Newbie 688 - Game Over, Mafia Wins!

[mrfixij]

Confirm'd

[mrfixij]

WC still has another 24 hours before he gets prodded, be patient.

[mrfixij]

Let's get this party started.

Vote: Orangepenguin

For having an overly conspicuous avatar and being an IC.

FOS: Mastin. Be open. Don't go out and say you're going to try something unusual, it just makes you look like complete scum.

[mrfixij]

FOS without a vote is kinda scummy pana. I don't think 5 votes are going to spring up out of nowhere to mislynch, and an FOS when you've got no active vote means about as much as punching a stone wall: it hurts you more than him.

You can always unvote, just pay attention to the thread.

[mrfixij]

mrfixij, you've used FOS but voted for somebody unrelated. How is this different from Panamon's FOS and not voting? By your actions you show that your choice of vote and your choice of FOS were mutually exclusive.

At the beginning of a game, I consider it not only a valid strategy but important to have a vote out there, if only as a way to pressure

somebody

into talking. It doesn't matter if the vote is random. The only thing that looks suspicious to me is joining a bandwagon, but even that, early game, is a pressure tactic.

Mastin definately has stepping into some trouble. Saying that you are going to "try something" makes us all look like suckers if we let you get away with that and then turn out to be scum.

I entirely agree. My only problem with that is that it's too obvious. It very well may be a newbie mistake, and it's almost making the too scummy to be scum fallacy, but I figure I can always change my vote. At the very least, I'll make it known that I don't buy a "new tactic"

[quoteAlso mrfixij, I take issue with you trying to immediately remove one of our ICs stinks of fear.

Vote: mrfixij

[/quote]

At least you have a vote out there. To be honest, I was random voting. His post was right above mine and I was all like "Hey, why not?" At least you recognize it's suspicious though, later in the game that observance will be great for catching scum.

Also.. to address the concern that I wanted "more time to plan my strategy".. it's kinda meta-gamey, but anybody who was interested can see that I hadn't logged in to get my role PM from the time that this game started until the time that I confirmed, so it's clear that I didn't even know about this game. Although again, I do apologize for causing the delay.

Understandable. I was pissed that we didn't get the game started sooner, but it's chill.

[mrfixij]

EBWOP: Sorry, I messed up a quote tag in the last post. I'm sure it's still decipherable though.

[mrfixij]

Vote Scheherazade

Because in the other game you're not voting early. One of the games you're mafia, which one?

This is definite OMGUS behavior. Although it certainly does beg the question on Scheherazade's part. I'm curious as to how he'll address this metagame.

[mrfixij]

I said in the other game that I won't discuss other ongoing games in an open game unless it's helpful. If you'd like an explanation, I'll explain:

[Mod delete: see above]

Meanwhile, Panamon in this game accused a player on weak grounds, but did not vote, even when random voting is the norm. So he breaks a norm, makes an accusation and has no rational basis. That seems worth a vote just to make him explain himself, not because I think he's necessarily scummy.

Make sense?

Actually, no it doesn't make sense. Let me elaborate.

...did not vote, even when random voting is the norm

Yet at the same time, in your other scenario, you asked a question but didn't issue a random vote. This seems really scummy in a meta-game sense. I don't know if it applies here, but I think the OMGUS factor still plays out a little.

[mrfixij]

EBWOP: Mod, please delete that segment of my previous post, I must've stopped in while you were editing Scher's

[mrfixij]

I can't really explain myself properly without talking about the other game. In this game alone, though:

1. Panamon gives Mastin a FoS
-this is a direct accusation
-on a 1 - 10 scale of strength, his argument rates a 1, if even that
-there are no consequences to voting
-random voting is the norm

2. I vote Panamon
-if he is scum, then he deserves the vote and I hope his reaction will strengthen the case against him
-if he is not scum, then he will either withdraw his vote or begin to defend his behaviour
-or he could do what he did, which is to persist in newbish/scummy behaviour

I assume you mean him when you talk of OMGUS voting patterns. And yes, that seems to be the case.

That's the gist of it when I say OMGUS. I'm not a big fan of mentioning other games, so I'll do my best to disregard that exchange. With all this being said, Panamon seems a little butthurt if nothing else.

[mrfixij]

There's no sense in keeping secrets if you're town. Or at least, vanilla town, I don't want to have a N1 power role lynch. Regardless, i hope this game picks up soon, it's going rather slow right now.

[mrfixij]

Right now my initial gut says scum is Panamon and mastis, and while I'm just pulling straws out of thin air, if I'm right, that may be the fastest scumread by town team on the record.

[mrfixij]

That is the most backwards logic I've EVER seen mastin. EVER. Defending yourself does not increase suspicion on you, and you only gain suspicion from a GOOD attack. It's a character trait of scum to be noncommittal and try to look like he's on everyone's side. FACT. Right now, you're showing the quintessential anti-town behavior. We haven't even heard from everybody and you're making yourself look suspicious. Nobody even needs to pressure you, either you're a terrible town player or SCUM, and either way, I don't think we need you.

unvote

vote Mastin

[mrfixij]

Schez: I'd advise against giving too much PBP. Focus on who you think is scum, let the accused defend themselves. Personally, claiming someone as town makes you look suspicious for having too much info, and makes whoever you called town a higher profile target for scum.

Personally, I feel that if more people follow weathered's lead, I can defend myself fine. As far as my game behavior goes, I'll acknowledge if i believe someone's defense and leave it at that. I'm going straight for scum.

[mrfixij]

Mastin is now at L-2 if I counted correctly. BEFORE YOU VOTE, double check the count and make sure you have a good reason.

[mrfixij]

[quote=mastin]And the logic that we don't need even a terrible townie is perhaps the worst I've ever seen. If I'm scum, well, the mafia's chances of winning are halved. If, however, I am not mafia, then that would instantly take out two villagers, leaving only five. While odds still favor the village, I find that kind of logic to be the kind that is meant to get a quick lynch. While I will not vote for you, I am finding myself having quite a FoS for just that one line. Please do clear my suspicions by explaining your last sentence.[/quote]

I beg to differ. A bad player will casually scan over the thread, only looking for on-the-surface inconsistencies and fallacies. A good player will notice little things that appear inconsequential. If a bad player and a good player vote for two different people based on what they've seen, the bad player's logic is more visible and is more likely to draw votes from town/scum. This doesn't even play at all into instinct and tells that you can't explain.

Basically, a bad player won't get NK'd. Mafia wouldn't be stupid enough to do that. At the very worst, a bad player ends up being pro-scum because he can't get a solid read on scum and keeps wagoning town. At best, a bad player splits a wagon 50/50 between scum and town.

[mrfixij]

Basically, my line of preference is: lynching a good scum >>> lynching a bad scum > lynching a bad town >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>lynching a good town.

I'm obviously more inclined to lynching scum. That's how we win the game. But the difference between bad town and bad scum in how they play is marginal. I don't know if Mastin is scum or not, but I think that unless he shapes up his play and starts contributing, town is ahead either way if we lynch.

[mrfixij]

If Mastin is indeed town, the scum are not going to get rid of him if they can help it. In my past experiences, really bad players are dragged to endgame, and then the scum end up winning because the town never can decide whether to lynch the obviously anti-town player. He is obviously scummy. The question is: Is he scum or just bad town? That is what we as a town need to decide if we do lynch Mastin.

In my opinion, Mastin is just newbtown. His plan is really bad, and not telling us his really bad plan is even more suspicious. The problem with his plan is that it doesn't take in account bad accusations and good defenses, in addition to lurkers often being the subject to lynches in Mafia games. Lurking is just as scummy in some cases, than posting a lot. If posting a lot made you the subject of being voted, then playing Mafia simply wouldn't work.

I don't really know what to think about Mastin. Him not being available for most of the days is kind of worriesome, but if he doesn't post, he can always be replaced. I don't like how mrfixij doesn't care if we lynch Mastin regardless of his allignment. If he is town, that is beneficial for us, just the fact that we have another body on hand. Town will not be ahead if we mislynch. A mislynch, without lynching any scum, only puts us behind.

First things first, addressing concern against me. Not to say that I don't expect everyone's top-game here, but I think that a bad town player is more harm than good in a newbie game. It's a distraction from scumhunting, or a diversion from better tells. Not to say that a bad player can't get lucky and catch scum. The town needs to play as a unit, or a team. If I'm accusing someone, I want a defense. If someone is accusing me, I'll put up my own defense. It puts more information on the table and increases the chance of scum slipping up.

Not defending himself is anti-town behavior on mastin's part. He's holding back information that could be used for town's benefit. If he doesn't change his ways, then all signs will point to scum.

On a separate note, your first paragraph establishes your own experience and shows that bad town players will get dragged to end game while better players will get shot in the wayside. I don't contest that statement. However, the logical extension of that is that it's in scum's best interests to defend a bad town player and try to lynch a better one. In your next 2 paragraphs, you go on to defend mastin and state that you don't like my disregard for his well-being. That seems to go against your first paragraph.

FOS: Orange

[mrfixij]

He's either being sarcastic, saying he likes it because it shifts suspicion to me (which seems scummy by that interpretation) or saying... wow, I really can't figure out what exactly that could mean in a positive manner.

[mrfixij]

EBWOP: the sarcastic and shifting suspicion clauses are two different theories. I don't want that to be misinterpreted as unnecessarily hostile against Orange.

[mrfixij]

Yeah, after I posted that I realized how unnecessarily harsh that sounded, and tried to slightly rectify the situation with my EBWOP. How does me coming back with an OMGUS come off as something that you like? I don't even consider it an OMGUS from my perspective, because at that point in my thought process and post, I didn't even really consider you as scummy until I re-read your post, and threw on my last paragraph as an addendum because I felt like there was a contradiction in your very post.

[mrfixij]

@mrfixij, do you have any suspect beside Mastin?

I'm on a computer at my buddy's dorm right now, and I don't like typing on here. I'll get back to you later tonight when I get home with my suspects and reasons for them. Right now, we need more activity and info from everyone. I would like to encourage everyone to step into this topic more frequently in your excursions on the internet and just offer some input and catch up on reading.

[mrfixij]

Just a note, I will not be available for about 12 hours on Oct. 18. Depending on my state, I may take the entire day off mafiascum, I'm going to an engineering conference.

[mrfixij]

The moment you've all been waiting for apparantly: my current thoughts on players.

Vollkan: Definitely scum. He knows way too much.

Panamon: a little suspicious. This early in the game, before I have a feel for everyone, he's high on my scumlist. Considering how little evidence I have though, that means about as much as getting points on Whose Line is it Anyway?

Schez: Decent player. If he's scum, it's going to be hard to get a read on him.

WC: My gut says slightly scummy. Something about 41 feels off, although I'm sure you could call it OMGUS from his vote on me.

Mastin: Backwards logic. Bad starting strategy. I'm thinking newb town, although likely to be scum to. Consider him level with Pana on scumdar.

Spring: Solid player, glad to have as an IC. Not enough info to scumread one way or the other.

Moses: I like his play style. Something seems funny about him though. Between Schez and WC on scumdar.

Crysnia: I need more content. I cannot get a read yet.

Orange: Unsure, but I'm glad to have him as an IC.

[mrfixij]

Schehera: You're right around neutral on my scumdar. WC is a little bit on the scummy side of neutral.

Post 41 seems to be trying to defend Mastin without making it clear that he's being defended. It's a quintessential passive-aggressive behavior. Not to say that he's hands down scum, but I'm always more suspicious of a player who chooses to defend rather than fire suspicion, ESPECIALLY early in a game.

[mrfixij]

I just noticed, post 87 is rather scummy. I gave my opinion on everyone so far based on request. I gave a brief synopsis with relatively little info on each player, but enough for reference if I need to come back later in the game. However, Schehera wanted me to clarify where he and WC are on his scumdar. That screams scum to me, as if he's new to the game and wants to know how he and his scum-buddy are doing.

unvote: mastin
vote: scheherazade

Possible pairing between Schehera and WC for future reference. Policy lynching is one thing, lynching for such an elementary slip-up is another entirely.

[mrfixij]

I mentioned that he was between you two in suspicion. I see where you're coming from, but if you wanted to know about where he was rather than knowing something about where I have you two, you'd have asked explicitly where he stands. Right now Moses has a sort of presence in his posts, it's hard to explain explicitly. It's going to make me keep an eye out for him more, but also respect his opinion more, if that makes any sense.

I think what I'm trying to say is that Moses seems like a strong player right now. He's going to pick up on a lot of things that I think I may miss. I'm going to keep an extra eye on his posts to make sure that they're legit and not just passing blame, but I'm going to also take heed to his logic, because so far he seems authoritative. He's higher profile so to speak.

[mrfixij]

Also, I apologize in advance for any gender slipup I may have. I've been on the internet way too long, I just refer to every poster as he.

For the most part, that post was just initial impressions. If nothing else, later in the game I can look back at it to see what I was thinking and compare it to how it's playing at in the future. It's working rather well in a mafia game I'm playing on another forum.

Also, as careless and haphazard as it seems, I hadn't even put two and two together to realize that Schera was referring to my list with mose between her and WC. Out of context, 87 looked suspicious. Putting it back in context, it's perfectly fine. For the sheer sake of continuity, I'll leave my vote as it is. I tend to be very active anyways, and if a bandwagon takes off, I can and will pull my vote should I see insufficient evidence for the lynch.

[mrfixij]

Anyway, I think I understand what you're getting at with Moses. You don't see much scumminess so far, but you're afraid that he'd be good scum if he were...?

In not so many words, yes. I like to start my game fast and loose, and then slow down as the day goes on. Moses appears to be more methodological and deliberate. This does not make him a pro-town or anti-town player, but rather one who is impossible to get a solid read on.

[mrfixij]

If scum speed-hammered Panamon, they'd be ended before Halloween.

Also WC, your unless is obvious. If you're confident in Panamon being scum, then there's only one other scum. That means he couldn't get scumwagoned at L-2. Yes, L-2 is serious business, especially in W11. While I definitely understand the hesitation, if he is speed hammered, the L-1 and hammerman are going to get lynched unless they've got some good reasoning.

[mrfixij]

I have some suspicion about mrfixij. But that is colored by my experiences in other mafia games on other forums. He strikes me as the scum masquerading as the over helpful townie. So then regular old vanilla townies will say "Oh no, we can't vote to lynch mrfixij because he is sooo helpful."

I don't blame you. Looking at my own posts, I can see where my mistakes are, and why I would seem suspicious. Basically, I tend to be more active than most, so I'm usually the first to pick up on obvious fallacies and flaws. It makes me seem too towny to be town.

The only problem with that is that "too towny to be town" is a logical fallacy. The only way high activity is a detriment to town is if my gut read is bad, in which case I'll be leading town lynches and likely get lynched myself.

That reason alone is why I advocate fast and loose play early. It means it's more likely that scum will slip up, contradict themselves or make some kind of crucial error. When I emerge as a forerunner for town, I view a conservative vote before L-2 to be scummy behavior. I, personally, am not afraid to push my lead suspect to L-2 because I can always pull my vote if someone else votes without a good reason for it. I can understand a less active player's hesitation to push to that degree though.

[mrfixij]

I never said that high activity for the town was bad. Please don't be putting words in my mouth. I said that people who are too helpful become suspicious in my mind due to past experiences.

It's a correlation. I'm more active, therefore I am more helpful. Unless I were to post frequently with little content.

[mrfixij]

Shez, it puzzles me that you are agreeing with what I said so readily. My being an IC doesn't mean I'm automatically town. I could have ulterior motives.

The same goes to mrfixij.

It could be me being blind and having a non-functioning brain at 1:00 in the morning, but I fail to see where we agree with you. If anything, from what I've seen, you're agreeing with a previously expressed sentiment of mine.

Also, saying that you could have ulterior motives is the obvious statement of the century. As soon as a player grasps the basic element of mafia, (s)he is aware that scum is going to have ulterior motives. Since the town doesn't know who scum is, every player could have said ulterior motives. The real question is, do you or don't you?

If I didn't know better I'd say that you're almost trying to hint at your position this early in the game. That, or you're saying that the aforementioned agreement which I can't find anywhere is a slight scumtell in our direction, in which case you should be a little more upfront, don't you think? Or, as a third option, you're simply calling it a null-tell, which is useless for town to hunt down scum.

[mrfixij]

Sigh. After a long, long day, confirming that I am replacing Panamon. A little emotionally drained at the moment, so I may not get back to guys for a couple days, as I do have plans for tomorrow. Hoping to get an analysis of the game so far up by tonight if I can compose myself however.

Best of luck. Lets see what you've got. Don't come here all weepy now, we don't want to have to consider that a scumtell.

[mrfixij]

I say if he doesn't tell us what he meant in the next 48 hours we give him some "incentive" to.

[mrfixij]

This game's severe lack of content is frustrating me. I've played an entire mafia game in the time it's taken for us to get less than 150 posts here. We really don't have anything to work with, and that's ONLY HELPING SCUM. Usually lurking and a lack of content is a scumtell, well if that's the case, then everyone here is very scummy.

If indeed Mastin was referring to his desire to post less to avoid getting himself lynched, then he's engaging in pro-self and anti-town behavior, which is, by correlation, pro-scum behavior. The individual townie's goal is NOT to stay alive, unless you are a power role. The individual townie's goal is to lynch scum, end of story. Mastin, if you're afraid of defending yourself because you don't want to look scum, then you are not helping town. At all. So far, there's only a few posts with significant content, and most of them are focused on analyzing something with no real content, trying to find a diamond in a pile of horse ****.

So as it is, the only thing we have to work with is mastin's lack of activity and Panamon (questionmark)'s comment and accusation on another game. Obviously, the second can't be fairly addressed here, as it's simply metagaming, which is a null-read. I don't like Panamon's play, but I want to see something from Question before I commit to lynching him. However, even moreso than that, I want to see some activity.

unvote
vote: Mastin

Get your priorities straight. I have things I do outside of here too, I balance my life out. Watching anime is hardly a hobby that is required to fit into a time schedule. Get your butt on here every once in a while and give us something to work with. Defend yourself and we'll have content. Sit back and do nothing and you'll get lynched without helping town at all.

[mrfixij]

@WeatheredClown: I was responding to springlullaby's "An investigation should clear the matter."

If the town is calling for an investigation of an individual, it seems that the implication is that the cop should investigate and role-claim, revealing the fruits of his or her investigation. That's why I asked "why are you advocating an investigation already?" There's only one possible set-up that has both doctor and cop, so she can't claim that she just expected the one to protect the other. Sacrificing the cop to get one mafia player while the other is still out there doesn't seem like a wise town move.

Honestly, Mastin seems to be on almost everybody's list. As she said, we're not getting more out of him now. So why rush to investigate him?

Until we have more information from Mastin, it's going to be obvious if the cop investigates Mastin and tries to nudge us towards lynching him day two. I think it's far better to let the investigation wait. In the meantime, the cop can investigate other players and can hopefully argue for or against their lynches with certainty. Why would we want to lose that power for the sake of vindicating Mastin?

Does any of that make sense?

Two fallacies I see in there.

One, you're assuming we have a cop. By doing so, you're either claiming cop yourself, which is setting you up to get NK'd, or trying to draw him out/give him orders. It's never a good idea to tell the cop/doc who to target, they can figure it out for themselves. If we have a cop, he needs to keep his head down.

Secondly, we need a lynch day one. Otherwise that puts us behind scum. Right now one of our biggest suspects is mastin. Unless you're putting your own head on the chopping block for him, then he seems like a good candidate for a lynch. In the process, we could upturn a new scummy player or at least gather information from votes for later in the game. As it is, waiting for a cop to investigate Mastin is putting the cop's life on the line as well as redirection attention to someone else for the lynch, maybe even the cop if we have one.

We need more discussion. In lieu of discussion, more votes works. I'm not at all comfortable with Orange's lack of a vote, and mastin's non-voting indicates scummyness even moreso to me. Weatheredclown hasn't made a vote yet either, but is at least contributing to conversation. While that by no means excludes her from suspicion, it does alleviate it.

[mrfixij]

Investigation doesn't always refer to a cop. It can refer to just y'know, questioning and drawing responses. As it is though, my mind is basically made up for now. At the very least we can get some material from 'im.

[mrfixij]

Alright, I've gone back and re-read the thread and read a few more games to try to get another perspective.

First off: mastin. Don't think for a second I like your playstyle. You offer a lot of text with very little content. But I think you're more of a village idiot than a scum. I've seen bad players get good over the span of one game, and maybe you can be one. Shape up. For starters, I want to know your thoughts on Schehera and Panamon/mark. Also, do you have any other suspects right now?

Secondly: schehera. The more I look at this thread, the scummier you seem.

Town, I think we should hold off lynching Mastin, even if his posts have condemned him enough in your eyes, until after more players have posted.

It might be a red flag that he's encouraging us to lynch him, whatever his motive. And I think he's wrong when he states "you might regret hesitating": if we hastily lynch him as scum, we may lose some insight into who his partner may be.

Having written the above, his partner might lurk, but I think that any lurking is suspect anyway.

This is a nice sentiment, but you're really not offering town any incentive to NOT lynch mastin. I think that's what you were going for. If mastin is lynched, and turns up town, your protest is seen and helps your cred, keeping the pressure off you. If mastin isn't lynched, then there's a player that you've seen as weak and less of a threat who is still in play. Either way, if you're scum, you win.

Also, as I've stated, I don't like you referencing the cop in this game. I don't care if we have one or not, I don't want him to get any funny ideas and pop his head up in a way that scum (or you perhaps) can pick up on. We do not, and I repeat, DO NOT need to know who cop is if we have one. It is counter beneficial for cop's presence or name to be known.

Also, going back to the mastin issue again, in post 132, you try to extract material out of him that has already been extracted. It seems like you're not really paying attention to the game, or want him to remain suspicious. The less obvi-town players there are, the better chance scum has of surviving.

Regardless, I don't like your play at all.

Unvote mastin (again)
Vote: Scheherazade

Spring Lullaby: what exactly DID you mean by investigation? Also, do you have any other suspects besides schehera? And is there any good reason that you have yet to cast a vote?

Orange: where do you stand as far as scumdar goes? Any reason for the nonvoting?

Vollkan: is there any chance that when you votal, you can include a history? In another game I play, it's customary to include unvotes in the format (name). It makes it easier to run votals and easier to see history.

[mrfixij]

Alright, let's go through this piece by piece.

@mrfixij: You want to lynch me because I didn't say "don't lynch Mastin" when I said "let's not hastily lynch him?" The point wasn't "don't lynch Mastin" it was "don't lynch Mastin until you have some idea of who his scum-buddy might be.[/b]

As of now, I think you've got me wrong. I'm voting for you because I find your posts scummy. In post 57, you set up advice for Mastin's scumbuddy, under the assumption that mastin is scum. If he is indeed scum, by being so straightforward, you effectively cut off any more information we can find about the other scum. You say what you expect the other scum to do, which sets us in an WIFOM situation, which doesn't help us at all.

I think Mastin is a village idiot. He doesn't realize the implications that his "strategies" have on the game as a whole. The only thing that he's right about so far is that getting lynched as town is bad, but what's more important is lynching scum. As such, from the very start mastin gave up hope on his play. It's setting up a WIFOM situation, where we don't know if he's using reverse psychology, or if he's really that pessimistic about the situation. He's enough under the spotlight that I'd rather lynch someone else and wait for the night action to see what we can deduce from the NK.

You're asking me to provide incentive to take a course of action I wasn't advocating to begin with.

Alright, that was my bad. I read that post as "let's not lynch him today."

Again, I find myself at a loss as to how to be more explicitly clear to you, mrfixij. All the "cred" I would need if Mastin were lynched and found to be town is the fact that I didn't vote for him.

Along with 3 other people. Not to mention that it really doesn't mean a thing if you didn't vote for him. I've been in a game where I was the most pro-town player but was on every town lynch. I put WHERE you vote and your reasoning for voting or not voting at a higher priority than a vote itself.

You're repeating what I said when you talk about cops, mrfixij.

Again, I misread and I apologize. However, I still would prefer a non-mention of cop. If we have one, mentioning it could affect cop's play and give him/her away to scum.

came, mrfixij. The closest was this:

Well, you said it: I have little to lose. Looking at my planned strategies (all of them), I realize that not a single one of them was a good idea and all would make things worse. One of the main ones would've been role claiming, if allowed (since not all games allow it). Whatever the strategy, I'd use my character-limit-breaking rambles (I've reached character limits on four forums.) to try and see to it that I do not get lynched, since no matter my alignment, getting lynched = bad.

In short, his strategy might have been role-claiming, if that's allowed. If you find that an acceptable answer, fine. I don't. He wrote as if he had something in mind. I'd like to know what it was.

Apparantly you missed his entire section on not defending himself, and not drawing attention to himself. I don't like it either, but all signs point to lynchalicious or village idiot

I don't like this line, by the way:

Regardless, I don't like your play at all.

First, saying "none of my stated reasons matter, I just don't like you" is not a good attitude in mafia. At best, it's simply unproductive.

Second, you've made random accusations against me a couple times, now. If you simply don't like my play style, that's fine. But don't grasp at straws to try to turn your unease into a lynch.

It's in town's best interests for any suspicion to come to the surface. I'm trying to do that. At the very least we can get a better read that way on people because they'll respond. But all we've been doing all game is sitting with our thumbs up our butts saying "no u!" And frankly, I'm not a fan of your playstyle, but I don't have to be. If you're town, you can be as terrible of a player as you like, so long as you're helping in some way. If you're scum, I'm going to want to lynch you. Right now I'm getting a light scumread.

Third, you're establishing a curious pattern. When springlullaby votes or posts against me, you immediately jump and vote against me, too. Why is that?

It's in town's best interests for any suspicion to come to the surface. Is there something you'd like to share with the class?[/url]

[mrfixij]

I REALLY hate when I mess up quote tags >_>. My above post is fraught with bad HTTP.

[mrfixij]

Not really. I don't generally make accusations until I feel there's information to gain or a scum-lynch to be made. I asked you a question, though, the answer to which will probably influence how I read you for the rest of the game. Would you like to answer it?

I'd like to consider it circumstance, but more likely it's the power of suggestion. Someone else suspecting you is giving me reason to go back and look for suspicious text.

[mrfixij]

Is anybody else bothered by how much fixij has buddied up with springlullaby? Their little gangbang against Scheherazade is troublesome.

Schez seems to share your opinion.

[mrfixij]

Alright, let's go through this piece by piece.
*snip* I don't like it either, but all signs point to lynchalicious or village idiot

Ok.. either your very confused, or you are maliciously trying to confuse the situation..
to quote the original post:

This Newbie game is "semi-open" and will be using the F11 set-up.

That means no village idiot in this game, no matter what the setup is.

Follow the link next time. I don't mean VI the role, I mean VI the personality type.

[mrfixij]

I'm getting a bit more of a scum vibe from Orangepenguin than I did earlier in the game.. and mastin had scum written all over him from the beginning..
And they haven't voted.. perhaps keeping their options open to drop a hammer?

Of course that'd be rediciously obvious, so I suppose it's unlikely (occham's razor and what-not)...

Anyway.. can't bust somebody for not voting without casting a vote myself..

vote: mastin

although mrfixitj (who I had put my very first vote on) is still on my shady-list. (saved by the fact that he is a prodigious poster which is a very ballsy move when you're scum)

Reading back through Mastin's post, if we assume him to be a poor mafia player, then he checks out for the most part. Not to let him off the hook, but my gut right now says that he's not scum.

Also, what reads scummy about Orange? The only possible reads on him are relative inactivity and low contribution for being an IC, both of which are basically metagame.

So Orange, what is your opinion on the transfer between myself and Schehera?

[mrfixij]

@Orange, I'd still like your opinion on the exchange between Schehera and I. Often times the best way to get a valid response or information is by commenting on an accusation/defense.

[mrfixij]

Also Mastin, I'd prefer you taking a slightly more aggressive approach. I made this mistake too, but posting a long list of opinions on a slew of players only serves to make it seem like you're posting content without actually contributing. I understand that you may not have a solid read on anybody yet, but if

anything

in a post look scummy, call it out. It's the only way that town is going to get anywhere right now.

[mrfixij]

For instance, assume I vote myself and unvote myself, then vote for vollkan. Then orange votes for me. on the votal transaction it would read.

Mrfixij 1 (mrfixij), orange
Vollkan 1 mrfixij

[mrfixij]

Perhaps you're right. I'll abandon the thought.

[mrfixij]

@mrjixij: I appreciate that you don't like to clutter the game with pointless asides, but I do feel that you owe me a bit more from that last post.

What, about me and SL? My apologies for not being able to do anything beyond speculate as to my subconscious, I haven't quite reached that level of transcendence yet. As it is, any connection between spring and myself is rather unintentional and coincidental. As I said, it could just be the power of suggestion.

=======================================

Page 8 Votecount

WeatheredClown: (0/5)
Crysnia: (0/5)
mrfixij: (0/5)
Mastin: (2/5) QuestionMark, WeatheredClown
Moses le fou: (0/5)
Scheherazade: (2/5) springlullaby, mrfixij,
QuestionMark: (3/5) Scheherazade, Crysnia, Moses le fou,
springlullaby: (0/5)
orangepenguin: (0/5)

Not Voting: (2/9) Mastin, orangepenguin,

With 9 alive, it's 5 to lynch!
=======================================

[mrfixij]

Goddamn I hate responding to quote trees.

@mrfixij:
Not so. I said:

Having written the above, his partner might lurk, but I think that any lurking is suspect anyway.

I anticipated that a mafia player might take a "look for Mastin's scum-buddy" as incentive not to post, and pointed out that not posting is itself suspicious to prevent "OMG you warned his partner!" accusation posts.

So instead of keeping it to yourself, you made it easier for the 2nd scum to play the WIFOM game with us? Because we've put scummy behavior on the spotlight BEFORE it happens, we're left to guess if behavior that happens after that spotlight is turned on is scummy or towny.

Along with 3 other people.

I dunno what that refers to.

If mastin gets lynched, 3 other people (including himself) will not have voted for him. Nearly half of the game will have the credibility of not voting for him. That means that 3 surviving people should be automatically less scummy? That we should automatically assume that both scum were on the wagon to lynch town?

Not to mention that it really doesn't mean a thing if you didn't vote for him. I've been in a game where I was the most pro-town player but was on every town lynch. I put WHERE you vote and your reasoning for voting or not voting at a higher priority than a vote itself.

My point was this:

You accuse me of trying to establish credibility by "defending Mastin." It's a moot point, because I wasn't, but my response was to point to the fact that I hadn't voted for him. If I were trying to establish day two credibility as scum, I had a better way of doing it, no?

See my point above.

Nope. But he made it clear that his policy of not defending himself wasn't the new strategy he had planned.

Would you care to quote that for me? I missed that.

[mrfixij]

Interesting. I'm suspicious of mastin again and want him to stop clamming up.

[mrfixij]

I've been prodded but I really don't have much to say. I've been waiting on Questionmark to defend himself/herself. My vote hasn't changed. Nor have my suspicions about mr.fixij.

Perhaps then you could elaborate on those suspicions. Being suspicious by the gut is one thing. Being suspicious for a reason is another. Lots of scum lynches happen day 1 because scum slips up, and that happens with pressure and evidence. So for myself or anyone, give some pressure or a backing to your suspicion.

[mrfixij]

So basically what you're saying right now is that you're playing by gut then? Without being able to quote specific examples for your suspicions and giving more vague overtones you appear rather scummy. Town plays by closely following posts and trying to find inconsistancies. Scum plays as a "GOING WITH MY GUT" town and bases everything off a "hunch".

I understand where you're coming from, but there's a few things you have to realize. The first is that you're using the too towny to be town logic, which is 95% percent of the time a logical fallacy. The second is that by not contributing and by condemning helpfulness, you are in fact playing anti-town. Thirdly, if I was trying to lead town, I wouldn't be accused of following springlullaby's lead.

I'm not going to place a vote on you for now, because this anti-town behavior could be contributed to newbiness and by voting for you, I would ultimately be committing an OMGUS vote. However, consider this a

STRONG HOS: Crysnia

. If you're town, start playing pro-town or face the possibility of a lynch.

[mrfixij]

If you want to accuse me, be specific. I can defend against ad hominems all day and it will get both of us nowhere and town nowhere as well. If you think I'm scum, then give the rest of us something specific to work with. Calling me too helpful is an over-generalization, taking every post I have and applying a single adjective to them all. It's a fallacy.

You say right now you're waiting for QM to post, because you think Panamon was scummy. Well, I haven't seen anything cited to make him look scummy, aside from the very metagame opener. I wouldn't see that as vote hopping if you switched your vote to QM based on 70% gut and 30% cited fact. If you said it's because Panamon was scummy, and left it at that, you're committing a fallacy again. You're using instinct in place of logic and creating a circular argument, he's scummy because he's scummy.

This is a newbie game, we're all going to make newbie mistakes. I already have. The point is to pick up on those and correct them when possible. Even if you're not targeting me, we need some more action around here. Get nitpicky and call people out on small things. Turn something small into something big, so that we'll get some more material out there.

You call my tactics threats and manipulations. I call them ways to open up the game and get some REAL content on the table.

[mrfixij]

I'm trying to just nip problems in the bud is all. I know what I see, but when people say they're suspicious of someone without something to back it up, that triggers a little alarm on me. Both you and orange are suspicious of panamon/QM. Both of you have been posting relatively infrequently (although you've done a good job after that prod) and have been posting rather little information with either unbacked suspicion or no content at all.

As it is, I'd like to address one thing with you. In your third post, you mention our intent to lynch Mastin. You keep your vote on Panamon, and explain why. However, there's a section afterwards that strikes me as odd.

So here is what I suggest. If you guys lynch Mastin and he ends up mafia, then start zeroing in on those that didn't vote for him in hopes of catching the other mafia. But if he ends up innocent, I believe that those three people that quickly voted for him need to be fast tracked to the top of the possible mafia list.

If we were to lynch him and he turns up scum, you would be one of those that we would be suspecting by your own accord. That seems rather... counterproductive, but serving town well enough, since as I've said before, town's first priority is to lynch scum, and a distant second priority is to stay alive.

However, what if we lynch him and he turns up town? Your statement implies that we should look to the people who did vote for him as scum. This creates a WIFOM game, where if we assume you to be scum, then you would be able to confuse us so. I think I understand what you meant when you said the above quote, but I'd still like a clarification or your thoughts.

Also, Mastin, I'd like you to post the strategy that you still insist on withholding.

Also, Moses, Orange, and WC, I'd like to see some more content or an opinion from you all. Maybe something from Spring, since she's been quiet recently too.

[mrfixij]

damnit-

Unvote, Vote: Mrfixjj

First issue:

Let's get this party started.

Vote: Orangepenguin

For having an overly conspicuous avatar and being an IC.

FOS: Mastin. Be open. Don't go out and say you're going to try something unusual, it just makes you look like complete scum.

Be open? Really?? As far as i can see, he WAS Open. Having not read past the first page i'm not sure whether Mastin is going with this, but you can hardly accuse him of not being open enough. And i dont see how him acknowledging that he's going to be playing a bit differently would make him look scummy.

First off, by being open, I meant elaborating if you're going to bring that up. I don't have a meta read on anyone here, so I don't know what to expect as far as play goes. I'm going to assume that nobody had a previous meta on Mastin. So by saying that he's trying a new strategy, he's pre-emptively excusing poor play on his part, which is in itself, poor play. The one time that I was scum in AIM mafia, the IC I had teaching me said that changing your play style is a serious scumtell. A town player should be consistant, with a slowly evolving playstyle.

Second Issue:

FOS without a vote is kinda scummy pana. I don't think 5 votes are going to spring up out of nowhere to mislynch, and an FOS when you've got no active vote means about as much as punching a stone wall: it hurts you more than him.

You can always unvote, just pay attention to the thread.

Wtf? You just FoS'd him yourself!!
There's always been a debate over FoS's being potential scumtells-personally i'll use them as much as the next guy, and they are good for pointing out secondary suspects. But really, you cant construe them as scummy when you've done the same thing to the same guy. And i really get the impression you are keen to paint someone with the 'Scum' brush as early as possible here.

Will keep reading.

BM[/quote]

You're taking my FOS out of context. Your predecessor FOS'd without a vote. I voted randomly, and left a FOS. In retrospect, I think a vote on Mastin would have been more prudent. But basing a first vote on a slip-up that is more than likely a newbie mistake would be counter-productive and let me explain why.

The ultimate purpose of a random vote is to spark discussion. At the start of a game, the most information that a player has is the meta read they have on a player they've played with prior. If they're not following that read, it can be slightly scummy. However, more discussion is sparked with the pressure of a vote, even if it is random. I knew that Mastin was already on the hot-spot due to a terrible confirming statement, and that a FOS would be sufficient to get him talking. Meanwhile, I placed my vote elsewhere, hoping that it would promote discussion from orange, who being an IC is a good person to have talking.

I ripped on your predecessor because he placed an FOS, but no vote anywhere. The vote means something. I can point fingers at anyone, but without a vote backing, there is no pressure to talk aside from sheer goodwill. In fact, you will see as you read on that I have already pointed fingers rampantly in a desperate attempt to get the game to open up, as we've had 6 pages of little discussion besides "lol panamon didn't vote" and "lol mastin looks scummy". The game should have moved beyond that stage, and I took the initiative to try to do so.

[mrfixij]

EBWOP: I ALWAYS mess up a quote somewhere. I need to start previewing my posts.

damnit-

Unvote, Vote: Mrfixjj

First issue:

Let's get this party started.

Vote: Orangepenguin

For having an overly conspicuous avatar and being an IC.

FOS: Mastin. Be open. Don't go out and say you're going to try something unusual, it just makes you look like complete scum.

Be open? Really?? As far as i can see, he WAS Open. Having not read past the first page i'm not sure whether Mastin is going with this, but you can hardly accuse him of not being open enough. And i dont see how him acknowledging that he's going to be playing a bit differently would make him look scummy.

First off, by being open, I meant elaborating if you're going to bring that up. I don't have a meta read on anyone here, so I don't know what to expect as far as play goes. I'm going to assume that nobody had a previous meta on Mastin. So by saying that he's trying a new strategy, he's pre-emptively excusing poor play on his part, which is in itself, poor play. The one time that I was scum in AIM mafia, the IC I had teaching me said that changing your play style is a serious scumtell. A town player should be consistant, with a slowly evolving playstyle.

Second Issue:

FOS without a vote is kinda scummy pana. I don't think 5 votes are going to spring up out of nowhere to mislynch, and an FOS when you've got no active vote means about as much as punching a stone wall: it hurts you more than him.

You can always unvote, just pay attention to the thread.

Wtf? You just FoS'd him yourself!!
There's always been a debate over FoS's being potential scumtells-personally i'll use them as much as the next guy, and they are good for pointing out secondary suspects. But really, you cant construe them as scummy when you've done the same thing to the same guy. And i really get the impression you are keen to paint someone with the 'Scum' brush as early as possible here.

Will keep reading.

BM

You're taking my FOS out of context. Your predecessor FOS'd without a vote. I voted randomly, and left a FOS. In retrospect, I think a vote on Mastin would have been more prudent. But basing a first vote on a slip-up that is more than likely a newbie mistake would be counter-productive and let me explain why.

The ultimate purpose of a random vote is to spark discussion. At the start of a game, the most information that a player has is the meta read they have on a player they've played with prior. If they're not following that read, it can be slightly scummy. However, more discussion is sparked with the pressure of a vote, even if it is random. I knew that Mastin was already on the hot-spot due to a terrible confirming statement, and that a FOS would be sufficient to get him talking. Meanwhile, I placed my vote elsewhere, hoping that it would promote discussion from orange, who being an IC is a good person to have talking.

I ripped on your predecessor because he placed an FOS, but no vote anywhere. The vote means something. I can point fingers at anyone, but without a vote backing, there is no pressure to talk aside from sheer goodwill. In fact, you will see as you read on that I have already pointed fingers rampantly in a desperate attempt to get the game to open up, as we've had 6 pages of little discussion besides "lol panamon didn't vote" and "lol mastin looks scummy". The game should have moved beyond that stage, and I took the initiative to try to do so.

[mrfixij]

I'm satisfied for now BM. And yes, that olive part was an inconsistancy, I've been getting about 4 hours of sleep a night this past week due to an overload in university work. I'll keep my eye on everyone for now, but I think that you can see why in the past page or two I've been increasingly hostile and nitpicky, since there was minimal material in the first hundred fifty posts. I want to blow this game open.

[mrfixij]

Heheh yeah you did in your first post on this page

Exactly what DID that clear up? As best as I could tell, he was pointing suspicion on me. If that's your idea of clearing suspicion then I'm forced to be skeptical of your alignment.

[mrfixij]

@BattleMage: I was voting for you because of the FOS without voting issue. I was waiting for an explanation from Panamon then QuestionMark and now you for it. You gave a very good explanation and you even showed that mrfixij, who also FOS people without voting for them even though he leveled that accusation at Panamon.

My god you are dense. A FOS on top of a vote is redundant and does nothing. My issue was that Panamon refused to vote in the random voting stage and instead issued a FOS. I explained myself earlier in response to BM. Using an FOS is a way to bring to light and apply moderate pressure to a secondary scummy action, when you have your vote somewhere else and feel it necessary to show that you note something scummy. Panamon's FOS was before he had a vote cast. My FOS was thrown at the same time as an unrelated vote.

Do you understand now?

[mrfixij]

Can you ever be anything other than accusing and insulting? Seriously, I don't think it is in your nature to be anything other than that.

What is becoming obvious to me as I read over the thread is that you and Spring seem to be acting in cahoots. Spring always seems to pop up and throw suspicion elsewhere once someone throws it on you. I am not the only noticing the two of you acting together.

Fallacy. It's a common scum tactic to latch onto town and follow their actions or try to defend them to create a false pairing. I can't control what SL does. The only thing that links me to SL is the coincidence that I accused Schehera after SL did. I will defend myself more in depth if I need to later tonight, but the accusation you're posing incriminates SpringLightening, not me.

[mrfixij]

@mrfixij: That's not a nice tone. And Crysnia's only got a logical flaw in that statement if you could prove that you weren't reciprocating springlullaby's aid. You mention "It's a common scum tactic to latch onto town and follow their actions or try to defend them to create a false pairing." While springlullaby is doing the second, defending you, you're doing the first, following her actions. It doesn't mean that one or both of you are scum, but saying "Fallacy" isn't helping the town understand that.

I've been getting increasingly worked up lately because I feel that I've already answered questions that are coming my way. But as it is, I'm going to take a step back and turn the floor over to the rest of you for a moment, mostly because I will be busy for a good portion of tomorrow. If you have a specific grievance that you'd like to call me out on (It would be more effective if you include a quote), I will attempt to respond to that.

As it is, I find the level of suspicion on me acceptable, but I also resent it. I've been accused of "hopping" by moses (post 194) while my vote has rested in three places, first on Orange for a random vote, secondly on mastin for pressure, and thirdly and presently on scheherazade, whom I now find

relatively

clear but I don't have a better target for my vote

yet.

If three votes, each with a proper backing, is vote hopping, then go ahead, call me guilty. Otherwise, moses and anyone else who is following that particular accusation is looking at the quantity of my posts and not the quality or vote record which I bear.

Yes, I do throw suspicion wildly and loosely. Were it not for that, and BM's recent substitution into the game to deliver additional content, we'd still be in the same situation we were 100 posts ago. If you have issue with the content of my posts, bring it up. If you have issue with my attitude and etiquette or lack thereof, that bears no relevance to the game and catching scum.

New topic

From a strictly metagame persective, I saw earlier today SpringLullaby on the board, but have not seen post from her. From a metagame perspective, this is scummy, but is ultimately insubstantial. Regardless, it may be something to consider and throw into your notes for the long term.

In summary, lets keep up the scum hunt. If you think I'm scum or using bad logic, throw it out there. If you're here to make ad hominem attacks on my character, feel free to throw it out there, but I will call you on it.

[mrfixij]

Schehera: I'm going to get a fresh night's sleep. If I can get the time before I leave for a job orientation, then I'll address each point individually then. If not, look for a reply shortly after 2:00PM EST tomorrow.

[mrfixij]

Alright, So I'm back. I'm going to break down some of these posts and little, and with a little bit of luck, I may be able to get my point across without offending anyone.

Posts 94-99 on list:

Things to note: my accusation was a STRONG fallacy. At the time, I didn't notice it. After you pointed it out, I based my head against the wall and retracted my suspicion.

Also notable: my accusation used completely different logic than Spring's. Again, my logic was flawed, but it followed the typical progression of votes (each progressive vote packing on more of a case, votes cast without evidence are scummy).

Posts 117 - 121: the first Crysania exchange:

Crysania said she was suspicious of me because I'm too helpful. As stated here, this is a fallacy. I not only addressed her concern, I pointed out the fallacy. I stated that I may in fact be considered more helpful simply because I'm more active. Also, what I did not address is the fact that she said it was from past experience, which could be 7for7 fallacy or gambler's logic. Not something that I consider viable reasoning.

Posts 122 - 141: the second entry of SL.

SL refers back to posts 93 and 94 and her arguments therein, accusing both you and I of following her blindly. The first response she interjects in post 94 is an appeal to her own experience, using the argument that the only time she's been inclined to "toe the line" (referring to the rules of the game) were when she was scum. In my opinion, this is the only section of her post which is original, and disagreeable. The rest is simply logical extension brought to light, and restatement of what others have said. Outside of that first response, her attack was justified. To accuse us of blindly agreeing is perplexing, but seems more like a metagame IC response or a game of WIFOM. As such, I believe this exchange to be a poor decision on SL's part, and either acting as an IC or downplaying her original post. Either way, the exchange is only relevant as an example of inconsistency.



Posts 144 - 152: investigation.

This entire exchange was brought about by two different definitions of the word investigation. I had assumed investigation to be the same thing as interrogation, you assumed it to be related to a cop's NA. Once I understood that, I backed off.

153 - 154:

I was being genuine. I also didn't think that the rest of your post needed addressing, as it was dead-end defense. I bought it well enough, although I did later ask for clarification regarding the mastin ordeal.

156 - 157: Moses

Moses chimes in right after our exchange, mentioning how he thought SL and I were buddying up. He did so right after you'd mentioned it, and I got the impression that he was trying to be original, so I sarcastically replied that you'd just pointed that out. It's hardly a non-response, it's making it obvious that it's not a new and exciting suggestion.

165/168:

Needs no interpretation, I wanted to get orange to contribute a little more is all. He stays clear of the conflict.

174-179: Mastin again.

As I stated before, I assumed your defense prior was a dead end and dropped it. I didn't realize you wanted a response. To answer your question: I think that both actions and words need to be accounted for. A vote record out of context is a really bad way to spot scum.

182, 183, 187-192: Crysnia again

Yes, I was harsh. No, I can't justify that. I do, however, stand 100% behind every accusation I made. Crys failed to provide any reason for suspicion on panamon/QM/BM, Crys was suspicious of me because I was "too helpful". She was playing by gut, whether she uses the term or not.

194: Moses from the woodwork.

Apparantly moses didn't remember post 123, where I did land some (albeit light) suspicion/accusation on Spring. I've already addressed his accusation of me hopping as being incorrect in post 217, but this bears no relevancy on 194 except retrospectively.

195-196: Spring and Crys

Note what I said about scum latching on to town to create a false pairing. Also note that this can be considered a tell known as Tarhalindur's Chainsaw Defense (viewable here) I am also confused as to why Crys bases her vote on Panamon on a tell that was revealed by me, and then continues to place suspicion on me for being too helpful.

210 -213: Crysania revisited

210: Not offensive in the slightest. Pointing out a logical flaw in clearing guilt based on putting suspicion on me. Ridiculous.

211: BM repeats my statement, asking for clarification.

212: Crysania accuses me of threatening her, which I find a fine line between threatening and apply suspicion. Accuses me and justifies unvote based on an accusation which I've already addressed regarding voting and FOS.

213: I become markedly offensive based on the fact that Crysania fails for all intents and purposes to RTFT. I dislike repeating myself, and find it frustrating when I need to restate something that I explained not fifteen posts above.

215: I state reasons why it's irrational to assume that SL and I are linked. Allow me to restate them in bullet form.

-It is a common scum tactic to latch onto town for a false pairing
-Our "pairing" is going both ways, SL votes for Crys based on my initiative.
-Tarhalindur's chainsaw defense
-I cannot control SL's actions, SL can't control mine.

I feel it necessary to note that despite me pointing out evidence that makes SL look scummy, MY read is that she is still more pro-town than pro-scum, at least at the moment. I do however, acknowledge a relatively equal amount of scummyness between herself and me due to the fabricated pairing between us.

I think I've addressed everything adequately and without insulting anyone. I have no further accusations to level at this time. However, were I to place a vote at this time, I'm certain that someone would not read this post and instead assume a greater link between myself and SL. So at the time, I respectfully abstain from voting.

unvote: Scheherazade

[mrfixij]

One thing that I meant to add in jest and left out. Should we make it to day 3 and I not be among us, please remember Stoofer's 5th law .

[mrfixij]

Schehera was the first to assume it, followed immediately by moses.

[mrfixij]

I don't like the high content of fluff coming from BM recently, as if he's trying to make the game more light hearted and get on our good sides. Also, I want more suspicion on Crys. I'll go back and see what I can't dig up, but we really need to start getting some pressure on

somebody

[mrfixij]

I don't like the high content of fluff coming from BM recently, as if he's trying to make the game more light hearted and get on our good sides. Also, I want more suspicion on Crys. I'll go back and see what I can't dig up, but we really need to start getting some pressure on

somebody

Really? Or are you just annoyed about the attention on you and SL atm?

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on Moses's recent explanations for his vote.

BM

Given that the public eye has shifted from me, were I scum I'd have shut my trap instead of posting right after work. I genuinely find a lack of substance in your recent posts, and a lack of any premise of suspicion at the moment.

I will excuse the second half as I just recently replaced into a game and I'm still getting my bearings, but I really don't understand what you're trying to contribute at the moment. Most of what you've been doing in your past few posts is commenting on a recent post and derailing it. Especially with Moses' most recent post, you're commenting on his style and questioning as opposed to answering his suspicions.

Notable is:

So your point is that, upon realising he didnt have a real case on Schez, Panamon moved to his secondary target? This is not scummy.

Panamon was free to use his logic from another game as his own logic without voicing it. If he genuinely thought schez to be scum, then it would have been passable, as that was during the random vote phase.

I've defended myself against accusations of a pairing between Springlullaby and myself. If you want to go back down that road, be my guest, but only if you can successfully run that line of questioning and answer questions posed at you simultaneously.

[mrfixij]

Also, to address the second point, it's well known my stance on policy lynching. I'll do it readily in the absence of an obviously scummy player, but in the time it takes for said wagon to build up steam, WILL actively hunt for a better lynch on the same day. For evidence, look at my suspicion then dropped suspicion on Mastin.

[mrfixij]

Moses le fou, you do realise that the person who committed the infraction was Schez, not Panamon, right?

Panamon initiated the exchange, Schez then quoted from the other game to defend against panamon's out-of-game reference.

[mrfixij]

I don't have a solid read on Panamon's actions. I didn't like his early-game play, and I believe I explicitly stated that. He dropped off the map for a while when QM replaced in and then BM afterwards, and his character finally was able to reveal some things. As it is, I place him on roughly the same level as Mastin, where Panamon's actions (independant of BM) place him as either very newbish or scum.

[mrfixij]

Interesting, first vote all day from you, OP.

Please give you thoughts on every and each player in this game please, I think you are due.

I don't want his thoughts on every player. Focus on who you think is scum and that's it. Anyone on the scum side of your spectrum, we don't want to give scum an idea of who is even more obvious pro-town.

[mrfixij]

Judging by the other games I've played with orange, he's fitting his meta perfectly right now. 1-2 pages of posts for 10+ pages of discussion, generally 1 liners and minor contributions unless the discussion shifts directly to him. He basically plays every game like a cop.

Anyways, I'm sure you're all surprised but I'm generally out of material for now. I will come back tonight after I'm done fencing and review the thread in its entirety, update my notes, and see what I can pick up.

[mrfixij]

Foil. I'm preparing for an ironman tournament tomorrow. 15 points in the preliminaries, once we're seeded 30. One minute breaks between matches. Two strips running at once because we're poor.

[mrfixij]

Upon review of the earlier third of the thread, I definitely don't like OrangePenguin. I also want input from Mastin, if he should ever decide to return (

That could be read as requesting a prod of mastin

). I think it was obvious that Mastin was scummy as all hell early game. Orange says not only that it's in scum's best interests to keep bad players alive till late game (read: mastin), but then goes on to defend mastin to prevent his lynch, in an obvious attempt to keep him around TO LATE GAME. He also stated in his next post that there are better candidates for scum, but fails to list them, or to even cast a vote at that time to indicate WHO those better candidates are.

The previously mentioned exchange can be found on page 3.

I'm not leaving Crys off the hook, nor BM, but after re-reading the thread, this snip-it caught my eye and I want it addressed.

My vote stands on Crysania for continuity's sake, but I'd like some more contribution and a solid explanation from Orange. I will switch my vote if he can't deliver.

[mrfixij]

EBWOP: Oh, I guess my vote wasn't anywhere. In which case,

Vote: Orangepenguin

[mrfixij]

BM bothers me. I've been getting the vibe that he's trying to get friendly with everyone, which I understand is his personality, but it seems more conducive to keeping himself alive than lynching scum. As of now though, that's entirely a gut read and not something I'm willing to lynch for.

[mrfixij]

One thing though:

To sum things up, BM has:
-Used Bad Logic, such as:

You claim as part of the case against me that putting someone at L-2 is scummy, and yet you put me at L-2, SOLELY BECAUSE OF THIS.

Not solely because of it, but also because Panamon's rule breaking too.

Which you acknowledged, as did i, was a null-tell.

Well evidently in Moses' eyes it is a scumtell, thus to him he wasn't doing that solely because your predecessor put someone at L-2.

In other words it may be a null-tell to us but it's a scum-tell to Moses, thus he was not doing it solely because of Panamon putting Mastin at L-2.

WIFOM game. You cannot make a logical inference as to Moses' alignment based on your interpretation of his interpretation.

I am becoming increasingly confident that between BM and Ald, one is scum. I'm very disappointed with OP's lack of content, but even moreso, the moses - BM - Ald exchange of the last few pages is incredibly weak. One thing that I noticed was that Ald started on Crysania, and I feel could have gone further, but cut that train of thought short to pursue a weak case against BM that was quickly cut short. BM's praise of that seems like an appeal to some hybrid of authority and emotion.

One thing I would like to see from you Ald, is a bit more dedication to a case. You seem to be particularly shallow with your vote so far.

As for moses, I'm pretty confident in him right now. Most of what I saw from BM against Mose was twisting of intentions and out of context strawmanning, especially in so far as BM's quote about Moses not believing his own case. I'm of the opinion that a good scum can appear just as confident in a case as a cop with a guilty can.

BM, I'm still noticing the same vibe from you. I think 328 was a WEAK defense, and that Ald was foolish for pulling the vote on you. It doesn't do it for me.

The WIFOM game you're trying to play with us and to a lesser extent, scherherazade's last point against you are enough for me to do this.

unvote
vote: Battle Mage

With aldus' unvote, that still leaves you at 3 votes, or L-2.

I would like explanation of posts 328 and 331 please.

[mrfixij]

BM's defense was one of the weakest I've ever seen, and your case was rather weak. It felt like a large charade, where we're having all these cases flying and people looking for the smallest thing. He quotes four things, two of which are related to game theory and rulebreaking, which I think schehera addressed pretty well. The first is such absurd WIFOM that I don't know WHAT to make of it. And the last quote was just... a summary I guess. Both sides of the arguement were hopelessly weak and reek of a setup.

[mrfixij]

That said, it takes a very good player to be able to acknowledge so readily when they are wrong. Serious kudos to you.

It's only fair that you should know that buddying up to me won't work.

I hope more people post soon.

As much as I'm not a huge fan of either of you, it should be noted that I've pointed out this behavior in him prior.

I'm really not a fan of BM even more though, and this buddying just grinds my gears.

[mrfixij]

My vote changed in 336. I initially voted for orange because he wasn't fitting the meta I have on him.

[mrfixij]

He's still at L-2. Ald unvoted.

[mrfixij]

I am becoming increasingly confident that between BM and Ald, one is scum.

Does that mean if one of us is scum, the other isn't? Just wondering.

No, it means that that exchange was pretty damn scummy. I don't like just how weak your case/vote was. Although I am also guilty of this, since my vote is mostly based around a WIFOM of alignments that creates a false catch 22 for moses.

As it is, to also respond to BM's question to me, I'd prefer a bit more of a case behind a vote. Again, I know I'm not following this, especially not in my prior voting this game, but it got discussion going, or at least so I hope. As it is, although Ald stated that L-2 is a healthy amount of pressure, I'm not liking the fact that he puts said pressure on BM weakly and then removes it at the drop of a hat. That's what that quote is about. As it is, BM and Ald are my top 2 scumspects.

Does anybody feel like we're being hasty with our day 1 vote?
I am personally feeling chatted out after 15 pages of day 1 so it doesn't feel like a "speedy decision".. but I'm curious on everybody else's read.

I am also feeling chatted out, but that's just because I've stopped seeing red today and have cooled down a bit. I still want a strong lynch case.

[mrfixij]

Just read through Weathered Clown's posts in isolation. Quite amusing really. The only negative comment he makes about either of my precursors is that "Panamon seems a bit shady" on page 1. He fails to elaborate any more, merely choosing to repeat that Panamon is his top suspect, and anyone replacing him will have a tough job on their hands.

Perhaps you might like to elaborate on why you are voting for me, or why you were suspicious of Panamon, because so far you've been remarkably quiet on this, for someone who casts an L-1 vote.

BM

I also noticed WC's sudden jump in activity. Still not very helpful. It's almost like a 50 words per post restriction, in a non-restriction game.

[mrfixij]

My vote changed in 336. I initially voted for orange because he wasn't fitting the meta I have on him.

Just curious, but what is your meta of me?

It's hardly productive or legal of me to actively discuss a meta I've drawn on you from active games.

[mrfixij]

My only hesistation about you orange, and part of the reason for my initial post is because if you drew scum, that means you're effectively getting a free ride for a day or two based solely on average behavior. That's a little scary to me.

[mrfixij]

Cancer isn't mafia, it's just scum.

[mrfixij]

(oh yeah...cue the OMG SHE IS SUSPICIOUS OF SOMEONE HELPFUL accusations...btw, it's only helpful if you actually lynch a scum from it. If you don't then it's just

bad town

)

Care to elaborate a touch?

But honestly, until we come to consensus for day 1 we really won't have much to go on

Something about this phrase is putting the "u" in scum.

[mrfixij]

Personally, I'm thinking that you're associating wrong townie with bad townie. A mislynch can make a game easier to win for town than a correct lynch. My benchmark game for how a correct D1 lynch isn't always good for town is Newbie 663. Read it for yourself, it's a fantastic scum win.

Regardless, I think that having a defeatist attitude over D1 is just as anti-town as voting for a D1 no-lynch. I also don't like how much you've been hanging back. I'm still buying into the current discussion, but IGMEOY, even if you're not posting.

[mrfixij]

And personally I disagree with your first statement. I feel that the correct lynch is always better than a mislynch. But I do believe that the mislynch should result in the lynching of the person who pushed the hardest to lynch someone innocent. But that would be logical. I do find it odd that you would refer me to a game in which the scum win.

The scum won because there was a perfectly played bus. Day 1, WOU was lynched with overwhelming support and he flipped scum. Aside from one player who remained suspicious, the other scum got basically a free ride to lylo because everyone was too busy looking at the vote record and pushing the pusher.

I'm telling you to read the game because it tells you that a scumlynch isn't always the best thing for town because it may setup for the remaining scum to make it through the day. If in the same game, WOU flipped town, then undoubtedly the scum player who survived would have been lynched.

[mrfixij]

Oh yeah, as for the hanging back. It's because EVERY TIME I say anything you try like hell to pin me as scum with no evidence. I'm happy with my vote right now for Orange because of his own admissions.

Push back. I'm going to take a moment to step out of character and say that it doesn't help town or make yourself look better (if you're scum) to back down from an aggressive player such as myself. Push back, point out immediate errors and beat them at their own game. Even if you get lynched that game, what you learn can help you for the next game.

[mrfixij]

So you are basing this off of one game? One game out of how many?

So you are basically saying that it is better to lynch a townie on day one than a scum?

FOS: mrfixij

Now THIS is better play, albeit weak.

I'm saying that if a scum catches the wagon early enough to make a good bus, a scum lynch won't help you catch the other scum if we take the same approach to the game that you're advocating. The play in the linked game is a perfect example of this. Of course though, I should stop here since I'm just giving scum ideas at this point.

[mrfixij]

Let me take a step back for a moment.

But I do believe that the mislynch should result in the lynching of the person who pushed the hardest to lynch someone innocent. But that would be logical. I do find it odd that you would refer me to a game in which the scum win.

THIS. IS. WRONG. Cases are across the board. Scum doesn't put forth a strong case. Scum is opportunistic, and gets on a bandwagon with some happy medium of information, or may even start it like so. Scum has to let town do the work for them to be successful. So lynching a town leader who happens to be incorrect is possibly the most ANTI TOWN thing possible. This is what I've been trying to demonstrate in my references to Newbie 663. I really want you to explain what kind of positive ramifications can come from lynching a town leader.

[mrfixij]

In the event that a townie lynch gives enough information to result in a D2 and D3 scumlynch, then yes, it is better. I think we have differing views and metas of how scum usually play, which is resulting in this arguement. Where you're used to playing, scum are actively involved in their lynch prey. From my experience, scum tend to let everyone else do the work for them, and play the opportunist. They draw attention to themselves at the opposite ends of the spectrum.

[mrfixij]

PostPosted: Sun Nov 23, 2008 5:41 pm Post subject: 425 Reply with quote
Alduskkel wrote:
Battle Mage wrote:
AtoE
What?

And BM, even if Moses' case is faulty (which it is) how does that constitute a scumtell?


Appeal to Emotion. I've answered your question at least twice on this page already. You just arent reading.

BM


=======================================
Page 18 Votecount

WeatheredClown: (0/5)
Crysnia: (1/5) springlullaby,
mrfixij: (0/5)
Alduskkel: (1/5) Battle Mage,
Moses le fou: (1/5) orangepenguin,
Scheherazade: (0/5)
Battle Mage: (3/5) Scheherazade, Moses le fou, mrfixij,
springlullaby: (0/5)
orangepenguin: (1/5) Crysnia,

Not Voting: (2/9) WeatheredClown, Alduskkel,

With 9 alive, it's 5 to lynch!
=======================================

Votals haven't changed since yesterday.

What about your opinions WC? You haven't bothered to place a vote yet, and you haven't really placed suspicion ANYWHERE. Your thoughts also seem to mirror Crys's and you're asking which of two wagons which neither of you are part of she supports. I'm slightly confused.

[mrfixij]

WC and Crys reek of scumbuddies at the moment. Case in point here.

Crysnia wrote:
This is going to take forever.

I agree with this...
Crysnia.. I don't think that the OrangePenguin vote is going to pick up steam...

How do you feel about voting for Battle Mage or Alduskkel?

(both were subbed in for players that were acting like scum before they left)

Not for the agreement. For the obvious daytalk between the two, and the fact that they haven't acknowledged the other's existence all day. WC's next post seems to continue the theme of trying to criticize poor scumplay.

[mrfixij]

Let the record show that I hereby suggest an anti-pairing between BM and WC. If BM is town, WC is most likely scum, and vice-versa.

[mrfixij]

I know it's not an empirical grounds, but if you look at the momentum shift when WC placed a vote on BM, it doesn't seem like bussing. Between WC and Crysania, they seem to be expressing an impatience with the day and urging it to be over sooner. Then BM's wagon seems to be losing steam, so WC tries to rebuild momentum on a BM wagon by putting him at L-1. I'm very tempted to unvote right now just because I think a lynch is premature.

Consider this. WC claims to be riding the vibe of town. Riding the vibe. This indicates some kind of distancing from town, as if she is not a part of it, but instead trying to find what it is that town is collectively feeling and becoming part of it. I consider this to be a soft scumclaim. Especially with the slightly scummy exchange between WC and Crysania (another high-pri suspect of mine) and the momentum shift which became evident when WC voted for BM. In fact, I'm going to take the initiative and undo that momentum swing.

unvote: BM
Vote: weathered Clown

Quit riding the vibe and start playing the part, if you're town. If you're scum, I'm more than happy to lynch you.

[mrfixij]

Aldus: what do you think of WC or crys?

[mrfixij]

We're getting dangerously close to the deadline, and I don't think we can wait on CF to give us some feedback to continue our decision. We need to reach a consensus soon.

[mrfixij]

@WC: I think it's funny that you mention all of my pairing/antipairing statements as a statement against me, while creating your own and neglecting to mention the frequent impression that people were previously under that spring and I were scumbuddies. Speaking of, I wonder where spring went.

Also, you're misrepresenting my case. I suggested a pairing between you and Crys because of the obvious daytalk shortly before my mention. One thing I'll give you credit for is that you've been riding my ass all game. That much you're telling the truth about, although you're making the same fallacy as Crys did by saying that I post too much and am too belligerant. In other words, too townie to be town.

I was obviously a standout player from page 1. You lay down suspicion on me while casting your vote elsewhere with weak wagonish basis and then say that you've been suspicious of me all along. It's an easy way to stay out of the spotlight, just like saying that you've been riding the vibe of town. It's also opportunistic, which is another character trait of scum.

In other words, WC is scum. Lynch it.

[mrfixij]

Gentlementlemen (and I suppose the more scummy than ladylike lady - springlullaby) (editor's note: the writer is making this comment in jest), I would like to cordially welcome myself back to the game. I would also like to take this time to withdraw all previous allegations that I had made while alive originally against crysania.

Right now, there's a ton of discussion centering around MLF. At this point, the doc is a null-point. To argue over whether or not he is scum while there is still another scum (and possibly roleblocker, should he be truthful) is a huge WIFOM game and a waste of time. Therefore, I propose that we move onto another target. I'll go back and reread what I've missed from an insider's perspective, rather than an observer's, and comment on what I see.

[mrfixij]

The point is, we're just as likely to mislynch as we are to hit scum with MLF. And no amount of arguing one way or the other can really tip the scales significantly because MLF will be all like "lol I'm doc" and we'll be like "well you could be but thats a good scumclaim so i dunno."

[mrfixij]

Anyways, I don't like Crysania's vote, and I never did like her gut anyways, since it pointed to me. Therefore, let's relocate that vote!

unvote
vote: CF Riot

Something about that interaction with OP makes OP look town and CF look scum.

[mrfixij]

Crysania was a pretty terribad town player. Looking back, if I hadn't been NK'd, I'd have lynched her without knowing her role as I do now. Since I don't know her intent, I can't defend against any allegation. I can however tell you to get off me and vote for some real scum.

[mrfixij]

Replacing back into a game is pretty ridiculous too imo. Sometimes the times dictate some ridiculousness in the face of rationality. *jazz hands*

[mrfixij]

unvote

Giving these events some time to mull over before I let anyone hammer.

[mrfixij]

I voted CF Riot with little reason. A quick exchange made him seem worse for wear. I unvoted because the wagon built itself in a day, unlike Rome. I got the hell off that because I'm not entirely certain that CF is scum, and because the subsequent votes on CF were hasty and with little backing.

[mrfixij]

Nah spring, you just suck at teaching newbies . Stop thinking about your own meta and start just working on getting all your ducks in a row.

[mrfixij]

Wait a second. There's no reason for Moses to have gotten that doc move off. He'd have been roleblocked if scum was going to kill. Which means that scum intentionally no-actioned to WIFOM town, or to verify Moses. I'm tempted to play occam's razor and say that Moses is scum, but I want to discuss this more before I vote.

[mrfixij]

However, this is lynch wrong and lose. If we kill mose and he IS doc, then we lose. If we no lynch, we live. If we lynch scum, we live. Scum are harder to find when they're 2/6 than 2/5, but they don't have the same lynching power. I think it was a better move to WIFOM us though, and that Spring or CF are likely scum.

[mrfixij]

Moses, that's some serious craplogic behind an FOS. First off, me mentioning that it's possible to NK to verify you is definitely an option. Secondly, it's better for scum to be at 2/6 than 2/5, because an incorrect lynch in either situation results in a scum win. Secondly, why would the mafia NOT roleblock you? You're essentially a nilla until the RB dies, if indeed you are doc, which I am skeptical right now.

Aldus: I give you all possible argument that Crys was a shitty nilla player and I'm town. I can't defend her actions, I don't know what she was thinking.

CF: And/or clause. You're not mutually exclusive, and moses is leaning scum right now. With OP dead, and Aldus leaning town and BM nowhere to be found, that leaves me with your or spring, with a possible BM.

[mrfixij]

The textbook play is NL then hold off your vote until we come to a conclusion, then run with it.

[mrfixij]

Wait a second. There's no reason for Moses to have gotten that doc move off. He'd have been roleblocked if scum was going to kill. Which means that scum intentionally no-actioned to WIFOM town, or to verify Moses. I'm tempted to play occam's razor and say that Moses is scum, but I want to discuss this more before I vote.

But surely that in itself is WIFOM? If Moses is scum, the scum would No-Kill to verify him, but if Moses was town, they might No-Kill to make it look like he was trying to verify himself. The fact you brought up this argument, suggests if that is the case, you are scum.

BM

Or perhaps simply that I'm thinking out loud while being fooled by scum's use of WIFOM?

[mrfixij]

In response to 812: process of elimination for you and spring, and gut on aldus.

=======================================

Page 35 Votecount

NO LYNCH (2/4): Alduskkel, springlullaby

mrfixij: (0/4)
Alduskkel: (0/4)
Moses le fou: (0/4)
CF Riot: (0/4)
Battle Mage: (0/4)
springlullaby: (0/4)

Not Voting: (4/6) mrfixij, Moses le fou, CF Riot, Battle Mage,

With 6 alive, it's 4 to lynch!
=======================================

[mrfixij]

Sorry, I hit submit too early, I was going to go back and review aldus' posts but I hit the wrong button.

[mrfixij]

Alright, in a reread of aldus in isolation, I'm not liking him too much just because his strongest cases have been on townies or crysania/me, who I now know to be nilla. I still think NL is the best option, and I'm trying to figure out who is scummiest of the remaining 6. I was fooled by aldus buddying up to me in a way, while somehow still having his vote on me.

[mrfixij]

BM is under the radar, obv.

[mrfixij]

unvote
vote: NL

[mrfixij]

Alright guys, I got a scan on NL. He's guilty. Lynch it.