Drafters Mafia Game Thread - GAME OVER

[Bluedoom]

Posting to say I've been busy for the last one and a half days. I'll try to make a coherent post in another 10-12 hours from now but I can't promise anything.

[Da Bear]

Posting to say I've been busy for the last one and a half days. I'll try to make a coherent post in another 10-12 hours from now but I can't promise anything.

stillbetterthanRapier/103

[Strege]

Opinions opinions.

I don't like bearclaw. And I kind of feel that one of elie/kirsche is probable scum. And of course I still think Marth is obv!scum.

Idk about he other two slots.

I would of course like more reasoning for your scumreads, and specifically I don't understand what slots you're referring to with the last line.

It looks to me like JB read kirche's paragraph on Marth kinda selectively in post 323, only really commenting on the first two sentences and the last sentence. Do you think the rest of the analysis is bad? I'd also like it if you quickly summarized your view on Marth for me because I find it unclear.

(By the by, you can hyperlink text by deselecting the switch icon in the upper left of the text window, highlighting a piece of text, and clicking the icon below text size that looks like chain links. You can then press the switch icon again to see the plaintext syntax for inserting a hyperlink.)

Marth, when you get back could you tell us what you think of Rapier right now? I know he hasn't posted on D2 (which is a damn shame because I thought his activity was quite good on D1) but your only mention of him on D2 is confusing to me after your D1 interactions with him.

[Elieson]

ok back and reading up. Nice kirsche, btw.

building post in Notepad, so I am here.

[scorri]

Breezy: Mostly what kirsche said. Opinions on other people, comments on what's happened today, really anything but radio silence. I'm aware you've had reasons for being away but now that you're back, basically anything would be appreciated. Without interactions between you and other people, it's really hard for me to update my read on you, which kinda just leaves me stuck with a scum read on you but with nothing to do with it.

Based on what kirsche said, I'd guess he's either like... ninja modifier or something. If that's true, kirsche I'd like to remind you that tracker isn't the only information role. That being said, if my guess is completely wrong, please ignore the previous statement.

[BBM]

Anyone that says "I told you so" is scummy fullstop and you should never give towncred just because people were right on a town call unless their call had factual evidence behind it. based on their own role.

Because people seem to fail at reading between the lines, the reason I am so confident that Breezy is tracker is related to my role.

Obviously it'd be subtler than "I told you so". And you still get indirect cred from not being the one to push a mislynch.

I read between the lines and got that, which is why I wasn't pushing you for this as much as just talking generally. Your crumbs about your role don't really say anything about your own alignment though.

[Zkirsche]

you should never give towncred just because people were right on a town call unless their call had factual evidence behind it. based on their own role.

Actually even if it's based on their role I wouldn't give towncred, I would find their role more believable.

[Zkirsche]

Double post because I was cut.

Obviously it'd be subtler than "I told you so". And you still get indirect cred from not being the one to push a mislynch.

I wouldn't give cred so I don't really expect cred, but maybe I'm alone in that.

[Elieson]

kirsche, on 14 Jul 2013 - 4:18 PM, said:

That is a read though, one that you overlooked just so you could push a case on her that wasn't there.

Also having null reads on 5 people D1 isn't as big a deal as you make it out to be. Which is the point of my criticisms Elie: you twisted her words to make her seem worse than she was.

--Not really. She had a dumb reason to suspect someone of being scum. Why should I have to even defend this. She didn't like his attitude. That's not a case.

--Also, you're twisting my words just as much as you "say" I am hers. I had a leaning scumread on her because she so poorly logic'd her way to her reads (or lack of reads)

If it makes you feel better we can get Breezy's result to further justify his claim.

--Yea yea that's already been announced I believe

Terrador's is a better list post, that I can't deny, but SSG putting little effort in her reads is not a scumtell.

--It's not a towntell, and I don't read posting weak cases/logic as a nulltell, so what's left for me to assume?

You put her in the same bracket as Breezy who was a "#2-3 likely scumdidate". Not sure what that meant but it doesn't look "slightly scummy" to me.

--If I were so sure of SSG being scum, I'd have voted her. But I didn't. I'm pretty sure I said that she was leaning scum. Which means out of my other reads, she was up there. But I never voted for her, nor did I push her hard to be scum, which outta imply that I didn't find her as scummy as you're saying I found her. This, is a misrep.

But that's not all she said. You said that she didn't say what she thought of Breezy when she actually did. Either you're blatantly ignoring it or you're failing at reading.

--She said, after not liking his attitude, that she found him suspicious. In her next post, she said she didn't like his Newb attitude. Again. Point me to where the fuck the sense is in her logic, and I'll be happy to withdraw my assertion that she didn't know what she was talking about.

If someone said either of those things in response to a lynch I'd see it as scummy and become suspicious. The former is much worse than the latter because you're not sticking to your reads. All this is irrelevant however because that's not what SSG said. SSG said that Breezy was suspicious.

--The point of what I said here was that she opened herself up to being able to in the future. Are you finding me scummy for stating a possibility that I had no idea whether it'd occur or not?

"Not leading to anything" How? People talking about scummy behaviour is not a bad topic at all, what you did just confused everyone and cut off the discussion. You can't just call it townie bickering and then just go and lead town astray, why didn't you say it looked like townies bickering? What made you think they were probably town in the first place?

--I made my fake shot on early page3/clarified on early page5. Other than breezy taking prims seriously (which I viewed as a nulltell), what the fuck had happened? Seriously. How many reads did you have before I posted my "Dayvig Breezy"? There were barely over 40 posts prior to my call, pretty much all of which include RVS, stupidity, unrelated and offtopic discussion and Modposts.

Then shit started. I hadn't gotten my reaction from breezy yet, and damned be me if I was gonna do a reaction test like that and just say "OOOP NVM GUYS I WAS JOKING" before he logged back in to post. It looked like Nulls doing Nothing, so I did something.

So you're voting me because I don't believe you and because I made a self-depreciative comment? That's really weak dude and is basically an OMGUS.

--No, I voted you because you're trying really hard to twist my words into something they're not, and made several self-depreciative comments. I was partner'd with Scumnori in a game where he pulled a victory after pulling some crazy self-depreciation shenanigans, so my view on that is that it's a scummy thing to do. It's not town to say "No one will listen to me". It's not town to say "i'm not reading, I didn't read" etc, and I don't view it as null, because there's a reason you posted it otherwise you'd have not said anything at all. I view it as scummy from experience. I'll explain this more towards the bottom.

BigBadMarshmallow, on 14 Jul 2013 - 3:58 PM, said:

I'm not handwaving everything that Bear is doing by saying he's new either, just those parts that I think can be ascribed to his newbiness (bad meta, IMO, is not one of them). I'll admit my wording for a lot of what I say about him is waffly, but that's because my read on him is waffly. I have trouble reading new players because it's hardest to separate bad play from scummy play for them, so I tend to let a lot of stuff go.

--You literally contradicted yourself in the same paragraph. That's horrible waffling, and saying "sorry I'm waffling" doesn't make it any less obvious.

Elie- Darros's "unnecessarily early soft defence of Terrador" occurred during the time period that Kirsche was referring to as them discussing things. My point was that saying you ignored that wouldn't be correct. What I don't understand about you is why this unnecessarily early soft defence was quite literally your only reason for him being your top scumread all the way at the end of D1, after all the stuff you said about SSG and Breezy.

--Darros' "unecessarily early soft defence of Terrador" occured after I made the original call on my Vig "Shot" I wasn't as confident how to interpret how scummy shitty reads posts were (SSG), but I was pretty confident that defense posts are buddying, which I find significantly more scummy.

Strege, on 14 Jul 2013 - 3:36 PM, said:

I feel like some people are outing townreads indiscriminately, which is oftentimes bad for town. Don't feel like you need to include every player in your listposts. Also, while I think self-deprecation can be indicative of scumminess from some players, please don't make it a big part of your read on someone.

--repeated self-depreciation was indicative of scumminess in several games I've played (see instances of past scum!Manix and scum!Shinori)

I've gone from scummy to null to (somewhat) scummy again on Elie. In retrospect his vote on Darros was quite weak, only ever referencing the observation that he was defending Terra early on. The D2 vote on Terra seems poorly explained and the kirsche vote poorly supported (tunneling/self-deprecation happen all the time in townies). It's odd that I think Elie's reads are okay except for those on the people he has actually voted. Altogether, I'd lean somewhat scummy.

--I'll just swallow this, because "Hindsight is 20:20" applies for my thoughts regarding Darros just as much as your thoughts regarding my case on him.

kirsche, on 14 Jul 2013 - 4:40 PM, said:

Didn't have anything scummy on him or anyone else because I wasn't really reading, I just popped back in now and again and responsed to anything on the page or anything directed at me.

--This is yet another self-depreciation. "I didn't really pay attention so what I did in the past shouldn't be viewed as scummy or bad". You're writing your own shit off, using your self-depreciation as an excuse.

His reaction test was so bad it was never going to accomplish anything other than confuse the town and now he's actually defending it as if it actually accomplished somethign and that there wasn't a better course of action.

--Look when I called my shot. Not a fuck was being given by anyone (except Breezy, which I didn't interpret as anything at the time). I roll'd with it expecting breezy to show up and react, and it just took a lot longer for him to show up.

[Elieson]

I'm addressing one page at a time because I'm on a computer that's literally eating my posts as I post them, and because Notepad organization without bbcode is getting annoying. I'm on Pg16 atm.

[BBM]

I never made an attempt to say I wasn't being waffly on Bearclaw. Townies can have waffly reads on someone as well.

Your defence of your Darros vote is just "buddying is scummy", which seems really weak and I don't understand how it can be as scummy as giving shitty reads.

[Elieson]

I never made an attempt to say I wasn't being waffly on Bearclaw. Townies can have waffly reads on someone as well.

Oh I see, so as long as I admit to being waffly about my reads, it's cool. I'll keep that in mind for the future.

Your defence of your Darros vote is just "buddying is scummy", which seems really weak and I don't understand how it can be as scummy as giving shitty reads.

Giving shitty reads implies that either the player giving the reads in question: needs to be pushed to provide more clarity with their reads, or, just has shitty reads. Buddying is legit scummy because it's fucking buddying.

Blarg power outage ate my notepad file. Back to page 16. I should be able to churn that out quickly enough.

[BBM]

I didn't say it didn't matter at all, I said that I wasn't attempting to make it something it wasn't, and that having one waffly read doesn't automatically equate to scum.

Buddying is scummy because it's buddying? srsly? It's entirely possible to think someone else is town, as town yourself, and defend them. You're just expecting me to take all instances of defending someone as having scum intent in them, even though that isn't true. If you want me to accept an instance of barely-out-of-RVS buddying as a valid reason for someone being your top scumread at the end of D1, I'd like you to actually put more effort into that.

It looks like you're looking for "scumtells" like buddying and waffling without actually looking into the specific situation any deeper.

[Elieson]

Page 16

---

Skyward, on 15 Jul 2013 - 06:56 AM, said:

>i dont think the way marth has been acting with his vote is scummy

>but he's talking in a scummy way

>going to justify my bad view of marth

>he might be busy so it's ok if he doesn't respond

what

--Yes. This makes sense.

still waiting for elie to respond to http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=41500&p=2495637 (i cant format with the new forum)

--

things begin to make more sense when you realise that both breezy and terrador are really new

It's understandable to at least think that kidnap is a scum role if you're totally new to the game, and I'm not sure if Breezy would be thinking so... long-term? True, it's much better to not assume anything about the kidnapper, and he seemed pretty set on the idea of scum!kidnapper on scum!BBM, but I think we'd need to see more from him to understand his thoughts now.

I don't think it's too unreasonable for Terrador to have that opinion of the Tracker/Amnesiac either. Breezy's been coming off as very noob-town, and it's obvious he's been trying his hardest. Marth, on the other hand... I don't really know, I'm leaning more scum because I think the timing of the claim and the wording of it was pretty bad. Yes, maybe both Marth and Breezy or lying, or they're both telling the truth, but Terrador's logic isn't that out there, imo.

--WRT This, I didn't think much of the kidnapper debacle because there are too many variables. I'm pretty sure I mentioned something like that earlier. Why do you want clarity on this? I already explained my thoughts there.

In my first 2 games, I was scum. I got jack shit for advice (save Shinori in SFMM2, and even that was mostly "Do what you feel is right, man"). I don't find Terra's way of play to be so completely town when he's this new to a game and has undying certainty regarding one claim and not another. Especially when he's this new, I'd expect his skepticism to be through the roof, and him to either be paranoid!town and believe/disbelieve everything he sees, or paranoid!scum and let something potentially slip out.

I'm pretty sure you know my stance on Darros, and I'm more than willing to switch back to my primary scumread, assuming others continue to feel the same and actually shift their votes over

This is also weird because at the point when this came out, I'm fairly sure Elie's primary scum read was SSG/Breezy, not Darros.

My primary scumread was Darros because up until my vote switch, I was voting Darros. Doesn't that in it of itself imply that he's my primary scumread? I pretty specifically said breezy/SSG were #2 and #3. How on earth do you interpret what I said as anything other than "my primary scumread is darros, and I'll switch back to darros because he's my primary scumread"?

kirsche, on 15 Jul 2013 - 07:46 AM, said:

Am I wrong?

--(This was WRT Meta.) It's not that you're not right or wrong, it's not really useful either way.

Shinori, on 15 Jul 2013 - 7:35 PM, said:

Opinions opinions.

I don't like bearclaw. And I kind of feel that one of elie/kirsche is probable scum. And of course I still think Marth is obv!scum.

Idk about he other two slots.

--What other 2 slots do you mean specifically?

And can you please go into Shinori!Rant mode and detail your shit? I'm trying to determine if you think I'm scum because you're a mindless sheep or if you have an actual reason, not-to-mention your surefire Marth read.

[Elieson]

I had a post planned out for everything and such, but I think I can shorten it down a tad.

First off, even if happened D1, I feel I should address Eli's dayvig on me.

Now, I'm obviously new to mafia, and he(refering to Eli) had to figure out how I would react to something like that. Now, it would have gotten a reaction IF I was awake at the time and I was awake before it got settled out. Now, odds are he had a couple theories based on how I WOULD have reacted to it, but since I didn't, he threw the reactions from the other people away from what I understand. Now, if I were any other person, and was active during this time, OBVIOUSLY I would guess something was not right in the neighborhood, but I was neither of those so I couldn't come up with an accurate thesis about what the heck happened.

Personally, I don't see a problem with trying to get a reaction out of a new person to mafia, but that MIGHT have been a not good way to do it, but eh. Also this is totally one day phase late, but typing on computer is a lot more efficient than typing on phone.

--I find it miraculous that the only person who understands the intent of my reaction test is the noob (no offense) whom I performed it on. Especially the bolded part.

[Elieson]

Strege Said:

I would of course like more reasoning for your scumreads, and specifically I don't understand what slots you're referring to with the last line.

It looks to me like JB read kirche's paragraph on Marth kinda selectively in post 323, only really commenting on the first two sentences and the last sentence. Do you think the rest of the analysis is bad? I'd also like it if you quickly summarized your view on Marth for me because I find it unclear.

(By the by, you can hyperlink text by deselecting the switch icon in the upper left of the text window, highlighting a piece of text, and clicking the icon below text size that looks like chain links. You can then press the switch icon again to see the plaintext syntax for inserting a hyperlink.)

Marth, when you get back could you tell us what you think of Rapier right now? I know he hasn't posted on D2 (which is a damn shame because I thought his activity was quite good on D1) but your only mention of him on D2 is confusing to me after your D1 interactions with him.

I kind of want to know your opinion regarding Kirsche, myself, BBM and Shinori ( I can't really figure out your thoughts are regarding what you think Shinori's alignment is).

Breezy: Mostly what kirsche said. Opinions on other people, comments on what's happened today, really anything but radio silence. I'm aware you've had reasons for being away but now that you're back, basically anything would be appreciated. Without interactions between you and other people, it's really hard for me to update my read on you, which kinda just leaves me stuck with a scum read on you but with nothing to do with it.

What are your reads on other people aside from breezy/kirsche at this point?

Obviously it'd be subtler than "I told you so". And you still get indirect cred from not being the one to push a mislynch.

I read between the lines and got that, which is why I wasn't pushing you for this as much as just talking generally. Your crumbs about your role don't really say anything about your own alignment though.

@kirsche, as BBM says, you can crumb your role all you want, but it means jack. This also counts WRT your opinion regarding Tracker!Breezy (unless you're a FullCop/MaxCop/whatever). I [read, everyone but you] has no reason to necessarily believe you or him. Granted the evidence at this point is lining up to present Breezy as a bonafide tracker, it's still not something that we should just buy because of your "info" or whatever you call it. You just saying that this is how it is, and not getting us to just follow the leader, shouldn't come as a shock to you, but you are acting like it is.

[Grace]

not playing

@people saying stuff about forum upgrade/no bbcode/whatever;

see what's inside the crudely drawn circle? click it so the switch is flicked down. it'll turn off RTE and things will be normal (as shown in picture)

(yes I know the picture is old but it's still relevant)

not playing

[Elieson]

I didn't say it didn't matter at all, I said that I wasn't attempting to make it something it wasn't, and that having one waffly read doesn't automatically equate to scum.

Buddying is scummy because it's buddying? srsly? It's entirely possible to think someone else is town, as town yourself, and defend them. You're just expecting me to take all instances of defending someone as having scum intent in them, even though that isn't true. If you want me to accept an instance of barely-out-of-RVS buddying as a valid reason for someone being your top scumread at the end of D1, I'd like you to actually put more effort into that.

It looks like you're looking for "scumtells" like buddying and waffling without actually looking into the specific situation any deeper.

#34

•Darros RVS votes Terra with

Let's try this again

#54

•Shinori RVS votes Terra with

for srs

as his logic.

#62 (8 posts later, with Shinori posting nothing in between)

•Darros unvotes his RVS!Terra vote with an actual reason (saying Terra doesn't deserve to be voted) then inquires to Shinori's ungodly obvious RVS shift towards Terra

why is he defending his unvote from RVS?

#64

•Darros continues to go out of his way to argue that Terra doesn't deserve to be voted

#100

•Shinori brings up that his vote was essentially just to see what Terra would do if voted

hey, what do you know, a reaction test

I had nothing else to do on at that point, and considering I pulled my Dayvig on Breezy at #45 and Darros' [what I thought was] soft defense occurred after that, I went for it thinking that I had found something early on. The situation, in my eyes, looked like an early defense because it's really easy to brush something off of someone else's shoulder at the super early stages of D1, and it hit me seriously because I saw it as an attempt to defend a novice player with a completely believable excuse, one very related to the situation that I experienced in SFMM2, so FMPOV, it made lots of sense to me.

>Noob getting voted

>X lightheartedly says "Hey lay off the noob"

>>Noob turns out to be scum before X flips

>>X isn't pressed for it at all because it's noob defense ED1

>>X coasts without being questioned on it again, or

>>X gets called out for it and X says it's early noob defense that simply meant he was giving the noob a chance to play

>>>Noob turns out to be town before X flips

>>>absolutely nothing can be learned regarding X (but why bother answering questions on behalf of noob when noob could answer them himself)

I was in the >> situation, and while I got called out for it late game and got lynched the question still remains to me

why bother answering questions on behalf of noob when noob could answer them himself?

I'm not sure you realize the full extent of me being concerned about Darros' motivation for defending Terra. I found that to be scummy, and it wasn't addressed in a way that I found satisfying, which is why I maintained by vote and scumread on Darros. I feel bad about it but I don't regret it because it's something I legitimately view as scummy (because arguing on another player's behalf both prevents the other player from using their words to defend themself, and allows the other player to coast and/or consult a potential scumteam for advice on how to answer said questions).

[BBM]

Presumably the target of the RVS vote mattered very little to Darros (it doesn't look like he had any particular ulterior motives behind it), so I don't see what's bad about attacking a vote on someone you were voting during RVS. And I'm not sure I'm understanding you correctly, but Darros's excuse for defending him is believable, so it's scummy? That doesn't make much sense to me.

[BBM]

Also, you should quit comparing all new players to your own experiences being new. You used to do it before too and it's not any better now than it was then. Not everyone acts the same when they're new or does through the same circumstances.

PEMN, rite

[Elieson]

Also, you should quit comparing all new players to your own experiences being new. You used to do it before too and it's not any better now than it was then. Not everyone acts the same when they're new or does through the same circumstances.

PEMN, rite

PEMN only refers to dra...Ahhhh I see what you did there.

ok ok though I get it I see your point. But you're trying to understand my thought processes behind my actions/votes, and well, here they are.

Presumably the target of the RVS vote mattered very little to Darros (it doesn't look like he had any particular ulterior motives behind it), so I don't see what's bad about attacking a vote on someone you were voting during RVS. And I'm not sure I'm understanding you correctly, but Darros's excuse for defending him is believable, so it's scummy? That doesn't make much sense to me.

To elaborate, Darros' defense wasn't just believable, the whole fact that it occured at all seemed fishy to me. You didn't address my bolded point in my last post, and that's the main focus of my entire suspicion.

why bother answering questions on behalf of noob when noob could answer them himself?

[Strege]

I kind of want to know your opinion regarding Kirsche, myself, BBM and Shinori ( I can't really figure out your thoughts are regarding what you think Shinori's alignment is).

I am currently voting Shinori and he is my top scumread. The reason I haven't been analyzing his content very much recently is that he stopped producing it, and I'm treating everything after his last vote on Marth as null (and frustrating) weirdness.

kirsche: null. Not a lot of scumreads to dissect but his responses look alright to me. He just seems... apathetic isn't the right word, but it's close. While I accept that you think self-deprecation is scummy, it's not something I've personally noticed as scummy from previous games so I treat it as null as well.

BBM: slightly scummy. I'm a bit suspicious of how securely he's holding onto his reads, and there are one or two instances where I feel he might be deliberately missing a point (for example, post 369's "And I'm not sure I'm understanding you correctly, but Darros's excuse for defending him is believable, so it's scummy? That doesn't make much sense to me." I don't see where he got that from at all.) I'm having trouble finding objections with his actual arguments, though, aside from some nullish bad logic.

You (Elie): Still somewhat scummy. I wish you'd explained your reasoning behind scumreading Darros more thoroughly earlier, because it makes your ISO make more sense. Your pushes on Darros still seem a little half-hearted, though, asking him two questions that you don't pursue and agreeing with SSG that he hadn't talked about many people. I still think your vote on Terra was weak, based on his reaction to claims alone and not accompanied by any questions or pushes for content. I'm still mulling over your recent burst of content, but it's getting late and I think I'll put it off for tomorrow. For now, do you still think Breezy is scummy?

[BBM]

Sorry, I thought I'd answered that. I agree with you that answering questions on behalf of someone else is bad, but I don't think that it's scummy. There's a reason that you say that if Darros and Terra were buddies, he'd be able to get away from it after Terra flipped by saying "oh ED1 newb defence". It's because "ED1 newb defence" is an okay reason to do it as town. I suppose I can see the possible reasons scum would have for defending a new player regardless of that newbie's alignment, but I still don't see why, in this case, that was more likely than the just as possible reasons town would have for it, and I still don't see how this small act near the beginning of D1 is so bad that it's justification by itself for a lynch.

And okay, I don't mind the initial Darros vote. It was graspy, but it was early on and that happens, and you admitted it at the time. But you made like zero effort whatsoever to analyze a single one of the posts Darros made beyond that later on in the phase, and even though you admitted it was graspy at the time you made that initial vote, it was still your top reason for a lynch at the end of D1? That doesn't seem right to me.

@Strege- Elie said "I saw it as an attempt to defend a novice player with a completely believable excuse". This told me that he thought that Darros's excuse was believable, but it being so either didn't matter or was part of the scumminess, which doesn't make much sense to me.

[Terrador]

@Strege- Elie said "I saw it as an attempt to defend a novice player with a completely believable excuse". This told me that he thought that Darros's excuse was believable, but it being so either didn't matter or was part of the scumminess, which doesn't make much sense to me.

I've been watching, and really, none of my reads have changed--hence the lack of content. I'll swing back around and do ISOs on the recently active players tomorrow morning, but for now, nothing's really jumped out at me except this.

In defense of Elie, who I'm admittedly somewhat suspicious about: I'm fairly certain that comment means he was thinking: "Darros and Terra are scumbuddies, and Darros had a decent shot at covering for Terra, so he did so in case Terra would mess up". I still think the case for the Darros lynch was shaky, but... that's what I make of it.

[Shinori]

I'd rather not have to claim to get marth lynched.

Let's just say I have know he's scum. Like 90% sure he's scum.

Also I've just been being really lazy if that wasn't obvious. I guess I SHOULD actually do something. But that seems like hard work.