Paper Mario Mafia Chapter 1 (DP1)

Author: Earth

Posts

Read-only
Total: 402
#121
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,465
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
Dashboard
Player              Role               Character
1. Mhar                                      "A boss"
2. Lunatic 
3. Pie
4. Casey     Hated Townie   Tubba Blubba  <- Claims is post #3, seems town.
5. Wylted                                   General Guy     <- Null (but like, read his short posts null, instead of the longer posts haven't read yet null)
6. WF
7. Barney       Bullshitter    "Sonic"
8. Skipper                                "A boss"                    <- First time player, let's be a little easy on them  to make it not a last time player... Also he's Like A Boss
9. Cerulean 

...

Other people, please copy/paste and update as information comes out.
#122
Cerulean
Cerulean's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 357
2
2
4
Cerulean's avatar
Cerulean
2
2
4
Oho, an actual push on me. Let's see what you've got, Mhar. Reading through it now.
#123
Cerulean
Cerulean's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 357
2
2
4
Cerulean's avatar
Cerulean
2
2
4
-->
@Mharman
I want to say "Mharman is comically paranoid of me to a degree that Mafia wouldn't be able to fake nearly as well" and unvote. My only issue with that is...

he could be a teammate sent by Cerulean if he saw no townie was gonna do it. At the time I believed the latter.  
...Did you really believe any scum team is going to "send" Skipper to do anything? No offense to Skipper, but I don't think it would be a good idea to trust the newbie to be making a good push.

I do also think pushing me is probably a tad villagery just because I'm a difficult mislynch to swing for Mafia and there are easier targets in this game.

Responding to the full case itself next post.
#124
Lunatic
Lunatic's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 9,016
3
3
6
Lunatic's avatar
Lunatic
3
3
6
-->
@Mharman
Damn mharman, you had me at first and I was starting to like your posts. I was picking up on the stuff you were laying down with skipper, because I also think he was laying the noob stuff on a lil too thick. Some of the questions almost seem like he is selling it too hard (asking what "SOP" means for example, that is a fairly common piece of terminology used all over the world, almost anyone who has ever had a real job knows what a "Standard Operating Procedure" is. That and I when he was asking about the pm stuff, a lot of that felt fairly common sense to me and where he over sold it is trying to say "Earth doesn't have my discord information, so I guess I have to be town right? haha right guys? look at silly little innocent noob me hahah!"

Anyways I was with you til your OMGUS with cerulean. Cerulean more or less seemed concerned that you weren't being active and placed a vote on you to get you to post, and by god did you make a mountain out of a molehill to respond to it. Even qouting one of Eminem's famous diss songs against Ja rule "Bump heads" (love that song btw, hard af. Almost seems like you are trying to be a badass and intimidate people off your lynch, which if you are genuinely town, you don't need to be doing this. This bravado does much the opposite, and I say that from the perspective as someone who has used this tactic with varying success as mafia before. I don't like it, and it seemed entirely unnecessary. 

Defending yourself is one thing, but going so far out of your way to make that push out to be anything more than a post to garner activity, and view it as an actual scum read against you... Yeah I don't like it.

Other than that, I am willing to place casey in the town pile as well. It's been a long time since i've seen anyone in mafia do a ballsy dp1 miller/hated claim. While they can be super successful, they are in general very very risky, and one hasn't happened here in years. 99% of the time people are too conservative as scum on this site to pull something risky like that, and one day it will bite us in the @ss again, and when it does we can re-evaluate this logic, but the only person I would really see making a move like this as scum is maybe Wylted, myself, maybe Pie even though I think he tends to play a more conservative scum game. Anyone else, yeah it's just very very unlikely.

I do want to watch how mharman continues with this before I fully FOS him, but yeah right now I am not liking this avenue against cerulean. 
#125
Lunatic
Lunatic's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 9,016
3
3
6
Lunatic's avatar
Lunatic
3
3
6
-->
@Cerulean
I do also think pushing me is probably a tad villagery just because I'm a difficult mislynch to swing for Mafia and there are easier targets in this game.

Nah, Mharman is a young guy I believe early twenties, and he's coming hot off a town game he did rather well in. This bolsters his confidence quite a bit I think and is leaving him feel a bit invulnerable. Speaking as someone who played like this as mafia a lot after a strong town win where I am placed as mafia next, trying to ride off the success and town reads of the last game by pushing someone super aggressively as scum in the next game. If I hadn't been in this spot before I wouldn't suspect it so much. But maybe I am wrong, I wanna see how this plays out. 
#126
Cerulean
Cerulean's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 357
2
2
4
Cerulean's avatar
Cerulean
2
2
4
-->
@Mharman
So why not start with some terrible logic ("Mharman is less active than I expect")?
Do you think that's not good enough for a page 2 vote, less than an hour after I'd joined the game? I don't think it's unreasonable to read into activity, especially since you were online before then.

If I give pushback, it's OMGUS. Time to pressure for a claim, perhaps a mislynch.
This is just a guess at what I would have done, is it not? Your entire case seems to hinge on me having a master plan which you've gleaned from exactly two posts about you. Also, you should be a little more careful about slipping role information.

If I don't believe because, he doesn't need to be so subtle about such a test, or because it all seems too convenient (both of which I am alleging),
It wasn't meant to be a reaction test of any sort. Let me lay out the thought process:

1. Mharman hasn't been in thread even though I would expect him to be.
2. Therefore, I'll ping him and place a vote for activity.
3. Mharman's posts are so-so and not worth townreading.
4. Since I don't have any major scumreads, I'll maintain the status quo (having my vote on Mharman) until something changes my mind.

You made three posts from when you joined up until 68, when I said I would keep my vote on you. Can you tell me which one I should have been townreading you for?
#127
Cerulean
Cerulean's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 357
2
2
4
Cerulean's avatar
Cerulean
2
2
4
-->
@Mharman
@Casey_Risk
Why, specifically, did you decide to keep your vote on Mharman? What was it about his behavior that you did not like, aside from his initial inactivity?
63 and 64 were reads posts of mediocre quality. Not obviously bad, but hedgy (note: "hedging" as in "playing both sides of a read to avoid committing to either") enough with Casey and Skipper that I didn't feel inspired to unvote. I suppose I could have said that exactly in 68, but I didn't.

#128
Cerulean
Cerulean's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 357
2
2
4
Cerulean's avatar
Cerulean
2
2
4
-->
@Barney
Any other thoughts on the game? I saw that you're busy, but you seem to have enough time to collect all of the claims, so I assume you read through thread and might have some opinions at this point.

#129
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,863
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Skipper_Sr
I am a townie, even WyIted agrees. I only say this because those who have voiced otherwise may be mafia since they can tell I am not one of them, but they want us all to think I am mafia so we're tricked. They're not going to flat out say it, but they'll imply it 
This is a good way to approach the game. The more thinking out loud you do the better it is
#130
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,863
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Mharman
I want to pressure Cerulean. His logic on me is basically just "Mharman was less active than usual, I'm kinda sus." Which he doubled down on by keeping his vote on me, but refused to accuse outright. 
Is this a reaction test? If so, sorry for not playing along but didn't he vote you on page 2? I assume no read is going to be that strong and at worst we are at the tell end of RVS
#131
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,863
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Lunatic
@Cerulean
You are right that Casey is likely to be too conservative for the hated claim, but me, you and Barney seemed to naturally and independently pick up on mharman's flawed logic. Maybe it's because of our experience, but why was an active Casey not noticing obviously flawed logic at the time?
#132
Cerulean
Cerulean's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 357
2
2
4
Cerulean's avatar
Cerulean
2
2
4
Mharman's one point against me that does hold some weight- that I didn't thoroughly explain my reasoning for keeping my vote- is what Casey seemed to vote me off of. I don't think it's unreasonable, even if the rest of Mharman's case is baked with paranoia as the primary ingredient.
#133
Cerulean
Cerulean's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 357
2
2
4
Cerulean's avatar
Cerulean
2
2
4
And Casey does push back on Mharman's logic in posts 98 and 101:
It's weird that you put that in quotes when he didn't say that. 
Personally, I read his vote as being an activity vote first and foremost. What makes you so sure it was a reaction test?
Like yeah, he could give all sorts of responses to other players' responses to his fake reaction test, but who's to say that he would have done any of that?
#134
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 4,955
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
I'll catch up on the DP when I get a chance, too much to cover right now.
#135
Cerulean
Cerulean's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 357
2
2
4
Cerulean's avatar
Cerulean
2
2
4
The more thinking out loud you do the better it is
This is true. It's much easier for Mafia to push you over if your mind is a black box where we can't see into. Especially for a newbie player, it's harder for Mafia to fake a convincing looking chain of thought.
#136
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,863
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
I take back what ai said about casey
#137
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,304
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
Got meetings all day today. Will try to catch up during lunch.

#138
Lunatic
Lunatic's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 9,016
3
3
6
Lunatic's avatar
Lunatic
3
3
6
-->
@WyIted
You are right that Casey is likely to be too conservative for the hated claim, but me, you and Barney seemed to naturally and independently pick up on mharman's flawed logic. Maybe it's because of our experience, but why was an active Casey not noticing obviously flawed logic at the time?
He actually argued against him just to cave and place his vote anyway. Idk I wasn't reading that much into it. Might consider it scummy if I didn't think the hated claim was so out of pocket for him. 
#139
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 5,625
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
some points against my case kinda make
sense… I don’t know the extent of which I should put stock into those.

I’ll think about it while going about my morning 

And yeah, I was a little too hyped for the epic 1v1 lol… I should stop that shit and I see why Lunatic was put off by it

and yet, I still think I have somewhat of a case. Cerulean just doesn’t look right to me. At the very least, I’m gonna question some of the points in the defense
Topic's author
#140
Earth
Earth's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,105
3
4
8
Earth's avatar
Earth
3
4
8
VOTE COUNT

Mharman (1/5) - Cerulean
Cerulean (2/5) - Mharman, Casey

Should be correct, but please correct me if I am wrong.
#141
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 4,955
4
6
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
6
10
Alright, I've caught up, read through Mharman's argument a couple of times, and read back through Cerulean's posts to see if there's a pattern of behavior that indicates what he's saying.

Right now... no, I don't really see it. Like Luna, I think Mharman's being a bit hyperbolic in his interpretation of Cerulean's motives. It's not to say that I'm townreading Cerulean over it or that I find this kind of tunnel vision from Mharman to be worthy of a scumread, but Cerulean's early pressure doesn't come off as some devious move to draw a lynch on Mharman. I did find it odd that he posted his decision to keep his vote on Mharman (back on page 3) to Mharman, but I can see that he was also responding to a quote from Mharman in the same post, so it's just a strange fusion of dissociated reads and response.

I haven't had as much time to interrogate Skipper and his responses. I agree he leaned pretty hard into noobishness early on. His early questions about Discord and whether scum would kill him came off as the kind of thing we've seen from new players before as town, but more excessive than usual. I could see a world in which he was instructed to do that to make himself look as noob town as possible. His requests for information come off as town. I can at least see him not being sure what SOP means in a Mafia context - just because it's a common use acronym doesn't mean it's going to be the same use here. On the other hand, his switch from defensiveness to contrition makes me a little more wary of him. Maybe he is just picking up on flaws in his play as he goes, but something about his behavior so far just doesn't sit well with me.

Anyway, I'd like to give thoughts on other players, but I've spent all my time digging into the back-and-forth between Mharman and Cerulean and all manner of posts from Skipper, so I haven't put attention elsewhere yet. Hopefully I'll have a full set of reads up later today.
#142
Casey_Risk
Casey_Risk's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,062
3
3
8
Casey_Risk's avatar
Casey_Risk
3
3
8
-->
@Cerulean
63 and 64 were reads posts of mediocre quality. Not obviously bad, but hedgy (note: "hedging" as in "playing both sides of a read to avoid committing to either") enough with Casey and Skipper that I didn't feel inspired to unvote. I suppose I could have said that exactly in 68, but I didn't.
Yeah, that's reasonable. I wasn't super impressed by them either.

I don't think it's unreasonable to read into activity, especially since you were online before then.
Was he? That's some important context I missed out on. There's a big difference between placing suspicion on someone who hasn't even been online at all vs someone who has been online, but hasn't posted much yet. 

Unvote
#143
Casey_Risk
Casey_Risk's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,062
3
3
8
Casey_Risk's avatar
Casey_Risk
3
3
8
-->
@Lunatic
I was picking up on the stuff you were laying down with skipper, because I also think he was laying the noob stuff on a lil too thick. Some of the questions almost seem like he is selling it too hard (asking what "SOP" means for example, that is a fairly common piece of terminology used all over the world, almost anyone who has ever had a real job knows what a "Standard Operating Procedure" is. That and I when he was asking about the pm stuff, a lot of that felt fairly common sense to me and where he over sold it is trying to say "Earth doesn't have my discord information, so I guess I have to be town right? haha right guys? look at silly little innocent noob me hahah!"
I didn't know what SOP meant in my first game, either. Heck, even in the last game, I had to explain the term to Mharman. You saw that, right? 

The one thing I can agree with you on is Skipper mentioning PMs. I feel like it should be pretty common sense that you can't just PM other players, and that does make me want to suspect Skipper. Behaviorally, I've gone back and forth on him, but right now I'm back to a town read. 
#144
Cerulean
Cerulean's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 357
2
2
4
Cerulean's avatar
Cerulean
2
2
4
-->
@WyIted
I could see a world in which he was instructed to do that to make himself look as noob town as possible.
That sounds like a Pie thing to do. Maybe WyIted. Definitely not an unbelievable world.



Anyway,
VTL WyIted
What thought process led you to 131? I think it's strange that you were shading Casey for "not noticing flawed logic" when you seemingly didn't read the posts in question.
#145
Cerulean
Cerulean's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 357
2
2
4
Cerulean's avatar
Cerulean
2
2
4
-->
@Casey_Risk
I don't think it's unreasonable to read into activity, especially since you were online before then.
Was he? That's some important context I missed out on.
I checked it before I placed the vote. Mhar wasn't online at the time (approximately 16:45), but apparently was online 4 hours beforehand (12:45?), which might have been after the day started (12:35). 

Granted, the hours might not have matched up exactly since these sorts of things typically round. But in any case, I still wanted to see Mharman in thread and posting.

It was never meant to be a compelling piece of evidence, just a starting point.
#146
Casey_Risk
Casey_Risk's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,062
3
3
8
Casey_Risk's avatar
Casey_Risk
3
3
8
-->
@Cerulean
Granted, the hours might not have matched up exactly since these sorts of things typically round.
Yeah, beyond an hour, it always rounds down from what I can tell. So if someone had been offline for four hours and 45 minutes, it'll just say '4 hours'. 
#147
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 5,625
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
Alright, I can see a few signs Cerulean might be town, or that I’m at very least pushing on too little evidence. I’m go. I’m gonna poke some holes and see how the defense holds up before I’m certain, because so much of it looks scummy to me.

Do you think that's not good enough for a page 2 vote, less than an hour after I'd joined the game? I don't think it's unreasonable to read into activity, especially since you were online before then.
I mean I was online before the game started. I don’t see why that’s worth reading into.

This is just a guess at what I would have done, is it not? Your entire case seems to hinge on me having a master plan which you've gleaned from exactly two posts about you.
I did overstate my case a lot. You didn’t have to be thinking that far ahead. It could be as simple as “I want to get a mislynch on someone, but being committal looks scummy. Let’s hint at someone and see if town makes a case for me to parrot.”

It wasn't meant to be a reaction test of any sort. Let me lay out the thought process:

1. Mharman hasn't been in thread even though I would expect him to be.
2. Therefore, I'll ping him and place a vote for activity.
3. Mharman's posts are so-so and not worth townreading.
4. Since I don't have any major scumreads, I'll maintain the status quo (having my vote on Mharman) until something changes my mind.

You made three posts from when you joined up until 68, when I said I would keep my vote on you. Can you tell me which one I should have been townreading you for?
I can follow the steps of this thought process until point 4. At that point, if I had no strong scumread, I would have unvoted. 

When you keep your vote on someone after getting activity out of them, you’re implying a scumread on them. When I see that, I’m obviously going to look for reasons you might be scumreading me, to see if they make any sort of sense from a perspective that isn’t mine. All I saw was you clearly felt suspicious of no immediate activity, which means absolutely nothing and makes me think you’re looking for reasons.

It’s not that you should immediately be townreading me, it’s that leaving your vote on someone you apparently “don’t have a strong read on” is weird. I feel like this is a disingenuous point.

63 and 64 were reads posts of mediocre quality. Not obviously bad, but hedgy (note: "hedging" as in "playing both sides of a read to avoid committing to either") enough with Casey and Skipper that I didn't feel inspired to unvote.
That’s something I do to showcase my thought process, and it gives out relevant information that others could look at to weigh my conclusions, as well as any conclusions they have made or have yet to make. It also helps me keep track of my thoughts, just typing them out. I guess I can at least see how could misinterpret what I’m doing here, but it really doesn’t mean anything, especially since I’ve been doing it my last few games.

I suppose I could have said that exactly in 68, but I didn't.
So, why didn’t you? To me, it looks you were avoiding commitment more than you were apparently thinking I was. 




#148
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 5,625
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@Cerulean
Ping, tag, whatever you call it. I forgot 

#149
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 5,625
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
I’m go. I’m gonna poke some holes
Ignore the “I’m go.”  Bad typo.
#150
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 5,625
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@Cerulean
I checked it before I placed the vote. Mhar wasn't online at the time (approximately 16:45), but apparently was online 4 hours beforehand (12:45?), which might have been after the day started (12:35). 
Bruh. It rounds down. I was offline for more than 4 hours.

Ok, so maybe I can kinda see why you’d take note of my activity then if you didn’t pick up on that the site rounds down… but one question: why conclude that’s suspicious? Some people like to observe a bit before saying anything. I’ve been doing it my last few games, with the exception of last game because everyone else else was doing it and I got annoyed by that, so I felt like I had to generate activity for me to observe back there.