Within a Deep Mafia Forest - Game Topic (GAME OVER)

[Otter]

Uh yeah.  That certainly doesn't give me much incentive to remove my jokevote, Andy.

However, we have thirteen alive and only ten active votes.  That means three of us haven't put down votes yet!  Alex may complain that our jokevotes are pointless, but they at least get some things started (look at Andy's behavior, already) and it sure beats abstaining from voting on day 1.  Is something more important going on for OK, Ciato, and Corwin right now?  Like a party?  Am I invited?

[Lady Door]

o_O

OK and Corwin both have voted, though I grant that OK's wasn't counted and Corwin's was within 30 minutes prior to your own post, Otter. It's true that Ciato hasn't voted yet, though, for all that our votes don't really seem to have much direction until Andrew's mistake.

There seems to be an awful lot of not paying attention going on this thread so far. Is it still a MURDERDEATHKILL mistake? ... given nothing else to go on, I suppose it must be. Worth thinking about while I am sitting in class and should otherwise be translating Ovid.

[Otter]

Wrong.  Notice that Corwin's Fnorder "vote" wasn't counted in Alex's vote update.  He hasn't voted, OK hasn't voted, and Ciato hasn't voted.  Otherwise, explain the fact that ten votes are active right now and all ten other players have active votes, with thirteen total players.

You may not be paying attention, but I am.

[Luther Lansfeld]

I am not voting for the sake of voting. That is retarded.

[Smodge13]

So we have Andrews Voting 2 on a train, then removing it.
Hmm WoW Mafia i did that and was scum.
However what disturbs me more is Ciato used that as a reason TO vote for me in WoW mafia and yet isn't using it as a reason here.
Therefore Ciato is acting differently to normal.
##Unvote: Kilga
##Vote: Ciato

[Otter]

Oookay hold up.  If nobody ever "votes for the sake of voting" then no votes occur, ever, and talk never goes serious and scum absolutely lap up the inactivity.  We have a jokevote phase exactly because it gets votes flying around and causes the game to begin.  Ciato, you're saying you refuse to participate in this?  That looks like a pretty blatantly anti-town statement to me.  Do you have some kind of defense?  Or retraction?

[Otter]

I am not voting for the sake of voting. That is retarded.

And yeah, thinking about this for a second, Andy's gaffe was a little questionable, but Ciato's 1) not voting and 2) implicitly calling town a bunch of retards for getting votes on the table.  Overwhelming anti-town sentiment is go.

##UNVOTE: Andy
##VOTE: Ciato

[Luther Lansfeld]

There are votes on the table. What has this offered us? lolol the jokes are really funny guyz, and this topic has been in a lull ever since. We don't even start conversations because all we do is this. You are supposed to vote for scummy behavior, not because you are expected to by Otter's Laws. Voting to have a vote on the table is what I consider a highly questionable practice to endorse, as it completely obscures what votes are serious and what votes are just being stupid. I feel that just tossing around votes is a bad practice, and I don't partake in it. You can do that if you feel like it, but I'm not going to! This does not make me scummy, and if you think it does...uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.......

[Luther Lansfeld]

Also, smodge voting me for acting different than in other games? Except you vote for me in like every game! I'm not sure exactly what this means, since I apparently played different before except that was wrong...

[AndrewRogue]

Uh... yeah Corwin? I (tried to) unvote Excal because, like everyone else, I was joining the fun in putting a vote down on someone who didn't have one. Putting a vote on Excal was fairly obviously a mistake thus, I, you know. Undo it and try to do what I originally intended to? I made a mistake and wanted to correct it.

I do feel the need that I'm not the only one who was apparently not paying attention. You, for example, didn't read the rules and still haven't. Hell, you didn't even notice your vote wasn't being counted. So, maybe you should be the one paying a bit more attention? I just missed one vote in a vote count (and misformatted). You failed to notice your vote wasn't being counted and that there was an odd posting trend going on that ties back to the rules.

##Unvote: Excal
##Vote: Corwin

OK is in the same boat as Corwin, so hopefully he cleans that up soon, otherwise we're going to have a problem there as well.

Ciato... Eh. You have to do something to get the game started, and that's why you vote like this. Yes, day one is pretty much a crapshoot, but we can't have something to discuss if we don't make something happen. Hence these early votes!

NON-EDIT: Guh. Ninja'd while typing, and about to leave class. I'll hit the rest when I get a few moments.

[Otter]

You are supposed to vote for scummy behavior, not because you are expected to by Otter's Laws.

Right, because scummy behavior EXISTS before any votes get put down.  With no votes on the table, everyone can act exactly the same.  There is no pressure.  There's nothing quantifiable to look back at later in the game.  Nothing HAPPENS by us townies waiting the hell around, and I'm kind of wondering how you imagine it going.

Townie A: I don't see any scum behavior yet, so I'll sit on my vote for now.
Townie B: I agree.  I shall do the same.
Scum A: Okay!  There are no votes on the table!  I think I will act extremely scummy and give myself away.
Townie A: Aha!  Just what I was waiting for!

Let's face it, we jokevote because we have to start the damn game.  Scum won't do it for us, there's no REASON for them to.  They love inactivity.

Voting to have a vote on the table is what I consider a highly questionable practice to endorse, as it completely obscures what votes are serious and what votes are just being stupid.

Let me introduce you to something called "the unvote."  It's when you take back a vote that turned out to be pointless and based on nothing, enabling you to use your vote on someone else.  We recover all the ammunition we use to spark the conversation, with no harm done, and there's usually plenty of "Okay, I'm removing my jokevote now, and now that I've got more in front of me, I'll put down a more serious vote" type posts.  What's your suggested alternative to this system again?  Sit around on day 1 talking about... nothing game-related at all because the game essentially has not started yet?

What have the votes on the table gotten us?  This conversation, for one.  A game that's actually running, for another.  There's only one faction right now who doesn't want those two things.

You can do that if you feel like it, but I'm not going to! This does not make me scummy, and if you think it does...uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.......

Oh yeah, and failure to use your vote does make you scummy.  Voting is town's only reliable weapon and vote histories are the most reliable and tangible information for analysis.  Failure to vote denies town both the use of its weapon and the information it needs to direct that weapon in the future.  This isn't a game where you can sit around doing nothing (other than calling us retards, of course) and still be at "neutral."  Town has to witchhunt to win, and passive play is classic scum play.

[Smodge13]

In Ciato's defense, she does often seem to play cautiously with her votes.
VtM she didn't vote for a while either.
Same with Random.

However that didn't stop her day 1 in WoW mafia.........

WoW my day 1 vote was a joke vote.
Here however its serious, i find it surprising that Andrew has done exactly what i did only aimed at someone else and you didn't see it as a reason to vote?, if anything one would think after confirming i was scum in WoW mafia you would be more likely to jump on the same scenario if repeated.

Also at least this vote isn't for "no reason", see how joke voting works, we joke vote until one of us finds a suspicious joke-vote and we jump on it, then a discussion forms around the person accused and the accusers and springs the game into serious mode where we actually do vote.

Or theres the alternative, none of us post and we sit here in silence until the scum kill us all.  >.>
I find Joke voting as stupid, same with LaL but i still see the need for it.

[Luther Lansfeld]

Sure, but being suspicious with a jokevote just feels like really silly scum play to me. I... guess...

Well, the problem is that a lot of people playing scum don't seem to pay attention to the topic very well, which is just pretty unfathomable to me. If you are town you should be paying attention to potential mistakes, if you are scum you should be paying attention to the topic to watch townies make mistakes, so making a slipup in the beginning of Day 1 does really say much to me except that this person doesn't play the game the same way as I do. I tend to be far too introspective for my own good; because personally I am inclined to say that blowing up situations to make them look worse than they are (ala Otter) is scummy, while others could argue that it is aggressive town play trying to catch scum slips. Except dwelling on things doesn't really seem to do this to me. Significant differences in philosophy is all it is.

LaL is only really valid to me in situations where cases weren't built against people during the day. This happens a lot in Day 1 because people just jokevote instead of doing anything else (which is my point). It's just... I mean, it's infinitely easier to gauge where someone stands if they speak, soooo yeah. Of course, there are two types of LaL; the people obviously around but producing low content/regurgitating points and people who just don't exist. From past experiences the former has been more effective, whereas the latter seems like more of a way of just getting rid of someone who forgot about the game. Debate of exactly how useful the latter is for lynching can be made.

You don't have to vote to talk, smodge! In fact, things like this are far more conductive to getting people involved in debate. I voted for you in WoW Mafia because you were the second joke vote in a five-to-lynch game, and I believe you to be someone who doesn't lay down votes with ease. So yes, I guess that jokevote did raise suspicion in me, but I don't really feel like that was a good play on your part. Assuming that scum is always going to fall in the same trap doesn't sit well with moi.

[Lady Door]

Eh, I read this line --

Is something more important going on for OK, Ciato, and Corwin right now?  Like a party?  Am I invited?

-- as a poke for inactivity, since it implied they were absent rather than that they weren't following the rules and thus their votes weren't active. They were voting (at least OK and Corwin were) and posting, it just wasn't sticking or getting anywhere.

I would third that, while lamentable for its frivolity, the joke vote phase of Day 1 seems a necessary force to pushing the game into "serious business." I consider it the equivalent of friendly chatter -- the "Hi, how are you?" of Mafia (with far more "pew pew" than polite social mores allow). The stuff upon which theories are built later in the game begin with these things. I gotta say there's a lot suspicious about the person who chooses to sit on the sidelines and scoff at the activity of the others. Not sure whether it's scummy suspicious, but since Day 1 is so devoid of information it's things like that which become sticking points.

Still, Ciato's defense has actually driven discussion. While her impetus is sketchy the result is far less so. Doesn't make me want to change my vote, though; makes me more inclined to leave it as a serious one, in fact. More defense, more argument, more progress.

Edit for Ciato's post: Yeah, like that! I would argue that Otter's blow-up wasn't necessarily provoking (though it sure feels that way) so much as acidly phrased questioning. Still, I am curious.

If not joke-votes -- those things which have a teensy bit of weight, but not enough to be dangerous -- how would you start Day 1?

[Luther Lansfeld]

This is something I've been debating for a while in the various games that I've played in, but things tend to start naturally. Maybe jokevotes are good for Mafia, maybe they aren't. It's a question I've been tossing around for several games, but implying that not putting a vote down is damning is something I disagree with. The problem I have with Otter is that he doesn't seem to regard other people's views on playing Mafia as valid, but rather choosing to take them as scummy. I reacted harshly because, well, to be honest? That kind of attitude is what makes people not want to play anymore, and that makes me sad. .-.

[Otter]

Ciato's recurring strategy for starting day 1 has been "Wait for other people to do it, because jokevotes are a waste of time and beneath me."  She has not yet acknowledged that if everyone adopted her "philosophy," town would lose 100% of the time.

You couldn't possibly have such a "difference in philosophy" anyway unless there were a concomitant difference in OBJECTIVES.  If my philosophy is "Cast votes and leap on obvious errors and anti-town judgment in order to ignite discussion and illuminate potential scum early," and your philosophy is "Don't do any of that, just sit tight and watch for scumtells!" then it's obvious that we have different goals.  Mine is to witch-hunt and get the game started.  Yours is to play passively and reactively rather than put yourself out on a line with any "retarded" jokevotes.  Do I need to spell out which of these is a valid townie strategy and which of them is absolutely useless to town, yet very normal for scum who enjoy taking this sort of backseat role?

Chalking it up to a simple "difference in philosophy," as if we're both aiming for the same thing in different ways, is fundamentally misleading.  If we all lay back and waited, nothing would happen and scum would eat us alive.  Townies don't have the luxury of being able to play passively; scum members do.  You can say I'm "blowing up the situation," but it's, y'know, not an ACTUAL defense and doesn't change anything; the fact that you tried to write me off with that rather than address any of my points is telling.  And smodge, it doesn't become less of a scumtell just because she's done it before.

---

Lady Door, you are correct in saying that I was essentially calling out OK and Corwin for failure to pay attention.  If my snarky wording confused you, apologies.  Also on the "not paying enough attention" list is Andrew.  OK especially needs to post more, but the present issue is weighty enough that I want my vote on Ciato and not being used for "talk more" callouts.

You're also correct in praising Ciato for actually offering responses.  This is by far preferable to the alternative.  However, as I said, she hasn't really provided an answer to my assertions (even you're saying the "What's the alternative?" question again, which I raised and she completely ignored).  Now she's saying "Dwelling on things never helps!" and trying to shoo away the enormous fundamental errors in her conception of town play by not talking about it anymore.  As Ciato says, the more effective version of LaL is often the one where we take somebody out for making posts, but low-content posts which resist any serious discussion and won't provide any defensible refutations.  That's an awful lot like what she's doing right now.

EDIT:

This is something I've been debating for a while in the various games that I've played in, but things tend to start naturally.

Right.  Show me the log of the game where "things" "start naturally" with absolutely no votes on the board.  You're basically saying town can simply WAIT for things to happen and react accordingly, and furthermore you're asserting that passive and therefore submissive town play is just a "differing view" rather than "blatantly and unquestionably suicidal."  If I'm saying the "town passivity strategy" isn't valid or helpful for town in any way and is instead scummy, that's because it's true.

[Nitori]

Well, I suppose I would have to agree with the sentiment that joke votes do help us move along: Andy's vote helped move things along here, and ironically enough, a lack of it from Ciato really has things moving. Calling the practice retarded then brushing it off as a simple difference in gameplay philosophy is the big point that seems to stick out to me, though. While this is fairly consistent of the Ciato in general (her philosophy), that seems really off to me. I'd like to see what she defines as "starts naturally", too. I think 4 votes this early is way too many, though, so no vote here for now.

Andy's gaffe is another point I'd look at. It is again, another point that stems from an game assumption that can generally be made; that scum often do not bother reading the thread as closely. Andy has claimed real life semantics, which is of course impossible to prove. It's minor, but it's my second priority after Ciato.

Also, this thread seems to be devoid of much activity lately apart from LD, Otter, and Ciato, which is why such gaffes are ending up so prominent. I'd like to not have to go to LaL, since it seems rather boring and unexciting~

[OblivionKnight]

...that's a lot of stuff having been said so far.  And here I thought this was a quiet topic.

Wow.  I suppose sexual innuendo doesn't count for this sake, but a little bit of conflagration strikes me as a bit odd.  Reminds me of the South Park episode Go God Go!, where a whole bunch of otters and human atheists fought because Mr. Garrison had sex with a high ranking evolutionary studies official.

Yes, I read the rules, but with nothing going on yet, what was the rush in making the vote count?

Nonetheless, I can see how there's a pull for calling that out for not paying attention, so...eh.  Whatever.  When I had a more grained thought about where I wanted to put an official day-ending vote, I would have gone off on a discussion about dolphinsex.org, with a dissertation as to why that would lead to my vote, but now you all won't get to see it ;_; 

Brain still out of it.  Need less drug in it.

Anyway, it looks like Otter's into his usual mode, going on a witch-hunt.  I really don't think Ciato's vote thought process is bad - so she doesn't want to get involved with the random throwing of votes and wants to wait for scumtells or something to pop up.  She's jumped on this before on day 1 - when we were in the NR mafia, she jumped on me day 1 (when others were going on a joke vote kick) for making an error and saying some scummy stuff.  There is stuff to jump on day 1, and I don't disagree with her thought process - I can understand wanting to just use a vote on a hard target and not jumping around a lot.  Sticking to a strong target you're sure of.  Seems not completely stupid to me. 

I don't agree with the joke phase being completely retarded (it is!  to an extent, but in a fun way!).  As I said earlier with Ciato's method having merit, look at Touhou - that mafia had plenty of stuff to discuss day 1 due to some voting and misreading of comments.  In the "joke vote" phase.  I honestly think both practices have merit - the most important instance in either case is to put some love and effort into everything.  Balancing the two is a great way to go about things, I feel - you can have a bunch of people firing off votes, doing whatever, but with a person or two looking around and waiting for scummy behaviour to appear.  It can appear on day 1 - it has before.  It's possible it could kick in again (I mean, hey, look at Andy!  Scum not reading topics as well and stuff). 

I like the start of joke voting and moving, as I feel it does move discussion along and provide some tells, even if minor or random.  There's lots to go on with it, even if people are just firing votes off because people are ugly (*George Carlin*).

Ciato's...generally like this.  Generally.  I know there's been some of the joke-voting with her in the past, but she's generally been very cool about looking for those scumtells, even early (again, see me in NR), so this isn't abnormal.  She's all there is looking at the moment, and I really don't see that harming town at the current time and place.

[Ranmilia]

Votecount! 

With 13 alive, it takes 7 to lynch.

LadyDoor (1): Dhyer
Excal (1): Nitori, Andrew
Otter (1): Yakumo
Yakumo (1): Kilgamayan
Corwin (2): Fnorder, Andrew
Dhyer (1): Excal
Andrew (0): Otter
Ciato (3): LadyDoor, Smodge, Otter
Kilga (0): Smodge

24 hours have elapsed in day 1!

[Yakumo]

Wrong.  Notice that Corwin's Fnorder "vote" wasn't counted in Alex's vote update.  He hasn't voted, OK hasn't voted, and Ciato hasn't voted.  Otherwise, explain the fact that ten votes are active right now and all ten other players have active votes, with thirteen total players.

You may not be paying attention, but I am.

Give me a break, Otter.  You have to have been paying enough attention to know WHY that vote wasn't counted.  It's not that the guy didn't put one down, it's that he didn't read carefully enough to get it counted.

Now, I understand the underlying principle that is the reason that you're voting for Ciato, but I disagree.  You said yourself that Ciato does this pretty much every game.  Why is it suddenly scummy now?  You're voting her for a gameplay difference, not a difference in behavior, and you refuse to let go of the issue.  You are ignoring and obfuscating anything else that may be going on.  Explain to me how this is less scummy than what she's doing?  My vote stands where it is, rather more serious than it was before.

[Luther Lansfeld]

I meant start naturally as in things happen before I can think of a way to arouse discussion. I think there is a better way. That's all there is to it. JOKEVOTES ARE EXACTLY THAT - JOKES. Can we not speak without voting? To me, your vote should have meaning. Is discourse somehow undermined by not laying votes that are just votes because someone smells funny or the mod's name has seven letters so they will pick number seven? Now, who has contributed more to discussion, someone who makes a thoughtful post, or someone who votes in this manner?

[Smodge13]

##Unvote Ciato
##Vote Andrew

Not sure when i will have time to explain it, Ciato's explanations have satisfied me, will point otu reason for andrew vote when i have more than a 5 min lunch break.

[Otter]

I meant start naturally as in things happen before I can think of a way to arouse discussion.

Yes, things start before you in particular get them started.  In other words, if you leave it up to the other townies, it can get done without you specifically needing to try.

Does this make it good practice on your part?  Hell no.  It's bad town play because, hey, maybe I'll decide that I'd rather do that in the future, just act like Ciato and wait around while other townies get things started.  That's easy.  When everyone starts doing it, naturally, there's... nothing to talk about, everyone's just sitting around waiting and watching each other.  Tell me how this gets games flowing, again?  In a direction other than "Overwhelming scum victory."

Now, who has contributed more to discussion, someone who makes a thoughtful post, or someone who votes in this manner?

What the heck are you making thoughtful posts about, if nobody's voted and there's nothing game-related to talk about?  The weather?  Recent games?  Regardless, you're being misleading because the same people who start off with jokevotes are the ones who make thoughtful posts later, when those jokevotes have led to a situation where there's something to think about.

Think of it this way: if nothing else, jokevote phase spreads out a roughly-even spread of votes, about one per person.  As soon as any given person draws another person's vote, it's very likely that this person will now, quite early in the game, have two votes on him, which can be the start of a train.  It accelerates the game and makes things more serious, faster.  Would you rather spend an entire day 1 with nobody casting any votes and writing long, thoughtful essays about no actual game events whatsoever, or would you like day 1 to kick off with someone getting to, say, 3 votes pretty fast, forcing that person and his aggressors to undergo scrutiny, have their arguments taken seriously, etc. etc.?

---

Yakumo, you'll notice I was as observant as you were.  I know exactly why they failed to vote, but it doesn't excuse them in the slightest.  Now OK's saying he saw all along, and that's fine I guess, better late than never.  Not so with Corwin -- while nitpicking a votecount, he apparently failed to notice that his Fnorder vote wasn't there at all.  Then "changed" his vote as if that had mattered at all.  Generally, I expect attentive, consistent play from townies, and this isn't it, at all.

And what Ciato's doing isn't "suddenly" scummy, it's consistently, constantly scummy.  Every time.  Every time a player acts blatantly anti-town, that is blatantly anti-town behavior.  If they do it enough times, does it become "normal" and thus okay?  No.

You're voting her for a gameplay difference, not a difference in behavior, and you refuse to let go of the issue.

What, am I only allowed to vote for people over a "difference in behavior," when the person is acting differently from normal?  That's funny, because I thought the scum were, by their nature, trying to act exactly the way they'd act as townies, if they're any good.  If one person always acts exactly the same, well, frankly that's not a town tell.  That's not a tell at all, unless their actions carry, oh, significantly anti-town sentiment and gameplan.  In which case they're always acting scummy, and persisting in that, in the hopes that people will "get used to it" and dismiss it as a result.  We should not be letting this work, and it seems like you're suggesting exactly that.

You are ignoring and obfuscating anything else that may be going on.

So what is that exactly?  If there's so much else going on that I'm obfuscating, why are you helping this obfuscation along by focusing only on me and giving zero mention to any of these other hot topics?  As I recall, I was the only one who noticed how alarmingly scummy Ciato's "Throwing votes around is retarded" comment was, and I've tried my best to illustrate just how obviously anti-town her passive, suicidal-for-town "style of play" is.  Are you suggesting we say, "Well, it's her style of play to sort of lurk around in the corner, never start up any conversations, and only react to things said to her, exactly the way scum love to play.  But since that's her style, all of those scumtells are nullified!" or what?

I raised this issue up and I'm perfectly happy to stand my ground on it.  Mafia isn't some mythical, incomprehensible religious dance, for which everyone has a different "style" that works equally well in totally different ways.  No.  It's actually not that hard to understand.  Spurring serious discussion and getting information from vote histories helps town.  Sitting passively, waiting for things to "happen naturally" without any impetus of your own, and "watching everyone else for scumtells" so you can reactively point them out is horrible play and if everybody did it we'd have a 0% chance of success.  Yes, I'm voting for her due to a gameplay difference!  The difference is, I'm playing in a way that benefits Team Town and she isn't.  There's no reason to play nice or pretty up my words when that's all it comes down to.

[Yakumo]

You're voting her for a gameplay difference, not a difference in behavior, and you refuse to let go of the issue.

What, am I only allowed to vote for people over a "difference in behavior," when the person is acting differently from normal?  That's funny, because I thought the scum were, by their nature, trying to act exactly the way they'd act as townies, if they're any good.  If one person always acts exactly the same, well, frankly that's not a town tell.  That's not a tell at all, unless their actions carry, oh, significantly anti-town sentiment and gameplan.  In which case they're always acting scummy, and persisting in that, in the hopes that people will "get used to it" and dismiss it as a result.  We should not be letting this work, and it seems like you're suggesting exactly that.

You're deliberately ignoring my point.  You are attacking Ciato for doing something she does EVERY GAME, yet all of a sudden in this game it's a scummy thing to do when it never was before?  This is a horribly flawed arguement with no basis to it except a difference of opinion about the way the game is played.  Also, of course you're supposed to pick up on people acting differently than normal!  If the scum always acted the same way they do as town, this would just be a guessing game, not a logical one.  This is why you look for the minor slips.  You don't just suddenly characterize someone's play style as scummy on a whim. 

[Yakumo]

You are ignoring and obfuscating anything else that may be going on.

So what is that exactly?  If there's so much else going on that I'm obfuscating, why are you helping this obfuscation along by focusing only on me and giving zero mention to any of these other hot topics?  As I recall, I was the only one who noticed how alarmingly scummy Ciato's "Throwing votes around is retarded" comment was, and I've tried my best to illustrate just how obviously anti-town her passive, suicidal-for-town "style of play" is.  Are you suggesting we say, "Well, it's her style of play to sort of lurk around in the corner, never start up any conversations, and only react to things said to her, exactly the way scum love to play.  But since that's her style, all of those scumtells are nullified!" or what?

I raised this issue up and I'm perfectly happy to stand my ground on it.  Mafia isn't some mythical, incomprehensible religious dance, for which everyone has a different "style" that works equally well in totally different ways.  No.  It's actually not that hard to understand.  Spurring serious discussion and getting information from vote histories helps town.  Sitting passively, waiting for things to "happen naturally" without any impetus of your own, and "watching everyone else for scumtells" so you can reactively point them out is horrible play and if everybody did it we'd have a 0% chance of success.  Yes, I'm voting for her due to a gameplay difference!  The difference is, I'm playing in a way that benefits Team Town and she isn't.  There's no reason to play nice or pretty up my words when that's all it comes down to.

I repeat again, Ciato has acted this way before.  It is not suddenly a scumtell when it never was before.  Why do you bring it up this game?  You've had plenty of chances.  Do you seriously think you are ever going to win a game of Mafia by killing off everyone that doesn't think that the game should be played exactly the way you do?  That's the only thing that you're going on here, attacking her because she doesn't think throwing random votes around with no reason is worth it.  Vote histories help town, yes, but not these early votes that clearly have no real basis in anything.  Watching for scumtells and pointing them out when you see them works fine if there's things already going on and you actually know what you're looking for.  I think that your style of play is, if anything, WORSE for "Team Town" than hers is.  You play like EvilTom except that you don't need someone to poke you for you to go off: you grab some random small argument, blow it out of proportion, and expect everyone else to agree with you even when you don't have any defense for your position.  How is this helping us at all?