On January 14 2012 11:46 Protactinium wrote:Ah an interesting roleclaim. However, there is much more to this than people are getting at.
The PM debate is an old one. Everyone has their opinion on whether it is town or mafia favored, and even through out-of-game debates, this is a highly controversial topic. If it can' be solved out of game, there's absolutely no way we are going to come up with a consensus in game. BC defends his claim by saying that getting everyone to contribute on this polarizing topic will help us get early reads on players. But if we can't agree on anything out of game, you won't really be able to say that someone saying "PMs good!" or "PMs bad!" will tell us anything about their alignment. Anyone can pretty much say whatever they like since they are under no obligation or pressure to have an opinion one way or the other on this issue.
While it is debatable whether PMs are "good" or "bad" for town, it shouldn't be too controversial to say that PMs are elitist. They inherently favor good players who can make use of the extra channel of communication. When you are talking to someone in PMs, always keep in mind what you think the other person wants from you. Are they trying to convince you of a certain point of view? Are they trying to get you to claim? As long as you can keep in mind that the PM initiator may be attempting to manipulate you and don't give away information loosely, PMs really aren't that scary.
What exactly has BC been discussing? Primarily, he has divided his attention between defending his claim, responding to attacks on the potnetial that he is red, and asking for "discussion" while pushing a particularly biased point of view. More clearly stated, he proposes a seemingly open-ended question, and answers it himself to make it appear like there was a town consensus behind it.
If you look at the thread, the only real contribution to the discussion that DOESN'T come from BC is sandroba's suggestion that all the masons roleclaim. And notice BC's bias when discussing the topic. In almost all his posts, BC paints PMs in a bad light. He only seriously acknowledges that town masons have the potential to catch scum, but in the same post, quickly says that "its harder than you think":
On January 14 2012 06:40 BloodyC0bbler wrote:
Town masons have the potential to catch scum. Dts have the potential have finding scum. Vigi's have the potential to shooting scum. Jacks could do all 3.
Of the group, masons rely on their ability to read people and read posts to get a good view of someone. Catching someone in pms is not as easy as everyone thinks it is and historically towns have town far more retarded things there than good.
But lets look at a section of what BC has to say a bout PMs in his guide "TL Town Breakdown/Analysis":
On January 28 2011 06:09 BloodyC0bbler wrote:
Private Messaging
This feature has been in a fair number of TL games. It is also an amazing tool if used properly. However, if it is not used properly, the mafia will abuse it and potentially win. They are also a function if used improperly will cause people to feel left out and like they don’t matter as players. Pm’s can and do make people elitist in games. IF Pm’s are allowed in a game they should be used properly. Role fishing, small analysis groups, alignment testing.
Role fishing is straightforward so I will not go into it at this time.
Small analysis groups. These groups need not be large, as you only need a few heads to flesh out analysis on people. It also means that if a red is in your group, it is easier to catch them, and it keeps the other groups safe from infiltration.
Alignment testing. This is posting in a way to let you carefully analyze reactions. Townies are more inclined to answer in one way and mafia/blues another. Sometimes this will be obvious such as catching someone lying to you in pm’s or lying in thread. Other times this will be noticing subtle word choices.
Regardless of how you opt to use the tool, if you do not feel comfortable in your ability to use them properly do not use them and play the game via the thread. Ask for detail from Ace on this, as he dislikes the PM feature.
Quite a contradictory opinion from what he states in game. The essence of BC's out of game stance is that: "PMs are like playing with fire. Could be insanely awesome if used correctly, but could burn you if you don't. If you don't feel comfortable, don't use them". This is quite a stark contrast to his position in this game, where he seriously downplays the usefulness of town PMs, and does a bit of fear mongering in emphasizing how the mafia can screw you over with PMs. Is it possible that BC has changed his stance? I doubt it, but it certainly is possible. So lets dig deeper here.
How is BC pushing his opinion? He does it subtly, and attempts to dissociate it from his personal point of view. In the beginning of his campaign to discuss masons, BC heavily uses the word "discuss" or "discussion", asks how "we as a whole" want to deal with masons, emphasizes that this is a discussion everyone should be weighing in on, and attempts to get the community involved in the discussion. He doesn't outright present his personal point of view, and frames the discussion so that it appears free and open-ended. But pretty much injects his own opinion into the discussion whenver possible.
His initial point is that mafia masons are dangerous and that town needs to have a plan to deal with that.
When asked for an example of PMs in action, BC drags in an example where he manipulated VE to do pro-mafia actions in just 1-2 PMs. (Reinforcing his stance on "PMs are scary")
When asked behind why he thinks a mass claim will interfere with the mafia masons, he proposes
in the hypothetical that if town agrees to not use PMs, then it shuts down mafia masons.
A few posts later, he reemphasizes that "by making the town decide, vocally, now, we force everyone to have an opinion." While this is fine and dandy, really he is the one calling the shots here.
When Cyber_Cheese suggests that we let masons use their discretion and suggests that smart town masons could cause the mafia masons to backfire, BC counters with "Mafia masons have the experience of an entire team to work manipulate someone", subtly pushing his opinion that PMs should be shunned.
On January 14 2012 05:54 BloodyC0bbler wrote:On January 14 2012 05:52 VisceraEyes wrote:
BC are you for or against a mass-mason claim? This is now the second time I've asked you. Please respond. I repeat, please respond to my query regarding the mass-mason claim.
I am fine with either it, or having town just say "we ignore all pms that arent host pms"Making every mason accountable / making them useless to prevent manipulation seems the best play at the moment.
making them all claim however is the optimal play, it may out the group of us, but it also prevents mafia from using their ability without being in the spotlight.
When asked about his opinion on a mason claim, he says he's fine with it, but takes the opportunity to inject more of his "ignore all PMs" idea into the conversation (notice that nobody else has been saying "lets ignore PMs").
BC is pushing the anti-PM agenda, in a way that is quite subtle. He constantly brings in reference to "the town needs to decide", or "this is a very important discussion that everyone needs to weigh in on", while he is really the one dominating the conversation. In other words,
he is injecting his mafia bias into the discussion while attempting to pass it off as a town discussion or collective town decision.
Here's something BC didn't tell you. As he has told me in the past (out of game): "keep in mind as red i rarely pm", and "my heavy pm use is town play".
Now what about the "spotlight factor" brought up by Meapak? BC putting himself in the spotlight is nothing unusual, both for his mafia and town play. If you've read past games, think of BC's style as much the same as Ace's. As stated above, red BC doesn't use a PM heavy style. He uses a style that focuses on thread control, shutting down serious opposition through arguments and generally trashing the thread. BC claiming mason does not give him any +town points in my book. The general heuristic of "mafia want to avoid the spotlight" doesn't apply to BC, who is an experienced mafia player and has proven that he is well capable of taking the spotlight as red.
So what is the scenario for BC being red and pushing his mason claim? BC is in fact red, and can use the mason power (chooses it for himself early in the day). As a town mason would, BC picks a mason target and starts talking to them. Once he gets the town to agree to ban masons, he is off the hook, and doesn't have to worry about PMs anymore. More specifically, he doesn't have to worry about town PMs. Like stated before, mafia BC plays a powerhouse thread control style. By banning PMs, BC doesn't lose out on much (he admits he isn't a heavy PM user), and nerfs Foolishness, sandroba, and my abilities to play a PM centric game (which we are known for). And that's what is the difference between this game and XLII (the game he refers to when he says he dominates with only 1-2 PMs). Foolishness and I are playing in this game, and are real threats. BC wants to shut down PMs before it starts, and he doesn't have to give up much information or lie at all in order to do it.
Furthermore, he has not followed up on his campaign promise: "I will question, analyze and call out all those who play in what I view as bad town/mafia like. (I have already done this with foolishness, he knows better)."
Ok, so maybe he called out Foolishness yesterday, but where is the scumhunting today? Its non-existent, because BC is too busy derailing the thread with mason discussions instead of scumhunting.
What is even more interesting is the timing of his initial claim post. It comes an hourish after my second post against Ciryandor, which conveniently most people except for sandroba and sheth have ignored.
1. BloodyC0bbler derailed today's discussion onto the irrelevant, highly controversial, and unsolvable PM debate.
2. Because the community is split over the PM debate, discussing it tells us nothing about alignment even if people contribute to the discussion. In other words, BC is overexaggerating the importance of this discussion.
3. BloodyC0bbler is masking his intentions and his clear anti-PM agenda,
which is inconsistent with his previous (out of game) stance on PMs).
4. BloodyC0bbler is trying to frame the discussion as an open discussion, when he is clearly injecting his personal bias.
5. BloodyC0bbler's actions are completely consistent with his mafia style, which is to spread chaos and control the thread atmoshere and discussion.
6. BloodyC0bbler's actions are not consistent with his campaign promise to analyze and call out people. He has done none of that today
BloodyC0bbler is mafia. If you vote for me I will lynch him. Is this Mist or Incog posting this? And could you identify yourselves when posting please.
EPT
I'm keeping my bill murray filter close at hand. 
)
