Second Chance Mafia Day 4

Moderators: Crunkus, connect4, bkbkbk, AlphaTangoEcho, vindictus, sjg11

Re: Second Chance Mafia Day 2

Postby nanooktheeskimo » 14 Sep 2017, 03:31

Before I get to that, though. I like ZZ's engagement today. This feels much more like the ZZ I've come to expect, sans fast and furious voting, but that's not AI.

I'll reassess Keirador after I reread his EOD1 momentarily, but for now I think I have to Unvote. There's enough there from ZZ to bring him back to null with suspicion rather than the top of my list.
Platinum Classicist
(h/t lordelindel)

I am your (co-) Leader.

GM of Sengoku, Heptarchy 14.

France

Need a forum game GM'ed? PM me!
User avatar
nanooktheeskimo
Premium Member
 
Posts: 4122
Joined: 19 Jun 2014, 19:52
Location: East TN
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1190
All-game rating: 1288
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Second Chance Mafia Day 2

Postby nanooktheeskimo » 14 Sep 2017, 03:55

Ok, let's look at the last 24 hours or so of posts on D1 from Keirador. In ascending order on his ISO, the posts start at about the halfway point of the second page, on 9/10 at 15:44 EDT.


1. Catching up, likes my contributions, puts forward SW and Nick as the scum team, states intention to vote for SW.
2. Questions SW's style change.
3. Challenges SW's townread of Nick.
4. Sympathetic to the lynch being too easy, but doesn't see what SW's partner could do to counter it so is comfortable with it.
5. Engagement with SW on style change.
6. Challenges that he dropped off the radar.
7. More engagement with SW about his style change.
8. Challenges SW's conception about how Nick would be coached by his fellow scum player.
9. Calls out SW and myself as players that adjusted their game from lurking to more active because of an unfriendly game state to lurkers. This one kind of annoys me, because he explicitly DIDN'T label me as a lurker earlier on D1...you can either give me the benefit of the doubt that my activity will increase, OR you can ding me for it, but you can't do both, especially not when I was the one that started discussing lurkers and prompted us being in a "game-state where lurkers are in trouble." Can't have this one both ways.
10. Says he explicitly said he'd kill lurkers and named me and SW. This is actually false, he named SW and Nick, and when asked about leaving me off said he was giving me the benefit of the doubt for the time being.
11. Picks up sincere frustration from SW, changes vote to Nick.
12. Defends ZZ's style change to me.
13. Engagement with me regarding Nick.
14. SW's "scumslip," back to voting for SW.
15. Questions SW why he thought the lynchee would be the NK.


And...that's the extent of it. It's not a bad number of posts, but the quality feels...kind of lacking. A lot of it feels like treading water. Perhaps I'm reading too much into this, but I can definitely see where Shadow is coming from when she talks about Keirador being a sort of active lurker. For example, the Nick vote...yes it didn't go anywhere...but if you're so sure it isn't SW, why not cast your net elsewhere? I engaged him about it, I think Shadow did too, but he never pursued another angle and then jumped back onto SW for a possible scumslip that could only reasonably be thought to be such if you were the only experienced (or relatively experienced, in mine and SW's cases) player that didn't grasp that the lynchee was very likely to be NKed.

So yeah, there's enough there for me to be comfortable with a Keirador vote.
Platinum Classicist
(h/t lordelindel)

I am your (co-) Leader.

GM of Sengoku, Heptarchy 14.

France

Need a forum game GM'ed? PM me!
User avatar
nanooktheeskimo
Premium Member
 
Posts: 4122
Joined: 19 Jun 2014, 19:52
Location: East TN
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1190
All-game rating: 1288
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Second Chance Mafia Day 2

Postby shadowface » 14 Sep 2017, 04:05

nanooktheeskimo wrote:
ZZ wrote:The SW kill is, essentially, the counter that I was aware of when I proposed the 2 life vote area rule. I thought it was good then because it essentially makes the game, even the counter is followed, a nightless vanilla game with a <50% RNG conversion chance.

Keirador, see, here's a third person that thought of this yesterday. I seem to recall SJG mentioning that he thought he saw the counter too, I would assume this is what he meant. That's 3 at least, probably 4 people that saw it and expected it. Nick probably wouldn't, in his first game. Shadow saw it once SW's response prompted her to think about it. So it seems like you're the only person that could be reasonably expected to think of this and didn't. That pings me a bit, because it suggests, to me at least, the possibility of scum trying to obfuscate and say "Oh no, I didn't think of that...so obviously I couldn't be scum since the scum did think of it..." It's far from indicative by any measure, but it still rubs me the wrong way a bit. I'm also willing to consider it might just be a style thing, though.

Nanook, do you understand why we are talking about this, and why we are considering this indicative?

Also, do you actually think Keirador would do this as scum (ie. pretending he didn't think of that)? Would you? Like, I know I'd personally never remotely consider doing something like that as scum. Draws a bit of undue attention, no?
The player formerly known as shadowfriend1 (before brilliantly betting her name away).

All the messing around with suspects and Clues... that was just something to keep the body amused while the brain toiled away.
User avatar
shadowface
 
Posts: 2511
Joined: 06 Feb 2013, 06:26
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (929)
All-game rating: (928)
Timezone: GMT-8

Re: Second Chance Mafia Day 2

Postby shadowface » 14 Sep 2017, 04:06

nanooktheeskimo wrote:9. Calls out SW and myself as players that adjusted their game from lurking to more active because of an unfriendly game state to lurkers. This one kind of annoys me, because he explicitly DIDN'T label me as a lurker earlier on D1...you can either give me the benefit of the doubt that my activity will increase, OR you can ding me for it, but you can't do both, especially not when I was the one that started discussing lurkers and prompted us being in a "game-state where lurkers are in trouble." Can't have this one both ways.
10. Says he explicitly said he'd kill lurkers and named me and SW. This is actually false, he named SW and Nick, and when asked about leaving me off said he was giving me the benefit of the doubt for the time being.

So do you think he's lying scum trying to misportray you?
The player formerly known as shadowfriend1 (before brilliantly betting her name away).

All the messing around with suspects and Clues... that was just something to keep the body amused while the brain toiled away.
User avatar
shadowface
 
Posts: 2511
Joined: 06 Feb 2013, 06:26
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (929)
All-game rating: (928)
Timezone: GMT-8

Re: Second Chance Mafia Day 2

Postby nanooktheeskimo » 14 Sep 2017, 04:11

shadowfriend1 wrote:
nanooktheeskimo wrote:
ZZ wrote:The SW kill is, essentially, the counter that I was aware of when I proposed the 2 life vote area rule. I thought it was good then because it essentially makes the game, even the counter is followed, a nightless vanilla game with a <50% RNG conversion chance.

Keirador, see, here's a third person that thought of this yesterday. I seem to recall SJG mentioning that he thought he saw the counter too, I would assume this is what he meant. That's 3 at least, probably 4 people that saw it and expected it. Nick probably wouldn't, in his first game. Shadow saw it once SW's response prompted her to think about it. So it seems like you're the only person that could be reasonably expected to think of this and didn't. That pings me a bit, because it suggests, to me at least, the possibility of scum trying to obfuscate and say "Oh no, I didn't think of that...so obviously I couldn't be scum since the scum did think of it..." It's far from indicative by any measure, but it still rubs me the wrong way a bit. I'm also willing to consider it might just be a style thing, though.

Nanook, do you understand why we are talking about this, and why we are considering this indicative?

Also, do you actually think Keirador would do this as scum (ie. pretending he didn't think of that)? Would you? Like, I know I'd personally never remotely consider doing something like that as scum. Draws a bit of undue attention, no?

Maybe I'm missing something, but it pings me because it feels disingenuous. Did I miss something about this? it's possible, there were a lot of posts to go through.

If I were scum that was getting dinged for disingenuously voting SW for a "scumslip" that ONLY makes sense as a scumslip if I haven't thought of this possibility...then yeah, I probably would. Especially if I thought that someone else might've missed that, which given that not everyone was on the record as having seen it at that point, might've been a reasonable thing to think. I wouldn't choose to do it, but it's kind of a lesser of two evils thing. Better to maintain that narrative than to admit your vote was full of shit, from a scumK perspective, right?
Platinum Classicist
(h/t lordelindel)

I am your (co-) Leader.

GM of Sengoku, Heptarchy 14.

France

Need a forum game GM'ed? PM me!
User avatar
nanooktheeskimo
Premium Member
 
Posts: 4122
Joined: 19 Jun 2014, 19:52
Location: East TN
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1190
All-game rating: 1288
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Second Chance Mafia Day 2

Postby nanooktheeskimo » 14 Sep 2017, 04:13

shadowfriend1 wrote:
nanooktheeskimo wrote:9. Calls out SW and myself as players that adjusted their game from lurking to more active because of an unfriendly game state to lurkers. This one kind of annoys me, because he explicitly DIDN'T label me as a lurker earlier on D1...you can either give me the benefit of the doubt that my activity will increase, OR you can ding me for it, but you can't do both, especially not when I was the one that started discussing lurkers and prompted us being in a "game-state where lurkers are in trouble." Can't have this one both ways.
10. Says he explicitly said he'd kill lurkers and named me and SW. This is actually false, he named SW and Nick, and when asked about leaving me off said he was giving me the benefit of the doubt for the time being.

So do you think he's lying scum trying to misportray you?

Maybe? I don't know how much of that is just personal annoyance at being misportrayed though. I do recognize that I get very persnickety about these things, so if that were the only thing to go on it wouldn't be enough...but there's other, much more likely to be indicative stuff, that isn't directly tied to my being annoyed at getting misrepresented.
Platinum Classicist
(h/t lordelindel)

I am your (co-) Leader.

GM of Sengoku, Heptarchy 14.

France

Need a forum game GM'ed? PM me!
User avatar
nanooktheeskimo
Premium Member
 
Posts: 4122
Joined: 19 Jun 2014, 19:52
Location: East TN
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1190
All-game rating: 1288
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Second Chance Mafia Day 2

Postby shadowface » 14 Sep 2017, 04:16

nanooktheeskimo wrote:
shadowfriend1 wrote:
nanooktheeskimo wrote:This insomniac is taking himself back to bed. I'll catch up and get to what I missed tomorrow afternoon (technically today's afternoon at this point!). Need to take a closer look at Keir's EOD, and maybe take a closer look at what Keir is saying about shadow too, see if any of it rings true for me.

Didn't you pretty much agree with my case on Keirador, here:
Keirador is certainly on my radar, but until I can read his D1 more closely tomorrow (real time), I think I'll stick with my ZZ vote for the time being. K is definitely on my radar though, and if I agree with your case after reading through him again I'll strongly consider shifting my vote over.

At the very least you seem to think it's reasonable. So why start hedging and implying that you might go after me for it if you like? If you don't like it, you can state you grievances at any time; you don't need to be on firmly noncommittal grounds to be able to change your opinion on a closer read. If a close read is really going to change your opinion, just say why when you do that closer read. Hedging like this suggests you want to have the flexibility to change your opinion without having to actually have a strong reason to do so.

I don't like it. You're reminding me of a politician now. Make up your mind.

I don't see how I'm saying something different in the posts you quoted? I liked the K case, but I wasn't committed to it until I could reread it. The only difference between the two is that K made a post in between them that I thought deserved a closer look at to see if I agreed with he rebuttal he was making.

I'm not going to commit firmly to something until I've done the legwork myself. I get why my seeming to hedge here might be frustrating for you, but...committing against someone at 4am having not done the legwork yet myself is not a recipe for success, no matter how much I like your process.

You are allowed to commit to something and then change your mind about it upon reconsidering it. If you're town, why the hell not? Just explain why you changed your mind and no one's going to hold it against you. You seem overly concerned with your initial appearance, something I don't give a crap about when I'm town.

But if your scum... you can't change your mind about something because you honestly reconsidered it. You can't explain what changed your view, for example, if you're trying to decide whether you need to bus your scum buddy today. You've got to make up your mind about that first, based on the situation in thread. If you can wait a little while to see if it's necessary, that's even better. Then you have to show a cohesive thought process leading up to that decision. You've got to make sure "there's enough there for [you] to be comfortable with a Keirador vote."

Conveniently exactly like what you just did with Keirador here.

Hmm.

I think I've got my pick for the scumteam.
The player formerly known as shadowfriend1 (before brilliantly betting her name away).

All the messing around with suspects and Clues... that was just something to keep the body amused while the brain toiled away.
User avatar
shadowface
 
Posts: 2511
Joined: 06 Feb 2013, 06:26
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (929)
All-game rating: (928)
Timezone: GMT-8

Re: Second Chance Mafia Day 2

Postby nanooktheeskimo » 14 Sep 2017, 04:20

Shadow wrote:You are allowed to commit to something and then change your mind about it upon reconsidering it. If you're town, why the hell not? Just explain why you changed your mind and no one's going to hold it against you. You seem overly concerned with your initial appearance, something I don't give a crap about when I'm town.

But if your scum... you can't change your mind about something because you honestly reconsidered it. You can't explain what changed your view, for example, if you're trying to decide whether you need to bus your scum buddy today. You've got to make up your mind about that first, based on the situation in thread. If you can wait a little while to see if it's necessary, that's even better. Then you have to show a cohesive thought process leading up to that decision. You've got to make sure "there's enough there for [you] to be comfortable with a Keirador vote."

Conveniently exactly like what you just did with Keirador here.

Hmm.

I think I've got my pick for the scumteam.

Ok. Show me how this is different than how I've played as town in the past. Because this is pretty much par for the course for me, and I'm pretty sure this isn't the first time I've gotten dinged for it. There's a fair case to be made that I should change my habits if they're causing doubts about me as town, but until I actually do that I believe the onus is on you to show how this is different from my normal town play. I don't vote until I'm relatively sure of that vote. I wasn't sure of the Keirador vote until I took a closer look myself. I genuinely do not understand how that is scummy and not exactly what I usually do.
Platinum Classicist
(h/t lordelindel)

I am your (co-) Leader.

GM of Sengoku, Heptarchy 14.

France

Need a forum game GM'ed? PM me!
User avatar
nanooktheeskimo
Premium Member
 
Posts: 4122
Joined: 19 Jun 2014, 19:52
Location: East TN
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1190
All-game rating: 1288
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Second Chance Mafia Day 2

Postby Keirador » 14 Sep 2017, 04:29

shadowfriend1 wrote:Keirador, 2 important questions:

- Do you have any examples of past AARs where you have specifically expressed feeling like you were held to too high a standard on your ability to influence a town? The one you quoted doesn't exactly deal with that specific issue.

First, in the context of that game it absolutely does deal with that specific issue. You were a party to that dispute. I had nowhere to push in Push/Pull, and was constantly being told I was being lazy, wasn't putting in any effort, that while the town crashed around me I was happily kicking my feet up. None of my actual engagement mattered, because the simple fact we were losing was proof enough that clearly I must not be trying. If I were trying, I'd be making a case for who the scum was. None of that was true. I just didn't have the answer. I was looking, I just hadn't found. I WAS putting in enough effort, I WASN'T having fun. Just. . . evidently not as much as an idealized Keirador would. "Town Keirador gets stuck and doesn't know where or how to push forward" is a narrative that has been off the table for a long time now.

Anyway, yes there are myriad other examples. The first one I could find, because the blow-up lives on in my memory, is A Shot in the Dark, in which I was going to be killed primarily because Crunkus and others were able to sell the town on the idea that I must be held to a higher standard. A snippet:
Keirador wrote:
Crunkus wrote:As town, Keirador is not just playing poorly...he's playing inexcusably.


I hope I'm just being held up to a higher standard here in claiming I'm playing inexcusably. That seems deeply unfair, given the quality of play in this town, which is often "none at all."

There are pages of this. I'm not dredging it up again, you can. The only reason I wasn't lynched for failing to live up my particular "high standard of play," in a game in which several players including some veterans were almost totally inactive, was because SF managed to mechanically clear me.



My worst reaction to this trend was in Fable 8, with UDC asserting I wasn't living up to his claimed standard, and the entire board seeming to buy into it at one point or another:
UpsideDownChuck » December 3rd, 2016, 5:58 pm
In noticing this from Keirador, I started looking at his posts more carefully and began to think his late D2 was pretty wolfy. Especially contrasted with plague mafia I feel like townKeirador would be doing a lot more to challenge the status quo of the ZZ lynch and trying to look at whether or not ZZ's play made sense for mafia (it didn't imo)

I'm strongly opposed to the notion that it's so squarely on just my shoulders to prevent a mislynch I felt concern about that I'm getting lynched for not stopping a mislynch, and it's at a point in the evening in which I express my displeasure quite inappropriately, for which I continue to apologize.
Later:
I feel like townKeirador is more likely to actually examine and be pretty critical of his own play rather than point the finger at everyone else. He was absent D1, didn't do a heck of a lot D2 (seriously reread his iso, it's basically him arguing with ZZ about whether or not condude could have bussed, then plopping out a vote), and now he's coming in and saying that we're all idiots for scumreading him. I get that he's (allegedly) drunk, but I think Keirador has more self awareness than that.

UDC finds a rather important idea here, and feels the need to reiterate it strongly, posting "Further townKeirador makes somewhere else to go when he's unhappy with his current vote," four times, in large, multi-colored font. It's unbelievable that as town I couldn't just go out and find a better vote. But, of course, I was town. At the time, in-game, I elucidated that I felt these expectations were unrealistic:
Keirador wrote:For what it's worth, I disagree with that characterization of my D2, and with the omission of any discussion of my activity D3 besides the unfortunate burst of posts the night before the deadline. One thing that I said that is true is that this is a team game. I cannot manufacture engagement alone and up until the final 12 hours or so of D3 I was largely talking to myself. The timing of this game has been unfortunate for me. We get big bursts of activity shortly before the deadlines, which can often determine lynches, but I know there's very little chance I'll get everything I actually NEED to get done in the mornings before the noon (my time) deadlines. Lord knows I'd've tried to avoid the UDC lynch if I personally hadn't been the counterlynch. I've tried to pull engagement forward, but heck, there was a day during D3 when I had pages of outstanding questions, I went to bed, woke up, did several hours of work, and I returned to three posts. So no, in that environment, townKeirador cannot "make somewhere else to go when he's unhappy with his vote." That's a ridiculous standard to hold a player to when he's talking to himself.

Then as in this game, it wasn't me who left questions unanswered, it was me who was left with unanswered questions. I cannot be responsible for other people's activity levels. I cannot and will not post twice as much to make up for other players not posting. The BEST I can do is to be sincere in my own engagement, and to threaten to kill people for not engaging.
The AAR for Fable 8:
Keirador wrote:Let the record show, I am nowhere near as persuasive, inventive, or focused as town as UDC thinks I am.

Keirador wrote:I'm also starting to wonder what I've lost that had me being so universally townread so often about a year ago. Sheer volume of posting, perhaps? I never fully understood why I was shining through as so townie in the first place so I'm not sure what I did to negatively impact people's ability to discern my alignment. Maybe this would be clearer to me if I were ever, ever scum, but I'm just not anymore. Not for literal years.

sjg wrote:Anyway, I think a lot of it is to do with volume of posting to be honest with you. When you were, at the time, someone who was always one of the top posters in games it made it easy to read you. Now you're still a very useful contributor most of the time... but the small dip in posting amount does still make a difference.

Keirador wrote:Well, nothing much I can do about that. I post about as much as I can. Funny thing is my reads have been getting better with fewer, more focused posts, even as my ability to sell my reads has degraded.
. . .
I get the sense that any deviation from my play from, like, Hot Potato, The Cleansing, and Night Vale specifically is seen as abhorrent play from me, while the majority of my games, in which I'm often distracted, tunneled, and/or way behind, tend to get chalked up as not representative of my play. It's a compliment and a curse.

(By the way, it no longer feels like a compliment at all. Because you know what I have NEVER heard? "Keirador is being really engaged and insightful, that's really townie for him." It's never actually used as a compliment, only ever to imply that I can and should be doing more, and the only possible reasons I'm not is that I'm scum or I'm lazy. And I'm not scum, so. . . See how one might take offense to this? Especially after enough iterations? If you actually think I'm the laziest player on the board, that's one thing, but calling me lazy compared to a standard that doesn't exist is just, at some point, insulting.)

So then Charity mafia. I think I'm doing quite well. I've actually already caught Happymeal on a scumslip, though we haven't acted on it yet, largely because I can't convince other people it was what it was. But surprise, surprise, I'm picking up heat on D2, I guess because we haven't won yet so it must be my fault.
Re: Charity Mafia: Day 2
Postby Keirador » December 16th, 2016, 9:05 am

I have a cavalcade of responses, but briefly on a programming note, I've seen some discontentment about my activity level. I know I gave the warning that I'd be traveling, and I'm getting back on the road today, but for all of D2 so far I have not been traveling, I've been stationary and playing as much as I can. I'm afraid Keirador's D2 level of activity might just be my new normal: I've taken on some additional professional responsibilities that are hopefully not going away any time soon and limit me to a max of about one or two hours of mafia per 24 hours, which is roughly what you've been getting. So on a serious alignment-unrelated matter, is the discontent with my activity just compared to previous levels of activity in, say, Night Vale? Or has my posting in D2 thus far been so objectively poor that I should avoid signing up for games if that's all I can offer, or even sub out of this one?

It was agreed my level of posting was enough for a normal player, but suspicious for me. I got night-killed fairly promptly so it never had a chance to get worse.


Then Push/Pull, and I get so sick of the assertion that I'm not trying, surely if I were actually trying up to some mythical standard I'm accountable to, that I quit.

I could find more examples. I wouldn't be surprised if almost all of my games didn't feature at least one instance of a player criticizing my level of engagement, not relative to other players in the game but relative to "what's normal for townKeirador." Welp, not posting up to people's standards for townKeirador is the new normal.

You know the most fucked up thing about it? The reason I got a reputation around here in the first place as a hyper-engaged, focused player who doesn't get lost or confused, who is constantly ferreting out leads and investigating people, is because in my very first game I got regarded as one of the most driven and effective townies in a town full of veterans. . .and I was scum. A veteran team got swept by noob scum with no night-kill, I had a similar performance as scum a while later in Immunity Idol, and that seems to have sealed it: Keirador is one of the best. Only somehow over time the alignments got mixed up. . .
Did you know there’s a faceless old woman who secretly lives in your home? It’s true. She’s there now. She’s always there, just out of your sight. Always just out of your sight.
User avatar
Keirador
 
Posts: 7287
Joined: 01 Dec 2008, 21:36
Location: Living secretly in the home of every single resident of Night Vale
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1132)
All-game rating: (1133)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Second Chance Mafia Day 2

Postby Keirador » 14 Sep 2017, 04:33

shadowfriend1 wrote:- Why did you throw shade at me in the comment I replied to here?

Shade not recognized. It is a fact that in addition to nanook noting a townlean for your combativeness, I also did (I believe I came first actually). Do you feel misrepresented that you are even more combative today?
Did you know there’s a faceless old woman who secretly lives in your home? It’s true. She’s there now. She’s always there, just out of your sight. Always just out of your sight.
User avatar
Keirador
 
Posts: 7287
Joined: 01 Dec 2008, 21:36
Location: Living secretly in the home of every single resident of Night Vale
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1132)
All-game rating: (1133)
Timezone: GMT-5

PreviousNext

Return to Game Threads

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests