Dwarf Fortress Mini Mafia

On August 06 2012 07:11 Mordanis wrote:
Does one have to have played DF to play in this? If you banned people for that, that would probably be my only danger of being banned. That last sentence came out surprisingly non-sensical...

Edit: Assuming that no prior knowledge of DF is needed
/in, and I will not be modkilled, nor banned, nor burned at the stake, nor sexually harrased, nor shot, nor stabbed, nor force-fed Scottish food in punishment during the first game that the good Bluelightz is hosting. I reserve the right to take the listed punishments during Bluelightz' second hosted game until further notice.

On August 06 2012 21:15 marvellosity wrote:
the playerlist scares me a little!

On August 06 2012 22:06 HiroPro wrote:
Dat smurf

On August 07 2012 03:57 HiroPro wrote:
Nah, he's actually just a huge lurker. If he makes more than 1 post this game, we lynch him.

On August 08 2012 00:39 sciberbia wrote:
Hello everyone! Top of the morning to ya :D

First thing's first: I can truthfully report that I have rolled Dwarf,


...


Thoughts on roleclaims:
Vanilla Townies
Please do not roleclaim without a very good reason.

On August 08 2012 04:26 Mordanis wrote:
CVSTO LVNA PRO SVVS ABVTOR GENITIVI PROVOCO ET AVT NOMEN SVVS MVTAVERIT AVT DABO SENSVS MEVS EI

+ Show Spoiler [Translation] +

Funnily enough, the first person I'd like to ask a question is Mr. CL himself. In a way, Sciberbia's post telling people not to claim VT doesn't make any sense, especially when he comes out and says that he's a dwarf. On the other hand though, I don't see why you called out that illogical passage. Are you implying that bad logic is scummy? Or are you just poking fun at him?

On August 08 2012 17:48 Forumite wrote:
Hey, Custos Luna! You are supposed to be a well-known Veteran, what are your reads on the game so far, apart from weak suspicion on prplhz and ShiaoPi?

On August 08 2012 05:23 Mordanis wrote:
Right, and so saying that you shouldn't claim VT when you make a statement that's only purpose is to make yourself be perceived as VT seems illogical to me. Enough on that subject though ^^

Wow, Forumite's accusation came much earlier than I expected. All Shiao had done was come out as anti-policy, and then when pressed came out against lying and lurking. What in that is scummy, I have no idea. I think its clear that Forumite has some type of plan hatching, but until we find out what the plan is, his early accusation is sort of weightless. It could be an attempt to draw scum out or to force townie mistakes in order to mislynch. Or it could be something completely different, or even some amazing, irrefutable meta-read that paints Shiao as scum already. I don't see how that could be possible, but without further information, it's sort of a null read on Forumite for now. I think Forumite does deserve some extra attention, as I'm always kind of wary of people who are scheming.

On August 09 2012 00:31 marvellosity wrote:
Final post for now.

People who don't care about town:

prplhz. For your convenience, his posts so far:





Posting to say he isn't reading, and casting doubt with seemingly no purpose. This is seriously pants. I'd be happier to vote for him if I hadn't seen him do similar as town before.

---

Custos Moony

This dude is worse. DoYouHas talked about him a little yesterday, and I agree with what he said. To expand:



This goes back to part of Shiao's case on Mordanis, where Mordanis tied himself up in knots a bit about it. However, I see the root cause of that particular problem as Luna's post here (of course sciberbia was the originator, but Luna is the one to highlight it). The problem I have with this post is that it's highlighting something without providing your own commentary on it. As DYH said, it's highlighting a contradiction that wasn't even really a contradiction. What it *is* doing is planting an idea into town, an idea that can't be fruitful, and then letting town shit itself up with it. I see strong scum motive in this.



Again as DYH points out, everyone wasn't talking about a D1 double lynch at all. It was mentioned offhandedly as a bad idea a couple of times, but never seriously proposed in any way. In an empty filter, it's empty filler devoid of content for the sake of saying something. Further to note - he's at work and reading where he can, and just "poking". Excuse for not being substantial.



Just pointless. If it was sandwiched between content, fine, but it isn't. The fact of the matter is that Custos was around the thread at at least three points yesterday (just check the timestamps of what I quoted) but when he's around he contributes nothing or even causes thread disruption.



Second excuse for doing nothing.

In short, Custos Luna doesn't give a shit about town. His original quote-post of scib's was unexplained with his own opinion and served to disrupt the thread by making people talk about an irrelevant non-contradiction. He excuses himself for scumhunting. He is currently my favourite lynch target.

##Vote: Custos Luna

On August 09 2012 00:16 marvellosity wrote:


There are some pretty good things about this case. The strongest thing about the whole case is contained within the first section.



scib comments thusly: "If Forumite wanted shiaopi to feel a sense of security, why did Forumite voice his suspicions of shiaopi at all? I see no good explanation for why Forumite voiced his suspicions, but would not explain them."

Totally valid. There are two contradicting stories. Forumite has repeatedly alluded to creating 'pressure' on ShiaoPi with his early accusation. But there's no pressure in such an empty accusation - see Shiao's repsonse just there. But Forumite replies to him that he's more likely to scumslip if he doesn't think there's any danger. So... why point the finger at him? That 100% makes someone more vigilant. There's a big contradiction in wanting to create pressure and thinking someone will scumslip if there is... no pressure!

Further, I agree with scib's point about calling your own cases/confidence bad. There's no town motivation for wanting to have lower credibility with your reads, but it does provide an excuse for bad reads later (e.g. 'accidentally' mislynching a townie at some point).

I dislike that Forumite has replied several times in thread but has not in fact addressed sciberbia's case against him. In fact his reply was to *slOosh*, who merely passed a little bit of comment on it, but nothing back at scib. Why?

A couple of things on the flip side: I don't particularly agree with the whole vet stuff. At that point it's kinda a lose-lose situation. Foru could have gone the other way and pursued his post 1 read despite fairly influential townies being quite sceptical. In that case he would have been accused of blindly tunnelling with zero support.

Like I mentioned a couple of posts ago, I don't know why scum Foru would make himself so noticeable like that when my read of his scumplay was blendy, and scib alludes to this too. Also the fact that Foru poked me about how I picked him up on it - why bring further thread exposure to the whole issue? Why bring me back to the topic?

Basically I'm getting conflicting reads from various things. The whole contradiction with pressure vs more likely to scumslip without danger is a big point to me, because it makes him sound like squirmy scum who can't quite explain himself. Against this being a good player drawing attention to himself where unnecessary.

People should be discussing scib's case/Forumite today please.

On August 09 2012 00:50 marvellosity wrote:
you misread: scib's case = Forumite, not scib AND forumite. i.e. I want people to be discussing Forumite (something you have avoided doing three times already on this page) but you were my current strongest read.

Clear?

On August 09 2012 01:57 marvellosity wrote:


Are you on drugs? Where did I say that?

Scum are openly bad all the time. The just-abandoned XXIII had YourHarry throwing votes around with no explanation and he was scum. Normal Mini Mafia had prplhz throw around votes followed by a terrible cop claim and we all didn't lynch him because we didn't believe scum could be so bad, but he was scum and he was that bad.

On August 09 2012 03:28 sciberbia wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +

This post of DoYouHas makes me suspicious of him.

1) Perhaps I am biased, but I don't like his reasons for soft defending Forumite. I don't know how announcing a read but keeping it to yourself is 'transparent' and 'trying to move the thread forward'. His stance on Forumite seems wishy/washy and I'm not a fan.
2) He says that Mordanis reads as 'very likely scum', but then he votes prplhz for lurking? wtf? If you think somebody is very likely scum, and they already have two votes on them, you as a townie should add your vote, not vote for a lurker to 'keep him in the spotlight'.


FoS DoYouHas

On August 09 2012 04:03 Mordanis wrote:
Wow, I picked the anti-timing to sleep -.-

I'll do some defense first, because it takes less time, and in a while I'll come back with my reads so far.

First things first: + Show Spoiler + I don't see how noticing what seems to be planned play tells scum how to play. Plans scare the shit out of me because, though they aren't alignment-indicative, they tend to be very unpredictable in my experience. I think its much better play to simply hunt scum through analysis. Furthermore, saying that I'm wary of plans cannot inform scum strategy, since scum always need an overlying plan. Unless the scum abandon their QT or use it purely for social interaction, their play will be somewhat "planned". Also, townies are just as capable as scum to plan their play, so "planned play" isn't a scum-tell, its just something that scares me.

Moving on, there's ShiaoPi's case on me + Show Spoiler + First off, I never said that I was against policy talking. On the contrary, I think that establishing a common attitude of how to use power roles, how to use common mechanics and new mechanics, and some other things. The problem with talking policy is that if you do it wrong it can inform scum strategy. If you say "I find that 90% of the time I see a certain behavior, the person exhibiting that behavior is scum", you've told scum what to avoid in order to avoid detection. On a similar note, in several of the games I've played in, people have said they won't lynch lurkers unless they basically claim scum. This is really dumb because it gives scum an easy way to get into the mid to late game without anything to hold against them, plus it disincentivizes contribution to the scum-hunt. Talking policy in this way is very harmful to town.

About my questions to CL, I honestly don't see any wishy-washiness. I said that it didn't make sense to claim town and tell VTs not to claim VT in the same post, but that it doesn't seem particularly scummy. I don't really see any reason for scum to do this. Later I said that if you are claiming town you are really claiming VT because it makes sense. If you claim town, you are saying that you're either green or blue. If you claim a blue role at this point, you're either really bad or scum. It makes much more sense to interpret someone claiming town as claiming VT. This does not contradict what I said earlier. Going further, there is no analysis of why potential wishy-washiness would be alignment indicative.

Finally, Shiao mentions that he thinks that I should have voted for him because I didn't agree with him that policy talking is unnecessary or unimportant or even scummy. I don't see how Shiao can criticize my logic when a large part of his reason for voting for me is based on how I did not vote arbitrarily for someone because I didn't agree with them.

BRB, I'm going to go get some lunch, and then I'll do some scum-hunting.

On August 09 2012 10:28 Keirathi wrote:
Sorry marv, I went out for the afternoon.

If deadline was coming up in 10 minutes and I had to vote *NOW*, I would probably vote prplhz. He just hasn't shown much interest in the game so far.

However, I'm a bit intrigued by Custos.



Since then, you haven't mentioned what actually triggered your scumdar on scib. In fact, you went on to quote a post where you agreed and added more information to his case DYH. Unless your opinion did, in fact, change without you mentioning it, then I don't see why you would go out of your way to reinforce the case of someone you think is scum.


also marv, I still don't understand your reasoning for forcing the discussion about Forumite when you think Custos is scum. You said you didn't need to perpetuate the case, but were you just planning to leave your vote on him and hope people hopped on at some point based on your meta case? It just doesn't make any sense to me at all.