NAF1138 313, Jimmy Chitwood 484

TexCat (2): Red Skeezix 316, Tom Scud 328, peekercpa 346 450

Oredigger77 (1): Drain Bead 347

Red Skeezix (1): TexCat 356, Freudian Slit 364 478

Chronos (2): storyteller0910 416, peekercpa 450

Freudian Slit

03-25-2010, 08:06 AM

I mean, he might be Scum, and I hope he is, because at least then this Day won't be a total lost (see what I did there? Hi, Total! You never play any more!). But we're collectively on the same path we stumbled down for Days in the Cecil Pond game, and it's a terrible idea. For everyone who's on about peeker being a distraction - which is more of a distraction: the guy who makes one single sort of confusing post then clarifies it, or the people who keep banging on about that single confusing post for real-life days on end?

Well, this time it seems we're not just voting for him for that. Chronos made the argument that he was scum trying to pretend he wasn't the Wicked Witch until he was sure it was safe to claim an "evil" character, and I agreed with that assessment.

GuiriEnEspaña

03-25-2010, 08:12 AM

I will note that there are about 7 players who haven't voted yet - please vote, townies.
/snipped

I haven't voted. I'm on the fence about Peeker and therefore Chronos and Special Ed in their accusation. I'd like the noise to end but am not sure which of them, if any, is scum.

With all the discussion focused on 2 or 3 players, it's been hard to get a read on anyone else. I'm a little suspicious of Rysto for starting the discussion on the name claim, not actually taking part in the discussion (but posting), and then being almost the last player to actually claim. Not a lot to go on.

Zeriel

03-25-2010, 08:44 AM

FOS at everyone who brought up peeker voting story straight off as a reason to vote him.

He's done it in every game I've played with the two of them, and I think every time I've seen him do it, he's been Town. He's probably done it as Scum too, just not in any games I've been in. Point is, he does it in every game, so it's pretty much a null tell. At this point, I'd worry more if he didn't do it. And most of you have been in the same games, or watched them, and know this.

Okay, so you're going to FOS me for... calling out a stupid play. Repeated anti-town play is still anti-town, even if it's traditional and he always does it.

And I don't have anything better to go on right now, so since you're fostering anti-town behaviors (and, I might add, FOSing an apparent list ("everyone") that includes pretty much me and...me,
vote Drain Bead

Meeko

03-25-2010, 09:12 AM

OOG

Hey gang.

Can't recall if I said this yet. If I have, take it as a reminder.

Good News : I have found a job* -- Expect lower post counts from me here on out.

Bad News : It will take time away from Mafia**

*@Peeker, Skeezix,: This is a different job from the one I told Poker about. Unless something happens, I will be able to play tonight.

** If you guys say "Bad news?! Meeko is gonna post less? That's GREAT news!" or something similar, OMGUS FOS on you preemptively. --- I fully expect to still play***, and will not need a sub. I've let Sach know already.

*** Even if I joke, the truth oft said in jest. I would agree that I could stand to post less in Mafia games. Even if Colorless had my post count uncharacteristically low. Lynch the lurker doesn't work, if you don't work it.

peekercpa

03-25-2010, 09:12 AM

Well, this time it seems we're not just voting for him for that. Chronos made the argument that he was scum trying to pretend he wasn't the Wicked Witch until he was sure it was safe to claim an "evil" character, and I agreed with that assessment.

but then why would i even bring it up? seriously, i could have argued about the wisdom of a name claim. hemmed and hawed for a bit and then ultimately did what i did anyways.

and frankly, everything that i have done subsequently makes the first post abudndantly clear. sorry, subtley apparantly doesn't get much play in these parts.

and to be honest every time i have tried to bury the damn horse certain folks keep dragging the beast out and continue to beat the poor thing.

and i really don't like this universal holier than thou anti town crap that people like to fling arbitrarily. you know what is anti town, voting freaking town. now that's anti town.

so hopefully folks will be able to learn from this interlude and then get down to killing scum instead of folks whose viewpoint and approach is not congruent with theirs.

peekercpa

03-25-2010, 09:16 AM

oh, and just as a total aside.

i know story doesn't get to giraffe but he's already got a vote from me over there as well.

storyteller0910

03-25-2010, 09:21 AM

Okay, so you're going to FOS me for... calling out a stupid play. Repeated anti-town play is still anti-town, even if it's traditional and he always does it.

And I don't have anything better to go on right now, so since you're fostering anti-town behaviors (and, I might add, FOSing an apparent list ("everyone") that includes pretty much me and...me,
[B]vote Drain Bead

<blue text elided>

Really? Really?

Look, the vote was for me, so I have as much reason to pay close attention to it as anyone. I categorically reject the idea that it was anti-Town. It was a joke, an obvious joke. peeker never presented it as anything other than a joking start to the game. How was it anti-Town? Did it lead others to follow his reasoning and vote for me? Was it likely to?

Do you consider all early-game joking to be anti-Town? Why?

And then you vote for Drain Bead for "fostering anti-Town behaviors?" That's the biggest reach I've seen so far in this game. My vote currently holds on Chronos, but I am strongly inclined to switch it to you for this vote alone. Even if I accept your contention that a joke vote in the early game is an anti-Town behavior (and I don't), and even if I accept your contention that Drain Bead somehow "fostered" that behavior by pointing out that it has not generally functioned as anti-Town in the past, even then:

Why vote for drain instead of peeker? From your perspective, supposedly, drain is encouraging anti-Town behavior, and you don't "have anything better to go on." But from your perspective, there really should be something better to go on, because if drain's "encouragement" of a particular behavior is bad, surely actually engaging in that behavior should be worse, right? Why aren't you voting for peek? Is it because you know it's going to be a bad lynch and want to be distant from it?

You know what, on further consideration:

unvote Chronos
vote Zeriel

But I still want to make some observations about Chronos, which I will try to do today before the deadline.

special ed

03-25-2010, 09:21 AM

On the peeker case, it's true he could have been breadcrumbing his name claim until it was safe to claim the wicked witch. But wouldn't it have been easier to just wait to completely to claim? That's what's holding me back on this case. (and on preview, he's said as much)

On Meeko, yes it appears that he might be protecting Kelly, but if he truly believed in his gambler's fallacy, he was just being silly, not Scummy.

On Kelly, the vote/unvote does appear suspicious as does the subsequent lurking.

One typical Day 1 conversation we haven't had is on the potential Night 1 actions of a Vigilante. I'm not completely against a player using that power on Night 1 if it might provide additional data for the Town and/or remove a suspiciously low volume poster.

And now, on to my vote.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Vote Drain Bead

Do you really think this is why people are voting for peeker?

Why would you have paid so little attention to the arguments? I would think a Townie would pay better attention to the 'whys' of the arguments.

1. You seem to be setting up an 'I told you so"** case if peeker flips Town
2. Scum might know there is a case, but not be paying attention to it if they knew peeker was Town

FOS at everyone who brought up peeker voting story straight off as a reason to vote him.

He's done it in every game I've played with the two of them, and I think every time I've seen him do it, he's been Town. He's probably done it as Scum too, just not in any games I've been in. Point is, he does it in every game, so it's pretty much a null tell. At this point, I'd worry more if he didn't do it. And most of you have been in the same games, or watched them, and know this.

** Not, I used this argument against storyteller once and it started the original "debacle"

Zeriel

03-25-2010, 09:34 AM

Do you consider all early-game joking to be anti-Town? Why?

I have never liked joke votes in the first place. In the second place, nothing peeker does is EVER clearly a joke. In the third place, it took him getting called on it and almost a hundred posts to unvote you. When I was satisfied he was joking, I unvoted him (well before he unvoted you, mind you).

Why vote for drain instead of peeker? From your perspective, supposedly, drain is encouraging anti-Town behavior, and you don't "have anything better to go on." But from your perspective, there really should be something better to go on, because if drain's "encouragement" of a particular behavior is bad, surely actually engaging in that behavior should be worse, right? Why aren't you voting for peek? Is it because you know it's going to be a bad lynch and want to be distant from it?

Why not vote for peeker? Because Peeker stopped his anti-town behavior and I'm willing to accept it was a joke (which wasn't apparent when I voted peeker).

Why vote for Drain? Because, and I've done this since time immemorial, Drain used language that indicated she was doing one thing (smudging a group of people who voted peeker for his vote on you) when in reality she was doing something similar but markedly different (smudging me, and me alone.). You know how much I love it when people do that, it's been one of MY longest-running mafia things (starting from when I nailed NAF with it in my first game) and it catches scum for me regularly. So you can vote for me about it, but it's silly.

storyteller0910

03-25-2010, 09:40 AM

Why vote for Drain? Because, and I've done this since time immemorial, Drain used language that indicated she was doing one thing (smudging a group of people who voted peeker for his vote on you) when in reality she was doing something similar but markedly different (smudging me, and me alone.). You know how much I love it when people do that, it's been one of MY longest-running mafia things (starting from when I nailed NAF with it in my first game) and it catches scum for me regularly. So you can vote for me about it, but it's silly.

This is an interesting point. I had treated it as a throwaway line in your vote post - focusing on the thing about "fostering anti-Town behavior" - but it is in fact much more interesting and relevant.

This needs thinking.

unvote Zeriel

ShadowFacts

03-25-2010, 10:06 AM

Helpful reminder:

The game will operate on a weekly schedule. Days will end at precisely on Thursdays at 2:00 PM EDT by the SDMB clock. Board outages will not change the end of Day; plan carefully. All votes must have a time stamp of Thursday, 1:59 PM EDT or earlier. Posts and votes with time stamps Thursday, 2:00PM EDT or later will be ignored.

ToDay ends in just under three hours.

NAF1138

03-25-2010, 10:29 AM

Don't know about any of you, but this is probably going to be my last post for the Day. I still like my vote for Kelly and would love it if he/she* would respond in some way, but even if he/she does I don't think I am going to be able to do anything about it.

I would also like to point out that right now we are looking like we are going to lynch Peeker on a matter of principle, and I think that is a mistake. We also don't seem like we have nearly enough votes on the table for this late in the Day. If I am counting correctly I think we have 6 people who don't have a final vote down (let me know if I got that wrong). That's way too many non voters with less than 3 hours to go in the Day.

*can I get some help on this one, I have seen it both ways in the thread

One And Only Wanderers

03-25-2010, 10:33 AM

Tom Scud

03-25-2010, 10:35 AM

Okay, I have a lot of work and lately my work browser has sometimes been weird about posting to the Dope, so I'm not sure if I'll be able to come back at lunch at all. I don't like the peeker lynch - the Chronos case feels like a stretch to me, and I think people are using it as an excuse more than a reason.

I still think TexCat looks the scummiest to me at the moment, but I'm going to shift my vote elsewhere because it doesn't look like anything else is going to shift there, leaving my vote on a two-off.

I don't know what to make of the Zeriel/Drain thing and I don't have time to give it a proper consideration so I'm not going to throw my vote that way on an impulse.

So I'm going to shift to my second choice of long standing:

unvote TexCat
vote Kelly

for a dubious vote/unvote and then disappearing. Could be noob town, could be noob scum, but I like the lynch better than a peeker lynch.

Jimmy Chitwood

03-25-2010, 10:38 AM

I agree that this is not a very good scene for the town collectively. Freaking vote.

Right this second it is a viable option for scum to do just about anything and skate on it -- including not even voting. It wouldn't be a big deal to mislynch today, but it would be a pretty big deal to mislynch based on a clusterfuck that most of us were complicit in and that, as it stands, may not even give us useful information.

peekercpa

03-25-2010, 10:44 AM

TexCat

03-25-2010, 11:07 AM

With less than 2 hours, I see no votes from MHaye, Oredigger, Rysto, Kelly, Guiri, and now storyteller who just recently unvoted. (Hope I didn't miss any votes. Please correct, if I did.)

Freudian Slit

03-25-2010, 11:09 AM

but then why would i even bring it up? seriously, i could have argued about the wisdom of a name claim. hemmed and hawed for a bit and then ultimately did what i did anyways.

and i really don't like this universal holier than thou anti town crap that people like to fling arbitrarily. you know what is anti town, voting freaking town. now that's anti town.

so hopefully folks will be able to learn from this interlude and then get down to killing scum instead of folks whose viewpoint and approach is not congruent with theirs.

Voting town doesn't necessarily mean you're scum. No one knows who is town and who isn't.

GuiriEnEspaña

03-25-2010, 11:16 AM

I do not see the smudge, i do not see the hidden agenda to target only you
/snipped

I see the smudge and pointed it out (#553), Drain FOSed "everyone who brought up peeker voting Story straight off as a reason to vote him" but, when you look at the actual votes for Peeker (spoilered in my post) made by Texcat, Chronos, Meeko, Freudian Slit and Mahaloth, none of them mentioned the vote on Story in their reasoning, just Zeriel.

I don't feel as strongly about this to vote Drain although I can see why Zeriel wanted to.

I'll follow-up my earlier suspicions (#559) with a:

Vote Rysto

(for starting the discussion on the name claim, not actually taking part in the discussion (but posting), and then being almost the last player to actually claim. Weak but I'm more comfortable with this one-off vote than the alternatives).

I don't like the fact that Kelly's been absent for so long and is not around to defend himself but he may have rl stuff going on so I won't vote him toDay.

Rysto

03-25-2010, 11:17 AM

I'm going to vote Freudian Slit. First, there's this sequence of posts:

OK, granted Wanderers did vote, but I'm just seeing the voters for him as scummier than his vote. I do hope he unvotes NAF for that Joseph thing, though.(bolding mine)

Well, I don't think the vote was unjustified when he first made it. The fact that he hasn't rescinded the vote since we've realized that the typo is in more than one post says more to me, actually.

Okay, I agree it could have been a mod mistake. But I'm not sure why it's such a bad reason to vote for someone on. Aren't we basically taking stabs in the dark here on day one?

That "I do hope he unvotes" bit feels really, really off to me. I'm having a lot of trouble expressing exactly why it's bothering me so much. A part of it is, if Freudian doesn't think that OAOW's vote was bad, then why does she hope that he unvotes?

I also think that voting for TexCat for voting for peeker is weird. He genuinely is the most scummy person but then again he's ALWAYS the most scummy person. Not to be totally meta, but

vote red skeeviz

This is another weird post. If peeker is the scummiest person, then why is Freudian voting for Red here?

I'm sorry for taking so long to vote. I'll admit, all of the noise is really getting to me.

Freudian Slit

03-25-2010, 11:20 AM

That "I do hope he unvotes" bit feels really, really off to me. I'm having a lot of trouble expressing exactly why it's bothering me so much. A part of it is, if Freudian doesn't think that OAOW's vote was bad, then why does she hope that he unvotes?

I didn't think it was a great vote, but I honestly didn't see it as a scum tell.

This is another weird post. If peeker is the scummiest person, then why is Freudian voting for Red here?

peeker seemed scummiest, but then I know that he always does.

I also wanted to add to my last post addressed to peeker that the reason you wouldn't have just hemmed and hawed is because it would look a lot less suspicious than that weird video which, as Chronos pointed out, could go either way. It just looks like the perfect way for scum to try to "get away with" that kind of evil role.

sachertorte

03-25-2010, 11:21 AM

*can I get some help on this one, I have seen it both ways in the thread

Kelly is a he.

peekercpa

03-25-2010, 11:40 AM

Voting town doesn't necessarily mean you're scum. No one knows who is town and who isn't.

scum do.

peekercpa

03-25-2010, 11:44 AM

I also wanted to add to my last post addressed to peeker that the reason you wouldn't have just hemmed and hawed is because it would look a lot less suspicious than that weird video which, as Chronos pointed out, could go either way. It just looks like the perfect way for scum to try to "get away with" that kind of evil role.

<snipped>

yaknow bessie i really wanted you to have a proper burial. but some folks just can' let you be. so i am sorry, old friend but i just don't have the energy to keep you hauling back in that durn hole.

Freudian Slit

03-25-2010, 11:46 AM

Okay, let me rephrase. Town doesn't. Remember when you thought special ed was voting you last time because he was scum, and he wasn't?

sachertorte

03-25-2010, 11:52 AM

About one hour to go...

storyteller (0): peekercpa 116 201

peekercpa (4): Zeriel 151 190, TexCat 314 356, Chronos 360, Meeko 383, Freudian Slit 478, Mahaloth 482

NAF1138 (0): One And Only Wanderers 179 288, KellyCriterion 242 244

One And Only Wanderers (0): Chronos 180 360, Jimmy Chitwood 184, Meeko 220 291

Mahaloth (0): Meeko 291 298

KellyCriterion (3): NAF1138 313, Jimmy Chitwood 484, Tom Scud 571

TexCat (1): Red Skeezix 316, Tom Scud 328 571, peekercpa 346 450

Oredigger77 (1): Drain Bead 347

Red Skeezix (1): TexCat 356, Freudian Slit 364 478

Chronos (1): storyteller0910 416 564, peekercpa 450

Drain Bead (2): Zeriel 560, special ed 565

Zeriel (1): storyteller0910 564 567, One And Only Wanderers 570

Rysto (1): GuiriEnEspaña 576

Freudian Slit (1): Rysto 577

Zeriel

03-25-2010, 12:09 PM

I went back and read the post, and I don't see what you do at all. I basically agree with Drain, and I have no problem at all with joke votes early in day one, particularly when it is an obvious, recurring joke vote.

I do not see the smudge, i do not see the hidden agenda to target only you

vote Zeriel

What about a FOS is NOT a smudge, OaOW?
What about her saying "everyone" to describe a group that only contains me isn't a hidden agenda?

And clearly, peeker's jokes aren't exactly the most obvious things that have ever been put out there. The discussion on his "claim" is my cite.

Freudian Slit

03-25-2010, 12:13 PM

Oh, and by the way, peeker:

Seriously, Elizabeth Berkley? She's scary, and I think I got a social disease just from looking at her picture.

How can she be scary?! She did a great social service enlightening the world to the perils that is caffeine addiction.

Jimmy Chitwood

03-25-2010, 12:20 PM

Vote Rysto

(for starting the discussion on the name claim, not actually taking part in the discussion (but posting), and then being almost the last player to actually claim. Weak but I'm more comfortable with this one-off vote than the alternatives).

I bleached it.

We're under an hour now (under two when you posted it), and you can see the vote counts.

Would it be fair, do you think, if one was to interpret this vote as only barely better than no vote at all? You don't think it's a good vote, you know it won't affect the outcome, and you also posted in defense of a vote against Drain Bead, which vote could potentially affect the outcome, but didn't vote in that direction. Is it unfair to look at this as a very cautious hedging of your bets?

peekercpa

03-25-2010, 12:21 PM

ah it looks like the typical dope agenda claims another peekie townie on Day one. take care and no hard feelings especially to the dead horse beaters. i do actually get the feeling that you are just mis guided town as opposed to active scum. course, i did nail chronos on this nonsense a game or so ago, so who knows.

see you on the flip side, or at poker tonight. off to giraffe where there are scum waiting to get caught.

and skeez if you ever vote me for low participation again i swear, well i will just absolutely and forever .... remember sussing drain and the yuckcles we had on the mason board.

ciao.

MHaye

03-25-2010, 12:25 PM

Afternoon all.

I've not long got back from my voluntary job. Catching up as I write.

Vote soon.

GuiriEnEspaña

03-25-2010, 12:30 PM

I bleached it.

We're under an hour now (under two when you posted it), and you can see the vote counts.

Would it be fair, do you think, if one was to interpret this vote as only barely better than no vote at all? You don't think it's a good vote, you know it won't affect the outcome, and you also posted in defense of a vote against Drain Bead, which vote could potentially affect the outcome, but didn't vote in that direction. Is it unfair to look at this as a very cautious hedging of your bets?

Jimmy, it is fair to say that I have not used my vote to influence the outcome of toDay's lynch as it currently stands. 6 other players have one-off votes toDay which will not affect the lynch. Obviously there isn't a strong feeling for lynching Peeker but there also doesn't appear to be a strong desire to save him. I've been on the fence about Peeker for some time and am not sufficiently convinced of his scumminess to vote him nor sufficiently convinced of his towniness to vote someone else strategically in order to save him. I don't have a strong alternative.

I thought Zeriel's vote on Drain was OMGUS motivated but he was correct in interpreting her FOS as a personal smudge.

storyteller0910

03-25-2010, 12:38 PM

peeker seemed scummiest, but then I know that he always does.

I sort of understand where you're going with this in context: you're saying that you saw peeker as scummiest, but were hesitant to vote for him because he always seems scummy to you, so you're trying to account for your own preconceptions of peeker as scummy. Does that accurately capture your intent?

The problem arises, though, when peeker's own scumminess, or lack thereof, becomes a plank in your own case against a third player. I don't think it's going to be particularly relevant toDay, but toMorrow I'd like to look at your vote and its origins more carefully, and encourage someone else to do so in my place if I am unalive at the time.

---

For my part, I'm going to reinstitute my vote for Chronos, and summarize my reasons as quickly as possible. He has been "pinging" me in a variety of ways, beginning all the way back during the run-up to the name claim. In one post during that period (#120), he argued that "doing a name-claim toDay will prevent the Scum from saying 'OK, I'm planning on claiming Doctor, so I'm going to take the name Clara Barton. Don't anybody pick Jonas Salk' (or whatever)." Almost immediately afterward, he suggested that the Townie playing a Doctor (specifically) lie about his/her name in order to protect him/herself. A bit of a closer look reveals that these two ideas are sort of mutually contradictory, as if we allowed Town to lie about their role names it gives the Scum cover to claim whatever they want and then just claim Clara Barton/Jonas Salk later.

In the same post, he included a little disclaimer about how unlikely/impossible it is to catch Scum on the first Day, which is one of my pet Scum tells - I think Scum say things like this to make Town more accepting of a poorly-reasoned Day One lynch.

And then his behavior wrt peeker, which I have found to be manipulative and opportunistic. See my previous voting post for details.

vote Chronos

----

I retain modest suspicion of Zeriel, although his clarification was interesting and makes me want to look more closely at Drain Bead.

Regarding the two primary candidates, I don't buy the case against peeker, and have run out of time to consider the case against Kelly. I am not unwilling to change my vote if there is a reason to do so, but as I see nothing particularly Town about peeker (I don't agree with the case against him, but that doesn't mean he's any less likely to be Scum than Kelly), so saving him over Kelly is sort of pointless. Can any of the Kelly voters offer a quick-and-dirty summary of their reasons?

MHaye

03-25-2010, 12:39 PM

Vote Chronos

Why Chronos?

I did not like his vote for OAOW. I've presented my views on OAOW's vote (see post 550). It should have been obvious to everyone that the particular misspellings were not indicative of any particular author, so the conclusions he drew were totally unsupported. Someone trying to build a case on that reason is either extremely foolish or has an ulterior motive.

I reject the hypothesis that Chronos is that foolish. So he had a reason.

I considered voting Meeko, but I suspect he was in part influenced by their knowledge of Chronos as a clear thinker. I think Kelly Criterion may also have been so influenced. Hence my choice of Chronos over Meeko or Kelly.

Freudian Slit

03-25-2010, 12:42 PM

I sort of understand where you're going with this in context: you're saying that you saw peeker as scummiest, but were hesitant to vote for him because he always seems scummy to you, so you're trying to account for your own preconceptions of peeker as scummy. Does that accurately capture your intent?

The problem arises, though, when peeker's own scumminess, or lack thereof, becomes a plank in your own case against a third player. I don't think it's going to be particularly relevant toDay, but toMorrow I'd like to look at your vote and its origins more carefully, and encourage someone else to do so in my place if I am unalive at the time.

Yes, that is in fact my reasoning.

Anyway, I did in fact go with peeker but not for the "same old reasons."

What kind of case are you talking about here, specifically? That is, are you referring to my vote on any other player?

Zeriel

03-25-2010, 12:45 PM

Rysto

03-25-2010, 12:46 PM

story quote the post where you voted for Red, so presumably that's the case he's talking about.

storyteller0910

03-25-2010, 12:46 PM

What kind of case are you talking about here, specifically? That is, are you referring to my vote on any other player?

The skeezix vote referred to by Rysto, above. As I say, I'm not real clear on the sequence of events yet; a re-read with that in mind is necessary.

Rysto

03-25-2010, 12:47 PM

NETA: Oops, no he didn't. But that was the context of the discussion.

Mahaloth

03-25-2010, 12:50 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like we can discuss strategy during the Night, right? Or is it fluff only?

Jimmy Chitwood

03-25-2010, 12:50 PM

That's three on Chronos, right? peeker and two new ones? Huh.

story -- Kelly voted quick-bang for NAF based on the spelling mistake, then unvoted a couple hours later, then disappeared and has only posted once, which was the post that I objected to where he said "I can't believe the heat OaOW is getting for pointing out a TYPO" or whatever. The NAF vote is http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12248143&postcount=241

Red Skeezix

03-25-2010, 12:52 PM

and skeez if you ever vote me for low participation again i swear, well i will just absolutely and forever .... remember sussing drain and the yuckcles we had on the mason board.

ciao.

This game has enough problems without discussing a currently ongoing game in it:D.

At this point I don't think moving my vote would make too much of a difference. The only other thing that is really pinging me is Drain's comments about the peeker train. When I initially read it, I was confused because I didn't assume that was why anyone was voting him. The problem is, I think Tex's vote on spurious reasoning, and her avoidance to come up with any explanation of her justification is scummier than Drain's smudge. Which I'm not even sure is a smudge or just someone skimming. Well, skimming alot considering the amount of posts in this thread have been about the peeker case.

On preview: I disagree with some of the reasoning in story's case against Chronos. Chronos presented a flawed, not particularly well thought idea that involved town players lying. Having a bad idea isn't scummy, supporting a bad idea once it's been shown to be bad is. I see him doing the former and not the latter.

MHaye

03-25-2010, 12:52 PM

special ed

03-25-2010, 12:53 PM

After looking over the rules (from post 70, if you'd like to keep that in mind for easy reference)

There don't seem to be any restrictions on strategy talk at any time.

The game will operate on a weekly schedule. Days will start at some semi-arbitrary point during the weekend; ideally Saturday Afternoon (2PM EDT), but no later than Sunday Morning. Days will end at precisely on Thursdays at 2:00 PM EDT by the SDMB clock. Board outages will not change the end of Day; plan carefully. All votes must have a time stamp of Thursday, 1:59 PM EDT or earlier. Posts and votes with time stamps Thursday, 2:00PM EDT or later will be ignored.

Night instructions are due by Saturday 2:00PM EDT by SDMB clock.
Failure to meet the deadline will result in no action.

Vote LikeThis
Votes must be in bold blue, on a single line, by itself. Please don't play hide the vote from the moderator. Everyone will be happier with accurate vote counts. (For strict interpretation, any vote in blue will be considered an intended vote. Bold, single line, by itself is a moderator request, not a requirement)

Unvote LikeThis
Unvotes are to be made in bold red, on a single line, by itself.

Messages to the moderator should be in bold green, on a single line.
The moderator encourages questions to the moderator to be sent via PM.

Lynches will be by plurality. The leading vote-getter at 2:00PM EDT on Thursday will die.
Ties are bad. Don't do them.
Ties will be resolved by timestamp. The tied player who received the most recent vote will live.
A No Lynch will occur if an uncontested plurality of votes accumulates for No Lynch. A tie with No Lynch will result in someone getting lynched as if the No Lynch votes didn't exist at all.

Substitutions/Removal:
I will allow substitutions up through the Dawn of Day Four. Past Day Four's Dawn, missing players will be removed from the game with no public indication of role or alignment. Substitutions may happen at anytime. Removals will occur at Dusk.

Prodding:
The moderator will not prod anyone. Failure to participate will result in substitution/removal.

Win Condition:
Individual win conditions will not change during the course of the game. Your team wins when all threats to your team are neutralized.
There are no third parties.

Closed Setup:
An inventory of roles will not be published.
A standard Town role PM will be public information.

Stuff you should already know:
- Game related communication outside the game thread is forbidden, except for scum who may communicate at Night and only at Night.
- Be nice.
- Only living players may post game relevant discussion to the game thread.
- Editing posts is not allowed. Punishment for an edited post will be removal from the game.

special ed

03-25-2010, 12:54 PM

Storyteller

I believe the case against Kelly Criterion is based on posts 240 to 243 inclusove. In particular, that he "latched on" to a feeble case, then jumped off the bandwagon when he found it had no traction.

to me though, it looked like it could have been someone posting as they caught up, voting when the case was presented and unvoting when the case was argued against.

Freudian Slit

03-25-2010, 12:55 PM

The skeezix vote referred to by Rysto, above. As I say, I'm not real clear on the sequence of events yet; a re-read with that in mind is necessary.

Okay, sorry, I thought you thought that I was currently voting for someone else b/c of peeker.

Yeah, the red thing wasn't a great case. Looking back, to be honest, it pinged me but not enough for me to want to go through with it.

I'm not voting for peeker for anything like, "Oh he voted story" or "He's distracting." What peeker did IS peekeresque but I would have voted for anyone who did that weird breadcrumbing role thing.

Meeko

03-25-2010, 12:55 PM

oh, and just as a total aside.

i know story doesn't get to giraffe but he's already got a vote from me over there as well.

Found a natural stopping point. This close to the lynch, I wanted to be there as it happened.

But Peeker, the above doesnt help you.

Long and short of it : You need to be a different player in different games. One size Peeker does not fit all games.

Jimmy Chitwood

03-25-2010, 12:56 PM

Thank you MHaye for an actual helpful link instead of that bullshit I provided.

ed, I'd say that jumping ahead to cast a vote before finishing reading the thread is the sort of thing that is way less likely if you're town.

storyteller0910

03-25-2010, 12:58 PM

On preview: I disagree with some of the reasoning in story's case against Chronos. Chronos presented a flawed, not particularly well thought idea that involved town players lying. Having a bad idea isn't scummy, supporting a bad idea once it's been shown to be bad is. I see him doing the former and not the latter.

Well, I mean, there wasn't really a chance for him to defend the idea at all, was there? Suddenly everyone just claimed, discussion was abbreviated, so we'll never know if he'd have held onto the idea or not (by the way, I disagree that holding onto an idea is necessarily Scummy, even if it appears to be a bad idea to some. And if you disagree, I'll double-lyse you).

But the point is, the specific contradiction in Chronos' argument is one that strongly favored Scum. Encouraging Town roles to lie gives Scum cover to lie themselves, which completely obviates (what he was describing as) the point of the name claim.

-----------

The case against Kelly is interesting, I guess, and players who vanish when they're getting heat are always of special interest, but it's thin. Hm.

special ed

03-25-2010, 12:58 PM

ed, I'd say that jumping ahead to cast a vote before finishing reading the thread is the sort of thing that is way less likely if you're town.

I often post as I catch up when I get far behind. It allows me to get out my ideas before my brain gets overrun with new ideas and I forget what I'd wanted to say. I don't think it's a tell one way or another.

Red Skeezix

03-25-2010, 12:59 PM

ed, I'd say that jumping ahead to cast a vote before finishing reading the thread is the sort of thing that is way less likely if you're town.

Why, exactly?

IME, scum are MORE conscientious about their actions, and less likely to act rashly then town.

storyteller0910

03-25-2010, 01:00 PM

So that's it, yes. Day over?

600+ posts on Day One. So if the game goes six days, we could challenge 4,000 posts. What's the record?

Red Skeezix

03-25-2010, 01:00 PM

NETA: :smack: than town, not then town:smack:

Jimmy Chitwood

03-25-2010, 01:00 PM

But do you actually vote that way? It is rapidly becoming academic, anyway, I guess.

Red Skeezix

03-25-2010, 01:04 PM

But do you actually vote that way? It is rapidly becoming academic, anyway, I guess.

Sometimes. And I've been lynched for voting rashly as town before by people who say scum is more likely to do that than town, which is a phenomenon I have yet to see. So I was wondering if you could back your statement up, or if you were just adding fluff to the kelly case.

MHaye

03-25-2010, 01:04 PM

So that's it, yes. Day over?

600+ posts on Day One. So if the game goes six days, we could challenge 4,000 posts. What's the record?The Cult of Sekham, some 4,350 posts in twelve Days.

Jimmy Chitwood

03-25-2010, 01:07 PM

Why, exactly?

IME, scum are MORE conscientious about their actions, and less likely to act rashly then town.

I suppose that is true, but I think about that more in terms of word choice and things than in terms of who to throw a vote on.

What's informing this perspective is that my policy the one time I was scum and brand new to the game was to find some reason to vote for somebody early, and let it sit there. I didn't have to be convinced -- any reason would do, as long as it allowed me to keep my head down and there was something in the thread I could point back to. So it looks very much to me like Kelly found a reason and jumped on it. You've got to vote for somebody, and getting in on something that others have brought up is always a relatively safe play.

I do take your point, though. If both sides are playing optimally, a vote given on a whim is probably more likely to be from a town player.

sachertorte

03-25-2010, 01:07 PM

That was messy.
With surprisingly little discussion about how sucky Day One usually is, the Town just as quickly and efficiently dispensed with discussion about claims and all claimed to come from the Land of Wikipedia. With the preliminaries dispensed with unusual speed and little argument, the town meandered through the Day and decided that spreading out the votes over as many people as possible was the equitable thing to do. But lo! peekercpa, the greedy bastard, hoarded a whole four votes all for himself.

Well, this simply will not do.

storyteller (0): peekercpa 116 201
peekercpa (4): Zeriel 151 190, TexCat 314 356, Chronos 360, Meeko 383, Freudian Slit 478, Mahaloth 482
NAF1138 (0): One And Only Wanderers 179 288, KellyCriterion 242 244
One And Only Wanderers (0): Chronos 180 360, Jimmy Chitwood 184, Meeko 220 291
Mahaloth (0): Meeko 291 298
KellyCriterion (3): NAF1138 313, Jimmy Chitwood 484, Tom Scud 571
TexCat (1): Red Skeezix 316, Tom Scud 328 571, peekercpa 346 450
Oredigger77 (1): Drain Bead 347
Red Skeezix (1): TexCat 356, Freudian Slit 364 478
Chronos (3): storyteller0910 416 564, peekercpa 450, storyteller 590, MHaye 591
Drain Bead (2): Zeriel 560, special ed 565
Zeriel (1): storyteller0910 564 567, One And Only Wanderers 570
Rysto (1): GuiriEnEspaña 576
Freudian Slit (1): Rysto 577
Not Voting (2) : KellyCriterion, Oredigger77

peekercpa, (Witch) is dead.

All Night Actions are due by 2:00PM EDT 27 March 2010 via SDMB PM. The timestamp must read 1:59PM or earlier to be valid. I will consider the action request with the latest, valid time-stamp to be the final decision for each actor. Failure to submit an action will result in no action.

Mahaloth

03-25-2010, 01:08 PM

So, was "Witch" town?

peekercpa

03-25-2010, 01:10 PM

You can complain all you want, but considering obfuscatory, twee, or ambiguous postings as anti-town has always been a feature of Dope Mafia games. I don't see why it's coming as a surprise to you.

not complaining at all, just observing. and just because folks approach this game from a different angle doesn't make them scummy. something to kind of think about in the future.

Freudian Slit

03-25-2010, 01:11 PM

I'm curious, too.

I'll hold off passing out drinks before we know whether we're crying in our uri--er, beer, or throwing back shots in celebration.

special ed

03-25-2010, 01:13 PM

So that's it, yes. Day over?

600+ posts on Day One. So if the game goes six days, we could challenge 4,000 posts. What's the record?

lynching the post leader should bring the average Down, and if Meeko, me, and freduian go anytime son, it should drop off more rapidly.

Mafia V: The Cult of Sekham (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=426256) had 4353 posts
Werewolf a game Part 2 (this time with MAFIA!) (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=414041) had 3947
Screamers Mafia (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=532883) had 2948
Mafia: Conspiracy 2: The Cabal Strikes Back! had 2663 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=471171)
Mafia The Game III: Kinder and Gentler (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=417106) had 2503
Evil Daed had 2448 (in all the threads)
The Crimson Glyph (Werewolf/Mafia/Psychopath) (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=515347) had 2407
Lost Mafia/Werewolf/Psychopath (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=520635) had 2193
Mafia: The Conspiracy (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=436661) had 2125
Scum mafia: On Cecil pond (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=549182) had 2080
Mafia: The Mob is Recruiting (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=456652) had 1983
You-Solve-It Mafia Game (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=447411) had 1804
Sdmb mafia (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=490235) had 1726
Werewolf (Mafia)--The Split had 1648 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=506392)
Mafia--T2: Behind the Scenes (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=481372) had 1628
Weird Wild West Mafia/Werewolf/Psychopath (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=526406) had 1504
Mafia: Simpletown (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=461435) had 1459
Colorless Mafia (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=542249) had 1429
Mafia: Cecilvania [Game Over] (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=467815) had 1409
Mafia: Not-so-simple-Simpletown (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=509422) had 1149
Munchkin Mini Mafia (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=506331) had 994
Doperville Mafia - New Players Welcome! (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=467356) had 931
Inblourious Gasterds Mafia (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=531139) had 745
Mafia: Mutiny on the SS Insipid [Game Over] (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=526504) had 448

that's all that I found...yeah...I'm bored

peekercpa

03-25-2010, 01:15 PM

whoops, my bad sach. i didn't realize we were closed down.

go town.

Drain Bead

03-25-2010, 01:38 PM

Usually blue text = Town.

Since there are no restrictions on strategy talk, when I made my FOS post, I said "everybody" because I was pretty sure I'd seen that argument made before in a post by someone voting for peeker, although not necessarily in the post where they made the vote. I wasn't sure who it was and didn't have time to go through the thread looking for it (and still don't, although I may at some point in the future) so I just hedged my bets and said "everyone." But if it turns out it's just zeriel, then the FOS applies to just him, then. Nothing changes--I still think it's a horrid reason to vote peeker on Day One, since he always makes the same damned joke vote every Day One.

Freudian Slit

03-25-2010, 01:42 PM

I was afraid that blue=town, too, Drain.

Here's my drink. In honor of Random Mafia, I call it the Randomizer. I threw a lot of crap in a blender. Tada!

Rysto

03-25-2010, 01:56 PM

Uh, ed, I think that you missed a rather important game... (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=407197).

1386 posts in that one, if anybody's curious.

special ed

03-25-2010, 02:00 PM

Uh, ed, I think that you missed a rather important game... (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=407197).

1386 posts in that one, if anybody's curious.

ah, I've heard of that. Before my time...

sorry for missing it. I looked them up just by sorting "the game thread' by highest post threads 'since the beginning' A vast majority of the threads at the top are Mafia threads, btw

Oredigger77

03-25-2010, 02:06 PM

Hey guys, sorry I disappeared and didn't get a vote in. I'm finally settled in back in my old office but it was buried under a mountain of paper work, actually my friends spend the last 6 months filling my 10x10 office floor to ceiling with newspaper, and it took me 3 hours to dig out. This was the big hurdle in my communication for this game and I should be good from here on out.

Chronos

03-25-2010, 02:17 PM

Whoops, I somehow got the time zone conversion mangled in my head, or I would have shown up earlier to defend myself. Since I ended up in second place, and since it looks like strategy talk is permitted at Night, I think I ought to defend myself anyway. First off, MHaye's vote (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12265736&postcount=591):Vote Chronos

Why Chronos?

I did not like his vote for OAOW. I've presented my views on OAOW's vote (see post 550). It should have been obvious to everyone that the particular misspellings were not indicative of any particular author, so the conclusions he drew were totally unsupported. Someone trying to build a case on that reason is either extremely foolish or has an ulterior motive.

I reject the hypothesis that Chronos is that foolish. So he had a reason.
As it stands, I can't really make sense of this-- Could we have some antecedents for those pronouns, maybe? MHaye starts off by agreeing with me, that the typos didn't mean anything. He then goes on to say that "the conclusions he drew were totally unsupported". Since it was Wanderers who drew the conclusions from the typos, I presume that the "he" here means Wanderers, not me. Then we have "Someone trying to build a case on that reason is either extremely foolish or has an ulterior motive.". OK, I think I can agree with this, assuming that the "someone" means Wanderers, and "that reason" means based on the typos. But then we have "I reject the hypothesis that Chronos is that foolish. So he had a reason.", which makes it look like the preceding sentence was about me. MHaye, at what point in that post did you go from talking about Wanderers and what he did, to me and what I did?

OK, next up, to storyteller's re-vote of me. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12265733&postcount=590) I've already made my defense against the charge that my vote was opportunistic, so I'll say no more on that. Then there's this:For my part, I'm going to reinstitute my vote for Chronos, and summarize my reasons as quickly as possible. He has been "pinging" me in a variety of ways, beginning all the way back during the run-up to the name claim. In one post during that period (#120), he argued that "doing a name-claim toDay will prevent the Scum from saying 'OK, I'm planning on claiming Doctor, so I'm going to take the name Clara Barton. Don't anybody pick Jonas Salk' (or whatever)." Almost immediately afterward, he suggested that the Townie playing a Doctor (specifically) lie about his/her name in order to protect him/herself. A bit of a closer look reveals that these two ideas are sort of mutually contradictory, as if we allowed Town to lie about their role names it gives the Scum cover to claim whatever they want and then just claim Clara Barton/Jonas Salk later.OK, I can see how those two ideas, especially in combination, can be seen as bad. It'd have been nice if you had pointed out that it was a bad idea at the time, so we'd have been able to re-assess, and maybe come to a consensus that it was bad, so we wouldn't fall into that trap. It's too late for that, now, since everyone, including our hypothetical doctor and all of the Scum, have now claimed. If it's obvious that this was a bad idea, why didn't you point it out sooner, and if it wasn't so obvious, then why does it reflect on me that I didn't notice it either?

Also from storyteller's vote:In the same post, he included a little disclaimer about how unlikely/impossible it is to catch Scum on the first Day, which is one of my pet Scum tells - I think Scum say things like this to make Town more accepting of a poorly-reasoned Day One lynch. I'm pretty sure I've said something to this effect in every game I've played, including the games where I was Town. I say it for the simple reason that it's true: The first-Day lynch is, in fact, usually Town. Can anyone dispute that fact? It doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to lynch Scum, just that we shouldn't be too surprised when and if we fail.

And, of course, there's peeker's vote for me, which so far as I can tell boils down to "Chronos voted for a Townie, therefore Chronos is Scum". Even if the blue text does mean peeker was Town (a point I'd really appreciate seeing clarified) I don't think I really need to put up any defense versus that one, since I'm sure everyone already sees the flaw.

Chronos

03-25-2010, 02:28 PM

Oh, and since it was sachertorte who pointed it out in the last game (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12168772&postcount=1571), I feel obligated to point it out here: The way the end-of-Night is scheduled, there's a perfect window of opportunity every Morning for a detective claim. When the Detective decides that the time has come to claim and reveal es investigations, e should do so shortly after 2:00 on that Saturday, rather than during the preceding Day. That way, the Scum can't decide to kill him immediately, but if he was targeted by guesswork, he's not dead yet.

Zeriel

03-25-2010, 02:48 PM

After that summary text, I'm going to petition sach to change this to being called "sarcasm mafia".

Tom Scud

03-25-2010, 03:30 PM

Hi all. I'm assuming that blue text, plus peeker's "go town" dying message, mean Town. I think I'm going to pretend that there isn't strategy talk at night even though there is and come back with fresh eyes and brain later.

Tom Scud

03-25-2010, 03:31 PM

And, oh yeah, Screamers mafia went to 880 posts on the first day. I still remember the sinking feeling when we found out it wasn't over yet on page 13 or so...

Chronos

03-25-2010, 04:33 PM

That was mostly because Day 1 itself went on extra-long, though. There were mechanics in that game that led to variable-length Days, but after that, I think they were all about a week long, like normal.

Freudian Slit

03-25-2010, 04:47 PM

Anyone up for my newest concoction? Raspberry Smush? No? How about Bestiality in the Parking Lot?

And all the drinks come with little beanies on them. In honor of Passover.

TexCat

03-25-2010, 04:54 PM

I'll try the randomizer, please, barkeep, but please, please, please don't tell me what's in it.

Freudian Slit

03-25-2010, 05:06 PM

You're in luck. It, too, comes with a cute lil Passover beanie, and you get a bonus! No, NOT the peanuts, save those for tonight. You get a clean glass.

Mahaloth

03-25-2010, 05:13 PM

By the way, everyone should send their photo in for the SMDB photo collection.

Let's be honest. Don't you wanna get a look at some of these freaks you play Mafia with?

:)

Go here to send you photo in. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=539257)

Red Skeezix

03-25-2010, 05:33 PM

I guess I'll try the bestiality in the parking lot. Although I think I would earn the same looks ordering one of those as I would a zima.

Freudian Slit

03-25-2010, 05:33 PM

I guess I'll try the bestiality in the parking lot. Although I think I would earn the same looks ordering one of those as I would a zima.

That's the spirit.

Might I also add that all our drinks are green, as is the fashion nowadays?

Meeko

03-25-2010, 10:59 PM

UGH.

You ever have a day, where you don't know what you feel, and you don't why you don't know what you feel?

I feel bad for the Peeker vote, but not sure that I would even unvote now, if I had the chance.

Not sure if he will understand why I voted for him. Not sure if you guys got why I voted for him.

I feel drunk right now, and I haven't touched any.

Would like to talk to him later though. Not here, not the forum. heh. Just, I felt I put a lot of equity on Peeker that I can never get back. Bits and pieces here and there, in all games, and in meta game space. Just sooo thought his "strategy" in the game was from a different place.

I am probably making it worse. Catch you guys later. I feel REALLY off tonight. in general.

Freudian Slit

03-25-2010, 11:40 PM

Meeko, you look bushed. I think you need a drinky.

I called it the Hudsucker Peroxide.

Jimmy Chitwood

03-26-2010, 12:15 AM

If I post something similar does that mean you'll have to make another pun like that?

I feel pretty beat, too. Go.

Meeko

03-26-2010, 05:37 AM

Meeko, you look bushed. I think you need a drinky.

I called it the Hudsucker Peroxide.

Still not sure what it was. Gotta get used to my new schedule.

KellyCriterion

03-26-2010, 09:05 AM

Apologies for not voting. Just a lack of available time. I hope to get some time in to do a proper read up.

One And Only Wanderers

03-26-2010, 09:24 AM

Hmmm what would be the view on a companion thread with links to Day One start post, Night one start post etc? Navigating this beast isn't going to get any easier.

Mahaloth

03-26-2010, 09:33 AM

Hmmm what would be the view on a companion thread with links to Day One start post, Night one start post etc? Navigating this beast isn't going to get any easier.

We haven't usually done this in the past, and with another thread(the discussion one) going, I'm not sure if the mods will approve it.

Having said that, perhaps someone could create an open Google Doc with that info. for us? Not my are of expertise and so forth, but it would be cool.

sachertorte

03-26-2010, 09:40 AM

Hmmm what would be the view on a companion thread with links to Day One start post, Night one start post etc? Navigating this beast isn't going to get any easier.

Please don't.
God invented bookmarks for a reason.

storyteller0910

03-26-2010, 09:47 AM

Hmmm what would be the view on a companion thread with links to Day One start post, Night one start post etc? Navigating this beast isn't going to get any easier.

It wouldn't be difficult, nor I think problematic, to include said links in a signature file.

Red Skeezix

03-26-2010, 11:54 AM

We haven't usually done this in the past, and with another thread(the discussion one) going, I'm not sure if the mods will approve it.

Having said that, perhaps someone could create an open Google Doc with that info. for us? Not my are of expertise and so forth, but it would be cool.

Ask and you shall recieve. (Also anyone feel free to tell me if you can't access or I've flubbed up a link).

http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0ApvweZtrgRBudEppNEdCV0lod1FzTDljWUdrU1c1S2c&hl=en

Mahaloth

03-26-2010, 01:44 PM

Ask and you shall recieve. (Also anyone feel free to tell me if you can't access or I've flubbed up a link).

http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0ApvweZtrgRBudEppNEdCV0lod1FzTDljWUdrU1c1S2c&hl=en

Very cool, Red. Thanks for that.

Rysto

03-27-2010, 10:11 AM

Hey sach, did peeker have any powers? Was he vanilla? I assume that blue means Town?

sachertorte

03-27-2010, 01:05 PM

With the typical dispatching of peekercpa complete, the night progressed as everyone expected. Some took to drink, others went to bed, still others toiled through the night, and one died.

NAF1138 (Mormon) is dead.

Freudian Slit

03-27-2010, 01:09 PM

It would be the Mormon. DUM DUM DUM DUM DUM DUM DUM!

So I'm assuming both our deaths were Town? I'm curious about what Rysto asks.

Anyway, I'll start off today with my vote.

Vote Meeko

Why? For your justification that Kelly due to the numbers couldn't be scum again.

Rysto

03-27-2010, 02:13 PM

Why? For your justification that Kelly due to the numbers couldn't be scum again.
Why, in your opinion, is this scummy?

TexCat

03-27-2010, 02:23 PM

NAF, sorry to see you go. That confirms that misspelling is not a scum tell, at least. ;)

Freudian Slit

03-27-2010, 02:29 PM

Why, in your opinion, is this scummy?

It's really bad reasoning--Kelly being scum in a past game has no bearing on whether or not he'll be scum here. It just struck me as someone trying to protect a fellow scum.

Rysto

03-27-2010, 02:47 PM

That's a gigantic reach, Freudian. It's bad reasoning, sure. But you're asserting that Meeko knew that it's bad reasoning but thought that nobody would notice. Anybody who knows why that was poor reasoning would know that they couldn't possibly sneak that argument past us.

Why are you, for second Day running, going after an easy target?

Vote Freudian

Freudian Slit

03-27-2010, 05:33 PM

Rysto

03-27-2010, 07:05 PM

The reasoning was bad. That doesn't make it scummy.

NAF1138

03-27-2010, 07:14 PM

Bah. I haven't been killed on night one in a while.

No spoilers for now. I might change my mind in a Day or two.

special ed

03-27-2010, 07:17 PM

I wasn't the only one going after Meeko yesterday. A lot of other people thought the reasoning behind Kelly not being able to be scum was bad, too. It just makes me why does Meeko feel he has to protect Kelly like that?

Did anyone vote for Meeko for making that comment? I do know it pinged a few of us. I remember there being 2 very odd statements from Meeko back to back (the other being his comment on peeker "I half want to vote Peeker just to shut his smug rear end up")'

Given that Meeko did not understand the fallacy in his thinking (and that should be a given because otherwise he wouldn't have stated it)

1. He's Town who felt that the votes on Kelly were undeserved, and made a bad argument.

2. He's Scum and saw a Scum buddy taking some heat. I've had the privlege of seeing Meeko in action as Scum in the 2 games he's been Scum (one as a teammate and one as a mod.) During those games, Meeko had a shaky at best grasp on the concept of allowing a Scumbuddy to die to serve the greater good. I can see him making a move to protect a Scumbuddy.

I'm hesitant to vote at this point, but the pinging is still there.

Freudian Slit

03-27-2010, 07:17 PM

I think it was bad reasoning in a desperate attempt to keep a fellow scum out of the noose. I don't see why he'd make such a bad argument unless he had a vested interest in keeping Kely safe.

Freudian Slit

03-27-2010, 07:20 PM

NETA: Because I did not see ed's comment.

I could see Meeko doing that to a town but honestly, I just don't see why he'd bother. He does, on the other hand, get really worked up when he has a stake in something and he loses. He was incredibly hesitant, for ex, to bus me in the colorless mafia game. He also gets really freaked out when he thinks he's going to lose, town or scum. That's how he was in Pond mafia. Meeko's definitely more of an emotional player--he gets really invested. I honestly see him doing everything in his power to try to keep a fellow scum safe, not seeing the forest for the trees--i.e., that he is attracting more, not less, attention to himself.

special ed

03-27-2010, 07:33 PM

TexCat

03-27-2010, 09:19 PM

LOL Meeko was a mason in the last game, what's the chance??? ;)

Rysto

03-27-2010, 09:20 PM

So, given that sachertorte has not answered my question, I'm assuming that he doesn't intend to give us any more than he already has. My first thought is that this is quite bad for us. However, given sach's arguments that a game without a detective would be unbalanced because a false claim would never be countered I think that there has to be enough information in each player's "profession" to work out who the major power roles are if they die. A protective role might be given an obvious medical profession like physician, for instance. Otherwise, NAF the Mormon could have been a detective and we'd never know, and then a false detective claim could go uncountered.

special ed

03-27-2010, 09:36 PM

Meeko

03-27-2010, 10:04 PM

Hey guys, been out and about.

Let me get to something, and follow up on it.

This is long, but I think I get a few points out.

Vote Freudian

Reasons and Reasons follow.

-------------------------------------------

Snipped

[][]Vote Meeko[][]

Why? For your justification that Kelly due to the numbers couldn't be scum again.

I fully intend to give Kelly a pass, on Day 1 at least.

Strictly on the odds.

I don't buy this case on me at all. Here are my reasons, in my outline format of late.

1. I know, I'm not that random, IIRC, it was responding to earlier posts on Kelly. This will be debated for sure, but I didn't spend that much time on it, more like an immediate answer to an unasked question to me.

2. I just felt that I could look at other people on Day 1.

3. I NEVER said that Kelly got a full pass for the entire day.

4. So, You have both quotes here. Lets follow it out logically.

4A. I give Kelly a "pass" based on the odds. A Pass, as in, I don't intend to look at kelly in terms of vote placement. Much less to make a case for him, either way.

4B. 15 words and one number all of a sudden become my ""Justification"" for not voting Kelly, on a Day 1 vote.

4C. One has to wonder how Freudian would vote if my ""Justification"" was longer in words, or if I stated that I Would not vote Kelly, for the entire game.

4D. Freudian implies that I indeed did say that I would NEVER place a vote on Kelly. The implication comes by way of bypassing my "on day 1 at least*" by upgrading it to " couldn't be scum "

*Day 1 at least == meaning I reserve the right to vote Him on other days.

5. But it gets worse

Freudian is Voting me, because I am saying someone else [Kelly] is Town. [Essentially]

What is the defense to this? Do I call Kelly Scum? I have no proof to do so, I don't know it to be so. It would mean that I smudge Kelly at the least, vote him at the worst.

But ok, lets follow this. Assume I call Kelly Scum. If I Call Kelly scum, I have to vote for him, or I risk being Anti Town. I have no doubt Freudian would vote me on that charge on a later day.

5B. As I read the vote on me, it stands because I said that Kelly wasn't scum.

5C. Would Freudian rather I smudge Kelly, and place a vote on Kelly?

5D. Note, if I vote Kelly, as in 5C, I can't vote anyone else. (Namely Freudian)

5E. I am getting a vote on me, because in GENERAL, to THIS GAME, I am playing the odds? Kelly or No Kelly, any one person is going to be Town by the odds.

I feel this is an elaborate smudge by Freudian on me.

I made the mistake of falling for Gamblers' Fallacy. That's the type of mistake Scum live for. I remind everyone that we have no proof of Kelly's Alignment -or- Freudian's alignment.

--
--
--

If Freudian is Scum:

Freudian would know Kelly's Alignment if Freudian was scum. As I demonstrated, I'm not sure how I can respond to Freudians vote on me, unless I start looking at Kelly as Scum.

Bonus Round : It gets a vote on a possible Townie, and It takes heat off of Freudian. If I look at Kelly, at least my efforts are removed from looking at and later voting for Freudian.

If Freudian AND Kelly are scum :

Freudian moves in for Town Cred, starting with the vote on me. Kelly being a newer player will probably get lynched before Freudian gets lynched. All of this time Freudian is building up even more Town Cred. Wouldn't be surprised if Freudian busses Kelly in this entire exchange. At the time Kelly shows up to be scum my ""protecting"" [A term Freuidan used first, I believe] him would be used against me.

The fact that I show up town wont matter, Freudian will have built up enough Town credit to avoid the noose for the rest of the game. Memories are fickle, and Freudian will be remembered for the fake town cred, and little more.

Meeko

03-27-2010, 10:08 PM

I could see Meeko doing that to a town but honestly, I just don't see why he'd bother. He does, on the other hand, get really worked up when he has a stake in something and he loses. He was incredibly hesitant, for ex, to bus me in the colorless mafia game. He also gets really freaked out when he thinks he's going to lose, town or scum. That's how he was in Pond mafia. Meeko's definitely more of an emotional player--he gets really invested. I honestly see him doing everything in his power to try to keep a fellow scum safe, not seeing the forest for the trees--i.e., that he is attracting more, not less, attention to himself.

Freudian, I saw Shutter Island as well. I'm not DiCaprio's character.

Your claims here are Just De Crap.

Again, How can I defend myself against you, if you smudge me ?

You are spending all of your time saying :

Meeko is "off". Meeko is "off". Meeko is "off" Meeko is "off". Meeko is "off". Meeko is "off" Meeko is "off". Meeko is "off". Meeko is "off" Meeko is "off". Meeko is "off". Meeko is "off" Meeko is "off". Meeko is "off". Meeko is "off" Meeko is "off". Meeko is "off". Meeko is "off" Meeko is "off". Meeko is "off". Meeko is "off"

And the I object.

And you pointout "What would you expect someone who is always "off" to say?"

Rysto

03-27-2010, 10:08 PM

I'm somewhat hopeful that not having a role identified means they were Vanilla.
That's a good point.

I'm fairly certain peeker was Vanilla because he would have claimed something as he noticed that his lynch seemed probable.
Agreed.

Mahaloth

03-27-2010, 10:16 PM

LOL Meeko was a mason in the last game, what's the chance??? ;)

Heh. Good one.

So, given that sachertorte has not answered my question, I'm assuming that he doesn't intend to give us any more than he already has.

snipped

Yes, so I think we have to assume f both were vanilla town, which seems most likely. I would think any power would have been told to us.

special ed

03-27-2010, 10:33 PM

I fully intend to give Kelly a pass, on Day 1 at least.

3. I NEVER said that Kelly got a full pass for the entire day.

:dubious::dubious::confused:

special ed

03-27-2010, 10:47 PM

Regarding the rest of Meeko's outline as he cast what can only be called an OMGUS vote (and who would expect differently?

1. huh?
2. OK, good point, you should look at other people.
3. As I pointed out in my previous post, this is contradicted by your actual statement.
4....
4A. Yes, I suppose that would be the definition of a pass
4B. Does it matter how many words you use? Or is it enough that you just use the words? I'm sure a case can be made in a few words. And a case can be handwaved the way you did in even fewer words. (you handwaved the case saying you weren't even going to consider it, instead of actually looking at the basis of the case)
4C. Who cares? Why are you asking what might happen in situations that didn't happen?
4D. You're wrong. Freudian voted for you for defending Kelly. You're misrpresenting her by saying she implied you would never vote for Kelly.
5. I think you've got part of it. Freudian is voting for you for defenidng Kelly as Town.However, you struggle after that. You go on about, 'should you call Kelly Scum" should you do this or that. When the real action is to do what every Town did: Evaluate the case on Kelly for themselves and realize that they can't figure out of he is or isn't Town, and make their best vote accordingly, either for Kelly or someone else.
5B. You said Kelly was Town. How would you know that if you weren't Scum?
5C. I think Freudian and everyone, would rather you stated your opinion on the case against Kelly instead of handwaving the case off.
5D. No one is asking you to vote for Kelly. As far as I can tell, no one ever asked you to vote for Kelly. I'm not certain why you're arguing this way.
5E. To extend your logic, you should never vote because any player is likely to be Town. You've also, in a completely different way, again misrepresented the vote against you.

starting with this odd and incorrect statement (it's not a smudge since she's voting for you)

I feel this is an elaborate smudge by Freudian on me.
the rest of the post makes no real sense to me. I think Meeko is just getting deep in his own thoughts and they wander off the track into somewhere.

You state why freudian might make the case if she were Scum, but you ignore the fact that she might very well be making the case as Town.

It's not way out of line. I can see the case myself, and while it's not rock solid, there's meat to the case against you, Meeko.

Meeko

03-28-2010, 12:11 AM

It's not way out of line. I can see the case myself, and while it's not rock solid, there's meat to the case against you, Meeko.

:eek: :eek: :eek:

Are we even playing the same game?

special ed

03-28-2010, 12:13 AM

:eek: :eek: :eek:

Are we even playing the same game?

No, Meeko, that's been our problem all along. I'm playing Mafia

Meeko

03-28-2010, 12:14 AM

:dubious::dubious::confused:

Well obviously, something doesn't mesh there.

I think we can both agree that I meant to say "game". Instead of day.

Meeko

03-28-2010, 12:16 AM

No, Meeko, that's been our problem all along. I'm playing Mafia

No, you are playing Smudge.

But, as you will level that I am still being unclear ::

Where is this "meat" you speak of?

special ed

03-28-2010, 12:16 AM

No, you are playing Smudge.

But, as you will level that I am still being unclear ::

Where is this "meat" you speak of?

The meat is that you came out and handwaved the case against Kelly.

special ed

03-28-2010, 12:19 AM

Well obviously, something doesn't mesh there.

I think we can both agree that I meant to say "game". Instead of day.

OK, can you point out where Freudian said anything about your votes for the rest of the game.

As far as I can tell, the case against you is for your defense of Kelly on Day 1.

You mischaracterize the case and seem to redirect it. The case was not against what your plans were for the future.

Meeko

03-28-2010, 12:23 AM

The meat is that you came out and handwaved the case against Kelly.

Ed, "meat" means specifics.

special ed

03-28-2010, 12:37 AM

Ed, "meat" means specifics.

I think the case is pretty clear, and, btw 'meat' doesn't mean specifics, it means that there is substance to the case. I could be very specific without having much substance on a case.

But you want specifics, let me be more specific then.

1. Kelly garnered a couple of votes
2. You posted a brief statement dismissing the case against Kelly.
2a. Your dismissal only had faulty reasoning as a back up.
2b. It appears as a defense of Kelly
3. Scum motivated reasons for the statement you made could be:
3a. Yo were protecting a fellow Scum Kelly
3b. You were trying to earn Townie cred by defending a Townie Kelly.

Now, Meeko, would you care to provide specifics for the staements you made that I've called mischaracterizations?

Specifically

1. You stated that Freudian's case in some fashion implied that you would never vote for Kelly. What causes you to come to that conclusion?

2. Why does the number of words you used in your dismissal of the case against Kelly matter?

3. Why do you (in point 5E) state the vote against you was because you were playing the odds? What does that fact that to a Twonie, any unknown player is more likely to be Town have to do with the case against you?

P.S. A smudge is when someone makes a statement against a person, that while on the surface doesn't directly state any case against the person, but is designed to make the reader come away with an underlying suspicion of said player.

For example, if I said "Special Ed is a great player, and while he hasn't done anything overtly scummy, that's exactly what I'd expect of a Scummy Ed."

When someone directly accuses another of doing something suspicious or questions them on something, it isn't really a smudge. It's more of an accusation. And that's the meat of this game.

Meeko

03-28-2010, 01:03 AM

OK, can you point out where Freudian said anything about your votes for the rest of the game.

Why? For your justification that Kelly due to the numbers couldn't be scum again.

"justification that Kelly due to the numbers couldn't be scum again"

Freudian is basically saying "Meeko, I know you will never vote Kelly, at any point in this game. Because of that, I am voting for you."

Trying another way :

Freudian can't see Meeko ever voting Kelly in this game. If Freudian can see Meeko voting for Kelly, at any point, in this game, then the justification for the vote falls flat. But, because a vote is made on this exact justification, a statement IS made about my votes for the rest of the game.

Meeko

03-28-2010, 01:31 AM

I have answered the questions with leading >> the number of > has no relevance.

I think the case is pretty clear

>>>>I have yet to see a case. Keep saying that you have proof, but don't deliver on it a few more times, we haven't killed this horse yet.

, and, btw 'meat' doesn't mean specifics, it means that there is substance to the case. I could be very specific without having much substance on a case.

>>>>Then there would be very little value in arguing against you, in a case with out substance. Why do I feel I am doing this anyway, right now?

But you want specifics, let me be more specific then.

1. Kelly garnered a couple of votes
2. You posted a brief statement dismissing the case against Kelly.
2a. Your dismissal only had faulty reasoning as a back up.
2b. It appears as a defense of Kelly
3. Scum motivated reasons for the statement you made could be:
3a. Yo were protecting a fellow Scum Kelly
3b. You were trying to earn Townie cred by defending a Townie Kelly.

>>>WTF?! How do you and Freudian KNOW that Kelly is Scum? How do you know I am Scum, when your historical record shows you to be THE player that doesnt not understand me, and the one that loves to bait me?

>>>> I don't know If Kelly is Town or Scum. I do not understand why Ed and Freudian are essentially forcing me to Vote Kelly. Somehow You both know that Kelly is scum, and I MUST be scum, just because I don't want to vote Kelly.

What is my Defense here?

I don't want to vote Kelly. Why does that AUTOMATICALLY make me scum?

Now, Meeko, would you care to provide specifics for the staements you made that I've called mischaracterizations?

Specifically

1. You stated that Freudian's case in some fashion implied that you would never vote for Kelly. What causes you to come to that conclusion?

>> I believe I covered this one. In short, Freudians early day 2 vote falls short if she does not subsribe to the belief I would never vote Kelly.

2. Why does the number of words you used in your dismissal of the case against Kelly matter?

>>> It is the basis of Freudian's vote against me. An entire vote comes down to just 15 words?!

I remind everyone, that for this game, Kelly has a better chance to be Town, than to be Scum.

3. Why do you (in point 5E) state the vote against you was because you were playing the odds? What does that fact that to a Twonie, any unknown player is more likely to be Town have to do with the case against you?

>>>>>> Ever since I stated that I believe Kelly is Town, based on Gamblers Fallacy [essentially] it would appear that everyone KNOWS Kelly is scum. Just because I was wrong with gamblers fallacy [That Kelly MUST be town] does NOT mean that you guys are correct [That Kelly MUST be scum]

P.S. A smudge is when someone makes a statement against a person, that while on the surface doesn't directly state any case against the person, but is designed to make the reader come away with an underlying suspicion of said player.

>>>> Freudian and Ed are doing a LOT to increase my suspicion. You've nearly said that Kelly is Scum, and that I HAVE to be scum for ""protecting"" her.

If Guilty until proven innocent is not a smudge, then you are right, I have no clue what a smudge is.

For example, if I said "Special Ed is a great player, and while he hasn't done anything overtly scummy, that's exactly what I'd expect of a Scummy Ed."

When someone directly accuses another of doing something suspicious or questions them on something, it isn't really a smudge. It's more of an accusation. And that's the meat of this game.

Silly me, I thought Facts, Slips, and Logic were the meat of this game.

That could explain why you hate me. Because you don't utilize any of those tactics in your play.

OH! Thats a Smudge!

Damn Straight.

I guess that makes Freudians entire "Meeko is an Emotional Nutcase" post a Smudgeatropolis.

And FTR to another question I saw laying around : I don't know Kelly is town. But, I believe I killed that question by answering it 5 times in three seconds.

One And Only Wanderers

03-28-2010, 02:50 AM

I find the death of NAF interesting. Why would scum shoot in that direction? Maybe one of the misspelled brotherhood is scum and wanted to confirm that misspellings were not a data point?

GuiriEnEspaña

03-28-2010, 04:31 AM

@ OaOW I remember asking on Day2 of Screamers "Why would scum kill TexCat?" and got enormous heat for assuming TexCat was the scum kill. While imho it's unlikely, NAF could have been killed by a Vig, other non-3rd-party killing role or by a redirection. Why are you so sure scum killed him?

Anyway, I too was curious about the choice of NAF as a target. Here's a brief summary of NAF's contributions to Day1:

98 Asks about vanilla PM. Mentions role includes religion.
103 In favor of name claim - more information
115 Repeats reasoning for name claim, probably no benefit but more info is good
127 Scum don't fish. Town shouldn't be secretive.
129 Agrees to claim
138 More re: fishing in response to Special Ed
145 To Meeko, asks if he's read post about value of name claim
149 More re:fishing
157 Claims Joesph Smith (Mormon)
158 Corrects coding
(179 OaOW votes for typo)
313 Responds to Kelly's "I can't believe the heat..." and proceeds to vote Kelly
349 Comment on scum knowing each other. Comfortable with vote.
403 Lynching Peeker won't give info. Comfortable with vote. Suggests we should be looking at events surrounding name claim.
408 Comments on Peeker's playstyle "living up to name", not worth a vote
418 Explains FCS. Finds Story's case on Chronos interesting, will re-read
427 Responds to Chronos re vote on Peeker. Anti-town is not pro-scum. Wants others to look at Kelly and other events of day.
493 To Meeko, asks about comment on odds of Kelly being town
515 Re: odds of Kelly again, thinks he's noob scum
516 Fluff re: probability having no memory
569 Mistake to lynch Peeker. Wishes Kelly would respond. Comments on non-voters.

I'm not very good at doing WoWs and summing up the contributions of a player to the game but the main things that I get from the summary are:
1. He was in favor of Town sharing information rather than being secretive
2. I don't think he ever commented on or responded to the votes related to the typo.
3. He felt strongly about the case on Kelly and encouraged others to re-read and join
4. He was pretty convinced that lynching Peeker was not the optimal move for Town
5. He suspected that most Day1 info would be found by looking at the events surrounding the name claim

And then someone killed him. As there are no 3rd parties I assume it must be either the scum kill, receiver of a redirection or a vig kill, although I'd doubt the latter two as NAF was active, involved and made the case against the lynch runner-up.

So, assuming he was the scum kill, why choose him? I can think of several reasons:
1. As OaOW points out, to remove suspicion from Meeko for the PM typo
2. To remove Kelly's main antagonist (and expose Kelly as scum?)
3. To remove a strong player (I believe NAF is so considered)
4. To remove a player at random (in the spirit of the name of the game)
5. To make Town think No.1 or 2 above and so add momentum to suspicions from Day1 for a Day2 Meeko or Kelly lynch

A couple of plausible options, some data points, some WIFOM, I guess there's not much point trying to make sense of the first night kill until later in the game when we have more info...

One And Only Wanderers

03-28-2010, 07:10 AM

i'm not sure, was just an assumption. Someone killed him, and had a reason for doing so. if it was SK, we can still consider it. I find a town vig kill unlikely, though obv not impossible

KellyCriterion

03-28-2010, 08:55 AM

Kelly this, Kelly that.

Tomorrow night, I am going to make a serious attempt to do a complete thread read (I haven't properly read from about page 6 onwards). If I can't find the time, I may elect to be replaced, if it's not too late.

But give me 24 hours.

Freudian Slit

03-28-2010, 09:57 AM

"justification that Kelly due to the numbers couldn't be scum again"

Freudian is basically saying "Meeko, I know you will never vote Kelly, at any point in this game. Because of that, I am voting for you."

Trying another way :

Freudian can't see Meeko ever voting Kelly in this game. If Freudian can see Meeko voting for Kelly, at any point, in this game, then the justification for the vote falls flat. But, because a vote is made on this exact justification, a statement IS made about my votes for the rest of the game.

I never said that. I just said that your giving him a pass was really suspect. I have no idea if you'll ever vote for him. But your justification for not voting for him was so odd, it pinged me because it was such an odd non-reason.

Anyway, it's not like you're a lock to be lynched. The day is young. I could just as easily change my vote--vote early, vote often is the philosophy, yes?

I'm also curious to see Kelly's post as we haven't heard too much from him.

Rysto

03-28-2010, 10:11 AM

ShadowFacts

03-28-2010, 10:33 AM

Sunday morning vote count!

Freudian Slit (2) - voted by Rysto [655], Meeko [666]
Meeko (1) - voted by Freudian Slit [651]

special ed

03-28-2010, 10:39 AM

II think the case is pretty clear

>>>>I have yet to see a case. Keep saying that you have proof, but don't deliver on it a few more times, we haven't killed this horse yet.

You're confusing a rock solid indisuputible case (proof) with a case. This is Mafia, not a court of law. The whole premise of the game is that you try to build the best case you can against someone and lynch them. Additionally, I don't think anyone ever said they had proof, because if they did it would be foolish not to present it.

, and, btw 'meat' doesn't mean specifics, it means that there is substance to the case. I could be very specific without having much substance on a case.

>>>>Then there would be very little value in arguing against you, in a case with out substance. Why do I feel I am doing this anyway, right now?

Meeko, you're actually arguing my point. I was saying I could be specific and have no real case. I was saying that this case does have substance or meat, and then I got even more specific.

I think perhaps you get hung up on each sentence when you need to take an entire idea in it's context.

But you want specifics, let me be more specific then.

1. Kelly garnered a couple of votes
2. You posted a brief statement dismissing the case against Kelly.
2a. Your dismissal only had faulty reasoning as a back up.
2b. It appears as a defense of Kelly
3. Scum motivated reasons for the statement you made could be:
3a. Yo were protecting a fellow Scum Kelly
3b. You were trying to earn Townie cred by defending a Townie Kelly.

>>>WTF?! How do you and Freudian KNOW that Kelly is Scum? How do you know I am Scum, when your historical record shows you to be THE player that doesnt not understand me, and the one that loves to bait me?

I don't know that you or Kelly are Scum. I'm pointing out how you actions could be interpreted as Scum-motivated.

I'm not trying to bait you. This is how I play. I question people on their statements and gauge their reactions. Some people take it more personally than others and feel as if I'm attacking them personally. I'm not, I'm just trying to figure out who is Scum.

>>>> I don't know If Kelly is Town or Scum. I do not understand why Ed and Freudian are essentially forcing me to Vote Kelly. Somehow You both know that Kelly is scum, and I MUST be scum, just because I don't want to vote Kelly.

What is my Defense here?

I don't want to vote Kelly. Why does that AUTOMATICALLY make me scum?

This is another misrepresentation. I've never asked you to vote for Kelly.

Again, I'm just pointing out that you actions can be interpreted to have a Scum-motivation.

I have no knowledge of Kelly's alignment or your alignment.

Now, Meeko, would you care to provide specifics for the staements you made that I've called mischaracterizations?

Specifically

1. You stated that Freudian's case in some fashion implied that you would never vote for Kelly. What causes you to come to that conclusion?[

>> I believe I covered this one. In short, Freudians early day 2 vote falls short if she does not subsribe to the belief I would never vote Kelly.

Why? I feel as if the accusation that you attempted to defend Kelly on Day 1 is the meat of the case. The case still stands even if Kelly is Town.

2. Why does the number of words you used in your dismissal of the case against Kelly matter?

>>> It is the basis of Freudian's vote against me. An entire vote comes down to just 15 words?!

yeah, sure. I mean, it was a dismissal of an entire case in only 15 words.

Of course, agains, it's the action, not the way you presented it that's earning you heat.

3. Why do you (in point 5E) state the vote against you was because you were playing the odds? What does that fact that to a Twonie, any unknown player is more likely to be Town have to do with the case against you?

>>>>>> Ever since I stated that I believe Kelly is Town, based on Gamblers Fallacy [essentially] it would appear that everyone KNOWS Kelly is scum. Just because I was wrong with gamblers fallacy [That Kelly MUST be town] does NOT mean that you guys are correct [That Kelly MUST be scum]

Who is saying that Kelly were Scum? If I was sure that he was Scum, I would be voting for him right now. I'm not.

Scum will sometimes defend a Scum buddy to protect them. But Scum will also sometimes defend a Town person so they can say, "I told you so, look, I was saying he was Town, and a Scum wouldn't do that, would they?"

So, there's still Scum-motivation for doing that.

P.S. A smudge is when someone makes a statement against a person, that while on the surface doesn't directly state any case against the person, but is designed to make the reader come away with an underlying suspicion of said player.

>>>> Freudian and Ed are doing a LOT to increase my suspicion. You've nearly said that Kelly is Scum, and that I HAVE to be scum for ""protecting"" her.

Again, I haven't said that Kelly is Scum. Sure, it's a possibility.

I'm getting the sense that your defense against the case has come down to: "No one can be sure I'm guilty, therefore you shouldn't accuse me."

If Guilty until proven innocent is not a smudge, then you are right, I have no clue what a smudge is.

Yes, you're confusing a Smudge with a case.

For example, if I said "Special Ed is a great player, and while he hasn't done anything overtly scummy, that's exactly what I'd expect of a Scummy Ed."

When someone directly accuses another of doing something suspicious or questions them on something, it isn't really a smudge. It's more of an accusation. And that's the meat of this game.

Silly me, I thought Facts, Slips, and Logic were the meat of this game.

Well, those can make up the meat, or substance of a case against someone. So, I suppose we actually agree.

That could explain why you hate me. Because you don't utilize any of those tactics in your play.

OH! Thats a Smudge!

No, that's more of an insult than a smudge.

First off, I don't hate you. I even kinda like you.

Secondly, I can use your vocabulary.
1. The fact is you defended Kelly.
2. I think it is possible that you slipped when you id that in an attempt to look more Townie or to defend a fellow Scum.
3. Logically, is that were true, that would make you Scum.

Meeko

03-28-2010, 10:56 AM

I never said that. I just said that your giving him a pass was really suspect. I have no idea if you'll ever vote for him. But your justification for not voting for him was so odd, it pinged me because it was such an odd non-reason.

Anyway, it's not like you're a lock to be lynched. The day is young. I could just as easily change my vote--vote early, vote often is the philosophy, yes?

I'm also curious to see Kelly's post as we haven't heard too much from him.

My entire issue, remains that all of my heat stems from the fact that I pointed to probability. [Multiple facets of it, mind you, but still, the "odds" were brought up.]

I said in so many ways that Kelly, in my opinion, may not be scum.

Everyone apparently thought that was the worst thing to say in the world.

Apparently, Logically, Kelly has a greater chance at being town. Does any one doubt that?

But, speak that idea, and it becomes scum motivation.

I don't get that, at all.

But, you know, I think it's related to the ""Accountabillity"" Snafu from Smash 2. -- Not that I got that concept.

Would be intersting to literally do the math on choices, in a decision tree, and find out which route is "best practices" for Mafia, honestly doubt any of us are even close to perfect play.

Meeko

03-28-2010, 10:57 AM

3. Logically, is that were true, that would make you Scum.

Let's address this one. I need specifics again.

Meeko

03-28-2010, 11:07 AM

Let's address this one. I need specifics again.

Dare I make an assuption :

Are you saying that because I employ Logic, Facts, and [investigate, discover, and use] Slips, it logically makes me scum?

:confused: :confused: :confused:

Peeker, get the brain bucket, I think I just went Pop!

"You might want to wear a helmet, so that it don't make a mess when I blow your mind!"

Freudian Slit

03-28-2010, 11:11 AM

Kelly has a greater motivation of being town than of being scum? Well, yeah. In every game, there's more town than scum, so the probability of anyone being town is greater than of their being scum.

But Kelly does NOT have a greater probability of being town than anyone else. His role in previous games have absolutely no bearing on this game.

Meeko

03-28-2010, 11:20 AM

My entire issue, remains that all of my heat stems from the fact that I pointed to probability. [Multiple facets of it, mind you, but still, the "odds" were brought up.]

I said in so many ways that Kelly, in my opinion, may not be scum.

Everyone apparently thought that was the worst thing to say in the world.

Apparently, Logically, Kelly has a greater chance at being town. Does any one doubt that?

But, speak that idea, and it becomes scum motivation.

I don't get that, at all.

But, you know, I think it's related to the ""Accountabillity"" Snafu from Smash 2. -- Not that I got that concept.

Would be intersting to literally do the math on choices, in a decision tree, and find out which route is "best practices" for Mafia, honestly doubt any of us are even close to perfect play.

Kelly has a greater motivation of being town than of being scum? Well, yeah. In every game, there's more town than scum, so the probability of anyone being town is greater than of their being scum.

But Kelly does NOT have a greater probability of being town than anyone else. His role in previous games have absolutely no bearing on this game.

1. " Motivation " ? I question the use of the word "Motivation". As I see it, town doesn't need " Motivation " they just are. Only scum would worry about having " Motivation " or not. This language here pings me, and would move me closer to voting you, if I didn't already have a vote on you.

2. And you somehow dodge the direct question by using the word motivation. Again : Kelly has better odds of being Town in this game --- Period. Full Stop.

Do not bring the other game into this. I have stopped arguing it on that basis.

I think you are trying to hold on to an honest and innocent mistake I made, just to get me lynched over you.

Motivation? Yeah, there would be scum motivation there.

special ed

03-28-2010, 11:21 AM

Dare I make an assuption :

Are you saying that because I employ Logic, Facts, and [investigate, discover, and use] Slips, it logically makes me scum?

um....what? How did you get to that statement?

this is what I said:

1. The fact is you defended Kelly.
2. I think it is possible that you slipped when you id that in an attempt to look more Townie or to defend a fellow Scum.
3. Logically, is that were true, that would make you Scum.

I realize it might be more difficult for you to follow my ideas as we have different ways of communicating. But I really have no idea how you can take a 3 point case, remove one point and then go off on a completely different tangent.

If I had meant to say that your use of logic, facts and slips made you Scum, I would have been direct and stated that.

What I did was try to state the case against you using your vocabulary. (with a couple of typos id=did and in pont 3, is=if)

Meeko

03-28-2010, 11:23 AM

NETA: Don't bring "Kelly has better chances to be town, over anyone else" into it either.

Everyone has the same HIGH odds to be town in this game. And that's my point. Kelly has a great chance at being Town in this game. Everyone does.

Based on that, I don't want to vote Kelly.

And it makes me scum?!

special ed

03-28-2010, 11:25 AM

1. " Motivation " ? I question the use of the word "Motivation". As I see it, town doesn't need " Motivation " they just are. Only scum would worry about having " Motivation " or not. This language here pings me, and would move me closer to voting you, if I didn't already have a vote on you.

Everyone is motivated to act.

Many players look for the motivation behind a player and try to discern if their actions can be interpreted as trying to help Town win (Town motivation) or helping Scum win (Scum motivation)

Unfortunately, it's not terribly easy.

2. And you somehow dodge the direct question by using the word motivation. Again : Kelly has better odds of being Town in this game --- Period. Full Stop.

Meeko, Freudian has better odds of being Town in this game too. Why are you voting for her then?

Motivation? Yeah, there would be scum motivation there.

Odd, here you interpret the word correctly.

It's possible that freudian is motivated to get you lynched to use up a mislynch and move the Scum closer to victory.

Meeko

03-28-2010, 11:30 AM

But I really have no idea how you can take a 3 point case, remove one point and then go off on a completely different tangent.

If I had meant to say that your use of logic, facts and slips made you Scum, I would have been direct and stated that.

What I did was try to state the case against you using your vocabulary. (with a couple of typos id=did and in pont 3, is=if)

If you can't force a Third point, go for the obligatory "Hi! Opal!".

I didn't get that 2 and 3 refered back to your 1. I have a main point, and then points under that use letters to refer back to the main point. There is an indention of sorts. I didn't see an indention strtucture, so I Was lost.

Your 1 and 2 only hold water, so to speak, if Kelly is scum.

Which again, why are you so sure that Kelly is scum ? If so, Vote Kelly.

Freudian Slit

03-28-2010, 11:32 AM

I retract the use of the word "motivation." I meant odds, and you're right. I don't know why I used it.

But as has been brought up, if Kelly has a greater chance of being town so does EVERYONE. Why don't you just give everyone a pass on day one? Are you saying no one should vote for anyone because the chances of us all being town are so great?

Jimmy Chitwood

03-28-2010, 11:32 AM

Oh, ed. Don't you ever get tired?

Meeko, it's really very simple. You said you were willing to give Kelly a pass. When asked why, you provided a reason that didn't make any sense. You're now, pardon me for saying so, kind of flipping out about it. But your stated reasons for not considering Kelly were decidedly not:

Logic, Facts, and [investigate, discover, and use] Slips

because your reason relied on an assumption about probability that was, as you acknowledge, overtly fallacious. You made it a point to tell everyone you wouldn't vote for Kelly that Day, and your reason was unreasonable. There's your full stop.

ed, going forward, can I make a request that you not turn this into several pages and several small d-days' worth of argument? It seems our rate of attrition for this game is unprecedented from a willing participant standpoint. Meeko isn't going to drop it any more than peeker did. You saw how that turned out.

special ed

03-28-2010, 11:36 AM

Oh, ed. Don't you ever get tired?

ed, going forward, can I make a request that you not turn this into several pages and several small d-days' worth of argument? It seems our rate of attrition for this game is unprecedented from a willing participant standpoint. Meeko isn't going to drop it any more than peeker did. You saw how that turned out.

OK. I apologize. I'll let it go.

I just see the faulty reasoning and I want to help make corrections to that.

I don't even particularly think Meeko is Scum. I think he just gets overly defensive when questioned or suspected. A part of me is hopeful that one more post will help him to see where his reasoning is going astray.

You'd think I would have learned my lesson in that regard.

*sigh*

PS, no I really don't get tired :)

Meeko

03-28-2010, 11:37 AM

Everyone is motivated to act.

Many players look for the motivation behind a player and try to discern if their actions can be interpreted as trying to help Town win (Town motivation) or helping Scum win (Scum motivation)

Unfortunately, it's not terribly easy.

>>> If you are Innocent , If you are Town, you "Just Are" there is no motivation needed. It's like asking someone when they chose their sexual orientation.

>>> If you are Scum, you would need "Motivation" to play as town. Town gets "townliness" naturally. Motivation is not needed, Hence I find it out of place, and I wonder from what alignment in this game, Freudian says what she says here.

Meeko, Freudian has better odds of being Town in this game too. Why are you voting for her then?

I went at length to explain this in the post where I voted her.

She is using the Gamblers Fallacy situation against me. Which would be a Jackpot, if you will, of Scum Motivation to act against me.

Also, If Freudian and Kelly are scum, Freudian would bus and start a wagon on Kelly. Once kelly is lynched, Freudian would have enough town cred to then lynch me.

Odd, here you interpret the word correctly.

It's possible that freudian is motivated to get you lynched to use up a mislynch and move the Scum closer to victory.

Well, we agree there, then. Looks like I didnt need to restate it. Anyway I have to go now. Look back to my Freudian Vote post on her for more on my case.

Jimmy Chitwood

03-28-2010, 11:56 AM

I find the death of NAF interesting. Why would scum shoot in that direction? Maybe one of the misspelled brotherhood is scum and wanted to confirm that misspellings were not a data point?

I really don't like this post. You seem very sensitive about your vote to kill NAF, who was town and is now dead. Like Rysto said, by "one of the misspelled brotherhood," you obviously must mean Meeko. Why phrase it the way you did instead of just saying so? Who is the rest of the brotherhood?

Apart from the personal benefit that you'd receive if we all interpreted the nightkill that way, I think it's a huge stretch to jump right to that explanation (or any explanation in particular, really). Is that really the first thing that jumped to mind -- not that maybe NAF was on the right track at some point, but that somebody who tried to kill NAF, i.e. you, was actually on the right track?

It's a bold effort, and to be honest I'm having trouble imagining the scum coming out of the gate with such a ham-handed manipulation, but that suggestion isn't the most pro-town I've ever seen.

TexCat

03-28-2010, 12:34 PM

[...]
So, assuming he was the scum kill, why choose him? I can think of several reasons:
1. As OaOW points out, to remove suspicion from Meeko for the PM typo
2. To remove Kelly's main antagonist (and expose Kelly as scum?)
3. To remove a strong player (I believe NAF is so considered)
4. To remove a player at random (in the spirit of the name of the game)
5. To make Town think No.1 or 2 above and so add momentum to suspicions from Day1 for a Day2 Meeko or Kelly lynch

A couple of plausible options, some data points, some WIFOM, I guess there's not much point trying to make sense of the first night kill until later in the game when we have more info...
It certainly looks like #5 is happening whether that was the scum intention or not.

Meeko

03-28-2010, 04:01 PM

It certainly looks like #5 is happening whether that was the scum intention or not.

Tex, what do you think of my theory [as was seen in my vote on Freudian] that Fruedian could be playing Kelly against Meeko for Town Credit. -- Or that Freudian and Kelly are both scum, and Freudian fully intends to bus Kelly if it means getting Meeko Lynched, to gain Freudian enough town credit to pass as town?

Tom Scud

03-28-2010, 04:54 PM

Jimmy Chitwood

03-28-2010, 05:07 PM

in the overnight thread

The who the what now?

Freudian Slit

03-28-2010, 05:47 PM

Tex, what do you think of my theory [as was seen in my vote on Freudian] that Fruedian could be playing Kelly against Meeko for Town Credit. -- Or that Freudian and Kelly are both scum, and Freudian fully intends to bus Kelly if it means getting Meeko Lynched, to gain Freudian enough town credit to pass as town?

Is there a reason you're referring to yourself in the third person? Is Meeko's real identity Bob Dole? :)

Drain Bead

03-28-2010, 05:51 PM

The overnight portion of the thread, I'd imagine, since I made my explanation after Nightfall.

Still, it's an interesting turn of phrase. In the last game, a Scum Rysto referred to a NK power as a "lynch," and these sorts of Freudian (Sigmund, not Slit) mistakes are the type of slips I think are more often scummy than not.

Tom Scud

03-28-2010, 05:56 PM

Yes, the overnight portion of the thread.

TexCat

03-28-2010, 06:29 PM

Tex, what do you think of my theory [as was seen in my vote on Freudian] that Fruedian could be playing Kelly against Meeko for Town Credit. -- Or that Freudian and Kelly are both scum, and Freudian fully intends to bus Kelly if it means getting Meeko Lynched, to gain Freudian enough town credit to pass as town?

I think it's unlikely that they are both scum and that Freudian is bussing Kelly to lynch you and get town cred.

Meeko

03-28-2010, 08:39 PM

Is there a reason you're referring to yourself in the third person? Is Meeko's real identity Bob Dole? :)

To avoid ambiguous language.

Meeko has always been like Bob Dole.

Freudian, I worry about you though. You have played in games where I talk in thrid person before, but this is the first game where you take issue with it.

Why the Uncharacteristic change for this game?

Smudge, Insult, or Baiting. Take your pick, you are doing at least one of them. And I really don't get why.

.... Unless I was on to you.

Freudian Slit

03-28-2010, 08:47 PM

I can't remember if you did it before. I vaguely remember someone doing it, but wasn't aware it was you. It just struck me as really bizarre.

One And Only Wanderers

03-29-2010, 01:34 AM

[QUOTE=Jimmy Chitwood;12276262]

Apart from the personal benefit that you'd receive if we all interpreted the nightkill that way, I think it's a huge stretch to jump right to that explanation (or any explanation in particular, really). Is that really the first thing that jumped to mind -- not that maybe NAF was on the right track at some point, but that somebody who tried to kill NAF, i.e. you, was actually on the right track?

[/QUOTE
To be honest, I didn't remember who else all was mis spelled, and I didn't have time to go find out, hence my use of the term. "Brotherhood". I obviously wasn't on the right track with Naf as that looked like a town reveal. That said the choice of NAF for death on night one is interesting, and the killer(s) had to have some reasons for chooing NAF.

Zeriel

03-29-2010, 08:45 AM

Rysto

03-29-2010, 09:31 AM

You're next, Mr. "Overnight Thread", unless someone else jumps the queue.
:rolleyes:

So the fact that:

a) Drain did, in fact, give the explanation Tom mentioned overnight in this thread
b) If she were scum, it would make no sense for Drain to be discussing this in private with the scum
c) The off-board games all have separate Day and Night threads, so it would be entirely reasonable for a player used to that to make the mistake

means nothing to you?

Oredigger77

03-29-2010, 09:46 AM

Interesting choice for a Night kill, one thought that hasn't been brought up is that maybe the scum's roles are tied to their names so that took a shot looking at a religious person being our doctor. I don’t like Jimmy’s comments on OAOW’s discussion of NAF’s death though
I really don't like this post. You seem very sensitive about your vote to kill NAF, who was town and is now dead. Like Rysto said, by "one of the misspelled brotherhood," you obviously must mean Meeko. Why phrase it the way you did instead of just saying so? Who is the rest of the brotherhood?

Apart from the personal benefit that you'd receive if we all interpreted the nightkill that way, I think it's a huge stretch to jump right to that explanation (or any explanation in particular, really). Is that really the first thing that jumped to mind -- not that maybe NAF was on the right track at some point, but that somebody who tried to kill NAF, i.e. you, was actually on the right track?

It's a bold effort, and to be honest I'm having trouble imagining the scum coming out of the gate with such a ham-handed manipulation, but that suggestion isn't the most pro-town I've ever seen.
I didn’t read OAOW’s post as trying to divert attention as much as trying to look for answers which was my first response to seeing who was killed. It also looks like Jimmy is trying to build a case but not putting a vote behind it. Since I managed to not vote yesterDay I’m going to put out an early vote based on Jimmy’s misinterpretation of OAOW and saying that there was a benefit to that misinterpretation of giving OAOW townie cred. Tacking on a sentence at the end to make it seem like you’re not attributing OAOW’s actions to being scum bothers me too.

Vote Jimmy
I think the FS/Meeko debate is a lot of smoke. I'm not saying its scum driven but I think it's a distraction.

Meeko

03-29-2010, 09:47 AM

I can't remember if you did it before. I vaguely remember someone doing it, but wasn't aware it was you. It just struck me as really bizarre.

Meeko says "Meeko would like to take this time to assure you that Meeko has nearly always referred to 'Meeko' as Meeko at least once in every game Meeko has played, or if you will, the grand sum of all games Meeko has played in, that had posts written by Meeko"

Meeko thinks that was a tad overboard, but Meeko hopes that you get Meeko's point.

No. But seriously, there are times where I just find it easier to refer to myself in the third person. I think way too many people refer to themselves in the first person, when the third person is actually better. I do think it avoids confusion. Over here. " I " can point to the teeming thousands. Over here, "Meeko" can refer to me, or a Walt Disney Raccoon.

Tom Scud

03-29-2010, 09:49 AM

So a comment on the "slip" thing. I've been around this particular block with both Zeriel (Lost) and Drain (Screamers) in the past, and since it's not an argument that has a thing to do with logic or decision-making, it's not something that can be argued about, so I'm not going to argue about it.

(That it can't be argued with doesn't make it an invalid technique for finding scum, though I haven't found it terribly useful in my experience.)

Freudian Slit

03-29-2010, 09:54 AM

No. But seriously, there are times where I just find it easier to refer to myself in the third person. I think way too many people refer to themselves in the first person, when the third person is actually better. I do think it avoids confusion. Over here. " I " can point to the teeming thousands. Over here, "Meeko" can refer to me, or a Walt Disney Raccoon.

Well, since all I have to do to see who's posting is glance over at the username above, it's not too difficult for me to parse "I."

Anyway, I'm also leaning towards One and Only Wanderers, as others have also, due to this:

I find the death of NAF interesting. Why would scum shoot in that direction? Maybe one of the misspelled brotherhood is scum and wanted to confirm that misspellings were not a data point?

This is a pretty huge reach. I mean, I think the whole misspellings are a null tell at this point. Yeah, one of the other misspelled people could be scum. But they just easily could be town. And the fact that you keep harping on the misspelling is odd to me.

Meeko

03-29-2010, 10:19 AM

Checking in and reviewing...

Re: the Drain/Zeriel thing, I'll accept Drain's argument in the overnight thread that she wasn't sure if there was a second person who cited peeker's "joke vote" elsewhere. There have been a lot of posts in the thread & I'm not going to expect everyone to quote chapter & verse for every FoS (as opposed to a vote, where I'd at least like to have a clear idea what they're on about).

Speaking of which, I really don't understand MHaye's vote on Chronos (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12265736&postcount=591).

SNIP

Night was a whopping 35 posts. Here is what we have ::

Usually blue text = Town.

Since there are no restrictions on strategy talk, when I made my FOS post, I said "everybody" because I was pretty sure I'd seen that argument made before in a post by someone voting for peeker, although not necessarily in the post where they made the vote. I wasn't sure who it was and didn't have time to go through the thread looking for it (and still don't, although I may at some point in the future) so I just hedged my bets and said "everyone." But if it turns out it's just zeriel, then the FOS applies to just him, then. Nothing changes--I still think it's a horrid reason to vote peeker on Day One, since he always makes the same damned joke vote every Day One.

And I believe these two are all that Tom Scud said "last night".

Hi all. I'm assuming that blue text, plus peeker's "go town" dying message, mean Town. I think I'm going to pretend that there isn't strategy talk at night even though there is and come back with fresh eyes and brain later.

And, oh yeah, Screamers mafia went to 880 posts on the first day. I still remember the sinking feeling when we found out it wasn't over yet on page 13 or so...

The who the what now?

I find the use of the word ""Thread"" to be weird as well. From what context is he speaking on "Thread" ? The context of the SDMB, or of a Pro Board?

Why does Jimmy bring it up?

The overnight portion of the thread, I'd imagine, since I made my explanation after Nightfall.

Still, it's an interesting turn of phrase. In the last game, a Scum Rysto referred to a NK power as a "lynch," and these sorts of Freudian (Sigmund, not Slit) mistakes are the type of slips I think are more often scummy than not.

Yes, the overnight portion of the thread.

Seems like an over explanation, IMHO. Seems like it is damage control, by perhaps un-coordinated scummies each trying to clean up the entire mess. It's like a big sign saying "There is no Secret Here". Alternately It's equivalent to "These are not the Scums you want." -- Complete with hand gesture.

So a comment on the "slip" thing. I've been around this particular block with both Zeriel (Lost) and Drain (Screamers) in the past, and since it's not an argument that has a thing to do with logic or decision-making, it's not something that can be argued about, so I'm not going to argue about it.

(That it can't be argued with doesn't make it an invalid technique for finding scum, though I haven't found it terribly useful in my experience.)

I find this hard to tackle. Not because I lack the thoughts on it, but because I am in a near similar situation, I feel, regarding Freudian's vote on me.

In a weird sense, I feel I can't touch it, with out adding complication to the ""Case"" on me.

Both arguments seemingly bypass Logic, and Decision making, and fast forward to absolutes. -- That may or may not be true.

I've been told, that even if you learn a new language, and spend the rest of your life exclusively speaking and reading that language, you will always count in your native tounge. Even if only in private.

I think there are certain things here that can not be argued. Simply because they are like numbers in my example above. Certain things, right or wrong, can not be changed.

No vote here.

But, lets look at Tom AND Drain. If this is a slip, let's not forget that Drain was named.

One And Only Wanderers

03-29-2010, 10:39 AM

Meeko says "Meeko would like to take this time to assure you that Meeko has nearly always referred to 'Meeko' as Meeko at least once in every game Meeko has played, or if you will, the grand sum of all games Meeko has played in, that had posts written by Meeko"

Meeko thinks that was a tad overboard, but Meeko hopes that you get Meeko's point.

No. But seriously, there are times where I just find it easier to refer to myself in the third person. I think way too many people refer to themselves in the first person, when the third person is actually better. I do think it avoids confusion. Over here. " I " can point to the teeming thousands. Over here, "Meeko" can refer to me, or a Walt Disney Raccoon.

Good Lord but you sound like Elmo in this post!

Well, since all I have to do to see who's posting is glance over at the username above, it's not too difficult for me to parse "I."

Anyway, I'm also leaning towards One and Only Wanderers, as others have also, due to this:

This is a pretty huge reach. I mean, I think the whole misspellings are a null tell at this point. Yeah, one of the other misspelled people could be scum. But they just easily could be town. And the fact that you keep harping on the misspelling is odd to me.

Whether or not the mis spellings originally meant anything, the fact that they are there, and have been noticed and discussed means they mean something now

scenario Naf = town Meeko = scum. Both have a misspelling completely randomly and unintentionally.

I stomp in and attribute it as being scum. Most people disagree with me at least one follows along with me. Anyway it is now something on the radar.

Scum team (knowing that NAF isn't scum) decide to kill NAF to prove misspelling <> scum, thus removing the shadow from Scum Meeko.

Now this is all pure conjecture, but NAF was targeted for some reason, and I feel it is in town's interests to think about who was targeted why.

Rysto

03-29-2010, 10:47 AM

Now this is all pure conjecture, but NAF was targeted for some reason, and I feel it is in town's interests to think about who was targeted why.

I don't. I've never seen this turn out well for town. Take Cecil Pond. We scum killed Freudian one Night, and it turned out that she was an unclaimed mason. This surprised the Town because there were two claimed masons still alive. One player posted an analysis of the voting patterns of the known masons and showed that if you assumed that the masons wouldn't vote for fellow masons, then the last mason was in a pool of three players: Freudian, Oredigger and Alka Seltzer. He then pointed out that if there were scum in that pool, then the scum could have gotten it down to a one-in-two chance of hitting a mason. The thing was, we scum didn't do that analysis. We killed Freudian because we suspected that she might be a cop, not a mason.

Now, as it happens, both Oredigger and Alka were scum. But that was pure luck: the reasoning was invalid, so the conclusion was flawed even if it happened to be true.

You yourself have given a list of what, five or six reasons why NAF might have been killed? Never assume that you can work out what the scum is thinking.

Zeriel

03-29-2010, 10:49 AM

:rolleyes:

So the fact that:

a) Drain did, in fact, give the explanation Tom mentioned overnight in this thread
b) If she were scum, it would make no sense for Drain to be discussing this in private with the scum
c) The off-board games all have separate Day and Night threads, so it would be entirely reasonable for a player used to that to make the mistake

means nothing to you?

Heh, says the guy who got caught on a similar slip recently.

Rysto

03-29-2010, 10:52 AM

Heh, says the guy who got caught on a similar slip recently.

That's a primary reason why I'm suspicious of such "slips". I make those kind of mistakes all the time, whether I'm town or scum. I once almost posted "but I know that I'm scum" in a game, and I was town.

Zeriel

03-29-2010, 11:32 AM

That's a primary reason why I'm suspicious of such "slips". I make those kind of mistakes all the time, whether I'm town or scum. I once almost posted "but I know that I'm scum" in a game, and I was town.

YMMV, man, I see these things catch scum far more often than they bite townies in the ass, and hell I've been caught in one or two as town myself (my crowning achievement was getting speed-lynched (as the vig/roleblocker, with a successful scum kill) because I brain-farted and voted for a confirmed, out mason. =P

Red Skeezix

03-29-2010, 12:05 PM

I don't. I've never seen this turn out well for town. Take Cecil Pond. We scum killed Freudian one Night, and it turned out that she was an unclaimed mason. This surprised the Town because there were two claimed masons still alive. One player posted an analysis of the voting patterns of the known masons and showed that if you assumed that the masons wouldn't vote for fellow masons, then the last mason was in a pool of three players: Freudian, Oredigger and Alka Seltzer. He then pointed out that if there were scum in that pool, then the scum could have gotten it down to a one-in-two chance of hitting a mason. The thing was, we scum didn't do that analysis. We killed Freudian because we suspected that she might be a cop, not a mason.

Now, as it happens, both Oredigger and Alka were scum. But that was pure luck: the reasoning was invalid, so the conclusion was flawed even if it happened to be true.

You yourself have given a list of what, five or six reasons why NAF might have been killed? Never assume that you can work out what the scum is thinking.

Since it was my list, I'm going to comment on it. Any reasoning based only on that list would have been 100% invalid (As I said at the time, it was just data and could have been coincidental). Just like anyone basing a vote solely on their opinion about why someone was killed is equally invalid, although possibly subject to confirmation bias.

On to Kelly/Meeko/Freudian. NAF's original case against kelly was weak, it looks to me like someone playing rashly. If you want to attribute rashness as a scum play, you'll have to convince me since I just don't buy it on face value. If I have Meeko's argument correct, he is arguing that Kelly is being bussed so that he will be lynched and Freudian would get town credit for it. This doesn't add up for me since a 1 for 1 trade rarely benefits scum. Not that it's not possible, but it's not the first thing I think of.

@Zeriel: I'm a little confused, are you voting for Drain because of the "overnight thread" or is it a continuation of your case against her yesterday regarding everyone=zeriel?

Mahaloth

03-29-2010, 12:11 PM

Jimmy Chitwood

03-29-2010, 12:21 PM

I didn’t read OAOW’s post as trying to divert attention as much as trying to look for answers which was my first response to seeing who was killed. It also looks like Jimmy is trying to build a case but not putting a vote behind it. Since I managed to not vote yesterDay I’m going to put out an early vote based on Jimmy’s misinterpretation of OAOW and saying that there was a benefit to that misinterpretation of giving OAOW townie cred. Tacking on a sentence at the end to make it seem like you’re not attributing OAOW’s actions to being scum bothers me too.

Was your first response to think that probably NAF was killed in order to throw up a smokescreen and protect the rest of a "Brotherhood" of people with misspelled posts? Is it helpful to the search for answers to obliquely suggest that this unidentified class of people (which upon 30 seconds' investigation is revealed as a class of one: Meeko) will benefit from the kill, and thus are scum, and that's the most likely explanation?

And you're bothered both by my bringing it up and asking for clarification, and not voting, and by me allowing that it's hard for me to believe scum would be that bold about it? What do you want me to do in the future when I see something weird that I want other people to look at, and that I want to hear more about? Either vote right away or just not say anything at all, those are the options?

Rysto

03-29-2010, 12:21 PM

What was Drain's alleged slip? I see the "overnight thread" slip by Tom, but I totally see what he meant there. What did Drain say that is somewhat "slippy"? What post was it in?

Zeriel is upset about this post:
FOS at everyone who brought up peeker voting story straight off as a reason to vote him.

That "everyone" was really only Zeriel, and he doesn't like the fact that Drain couched an FOS of a single player in terms that appeared to be general.

Jimmy Chitwood

03-29-2010, 12:44 PM

scenario Naf = town Meeko = scum. Both have a misspelling completely randomly and unintentionally.

I stomp in and attribute it as being scum. Most people disagree with me at least one follows along with me. Anyway it is now something on the radar.

Scum team (knowing that NAF isn't scum) decide to kill NAF to prove misspelling <> scum, thus removing the shadow from Scum Meeko.

Now this is all pure conjecture, but NAF was targeted for some reason, and I feel it is in town's interests to think about who was targeted why.

The first word is "scenario," and you say yourself it's pure conjecture; in other words, you've made up a set of assumptions, and then based on those assumptions you're giving us an explanation of why it happened that way.

The question is, why that particular conjecture? It's all well and good that within the constraints you've created, you can give us reasons why the logic is consistent. That doesn't tell the rest of us anything about why you created the scenario in the first place. I mean, hey, scenario: NAF town, Meeko town. In this universe, you're being ridiculous and scummy. See how easy that was for me to do?

Re: Tom and the slip, or not-slip, I'm with Zeriel in that I pointed it out because I do think that following up on those kinds of accidental references will help you find scum more often than it'll prevent you from doing it. It's far from an ironclad case -- of course it's possible that an innocent townie might just use the wrong combination of words -- and I don't think this is foolproof, but I think that the other kind, the capital-s Slip kind, happens fairly regularly.

Even though, sure, there are other games with multiple threads, there aren't really that many, and it seems highly worthy of notice when a player acknowledges (inadvertently) thinking about even the existence of another thread somewhere. It seems hard to believe that it would ever occur to my fingers to type "overnight thread" because it's just a fact to me that there's only one thread, and there's nothing special about discussions overnight for me. You have to admit, in a game where the scum can talk, in a separate place for discussion, and only at night, that is a particularly unfortunate coincidental way to refer to something. Over time, I'll take my chances that that signifies something important more often than it happens just by random inattention or incorrect phrasing. I plan to keep it in mind, is all.

Mahaloth

03-29-2010, 01:18 PM

That "everyone" was really only Zeriel, and he doesn't like the fact that Drain couched an FOS of a single player in terms that appeared to be general.

snip

Oh, I see. Thanks.

Mahaloth

03-29-2010, 02:37 PM

OK, so I've thought about it and I actually think Zeriel makes a pretty good case about Drain's attempt to rope a bunch of people into a FOS when it was only him.

I see very little case for the whole "overnight thread" thing Tom said, though. It never occurred to me that he meant some other thread on another board and Drain did comment in this thread.

So, Drain definitely looks odd with that statement, but not enough to get a vote from me, at least not yet.

However, shouldn't we have more talking by Monday of a Day? Things are oddly calm aside from Meeko and Ed's continuing hilarity, so to speak.

Oredigger77

03-29-2010, 02:53 PM

Was your first response to think that probably NAF was killed in order to throw up a smokescreen and protect the rest of a "Brotherhood" of people with misspelled posts? Is it helpful to the search for answers to obliquely suggest that this unidentified class of people (which upon 30 seconds' investigation is revealed as a class of one: Meeko) will benefit from the kill, and thus are scum, and that's the most likely explanation?
My first reaction was to create a list of reasons why NAF was killed which OAOW did. Umm . . . or not. I went to quote the post where OAOW listed the reasons for the scum killing NAF turns out it was by Guiri right after the posts by OAOW pointing out the ‘brotherhood of the misspellings’. I screwed up.
And you're bothered both by my bringing it up and asking for clarification, and not voting, and by me allowing that it's hard for me to believe scum would be that bold about it? What do you want me to do in the future when I see something weird that I want other people to look at, and that I want to hear more about? Either vote right away or just not say anything at all, those are the options?[/QUOTE]
I still don’t like the way you brought it up. Your post felt like it was building a case against OAOW and then at the last second you decided you were pushing too hard and tried to pull the punch with a single tacked on sentence. But now that I’ve gone back and straightened myself out I’m going to withdraw my vote. I don’t like you’re presentation but you are right only coming up with one reason for the scum to kill last Night is a bad play since it’s WIFOM.

Unvote Jimmy

Drain Bead

03-29-2010, 06:21 PM

OK, so I've thought about it and I actually think Zeriel makes a pretty good case about Drain's attempt to rope a bunch of people into a FOS when it was only him.

I'm going to ask this question to you too, but it's really to zeriel, since zeriel is the only one voting me for it...

If I'm Scum, what's my motivation for hiding zeriel in what is ostensibly a larger group of people? The only way it makes sense to me is if zeriel is also Scum! Then I might have the motivation of trying to look pro-Town by coming up with a nice Townie argument defending peeker for something he does every game, but I don't have to smear my Scum teammate by name to do it.

Zeriel

03-29-2010, 06:52 PM

I'm going to ask this question to you too, but it's really to zeriel, since zeriel is the only one voting me for it...

If I'm Scum, what's my motivation for hiding zeriel in what is ostensibly a larger group of people? The only way it makes sense to me is if zeriel is also Scum! Then I might have the motivation of trying to look pro-Town by coming up with a nice Townie argument defending peeker for something he does every game, but I don't have to smear my Scum teammate by name to do it.

There's also the opposite--throw out something plausible that generates heat for a single known townie (if you're scum, you know I'm townie) while allowing you to pretend you're making a general statement.

Drain Bead

03-29-2010, 07:14 PM

Mahaloth

03-29-2010, 08:00 PM

Basically trying to stir disorder up by taking what one individual did and try to spread it out and make it sound like there is some kind of negative trend occurring. Perhaps trying to get us talking about that and distract us from more productive talk.

Having said this, I don't think it is that big of a deal.

A bigger deal is how little active conversation is going on. Perhaps my perception is wrong, but this Day Two seems very slow.

Meeko

03-29-2010, 08:02 PM

Good Lord but you sound like Elmo in this post!

I was trying to go for the absurd with that one. Looks like I passed, and failed.

Does no good if no one else gets me, right?

Chronos

03-29-2010, 08:31 PM

Catching up here, since I didn't look in much on the thread over the weekend: The first thing I can say is that I don't think it's profitable to speculate about Scum's reason for killing NAF. If, say, we had some claimed power roles on the table and NAF got killed over them, then, yeah, it might be interesting to speculate about (though, of course, the Scum might kill someone else in that situation just to keep Town confused, so it still isn't all that helpful to Town). And if it were a later Night, and the deceased turned out to be a valuable power role, we might consider the possibility that the Scum have an investigator (though frankly, I've seen a lot of Scum lucky shots on power roles). But on Night 1, with no power claims, Scum are probably just going to pick at random from the set of skilled Town players. NAF is a skilled player, and apparently Town, so his death is consistent with this simplest hypothesis.

The second thing I'm wondering about: Is there some easy way to check the history of the games at Idle and Giraffe? I'm wondering just how many games Tom Scud has played in where each Day/Night has a separate thread. If he's played a lot of them, then it makes his "slip" much more plausible, but if he's only played a few, then it's more suspicious.

I'll probably have more to say after I've had a chance to go through and update my notes.

Tom Scud

03-29-2010, 09:16 PM

I can answer the last: one game on Idle (story's marvels game), to go with my 3 games here.

NAF1138

03-29-2010, 09:37 PM

The second thing I'm wondering about: Is there some easy way to check the history of the games at Idle and Giraffe? I'm wondering just how many games Tom Scud has played in where each Day/Night has a separate thread. If he's played a lot of them, then it makes his "slip" much more plausible, but if he's only played a few, then it's more suspicious.

There is always our group's wiki (http://wiki.flyingcowofdoom.com/mafiaWiki/Main_Page).

I would like to take this opportunity to note that it probably needs work, and invite everyone to come work on the wiki.

Zeriel

03-29-2010, 10:39 PM

Well, here's the thing. If it's true that nobody else voting for peeker made comments regarding his joke vote (and I'm not sure of that, as I don't have the time right now to go through 19 pages searching for it) then the strategy fails miserably. All it does is end up getting me in trouble, because it's something that's clearly untrue. So that doesn't make sense to me. And look at my other option. I could have simply said FOS zeriel, and why, and had there been someone else who made similar comments, it then becomes "Why are you protecting so-and-so"? Better to hedge one's bets, especially since I'm pretty sure I saw other people refer to the joke post when smudging peeker.

Or alternately, you could have re-read the thread to make sure you didn't screw it up, like a townie would do.

If people think it's a Scumfight, that's one thing. But if you're Scum, you know I'm Town, and if you're Town, the motivation behind my actions makes no sense as Scum, when you parse it out. So your vote for me pretty much boils down to ill-supported OMGUS.

I don't think it has to make sense. I have noticed in the past, starting with my very first game here, that when someone makes a list that has obvious criteria and then omits or includes names that don't quite fit the criteria, that person is almost always scum because it's a damn good indication of skimming, which I find to be a nigh-universally scummy thing. This is just that applied to implicit lists.

Final thing to bring up. Had I simply said FOS zeriel, what would your response have been? Because this whole thing is a distraction from my initial point in making the FOS in the first place, and you've never really answered the substance of it that I can see.

My answer? I don't like joke votes after game start, I find them to muddy the voting record especially when done (as peeker did) and then not retracted in a timely manner--it took me calling him on it, and then calling him on "yeah, if it's a joke, why haven't you unvoted him" before he unvoted--and even then, in that same latter post, I unvoted him because I was satisfied it was a joke and not a scummy peeker play masquerading as a typically obtuse peeker play.

One man's distraction is another man's scum slip.