|
that post makes me feel a lot better about you Zare. The first bit about information before lynching deadlines comes from last game for sure though. I wouldn't read too much into it because a few times people felt very pressured before a vote because of new information at the last second.
After reading the following something feels off, it might be a language barrier thing but
+ Show Spoiler +From jampidampi: Regarding the QT question: If he was scum, he would have gotten the QT link with his role PM. Would anyone ask something they already know of? Or was it a way to get his scumbuddy to come to the QT? It is all just speculation, but I hope everyone here would have the brains to check out the QT from their PM.
Leaning towards town
Something in that bolded area seems off to me. @Jampi could you clarify when you say everybody should check the QT link they get in their PM?
|
On January 03 2013 23:25 zarepath wrote:
In light of Spag's response (while I was writing my post), I'd like to elaborate on my read of Spag, but will await his forthcoming response to Mocsta's Q's. Meanwhile, I am checking a few other filters.
zarepath: I am keen to hear your thoughts on Spaghetticus now that he has voiced his rebuttle.
Please note, he has made 2 posts of defense.
(1) is in relation to my questions to OmniEulogy.
and the other
(2) is in relation to my questions to Spaghetticus.
|
Jampidampi, Thank you for openly sharing your thoughts regarding these three players.
My thoughts:
+ Show Spoiler +I have noticed they all come to the same conclusion; and are hinging upon active play in the thread.
I think this is a fine start.
As far as I am concerned, reads such as "leaning towards" can be swung back to null very quickly.
Thus, I also appreciate you have not concluded anyone as "Confirmed" town. This is wise play as it is too early to confirm anyones motives (yes, I include myself in this if you were wondering).
@Jampidampi
You said you prefer a postcount to post quality ratio skewed in favour of post quality.
Why does your post regarding these three people aid towns scumhunt? What makes this a "quality" post?
The only other person you have identified in your contributions is StriX; the questions are vague at best however.
- If StriX remains your primary target, I would like to see you direct more questions his way to develop your profile on him.
- If StriX has fallen down the pecking order, I would like to know what has changed your mind.
|
Post Count Summary
Intent:
To identify participants ""flying under the radar"" and not actively contributing.
The intent is not to provide a quality check on posts
That onus falls upon all of town individually.
Session 2
From: 03-Jan: 2130
To: 04-Jan: 0930
+ Show Spoiler +- cDgCorazon: 10
(3 in session)
- Sylencia: 14
(6 in session)
- OmniEulogy: 7
(5 in session)
- Spaghetticus: 20
(5 in session)
- Mocsta: 11
(4 in session)
- zarepath: 9
(7 in session)
- TeMil: 3
(1 in session)
- jampidampi: 4
(3 in session)
- StriX: 9
(6 in session)
|
On January 04 2013 08:17 zarepath wrote:
Sylencia's first post is a non-convicted declaration of his policy on lynching lurkers, which "changes depending upon the flow of the game," and ends with a hope that people don't wait until the last minute to vote or come out with new analysis. In doing so, he adds the caveat "(assuming their info is good)." Already trying to discredit in-depth analysis at the last minute. Mafia would hate last-minute vote changes, as they've already planned on and around another outcome. If one of their own is being targeted, a last-minute vote change wouldn't be in their favor as there wouldn't be enough people around to necessarily make it successful, and when their mafia flips red, it incriminates them as well. Also, his answer to Corazon's "how do mafia mislead us" post is a very vague, general one that basically says "when in the last game they misled us." No concrete new info, very non-committal on everything. Possibly scum.
One of two things: This is no different to what I have written in any other opening policy vote. You can check my filters for my other games and you will see something similar written for them. Two: I've had experience from last game about last minute vote changes. They work, because people don't have enough time to digest what is written, and a lot of the time in our newbie games we have a lot of bandwagoners who just aren't completely sure of what to do. If people start shifting over, so will they. Also note I never said that it was the mafia who would start up the last minute vote. Anyone who finds 'new evidence' can easily sway others to join in on their cause, stopping the vote on a potential scum.
Next post is involving him in the useless "should blues lie?" debate, with the "duh!" statement of "you can't expect cops to say 'yes' if someone asks them if they are a cop." And that's all he says. Contributes nothing, but went out of his way to do it. Possibly scum.
That's because there was no discussion stemming from that. Mocsta made a statement, I disagreed with part of what he said, so I made a point referring to the part I thought was off.
Next post he bandwagons on calling out Spaghetticus for the QT slip, and puts pressure on TemiL to post something.
Next post he says "the only person we're waiting on now is Strix." This is basically a non-post that can be construed as being productive. Possibly scum.
Continues pressure on Spaghetticus in a passive-aggressive way, then notes Strix's absence again. Possibly scum.
Changes his mind on Spaghetticus "after looking at it again," but doesn't provide his reasoning. Suggests that all of us should be stepping it up, but has done literally zero stepping it up himself. Shifts attention from his noncontributions onto others' noncontributions. Also, he gives a thought about newbies posting more so as to help town out more. A little out of his way and a little sweet for my taste, especially considering the substance of what he's posted. Possibly scum.
I want to hear what everyone has to say. If they are lurking, then calling them out would/should encourage them to post. There is no reason why we should completely ignore them and let them be on 0 posts, without someone explicitly saying 'get in here, you need to talk to us'.
With regards to my pressure on Spag, I am confused by his words and by his actions. By mentioning conflicting views on certain issues, it means that there's possibly something more behind his game plan. If he's not being honest, it's not benefiting town at all.
Next post he essentially takes credit for Mocsta's post, saying "I was going to say that same thing but I was busy reading! Good one!" This is the equivalent of a "+1". Taking credit for others' contributions without having to contribute anything, and all of these pseudo-contributions are aimed towards Spaghetticus, along with the caveat that "after looking at it again it could have just been a slip," given with no reasoning. So on the flip he has a backdoor. Possibly scum.
Next post he closes that backdoor and uses a non-tell on Spaghetticus to FoS him -- his dramatic quote about lynching lurkers even if there's a good scum tell. Saying you're going to vote out the lurkiest player, especially that dramatically, is hardly a scum tell at all; and if it were, it would be a big, enormous one because it was so emphatic, and would warrant a vote over an FoS if Sylencia really believed it.
During the first two days, I usually do not vote on the first 24 hours. I gave the FoS when I read what Spag said but before he defended anything he said. I give people chances to defend themselves before throwing out votes.
Next post is just him saying he won't talk to Spag in real life about it -- unnecessary, flooding the thread with non-contributions.
Not a relevant post to the game, but the context was about knowing Strix in real life, and was not directed at Spag.
Final post is entirely on theory and policy, at a time when more than enough names are being tossed around for him to contribute something much more concrete. A waste of effort and discussion, and scummy.
I'm still questioning Spag in my last post, based on (as I said before), what I believe to be conflicting statements made by him.
|
Talkative bunch.
Alright...
Vote: Zarepath you left us with a nice case on syl, I don't agree with most of it but it was a decent case and he responded to it very well. However you left right after ruining the chance of any immediate conversation that might have stemmed from it. Your position on a no-lynch is a factor in my vote as well, it just isn't a town mindset. Also claiming that a no-lynch vote is not even at play any more is a bad attempt to bury something that is very much a factor in how D1 plays out. Again not a town mindset.
You attack Sylencia largely on ideas that promote strong town behavior like his willingness to lynch lurkers in certain situations but otherwise always going for his scum reads. Almost everything you said about him applies to yourself in terms of posting, in which he is ahead in terms of quality and quantity.
##FoS: Strix lack of everything from you so far. You are a close second to Zare.
@Everybody What do you think about the case made against Syl? How do you feel about Mocsta leading discussion and his vote on Cora? How do you feel Cora responded to the vote. How has he given himself any credibility as town afterwards. (Cora please feel free to answer this one as well)
And lastly in answer to asking if making a contributions list if town vs scum it could be either. We had Shz in NMM XXXIII attempt a similar thing as VT and I've watched mafia players pretend to contribute by doing the same thing in other games. The point to be made aware of is that Mocsta has also lead discussions and is not ONLY making those posts.
|
EBWOP: ##Vote: Zarepath forgot ## my bad.
|
Votecount:
cDgCorazon (1): Mocsta
zarepath (1): OmniEulogy
Not voting (7): cDgCorazon, jampidampi, zarepath, Spaghetticus, Sylencia, StriX, TeMiL
Currently, Corazon is set to be lynched! 21 hours 20 minutes remaining in day 1.
Just as a reminder, day 1 deadline will be at 01:00 GMT (+00:00), because of the performed YOLO.
|
Mocsta: Tools to Improve Town Play / Scum Hunt
Disclaimer:
This is a compendium of mafia knowledge available freely.
I do not intend this to make me a pro-town read, as anyone can source quotes.
Intent:
To pass some of the tools I am aware of, to enable town players to scum hunt more effectively.
This is not a guide on how to play, or why we act certain ways. I would be fooling myself if I thought I had that experience.
For guides on mafia in general, see the original post, at the bottom is a plethora of newbie guides.
Lastly, if you want to discuss the applicability of this, PM me, as the conversation will certainly not be "Newbie Mafia 34" related.
1. Preface
+ Show Spoiler +[Cakepie] There is never a good reason for town to lurk. Only by discussing our reasoning and lines of thought can we hope to find and eradicate scum.
Town must never clam up for fear of making mistakes --
1. it is through discussion that we may hope to correct errors in reasoning; and
2. more importantly, in the event of a mislynch, it would leave trail for others to follow.
Hence, a silent townie is a far more useless than a bad townie.
2. Learnings from past game(s)
+ Show Spoiler +[Promethelax]Town: the main things you have to realize and learn from this game are
1) Never make connection cases before a flip
Connections cases pre-flip will always lead you astray.
2) People who say things about how something will affect their image is often scum.
3) A townie's greatest job is not to scum hunt, it is to be obviously town and remove oneself from the hunt of others.
See NMM XXX for a really great example of a scum team that was fucked not by strong scum hunting but by a group of townies who all made their mindset and alignment abundantly clear in the thread.
3. General Notes for Townies
+ Show Spoiler +(A) Townie Priorities + Show Spoiler + [A General Guide to Playing Mafia]
#1: Establish your innocence
#2: Read the thread
#3: Enable the scum hunt (Start discussion, contribute, pressure etc)
#4: Vote
(B) Confirmation Bias/Tunneling + Show Spoiler +[General] Mafia is a game where it is not uncommon to draw multiple conclusions from the same facts.
Make sure your “analysis” is clearly drawn from the facts rather than superficially pointing out irrelevant facts to prop up your theory.
Do not fall into confirmation bias by believing so strongly in your conclusions that you twist every possible thing your target says to support your case and ignore evidence that contradicts your conclusion
(C) There is no benefit to calling out early town reads + Show Spoiler +[Toadestern] See the thing is, ... it is INCREDIBLY hard to tell a townie who's posting a townread apart from a mafia who's posting a townread while both may look like something useful (it's not).
A townread is best kept to yourself, especially early on.
1. There's no reason to tell people what the key to making you think someone is town is.
2. There's no reason to tell mafia (if you're town) who you consider to be a likely townie is.
3. There's no reason to tell anybody why you think someone is town at all, unless said person is about to be lynched.
On top of that, it is incredibly easy for mafia to look like they're doing something by posting townreads. They know they're right on something, they don't have to make up bullshit, which they have to when they're doing scumreads unless they're bussing. They can get in the thread make 4 townreads about someone, mix in 2 mafiabuddies and tell people they're mafia as well and there's almost no way to distinguish that from a townie.
I mean there is, but it's just WAY hader than by looking at peoples mafiareads because again, mafia have to make up some bullshit when doing those, they got confirmation bias and already know they're wrong and all that is making it hard for mafias to talk about mafia-reads. Talking about townreads isn't for them, not at all.
4. General Mafioso Behaviours
+ Show Spoiler +(A) Mafia actions broken into the basics + Show Spoiler +
[General Guide to Playing Mafia]
Thus, mafia actions can generally be split into two rough categories:
A. Survival
1. Hiding/Blending in
2. Posting long but contentless posts
3. Lurking
4. Indecision
5. Not wanting to point fingers
6. Avoiding responsibility
7. Apathy about who is lynched
B. Pushing their agenda
1. Promoting confusion
2. Avoiding contributing new ideas
3. Making a big deal about nothing
4. Cherry Picking town mistakes while ignoring contributions
(B) Calculated "Inaction" from Mafia + Show Spoiler +[General]
You don't want to lynch the people you call scum. You want the town to lynch the people you call town.
Call out lurkers. They are easy to lynch, but don't try to lynch them until later in the game. Their wagon will provide good escape later if you need it.
Don't underestimate the power of subtle praise. "That's a great point" and "I didn't notice that" or even "I'm sheeping X, who is obv-town" helps building false confidence in townies. This will make the townie think you are town, and if they turn out to be wrong they get the blame and their confidence is shaken. It is generally good to leave the responsibility for the town's lynches on the town *Mocsta: Also known as "White-Knighting"*
(C) Active Lurking + Show Spoiler +[General]
Examples of active lurking include posts made only of taunts, excuses for not posting, incoherent gibberish that will lead people to suspect that you do not have the Internet savvy to play Mafia, general bland agreement with whatever is going on, and so forth.
For the less couth readers, this is frequently called "bullshitting" in MeatWorld.
This tactic is employed by scum who wish to appear more active than they actually are; either for the scum who has no comment on the current matter but does not want to seem like they are lurking, or for the lurker who wants to paint themselves as slightly better than some other lurker.
The effectiveness of this tactic is quite impressive if players are not specifically looking for it.
It is a common Town mistake to wish for the lynch of people they violently disagree with over the people who post whatever they can to stay on the periphery.
5. Scum Hunting tips
+ Show Spoiler +(A) Avoiding WIFOM + Show Spoiler +[General]
Do not get into a logical debate with your target. This always ends with “I have my views, you have yours”. Only reply to what is necessary. (B) Scum Read tips + Show Spoiler +[Aquanim]
Personally, I believe there are two very different kinds of tells: a player can do something which is not hard for scum to do or they can do something which is just scummy. Some examples:
Things which are not hard for scum to do:
- Talking about policy
- Defending other players
- Rambling about Mafia theory
- Jumping on scumslips
- Posting rationally (about things that aren't scumhunting)
- Jumping on a wagon
etc.
Things which are scummy:
- Not voting for their best scumread when lynch is imminent.
- Derailing fruitful discussion.
And, for comparison:
Things which are generally hard for scum to do:
- Scumhunt. This is NOT the same thing as "put down a vote with some justification".
- Convincingly converse with their scumbuddies.
As you can see, the first list has a lot more stuff in it. Everyone does some things that are in the first list, but when they're ONLY doing those that's a problem. The point is, I'd encourage everyone to look at their scumreads and think "are they scummy, or just doing things which are easy for scum to fake"?
Similarly, look at your townreads and think "are they scumhunting"? Putting down votes isn't necessarily scumhunting BTW. If they're not scumhunting, they're not particularly town, I don't care how much they've written or how smart/cautious/nice they are.
Oh, and talk to your coaches about scumreads instead of listening to the opinions of some newb.
(C) Improving quality of questions + Show Spoiler +[General]
When digging for information, don’t just ask the direct questions expecting the answer you want to hear.
The mafia are obviously not going to want to answer the way you’d like them to. Don’t ask questions hoping for a slip-up; ask questions intending to force the mafia to give up information. Before asking a question, you must have a realistic expectation of what the answer will be.
Many townies ask open-ended or direct questions that have zero chance of bringing out useful information. You must predict the answers to the questions before asking them in order to avoid pointless questions. Don’t repetitively ask questions unless you know you can accurately process the information you receive.
(D)Re-enforcing the scum read message + Show Spoiler +[Aquanim]Mafia start with more information than town. It is in the Mafia's best interest to keep town from finding information. Conversely, it is in the Town players' best interests for the Town to gain information. Therefore, Townie players: - Do not have any problems with giving information to the town
- Try to pressure/ask questions/etc. of other players which will reveal more information
By comparison, Scum players: - Do not want to reveal information to the town
- Do not want to ask questions of other players which may reveal information
Scum players may in fact be forced to reveal some information so as to appear townie. They may ask other players questions to appear townie. However, the end goal of a Scum player is NOT to look townie, it is to deny town the information they need to lynch correctly. As such, they will reveal as little information as possible, and their questions are unlikely to have a greater and unifying purpose. One case in particular I'll mention: everyone is obliged to justify their votes, scum or not. Unless the explanation is spectacularly good or bad, the presence of any reasoning behind a vote is null for me generally. So, I've looked at everybody's filters with the following two questions in mind: Is this person willingly revealing his own motivations, reasoning, etc.?Is this person trying to obtain information from other players?
|
On January 04 2013 12:32 OmniEulogy wrote:
How do you feel about Mocsta leading discussion and his vote on Cora? How do you feel Cora responded to the vote. How has he given himself any credibility as town afterwards. (Cora please feel free to answer this one as well)
I think Cora responded pretty appropriately with regards to the sudden vote against him early on. It's fair play to base some accusations off previous behaviours, but I think Mocsta was definitely getting ahead of himself doing it when Cora had barely posted anything yet.
|
Mocsta, I'm really curious. Why are you still voting for me?
If you have an actual reason to vote for me besides being paranoid of my XXXIII play, I would love to hear them.
|
Questions to All Persons:Session 3
Intent:
Discussion is quite slow at the moment. I have addressed questions to each participant to promote further conversation, whether directly to myself, or to others.
Please take the time and respond to these accordingly.
If you have qualms replying to my content, please notify myself and the rest of town, why you deem this unnecessary.
- cDgCorazon
+ Show Spoiler +(1) I am satisfied with your response to (1) thus far. What do you make of zarepath/Sylencia? Are town motives apparent in this debate?
(2) Are you satisfied with the contribution of TeMiL now that 24hrs has expired? You say we should pressure, I ask that you lead this discussion.
- OmniEulogy
+ Show Spoiler +(1) Do you think your case on zarepath is exclusive of confirmation bias towards mafia?
Remember, OrangeRemi voted "no-lynch" day 1, and he was a bluer role. I urge you to have a re-think and let us know if you can explain zarepath motives from a town perspective. .
- jampidampi
+ Show Spoiler +(1) I would like if you could answer the new questions I addressed to you: @Jampidampi You said you prefer a postcount to post quality ratio skewed in favour of post quality. Why does your post regarding these three people aid towns scumhunt? What makes this a "quality" post? The only other person you have identified in your contributions is StriX; the questions are vague at best however. - If StriX remains your primary target, I would like to see you direct more questions his way to develop your profile on him.
- If StriX has fallen down the pecking order, I would like to know what has changed your mind.
(2) What is your take on the Sylencia/zarepath exchange of words (and vote(s))?
- zarepath
+ Show Spoiler +(1) Which you rather choose to lynch. An active participant with a scummy vibe; or a participant who is low count poster, but each post contains a vote for someone?
- Spaghetticus
+ Show Spoiler +(1) Your response to Session 2. Q2 Strong scum reads have already revealed a lot about themselves, and you can expect pressure on them later. Care to develop this further (I do understand you said real life commitments would plague you today)
- Sylencia
+ Show Spoiler +(1) Which you rather choose to lynch. An active participant with a scummy vibe; or a participant who is low count poster, but each post contains a vote for someone?
(2) StriX post style reminds me a bit of "Threesr". How do you think StriX should be approached to develop his story further? Please lead the discussion.
- StriX
+ Show Spoiler +(1) Have your ideas expanded on "who is who"? Please share
(2) You said zarepath is your lead suspect. With the information zarepath has presented since Session 2. What are your revised thoughts? If still a target, I suggest you demonstrate your conviction with a vote; otherwise, begin to identify alternative candidates.
- TeMiL
+ Show Spoiler +(1) So far your post count reads as useless fluff. Why should I not vote for you?
(2) "growing in my role" What does this mean? (I understand English is not your first language)
|
Also @Mocsta:
What do you think of Zarepath's attack on Syl, and Syl's defense?
|
On January 04 2013 13:45 cDgCorazon wrote:
Mocsta, I'm really curious. Why are you still voting for me?
If you have an actual reason to vote for me besides being paranoid of my XXXIII play, I would love to hear them.
Mate, your scum play impressed me Newbie 33, BUT... this game, you are starting to disapoint.
Read between the lines; Spag figured it out...
Fact is.. look at what I have written today, do you think that takes 5min? I haven't had an opportunity to update my case profiles for the Day 1 Lynch.
I aim to have this ready by midnight (8hrs from lynch).. it is Friday night after all.
+ Show Spoiler +
If you want a heads up, after the Session 2/3 proceedings, my vote will not be cast in your direction (or Spags)
|
On January 04 2013 13:50 Mocsta wrote:
Fact is.. look at what I have written today, do you think that takes 5min? I haven't had an opportunity to update my case profiles for the Day 1 Lynch.
Well, I took your continuous vote (almost 24 hours) to mean that I had not satisfied your answers, and I just wanted to know why you kept your vote on me instead of un-voting.
|
On January 04 2013 13:50 cDgCorazon wrote:
Also @Mocsta:
What do you think of Zarepath's attack on Syl, and Syl's defense?
Im not trying to be a prick here..however, I am trying to follow your advice.
*i.e. wait for feedback from others who have not been actively participating*
In essence, I DO have firm thoughts on what happened.
My revised questions to others reflects my opinion on the matter (in a subtle manner).
I will say one more thing though.. I am not liking people instantly concurring with others ideas.... at least try to be creative and add a fresh perspective.
Ironically, this applies to both zarepath and Sylencia.
|
from a town perspective I could see it being a misguided attempt to save a town lurker from getting lynched. However just because as you said Orange did it and was blue, it doesn't make it a good play. Furthermore we also had scum in NMM XXXIII try to support a no-lynch D1 in their opening posts.
Do you have a read on anybody at the moment Mocsta?
|
On January 04 2013 13:53 cDgCorazon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 13:50 Mocsta wrote:
Fact is.. look at what I have written today, do you think that takes 5min? I haven't had an opportunity to update my case profiles for the Day 1 Lynch.
Well, I took your continuous vote (almost 24 hours) to mean that I had not satisfied your answers, and I just wanted to know why you kept your vote on me instead of un-voting.
Fair comment.
##Unvote: cDgCorazon
As mentioned prior, I will update my Day1 Vote candidate later tonight.
In the meantime, this is theory crafting.
But I wouldnt mind your feedback, as the post contribution is SO low..
im almost considering trying to push for below.
+ Show Spoiler +
There are 9 members.. I know I am town, that gives me a choice of 8 to lynch. (1/8 = 12.5%)
I think I have 2 or 3 good enough town reads.. that gives me a 1/5 chance (20%).. Do you think that 20% chance is good enough to warrant a random lynch a lurker vote?
We know from practice, that the outspoken guys, are typically town (who are not afraid to voice their opinion).. Theres too many 1 page filters, even for this stage of the game.
|
At this point I'd consider voting for Strix followed by Jampi and then TeMiL in that order. I know Temil said something about work hours but I'd really like to see his thoughts on current matters before even considering to vote for him. Strix does vaguely give off that "Threesr" feeling but not even half as bad as the real thing. He's my #2 at the moment.
I think we can cut down on the possibilities a bit more before anybody really needs to throw out a vote if they don't think they have a read at all.
|
Mocsta(1) Do you think your case on zarepath is exclusive of confirmation bias towards mafia?
Remember, OrangeRemi voted "no-lynch" day 1, and he was a bluer role. I urge you to have a re-think and let us know if you can explain zarepath motives from a town perspective. .
On January 04 2013 13:58 OmniEulogy wrote:
(1)from a town perspective I could see it being a misguided attempt to save a town lurker from getting lynched. However just because as you said Orange did it and was blue, it doesn't make it a good play. Furthermore we also had scum in NMM XXXIII try to support a no-lynch D1 in their opening posts.
(2)Do you have a read on anybody at the moment Mocsta?
(2) Read my reply to cDgCorazon 1 to 2 posts above...
(1) I don't understand what you are saying. zarepath accused sylencia... how is this a misguided attempt? who is the town lurker you are referring to?
Im not saying no-vote is a good play, im saying it doesnt categorise a player as scum OR town. So I suggest dropping it altogether.
Personally Im not against a no-vote, depending on the situation (and I dont think our situation warrants a no-vote).
Perhaps I have misinterpreted your comments, but I would appreciate if you could collect your thoughts in a a more cohesive manner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
