Re: M1007 — "Mafia, She Wrote" Game Thread
Posted: Sat May 18, 2019 4:03 am
Big Truth right there RD, big truth, I'll post some brilliance all over this thread soon.
I am Sensei
I am Sensei
https://webdiplomacy.net/contrib/phpBB3/
https://webdiplomacy.net/contrib/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1589
When have I ever been a high poster?rdrivera2005 wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 7:55 pm+1 (in fact +100)teacon7 wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 7:42 pmEspressoPatronum wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 5:07 pmFor the playstyles worth lynching, see my response to rdr around page 10-15 (sorry I can't check easily - I'm on mobile now). Tl;dr: players who are not being useful are worth lynching over players who are not.EspressoPatronum wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 5:14 pm
Quoting this for the "unreasonable methods" bit. This is kind of what I was getting at on post #491. We don't have a lot to go on D1, so we have to rely on perceived usefulness of playstyles and such.rdrivera2005 wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 5:23 pmAnd I am answering that I think we can't know beforehand which flip will provide best info. The most info is A) lynching a scum, then B)lynching someone that can give info about others alignments. I fail to see how we can know who can be the best B choice at D1, so we have to focus on A.
It seems like these quotes address the common theme of policy lynches. whether you're policy lynching a lurker, or policy-lynching a useless player, it's still a policy lynch.
-rdriv points out that we should be finding scum rather than info lynches. I agree. I asked about info lynches b/c I wanted to know who we think is/isn't providing info.
-ND points out that calling for {policy lynch based on useless playstyle} is scummy. Agree.
-I think lurking is NAI, but low investment posting *is* alignment indicative, because it's an attempt to "stay off the radar" by participation but no commitment. hedging is another way to try to stay off the radar. In my read so far, the former describes percy pretty well, the latter describes emc and damo.
There are moments a policy lynch could be necessary, but not usually D1.
And I agree with Percy, Damo and Emc being low effort/hedgy. I just tend to not push EMC so hard because it's his style.
A question, why Vashta isn't on the same list of Percy?
This sounds like what I was doing last game to try to make some town members look suspicious, but with a much smaller sample size. I find it hard to believe that you would really think has any use in identifying scum.
@teacon, how do you think scum would try to draw a scan onto their godfather?teacon7 wrote: ↑Thu May 16, 2019 11:21 pmSounds good to me. re-reads are important, gut reactions are good starters, but it's worth being aware of our own biases. fwiw, another insight I had from the last game was: tunneling is bad town play. It isn't really alignment indicative, because poor town play =/= scum.
It was strange watching a basically pure vanilla game. I wonder how different the dynamics are here with 1-off cop/doc/hooker. I bet scum tries to draw a scan onto their godfather.
Anyway, do you want to join me in lynching ND?
I was hoping someone other than you would notice...bozotheclown wrote: ↑Sat May 18, 2019 2:52 pmThis sounds like what I was doing last game to try to make some town members look suspicious, but with a much smaller sample size. I find it hard to believe that you would really think has any use in identifying scum.
That is because a read that was similar to something you said in another game was far from the most suspicious thing from damo D1. You ignored my comments about damo's contradictory yet confident scum read of ND and the weak reasons he gave for scum reading you and rdrivera, but jumped on him for the wording of this one read. As I pointed out, that was not even the most suspicious thing from that damo post, all of his reads were vague and he backed off on his scum reads of you and rdrivera.xorxes wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 10:27 pmAh, it was this. It wasn't so terrible, but still.rdrivera2005 wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 8:39 pmDamo is the second wagon now, so I would not say that "nobody else bothered".xorxes wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 8:33 pmScum!xorxes, last game:
damo, this game:
I'm really surprised that nobody else is at all bothered by this.
I can't see it as mere coincidence. I can come up perhaps with an innocent explanation but it's certainly not the one damo gave, that "we think alike".
If we lynch anyone other than damo today I don't understand what you all are thinking.
I have a dentist appointment in half an hour and may or may not be back for EOD.
You and bozo were voting for damo before I presented my case, so it was not because what I pointed out bothered you.
And in fact, after I presented it, neither one of you seemed to care much.
teacon seems to have studied last game very carefully. I said last game I never saw scum coach other scum openly in the thread. teacon here (and I think elsewhere) coaches damo openly in the thread.
Yeah, I wasn't paying much attention to damo at all until I saw that read. I had him in my mind as weak townlean because he had said something somewhat sensible about my early read of emc.bozotheclown wrote: ↑Sat May 18, 2019 3:14 pmThat is because a read that was similar to something you said in another game was far from the most suspicious thing from damo D1. You ignored my comments about damo's contradictory yet confident scum read of ND and the weak reasons he gave for scum reading you and rdrivera, but jumped on him for the wording of this one read. As I pointed out, that was not even the most suspicious thing from that damo post, all of his reads were vague and he backed off on his scum reads of you and rdrivera.xorxes wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 10:27 pmAh, it was this. It wasn't so terrible, but still.rdrivera2005 wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 8:39 pm
Damo is the second wagon now, so I would not say that "nobody else bothered".
You and bozo were voting for damo before I presented my case, so it was not because what I pointed out bothered you.
And in fact, after I presented it, neither one of you seemed to care much.
You really think Teacon was coaching Damo? I saw Teacon more as a discussion driver but you think he was openly coaching him?xorxes wrote: ↑Sat May 18, 2019 3:23 pmteacon seems to have studied last game very carefully. I said last game I never saw scum coach other scum openly in the thread. teacon here (and I think elsewhere) coaches damo openly in the thread.
I think this sequence is interesting. damo was committed to targeting ND, but still goes after xorxes early. He was either antagonizing a town xorxes for no obvious reason, or doing some early bussing assuming xorxes would eventually get lynched for surviving the NKs.
I think this makes Moscow-teacon an unlikely pair.teacon7 wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 2:43 amGreat question moscow.MoscowFleet wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2019 12:44 amI feel oddly buddied by rd.
Teacon, you go from asking others to join you on ND, to moving off of him yourself. How exactly do you currently read ND?
I didn't vote ND for ND's sake. I got a scum vibe on emc from an earlier interaction, and wanted to see emc's reaction to a growing wagon on ND, precisely because emc made a point of saying, early on, that he wouldn't vote ND. (in this scenario, emc is maybe scum with godfather!ND.)
For ND proper - he's goofing around, maybe a really towny reaction test, maybe ballsy godfather play to try to draw a copscan, maybe he actually is high. Or he's unbanned!krellin with a name change. Dunno. Given his tone rn we'll probably end up lynching him to find out what he's doing, though I hope we don't D1 him. But other than spammy *noise* from him, I've not actually seen a whole lot of scum *signal.* Not a strict nullread but a wash of plusses and minuses. washread.
Possibly, yes.ND wrote: ↑Sat May 18, 2019 3:28 pmYou really think Teacon was coaching Damo? I saw Teacon more as a discussion driver but you think he was openly coaching him?