Newbie 832 - Omod's Return - Game over!

[dakarian]

/confirm

first time playing here. Played in other forums.

..and already I lost my immortal soul to Shadebreeze. *sob*

[dakarian]

The little evil you see is Litia. She's the type that can curl up in your lap purring, then turn her head to slice up another cat that's wandering by her (then look at you odd when you fuss at her). She'd make a wonderful mafia if she cared about stealth at all.

[dakarian]

Litia isn't scum for the sheer purpose that she considers the mafia too passive.

Meanwhile

vote fakegin

. A question if you will. How do you feel about the idea that I would be very happy to see you dead?

[dakarian]

Quicknote for future reference:

At the risk of sounding OMGUSy, shadebreeze plopped a second vote on me during RV, 2 hours after the first vote and WITH him having posted something right afte the first vote was cast (thus it would've been easy for him to see the post). What's more, his reason just about matches the first votes' reason.

(noticed it AFTER my last post).

Thus

Unvote, Vote Shadebreeze

also

FOS fakegin

Shade took my vote away but the question still stands for you.

[dakarian]

I stated a reason (bandwagoning) and voted to both provide emphasis and because I'd be the only one voting for him so there's no real risk of lynching.

Meanwhile, you gave an explanation without any questions and jumped onto a bandwagon on the 2nd page..and your explanation is because I'm fussing a a person who started a bandwagon.


So explain how THAT doesn't look very scummy?

[dakarian]

Well, it was half reaction hunting and half random vote lulz. My idea behind it was "if we're random voting and fooling around just to get each other to talk, I might as well go nuts and really pull a reaction".

Of course, that was before I spotted the bandwagon on me so there you go.

Sidenote, that question is revoked fully Fakegin.

sidenote2, I'm still leaving my vote with shade for now since the ONLY reason why he's not voting for me yet is because he messed up on the tags and I really, really doubt it was intentional. Starting a 2 man bandwagon is rather scummy.


HOWEVER, at this point AGer has, in one post:

Joined a bandwagon on post 39 (VERY ugly since it's so early)

Intended to give the third vote (again, Shade meant to vote for me and AG voted before it was made clear that the vote didn't count), (scumtell)

Is being hypocritical (He didn't like that I voted and gave an explanation without questioning so he....voted and gave an explanation without questioning)

Is arguing against a found scumtell (starting a 2 man bandwagon) without explaining why the tell was misread.


AG, I'll give you the chance to answer questions that, apparently, you didn't bother to give me (Had Shade not had slipped, which can still be reversed if he requests to fix the tags, it would've just took two trigger happy newbies to off me, and that's NOT unusual).

-Why are you striking out against someone who is voting when we JUST came out of a period when EVERYONE was voting without even the explanation?

-Do you believe that a 2 man bandwagon (a typical scumtell) is less scummy than a single person vote against said 2 man bandwagon? If so, then why?

-How do you feel about the concept that the third man who votes in a bandwagon is scum?

[dakarian]

@pork

2 man bandwagon and the fact that you are turning a randomvote done for kicks into a true attempt to lynch. That's not enough to make you true scum but it's enough to end RV and get to the true discussion.

@daniel

My cat is a psycotic Vigilante, not a scum thank you very much. I think RandomVotingFun is about done anyway so we can leave Litia out of it.


Meanwhile, that's a WIFOM. AG is scummy but That's What I Want You To Think so he's town and I'm scummy. If AG did a scummy act, it's best to question HIM about it, not just stick to assumptions.

[dakarian]

Quick bandwagon less than a day into a game isn't productive for the town. There's too little discussion to use later on. After RandomVote we should be pushing at people to get them to talk, not rushing for a bandwagoned lynch.

By that statement, it sounds like you would be content to have me killed off this quickly, enough to start a bandwagon based purely on my avatar. Is that right?

[dakarian]

@Danielsound,

The bandwagon post was in reply to this:

@Dakar
Y know, this game was an exception, but generally

someone

has to get lynched day one...

You voted first via randomvote and that's fine. Shade bandwagoned and used your comment as his reason. That's what I'm speaking about.

And yes, I noticed that I'm the first to get on the hot seat.


As for the matter of the end of Randomvote, randomvote ends once we start coming up with reasons for voting for people beyond silliness. It's best if it ends well before the day ends since it means people will start writing substantial posts. Personally, I like the random vote because SOMEONE usually sparks something enough to comment on, which leads to people attacking, defending, and leaving behind tells and behaviors to read.

It looks like I was the 'something interesting' this day. Now to just avoid getting lynched, at least long enough for everyone to show their true colors.


I still wonder, though, whether shade is content to kill me because I have a cat avatar and how AG feels about my accusations.

[dakarian]

Meanwhile, that's a WIFOM.

So, are you saying this WIFOM guy is your scum fellow? Or maybe WIFOM is a acronym for "

W

ell,

I

'm

F

rom

O

ld

M

afia" and you're telling it right on our faces! Or maybe it's Wilson and it's mispelled or maybe...

(What is a WIFOM? I really don't know =x)

Missed that, sorry.

WIFOM = Wine In Front of Me

Mafiawiki has the details, but:

It's when you have an argument that gives you two choices to make but present a problem second guessing yourself to come to the answer. To paraphase an example


Two glasses of wine: one in front of me, one in front of you. I poison one. You must pick which wine to drink: pick wrong and you die, pick right and I drink the other and I die.

It leaves to this discussion:

"Ok, so you want me to drink the poisoned wine so you put the poison in the glass in front of me"

"But that's what you WANT me to think, so you laid a trap and poisoned the wine in front of yourself so that I'd pick that"

"But KNOWING that, you decide to poison the wine in front of me instead..."

And so on.

When you start leaving arguments that lead to second guessing based on the thinking of the other person, you leave everyone going "which wine is poisoned"? WIFOM. Note that the person who played that game lost the match and died because BOTH glasses were poisoned and the poisoner was immune.

It's always deadly for the town to play that game and mafia are immune to the poison. It's not so much a scummy act is it is VERY VERY bad for the town.

Thus when you said "he's scummy, but if you're scummy then he's innocent" I declared your argument WIFOM.

So, do you have any reasons beyond my cat and What If scenerios? If not, mind entertaining this question?

"If Dakarian is town, what does that make AG and Shade?"

[dakarian]

I stated a reason (bandwagoning) and voted to both provide emphasis and because I'd be the only one voting for him so there's no real risk of lynching.

Meanwhile, you gave an explanation without any questions and jumped onto a bandwagon on the 2nd page..and your explanation is because I'm fussing a a person who started a bandwagon.


So explain how THAT doesn't look very scummy?

You gave a defense. I gave a reasoning for my vote. You went all the way - I explained why I saw you as scum. You explained why you "weren't OMGUS-ing". There's a big difference.

Hmm, I see the point to that. Still a little ugg but I can't argue.

[1] I'm not quite sure I understand this question - striking out? Reads a bit like a soft-claim to me. Anyways, I do not believe that I am "striking out", I'm pretty sure of who you are.

[2] In this particular setup, that two man bandwagon could be scum, yes. It could also be one voter with his sights set and another player too lazy to read the full thread. There are a plethora of options. The single person defending against OMGUS without being accused of OMGUS is more telling to me.

[3]Well considering in my last game (where I was scum) I broke that tell just about every vote (including landing the second vote to bus my partner on D1), I don't think it is too accurate at all.

1. Soft claim, blah. I can't vote for two people and I learned that when you set a vote you keep it until the person proves themselves to no longer need the vote on them. I pushed hardest on you, but I havn't cleared Shade in my eyes yet.

Last game I was in where I was in that situation, I switched the vote and ended up unvoting the mafia and aiming strait at the Doc. NOT a fun realization there.

But if you want something more direct: when I wrote that I believed you were scum.

2. The person who did the 2 man bandwagon wrote a post RIGHT AFTER the first vote on me. It's one thing to not read the entire thread. It's another to not read the post right above yours. That he used, essentially, the same argument at the first person to vote on me doesn't help.

That his big defense when I poke at is is "we are supposed to lynch people" REALLY doesn't help.

Now that I think about it, I'm glad the vote is on him rather than you. You, at least, have an argument on me. His is blah.

3. Last game, the day 1 lynch had a mafia as the third vote. What's more, it was pretty much the only sure fire tell we had on him, in a sea of people throwing out false scum tells.



As for the OMGUSiness, I realized before I started my post that I was commenting on a vote against me. I was more against the bandwagon aspect than the vote on me but it would still look bad, thus I commented on it. Thus why the post came out the way it did. The alternative would be to not comment, which would lead to you or others saying "That's an OMGUS" or just plain staying silent and letting my accusation rot.


Well, the discussion helped me at least. You have some good reasons to believe I'm scum. I'm left with no reason to suspect you at the moment. Daniel, meanwhile, was just randomvoting and sounds new and aggressive: the latter being a good thing.

That leaves me very happy my vote is on Shade at the moment. Hey Shade, care to make a comment about all this? My vote is still on you and you need to decide whether you want to commit to that Vote attempt.

[dakarian]

agh... I botched so many quotes there...

The "While I think his flopping about with his vote is a bit odd..." bit is from VP Baltar.

There are three unanswered quotes in the prior post from Dakarian.

The first and third should be grouped together. My answer was intended to be "So the wiki says I'm scum. What do you think?"

#2 would be "See my explanation to this very point earlier in the post"

To answer that question: it's enough to make me watch you for more but, without the rest of my argument, not enough to mark you true scum. Besides, you gave out enough information to mark you one way or another as the days move on. Scum or town, you'll be shown eventually.

[dakarian]

daniel..
WHAT!?

Daniel, you're not making much sense. Please give me a numbered list why you think dark is actually scum and should be lynched.

First, I would like to bring to your attention some of the old posts of Dakarian:

Post 10:

..and already I lost my immortal soul to Shadebreeze. *sob*

What does he mean by that? Is Shadebreeze his Mafia Godfather and dakarian as a mafia goon owes his soul to Shadebreeze, his godfather? Losing soul to mafia's bosses is scummy!

That was my CONFIRM! Shade's sig says "if you read this post you've lost your soul". Are you seriously trying to create a scumtell off of THAT!?

Post 15:

The little evil you see is Litia. She's the type that can curl up in your lap purring, then turn her head to slice up another cat that's wandering by her (then look at you odd when you fuss at her).

She'd make a wonderful mafia if she cared about stealth at all.

He stated that his cat would be a wonderful mafia! Townies like us wouldn't wanted their cats to be mafia! he probably even tryed to enlist her to the mafia, but she, as a cat of principles, refused.

First you say that my cat is scummy mafia, now you're saying she's refused to be mafia.

No, cancel that, you're marking me mafia because of my avatar. We've left RandomVote long ago now.

Post 37:

Litia isn't scum for the sheer purpose that she considers the mafia too passive.

Meanwhile vote fakegin. A question if you will.

How do you feel about the idea that I would be very happy to see you dead?

He gets happy at the idea of seeing people dead!!!! That's almost sociopathic behavior! Surely Scummy!

1. Losing his soul to some other dude, probably scum.
2. Claiming that his cat would be a great mafia.
3. Being happy at other people's death.

Meanwhile, I'm starting to get suspicious about these guys who are too much quiet... I might as well do an more deep analysis on them later on.

1 and 2 already commented.

3: was a randomvote+attempt to bring discussion.


And it worked pretty well. I now have an idea about how a few people are operating in this game. You, daniel, are silly as well as the rest that I said. I'm truely hoping you aren't going to push a lynch on JUST that, but I have no accusations on you so far


@Shade: I DID miss that, apologies.

However, if you don't mind a words with you.

1. RandomVote is actually NOT meant to bring about a RandomLynch. It's purely meant to shake up people and provide an ice breaker for the game. The key is to get people talking, accusing, defending, and other things other than throwing jokes and playing around. It's successful once the game gets serious.

As such, your goal in voting at that time isn't to kill, but to apply pressure...sort of like what I'm doing now.


Right now you've turned from a bandwagoner to being confused. That's actually WORSE in my eyes. I'd like for you to look over the thread so far and make a GOOD decision as to who you think might be scum and why.

[dakarian]

There's a good bit to reply to. I'll get to it all in a minute. A few things I can state though:


1. I personally do get worried over a bandwagon in the RandomVote phase. Perhaps it's due to seeing games where it's lead to a quick lynch of a townie, leading to a Day 2 with everyone saying "Oh no! We still don't know what to do."

Also note that the responses that made me look bad are for three votes, since Shade's was meant to be a vote for me but the tags were messed up. Even if I wasn't worried about being lynched, being L-2 on the first day made me worried about a quick lynch. Just about everything else I've done has been either explaining my reasonings and scumhunting (since, even when you're under the hot seat, you should still scumhunt). I'll keep that up even if I'm in the noose. It'll help out later on once the pieces needed to be put together.

I'm still sort of boggled that a full argument for me being scum is being made over my cat. I'm sure Litia would get a kick for knowing that she was the reason why I died day 1 on my very first mafiascum game.

In any case, I'll go ahead and do a deep scan over it all and respond more directly.

[dakarian]

Ok, Time for the Wall Of Text.

@Radical's Post 67

Now, onto the real evidence. As I was going through the dakarian posts, I came across something very fishy. In post 44, dakarian quietly removed a question he posed at fakegin (the "How do you feel about the idea that I would be very happy to see you dead?"). My question to you is, why did you just drop that question quietly in a side note?

So I can focus more on Shade and AG and because that question was mostly to get the discussion going, which happened on its own. If I were to turn back to fakegin, I would use a less silly, more on-topic question like

"What do you feel about the whole situation, especially since you havn't posted at all in a while"

Also, in 51, you attack Shadebreeze for suposedly bandwagoning due to your avatar. Again, you remind us of this in 53. To me, this sounds like trying to shift attention away from yourself

And I'll keep reminding about my suspicions of Shadebreeze since I've been on him since the start. It's also why I poked at AG as well, which he replied to well. You'll note that I'm doing this while answering questions and replying to arguments made against me. I'll gladly address your concerned, but I'm NOT going to stop doing what I'm supposed to do.

Also, in 60, you use invalid reasoning. You claim that you can't take your vote off of Shadebreeze because of unvoting scum in another game. Why should that be valid for this game? Also, you later use earlier game experience for why AGar is scum...can't you get yourself figured out about which one is scum?

I'll need the quote itself to explain this one:

[3]Well considering in my last game (where I was scum) I broke that tell just about every vote (including landing the second vote to bus my partner on D1), I don't think it is too accurate at all.

3. Last game, the day 1 lynch had a mafia as the third vote. What's more, it was pretty much the only sure fire tell we had on him, in a sea of people throwing out false scum tells.

AG was replying to my question on his feelings about the '3rd person in a bandwagon'. He used his last game to explain why he felt it was an inaccurate scumtell.

I replied with a similar mentality: showing how it was an accurate scumtell in my last game.


Note that this was NOT being used as an attack against him when I wrote it (note later in the post I said I had no suspicions of him anymore). The point of my post was to explain my reasoning behind going after AG: that his vote sparked my scumtell alarm so I pushed on him.

Btw, "Also, you later use earlier game experience for why AGar is scum...can't you get yourself figured out about which one is scum?"

Mind finding THAT quote? Right after the post you quoted I actually stopped declaring him scum all-together. Last I checked, I DIDN'T reverse that decision.


@ Ag's Post 70

Of the accusations made against me:

Premature defense:

That's based on my calling out the OMGUS before someone else called out OMGUS.

When I made that post, I knew it wouuld look bad since it was responding to a vote made against me. It left me with three options:

1. Ignore the person completely. That would be possible, but I read the 2 man bandwagon as a scumtell (yes, people are arguing it isn't, but "I" think it is when done during randomvote, if at least enough to warrant debate). As proven, I'd rather risk getting attacked than let a suspicion go by.

2. Attack but ignore the fact that it can be read as a OMGUS. To be honest, I don't think it would've changed much. Instead of having to defend the fact that I precalled the OMGUS I would've had to defend the idea that I was OMGUSing.

3. Attack and comment on the risk of OMGUS. That's what I've done. It's led to what you see now. To be completely honest, I'm not sure how it could've been handled better, at least as far as this part goes.

In any case, THAT is why I precalled.



Flip-Flop voting:

Fakegin was a randomvote, done with no substance. Shade was a vote based on an accusation. I havn't changed my vote since. I'll move my vote from a 'no substance' vote to a vote with substance in a heartbeat. Once I have a real reason to vote, it'll stay there until I lose that reason.



Incomplete Reading of the Thread:

Ok, I'll give you that: I messed up by not reading the thread fully before posting. I spotted the first vote on me but missed the second.


Fear of Lynching:

We don't even know if there ARE power roles. Half the possible setups don't have a Cop. As such, we're much better of relying on the day postings to find scum and letting any possible cops use the info gained to make better investigations.

Meanwhile, I've said again and again, what I don't like is the QuickLynch. L-2 right NOW is fine since we have much more information to go off of (though I wouldn't mind more pressure on the sideliners). L-2 just coming out of the randomness? Go read the thread up to post 39, which is when L-2 was evoked. How much information did we have then? Now imagine Shade's vote being proper and two newbies joining the fun (NOT unusual to happen) and you have a lynch at RIGHT about that point.

Now, if you can figure out anything really useful by that point then I'm impressed. Myself, I'd rather have a few more posts outside of Random before I die.


@VP's Post 74

Starting a 2 man bandwagon is rather scummy.

Why? Bandwagons put pressure on people and if they are scum, would make them more likely to make slips. Unless you are saying any bandwagon on you is scummy. Are you?
[/quote]

Bandwagons have a nasty habit of finding the Hammer too early in the Random phase. That's my experience at least. Later on, people allow for more reasoned arguments and make calmer decisions about who to vote for.

Do you believe that a 2 man bandwagon (a typical scumtell)

I don't know who told you this or if this is true on a different site, but that is in no way a scumtell.
[/quote]

The mentality I had picked up was: mafia like to push for a quick lynch, before much discussion comes out. More experienced mafia can resist the urge but not all mafia do. Thus, when I spotted that wagon attempt, I spotted my first target to pressure.

Given that I'm not yet convinced about Shade, I'm not fully convinced that I was wrong in how I read it. In any case, that is my reasoning.

By that statement, it sounds like you would be content to have me killed off this quickly, enough to start a bandwagon based purely on my avatar. Is that right?

Bandwagons generate information and discussion. For instance, this bandwagon has shown how sensitive you are to having just two votes on you and how you want to somehow make that mean that you're about to get lynched quickly (which you are not as far as I can tell).

[/quote]

Head back to the posts that started this whole mess:. Before the Mod notified us that Shade's vote didn't count, I had three votes on me, thus L-2. AG even stated as much in his own post. Had Shade got those tags correct, it wouldn't take much to push me over, unless someone were to step in and stop the bandwagon.

I just didn't want the quick lynch, and L-2 that early really would've been a quick lynch.

@Radical's post 76

My mafia comments were directed at my cat, which only came up because someone asked about her. I'm ok with the rest of the arguments, but can we put Litia over to the side from here on?




And thus I answer the final question of how I shall respond to the pressure put on me.

[dakarian]

Ahh, I see it now. The first reference was about why I didn't change my vote. The second is why I saw 3rd vote bandwagon as a scumtell.

Also, you later use earlier game experience for why AGar is scum...

can't you get yourself figured out about which one is scum?

So the only thing I have an issue with is the last bit. It ignored the fact that I ended my post declaring that I have no suspicions of AG. In fact, the reference was brought up to just show WHY I had suspicions in the first place.




In any case, I'm going to try to grab a few hours of sleep (yes, at 7 am), then I'll see if I can get back to being aggressive.

[dakarian]

So I can focus more on Shade and AG and because that question was mostly to get the discussion going, which happened on its own. If I were to turn back to fakegin, I would use a less silly, more on-topic question like

"What do you feel about the whole situation, especially since you havn't posted at all in a while"

I thought you removed your vote because someone called you out for reaction fishing, which is a reasonable explanation. The above makes no sense to me. You are saying that if you had questioned fakegin it would have somehow weakened your questioning of shade and AG?

Calling me out did hurt, but the original reason was to keep focus. Once I find one or two people to really focus on I rather would aim strait at them than continue to poke everywhere. I find it keeps people from deflecting me away before I can get anything real out of them.

Remember that the question on Fakegin was just Randomness anyway: I wasn't seriously trying to apply pressure on him at that point.

Bandwagons have a nasty habit of finding the Hammer too early in the Random phase.

No, they don't. What game have you seen where someone was "accidentally" lynched in the RVS. links necessary.

One example.

Sidenote: Day 1 quicklynch has mafia as 1st and 3rd vote. Day 2 lynch has mafia on 3rd again, supplying the hammer.



Personal experience came from other boards. I remember one situation where randomness left a person at L-1. Pressure was put on the person, then the cry for a rolecall (it was heavily flavored) and, before they could reply, someone jumped in with the hammer and no explanation.

Ended up killing a townie with that. Turned out the Hammerer was also a townie. Game didn't end well.

Had Shade got those tags correct, it wouldn't take much to push me over, unless someone were to step in and stop the bandwagon.

So? You really think scum is just going to step in quickly and drop their two votes on you and expect to get away the next day? They would almost be guaranteed to get lynched the next day for quicklynching. It'd be a horrible play for the scum to make.

No. If it was scum controlled, they would be in the second or third votes to draw out the bandwagon. The first vote would be purely random. The last via eager trigger happy newbie townies. Perhaps this place doesn't have many that get hammer happy, but I'd rather not put it to the test without SOME content.

NO, that's not how I currently think my bandwagon is going.

I just didn't want the quick lynch, and L-2 that early really would've been a quick lynch.

Yes, you've said about 100 times. Frankly, it seems to me like you are working way to hard to earn townie points by your alleged cautiousness.

Unvote, Vote: darkarian

I keep saying it because people keep saying "you're trying too hard not to die. Afraid of a lynch, scum?" Every time it's suggested that I got too panicy of a bandwagon I'll state WHY I got panicy. That reason won't change.


[/url]

[dakarian]

Once I find one or two people to really focus on I rather would aim strait at them than continue to poke everywhere.

I fail to see how one question at fakegin is 'poking everyone'. Also, this is very early in the game, so how can you be certain that the one or two persons you've chosen to focus up are going to be scum? Wouldn't it be more effective to prod around a bit early on to see who you find scummiest before narrowing your sights?

You're taking every word and dragging it out to alter my meaning at this point. The entire POINT I was making is that "I prefer to aim at one or two people once I start feeling suspicious of them". Since I found someone to aim at early on I started on them.

We can get into a debate over whether it's a good idea or not later. We're not debating over whether I need a new set of tactics. We're debating over whether what I'm doing is some form of town-based tactics or a lie due to being a scum.

re: you example of quick lynch. That game was over 2 years ago AND only had 7 players in it. I don't take it to be particularly relevant to this game or current site meta (

meta

-current trends of mafiascum.net or a particular player that can be used to speculate on expected actions). Also, it would be quite easy to provide countless examples of much more current games that refute your quicklynch and "scum in third position" scumtells.

I can't speak to your experience on other forums, but the points you are arguing just aren't true here.

If the country a person came from had firemen that set fires to innocent people all day and night, you'll forgive them when they scream and hide when they see a firetruck when they come to your country.


I'll work on attempting to learn the rhythms of this forum. That, however, is my reason for who I found suspicious.

At this point are you arguing that my play style is so poor quality that I'm scum, or that I'm somehow inconsistant in my actions and, thus, scum?

[dakarian]

Meanwhile:

Hey shade, you missed a question of mine.

Right now you've turned from a bandwagoner to being confused. That's actually WORSE in my eyes. I'd like for you to look over the thread so far and make a GOOD decision as to who you think might be scum and why.

The question still stands, since you havn't seen the need to do much of anything beyond small little comments and making sure everyone knows you aren't voting for anyone. There's PLENTY of posts now of people now to read on and most have stated their opinions, questions, and accusations at whoever they want to go for.


You are refraining from posting I see. However, it's starting to look like Active Lurking now, with all of the noncontent.

By now someone must look absolutely scum to you, warrenting a full declaration that you KNOW they are scum, along with a vote.

If not, someone must have done something that looks bad: if so call them out to it so they can face your accusation.

If you can't find any of those, you must have some person who "may be town or scum but can't really tell". Go ask a question to them. It can be relevant or even silly, but something to get them talking.

If not then that means that you believe everyone is town? If so I'd like to hear your basis behind that.


And yes, my vote is still on you.

[dakarian]

Firstly, I think

we may need a prod for Fakegin

. I'm also grumbling about how Shade's been away but we're not in a rush for time.

Meanwhile: AG you're flip flopping now, and using the same arguments that you said I fairly answered your questions on the very same points. Did I answer your questions properly (and, thus you are more concerned about the new info) or not?

[dakarian]

And if it was some townie simply new to the game to supply the hammer? This is a newbie game after all and not everyone has had prior experience in mafia before coming here. Then you'd not only have a useless day 1, but would then kill off a newbie townie day 2.

Whether it's an example of poor play or not, I feel much better about how things turned out. Once we get the final two people to talk we'll have a very nice batch of information to go off of. The only problem is that it's hidden behind the big "OMG SCUM" sign I seem to be carrying.

As such, I'd like to ask to hold on debating the merits of whether a belief is poor or not. All that does is prove whether I'm good or bad at the game and it's distracting since a poorly skilled town would make those same mistakes as a poorly played scum. If the focus is meant to stay on me, keep it towards whether I'm deliberately manipulating the town into bad decisions or not.


@Fakegin

As said before, you were a randomvote, meant to just bring about debate. Shade was a purposeful vote due to what "I" percieved as a scumtell. It took 7 minutes to notice Shade's post and write the reply.

I was paranoid because I first thought it was L-2, I hate the QuickLynch, and I'm not going to assume that ONLY scum will drop the hammer. I then poked at my accuser (AG) for being willing to risk the QuickLynch so early.


I'll still gladly answer any questions made to me, but I have a few things to do. If I'm left alive then I'm useless to the town if I'm not scumhunting. If I'm lynched then I'll need to make as best use of this day to take the two scum down with me.


@VP

I have a feeling you've thought out my idea of being scum very well. I imagine then that, if I am mafia, you could plan out just what I was trying to do to win this game. Mind giving a runthrough of "How Dakarian would kill the town if he had his way" for me?

@AG

I REALLY don't like that you are flip flopping. You can't go declare me scum, then excuse my actions, then accuse me all over again. That's Safe play and, in my world, that's pretty darn scummy. Using VP as a crutch to go after me again won't help.

Remember that once I'm dead, the big "OMG DAK IS SCUM" sign will go away this day and everyone will be nit picking every single post thinking "why did we kill this person"? I STILL think you can fall either way so consider it a warning that you're going to have a VERY bad Day 2 if you don't get more serious and think for yourself.

Now go back to Day 1 if you please, all they way through my Wall of Text and decide, once and for all, whether I've explained my actions. If I haven't, tell us now how my debate failed. Don't use other people's arguments: I want YOUR words.


Meanwhile, at what point can we prod Shade?


@ Seeker

You seem convinced that I'm scum (the "Dakarian's Scumbuddy" comment, making me being scum a forgone conclusion) yet you vote for Shade, placing the second vote on him. May I ask why you're aiming at the 'maybe scum' instead of the 'obvscum' in your eyes?


@ Radical

My agreement with Daniel was only in that dakarian kept referring to himself slightly in random comments as scum, which in most games I've played has been a scumtell.

Might as well practice the 'wide scan' people keep bugging me of and simply ask about this:

Mind throwing some quotes where I referred to MYSELF as scum in random comments? I'm aware of me referring to Litia as well as the joke about me 'losing my soul', but nothing specific that would bring that out. A link or a quote will do nicely. Or am I being too nitpicky on the words?

@daniel

Fake seems to have forgotten your question to him. Still wish to keep the question on the table or have you moved on to another person?




Meh.. wide scan questions are great for information finding, but I'll stick to narrow accusations once I have them.

[dakarian]

@VP

I was about to Wall of Text you, but I realized that I don't want to drown out my questions AND I can sum up my words thusly:

I asked you that question to see how you felt about my Motives: my reason behind my actions. You said I have considerable Motivation. I want to see that motivation. Right now you've been debating whether my actions are helpful or not. Assuming they are NOT helpful, is there anything that shows that I'm not just being ignorant but actual scum?

[dakarian]

@AG

You voted for me, then unvoted, then voted again. That's the flip flop. It looks cautious.

And its not tunnel visioning I'm accusing you of (that'll be silly: claiming you're being flip flopping and tunneling). I said that you attack me, pulled back when given the chance (before I get flip town), then came back once VP posted (so you can hide behind him later).


As for the accusations:

I'm not dodging the lynch anymore and really only PUSHED at dodging it the first batch of posts. After that, I've just answered people's questions and accusations. Should I be ignoring the questions? Should I be saying "oh well, I'll die but that's ok?"

Now my goal is simple: Get you guys talking before I die. I'm hoping to get both scum to mess up before I get the noose if I'm to die today.



-Being sensitive to being L-2 does mean I'm worrying over the lynch.


-Would the mafia be that foolish enough to kill you Night 1? If so they'll be easy to catch. You would be one of the last people I'd try to kill if I was mafia.

-You keep bringing up that I was concerned over the L-2. I keep bringing up WHY I was concerned. Stop playing the record if you're sick of the song.

[dakarian]

FINALLY the person I wanted to speak to is back.

Firstly, you have the best timing in the world. You disappear when everyone is after me and just happen to come back when the attention is on you. In fact, talking about yourself is just about ALL that you've done.

Meanwhile, when I gave a poke at you (*grumble at Seeker's (weak) comment*) you first defend it with this:

@Dakar
Y know, this game was an exception, but generally someone has to get lynched day one...

Sounding like you agreed with what you did. I push more then suddenly

...I dunno.

I didn't really want to push someone out of the game that early, and I didn't think it would be that productive,

but...I guess it was kinda bandwagoning. I figured someone was probably gonna get lynched the first day (which turned out to be wrong, due to the tie) so I just picked you.
...
I dunno. No really good reason, I guess, won't do it in the future.

So you didn't want someone to die early on but did it anyway and chose me for the sacrifice. You then defended yourself (the first quote) for something you didn't want to do but did anyway.

Then, when the person you tried to voted on gets slammed in accusations, you formally Unvote. The ONLY comment about anything other than what you've done is "I hope you are joking"

So, what's up?

[dakarian]

Simple solution to that I think:

Prod Shadebreeze

The silence can easily be just RL kicking in, especially on the weekend. Once he makes a post we'll know just what to think of him.

[dakarian]

You think waiting for Shade NOW is bad? Try waiting for him to respond while half expecting that you'll die before even getting a response. Pure frustration.

That L-1 vote scared me, but I didn't comment on it. I was thinking you were trying to push Shade out of hiding, since almost anyone that's lurking would come out to a L-1.


Shade, when you do post, do NOT post a "Ok, I'm back" post. I don't even want to hear a "I'll get back to you later". Make the next thing you say actually have content.


Of course, there's the chance that we'll need a replacement.

Sidenote: Litia is pretty nice to people actually. Cats and dogs, not so much, but she dislikes not having someone to be with. As I said: a lap cat (or, in the current case, the "behind the laptop and under the legs cat")

[dakarian]

@Porkchop

Blatantly misrepresented AG? The post you link shows that I said he flip flopped. It was based on the discussion that hit a high point here.

There he made plainly his reasons for suspecting me. I then argue those points here.

His response?

IGMEOY, Dakarian.

But however, I find the lack of action from fakegin much more interesting right now. And

you've fairly answered my questions for now.

Fakegin - Post more please.

Unvote
Vote: fakegin

He made his points, I debated them. He had no counter argument or further suspicions to bring upon me (at least, not one that would make me more deserving a vote than Fakegin's silence).

VP then started his debate with me here. His suspicions:

-The reason why I ended my ended my question with fakegin

-My dislike of early bandwagons and the quicklynch

-that I was 'working to hard for townie points'

The overall jist though is that I'm presenting poor arguments to the town which would lead to mislynches. He felt it could be a novice mistake or a mafia trap and he was leaning towards the other.



With that, AG steps in again and drops vote on fakegin to again vote for me. After a prod from VP over why the vote change.

Reasons:
Flawed logic
paranoia of being lynched
poor attempts at scumhunting
refusing to accept a broader aspect of scumhunting rather than 1 or 2 people
and terrible things for "tells" at this point.

Essentually, all of VP's points, including the 'fear of lynching' one. That in particular bothered me because he had earlier accepted the same argument I gave VP.

So he flip flopped his vote form me to fakegin and back again. Instead of adding to the debate he took all of VPs points and ran with it.

So how did I misrepresent him?



On the WIFOM:

Quick question: Why the small text over there?

The question you suggest shows the WIFOM is this one:

I have a feeling you've thought out my idea of being scum very well. I imagine then that, if I am mafia, you could plan out just what I was trying to do to win this game. Mind giving a runthrough of "How Dakarian would kill the town if he had his way" for me?

Honest confusion but.. how is that WIFOM to ask for a runthrough of what I could've had planned? He could've answered it like this:

"Well, by throwing a vote on Shade for bandwagoning, you wanted to pull suspicion towards Shade. You flip flopped the post knowing it would get you attention and expected to be able to talk your way out of it while letting your attack on Shade take notice. Suspicion is fixed, he can't pull away, townie lynched. You claim you saw a scumtell and made an honest mistake"


There's no "That's what you WANT me to think" about it. That's just old style detective work. Why ask it? I wanted to see what he feels was my motivation for doing what everyone seems to agree was bad play. Do I look like a poor quality scum to him like a bankrobber that forgot his mask? Am I 'faking' the act to manipulate the town? It makes a difference.

Meanwhile the argument with VP is ABOUT motives. I am arguing that I used my strategy because that was how I learned how to play based on my experience, the former of VP's "you might be learning the ropes or scum" choices. VP believes the former.


About the '56' quote. Mind using the WHOLE QUOTE!?

"So, do you have any reasons beyond my cat and What If scenerios? If not, mind entertaining this question?

"If Dakarian is town, what does that make AG and Shade?" "

In other words: Do you have any REAL reason to accuse me of being scum? IF NOT, then doesn't my accusers look worse than I?"


I make the note he did answer the question by saying that my cat comments were, in essence, scumtells to him. Aka: 'the cat IS a real reason".



Most of the other people had credible reasons for accusing me (though I grumble about the cat one still, if only because it's silly to think that Litia got me lynched ). Pork, I find your reasons unique, but badly made. The misquoting at the end was VERY ugly as well.

[dakarian]

Every single time we start looking at any other people, it gets sent back to me before we can actually do anything with it. While I was torn at hard for 'focusing rather than doing a wide scan' you guys focus on one person very well. No, that's not an insult: I DO believe that focusing on one isn't a bad idea.

At this point, I'm a liability for the town. No matter how much we debate, the group is set in believing I'm scum to the point of forgetting the debates they had on others (what happened to waiting for Shade to post?). Even the questions others are giving are about me. Up to now, it's been useful to provide evidence for later. Right now, there's nothing more to pull today.

This day is over. Lynch me off and let's remove the big sign I have on me. Things will become MUCH clearer afterwards. In Day 2, you guys can calmly look over each other and, without me stealing your vision away, can get some good ideas on who's argument is sound and who is looking scummy. It's clear that you have a good eye for things, so I can feel content that the town has a good chance once I'm gone.

Even if you have doubts about me being scum, you're better off with me gone anyway, since "NO" discussion on anything else will ever happen so long as I'm alive.


A few things to debate on in Day 2 (please leave it for Day 2, btw)



Seeker: He has been defending me. As one of you have said, that really IS distancing. Don't let him use that to confirm himself town later on.


AG: He started the whole push for my death, but tried to pull back later on until others joined him. He's done this twice now, once with Fakegin and another with Shade. In BOTH cases, neither person did anything to remove his suspicion BUT someone new joined the attack on me thus 'convincing' him to attack me again.


Daniel: he really is active lurking at the moment, throwing suspicions occasionally but doing nothing direct. Do note, though, that he's shown plenty of signs of true noviceness, meaning he's either a new town or a very good faking mafia.

Porkchop: While I thought most people's arguments about me were fair, Pork, I believe has very poor arguments. What's more, he lurked through most of the game, letting the debate on me run past him and only stepped in well late into it with said poor arguments. He's flying under the radar very successfully and with no good reason to do so.

Fakegin and Shadebreeze: flat out need to be prodded, then hounded HARD or replaced. Dead silence is never good for town. I was hoping to get those two talking before I got lynched but it looks like that'll have to go for day 2.

The others have been able to use the attack on me to look like strong scumhunters. I remember playing that card as scum and winning because of it.



Again, leave all that for tomorrow and let's not turn this into the ultimate WIFOM. To you guys I'm either scum or a townie so distracting that the scum have an easy time hiding. End the day and let the town win tomorrow.

[dakarian]

If you're wondering if I think he's scum:

Letting go of Shade for a bit (I'm starting to think he's given up on the game and, thus, needs a replacement), a few things I notice when scanning seeker:

1.

It starts here:

Vote: VP

You seem to be aggressive to Porkchop for no apparent reason, first declaring him scum and then voting for him. Can you explain your actions?

I was referring to Shadebreeze's evil cackle with my post, and also to your "How did your night talk session go porkchop?" to a lesser extend. My first thought was that that was so overtly antagonistic to Porkchop that it had to be a joke, but now that you've voted him, I'm not so sure.

That alone is a nice and regular "Here's a spotlight. Now dance for my amusement" post, aka: the start of an interrogation. It's not a strong attack, but it's just out of RVS so the goal should be more to get them talking rather than lynching. The vote is a nice touch.

When poked at by Vp though:

What makes you think we're out of the RVS or that my porkchop vote is because I seriously think he is scum?
We're seriously discussing our motives for voting. I'd say we're out of the RVS.

I did not say I thought you were scum. I said that I thought accusing him of being scum and them voting him was a bit antagonistic.

He pulls back. Now, he's being honest: he asked a question but didn't declare VP as scum. As for the vote, to ME a vote on a person is similar to pointing a gun at them: even if you aren't set on pulling the trigger you are pondering the idea of them being dead. HOWEVER, some may take a vote done early on more casually. Seeker might've used the vote like a FOS with an exclamation point. This post suggests that.

It shows defensiveness, but not everyone goes for the throat immediately.


The problem shows up here:

Communication failure. To me, "I think X is scum," means "I'm pretty sure X is scum, I just need more proof," rather than "I think there is a higher than average likelihood that X is scum."

It looked odd to me then but I didn't deepscan him to see why and had enough people to focus on (including defending myself ). Now I can see why.

I did not say I thought you were scum.

To me, "I think X is scum," means "I'm pretty sure X is scum, I just need more proof,"

I kept having to remind myself that I'm seeing ALL of Seeker's posts and didn't miss something. This game has shown to me that my logic has holes the size of swiss cheese but am I wrong in saying that it's a contradiction?

The explanation of what 'I think X is scum" isn't pretty, but I'm NOT talking about that. It sounds that he's thinking "I'm pretty sure X is scum, I just need more proof," which is what he feels that "I think X is scum" means.

But before he said he DOESN'T think VP is scum. To his OWN logic, that means he's NOT thinking "I need more proof". He's just asking questions. He didn't turn around later and say "ok, now you're looking scummy"

I took a look at the thread as a whole. There's not much between those posts to change Seeker's mind. Thus, he's referring to his original vote and accusation. At first he's accusing, then he doesn't believe he's scum, then he DOES believe he's scum and just needs more proof.


Sidenote: the whole debate is over VP's vote for Porkchop. To sum up:

-VP voted for Porkchop during RVS

-Seeker declares that RVS ended early and attacked VP for being "aggressive for no reason"

-VP asks why Seeker thinks it's NOT RVS

-Seekers says there's serious discussion going on so it's not RVS anymore

To which I say "WHAT?!?!?" What serious discussion? All VP did was VOTE and without a reason. That's about as 'randomvote' as you can get. The discussion STARTED with Seeker. There was no discussion over why VP thought Pork was scum.


Also: Seeker wrote "I said that I thought

accusing him of being scum and them voting him

was a bit antagonistic. "

ALL VP did was ask "how did you night session go?" It was clearly a joke. That's NOT a serious debate or a full accusation. The vote itself had no reason as

seeker himself admits

. So if VP had no reason to vote then where's the accusation? If VP made an accusation then how is it "no reason?" Even if I take the "Well, Seeker might not have got the joke" it's still a very very ugly set of posts.


Right after that he folds to VPs debate, then throws quick suspicions at a few more people without a true aim then tells everyone to focus more on VP and Porkchop because they haven't received enough attention (even though he's given them a good bit of attention and others are completely under radar at the time)

Oh yes:

For those who didn't read the whole thing, I am not saying that Porkchop and VP are scum because they aren't posting enough. I'm saying we should focus more on them so we don't screw ourselves over.

That's not a summary, that's Pre-defending.

He then unvotes, suggesting that, although he's flung suspicion everywhere and declared a need to focus on certain people, he has no targets.


His next post comments, but doesn't add to, the debate against me. He says my logic is flawed but doesn't explain HOW it's flawed. He thinks I'm using a different premise but doesn't explain more. He IGMEOY but little more then that. He then turns to Radical and, simply put, misquotes him:

Seeker:

VP asked you to be specific about where that happened and provide examples of where it was a scumtell. You said.... "Basically my point was that he referred to himself in a joking way as mafia, which in other games I have seen as a scumtell." Circular reasoning much?

Care to quote some of these specifically.

if you mean examples of the scumtell, daniel's post is as good as any for examples.

Yes, Radical didn't quote the text (in fact, he STILL HASN'T done it.), but "oh, it's in daniel's post" is very different from what Seeker claims he has said.



Next post (yes, it appears I can tear at every post he makes)

OK, so in this case, it would seem that town would be more likely to make that statement.

Either that or dakarian's scumbuddy. Please note that I am not making that accusation as there is absolutely not evidence pointing to that. Just throwing out options.

I do think at this point that Radical Pi is likely town.

First off: pre-empive defense again, long after it should've been clear that it's NOT a good thing to do.

Secondly: for not giving any accusations it's a VERY loaded comment there. Without any cause you lump him with the most accused player in the game. What's more, you later declare that you're not even convinced I'm scum in the first place! You even KNOW that what you said was loaded so, instead of removing it before post, you add in a "oh, I'm not serious" note after it along with a declaration that Rad is town.


He then votes for Shadebreeze after fussing at several people for not posting.

...Which now makes me wonder just WHAT is the point to his voting style? He first uses it to emphasize a question, but then says he only does that early on and, later, uses it for serious considerations. Then he votes for Shade since he has no posts to go on for him, which makes the vote a....way to emphasize the issue?


He then pulls the vote away due to him getting tricked into thinking it's L-1,

Why bring that last part up? It completes a picture of Seeker as someone who really REALLY doesn't want to lynch a townie. He accuses, throws questions and loaded comments, yet that vote desperately avoids being a part of a lynch. He suspects me but, no matter how much debate goes, doesn't QUITE see me as scum. He questions people but pulls back the second he's focused on. At the end, he declares I've done no scumtells.

BULL##$! I can analyze my own posts. Even with my different view of what scumtells are I can agree that I look ugly. SOMETHING about me looked ugly enough to say "I look suspicious" to Seeker. Now, when I'm about to die, I'm clean as a baby?


I do NOT believe there's too much ugliness in answering that question about what a scum believes, not when the posts are already out there and you're ready to make a final declaration. Can the scum use that to change their tune? Yes. That, however, is the biggest of scumtells to me since it makes it clear they are trying to hide. Townies believe their own words and KNOW that all scum accusations are wrong on them so they can be free to act how they always act. Scum play games and are willing to change roles if it means they can hide a little more. If I tell you how I think you are trying to win as scum and you switch your tactics to clean yourself, I then know WHY you switched. What's more, it doesn't help since you need to then explain why you did what you did at the start.

Since my last post could be at any time here's mine of Seeker:

If Seeker is mafia, he's one of the cautious ones. Tries to accuse people and make basic attacks with votes to look like he's scumtelling, but he won't defend his own arguments. He doesn't want to bring up strong accusations and he doesn't want to join strong bandwagons. It causes him to active lurk rather than scumhunt. He'll pull back in a heartbeat and is ready to think of someone as a possible town. He doesn't want to be suspected of 'pushing a mislynch' because he KNOWS that once a townie dies, the accusers are suspect.

And he doesn't push to lynch anyone because he knows they are ALL town.


Such a mafia would, in day 2, strike HARD against the accusers. "OMG you killed a townie. You must be scum." and "See? I was right not to suspect them!" Notice that, near the end with my head in the noose he's NOW defending me heavily. WHEN I flip town he'll use that as his defense.


Of course, if he's scum, I just ruined that move. He'll have to change his tactics. Of course, how do you explain acting one way Day 1 and acting another Day 2? Personally, I wouldn't know WHAT to do then? A mafia that's unsure about how to act is a dead mafia, especially with this group that can find 50 things wrong in just two posts.


Heh.. when I wrote this, I just had some suspicions of Seeker. After the deepscan I can FULLY see him as scum. Of course, he'll need to answer to my accusations first. However, if you guys want to win you'll need to save that for Day 2. I CAN'T live to the end of the day. I'm too much of a lightning rod and the fact that half my logic rubs everyone wrong doesn't help. End the day, THEN push on seeker and see how he plays the game tomorrow.

Since I've promised myself not to vote for myself ever again

unvote Vote Seeker

[dakarian]

EBWOD (just learned that one.. LOVE it. It'll be so useful to me )

One of the quotes messed up due to the tagged used in the original. In complete it should be:

VP Baltar wrote:
What makes you think we're out of the RVS or that my porkchop vote is because I seriously think he is scum?

We're seriously discussing our motives for voting. I'd say we're out of the RVS.

I did not say I thought you were scum. I said that I thought accusing him of being scum and them voting him was a bit antagonistic.

Aka: VP didn't say the whole thing

[dakarian]

Just a quick write:

Apologies for the WOT. Once I do get going, I tend to get very long winded. I'll try to make use of linked references more often to shorten as well as a summary.

As for the answer to that question: I guess the key is to see if there is an overreliance of scumtells without any further analysis. Scumtells get messy once you start adding in skill level and research so they have to be mixed in with analysis of the player itself. If that sounds off just consider it more 'poor dakarian' reasoning: I don't want to derail the conversation into Mafia Theory.

Though in writing that I see now that my question was focusing too much on trying to destroy an argument rather than simply giving an explanation. Add in Porkchop's final point and I can see it very much anti-town to go on about things like that.

Learned something new.

[dakarian]

Have to admit, the conversation has been flowing and only stalled due to a major target going awol.

[dakarian]

Suddenly I really wish I numbered my accusations . Ok. TRYING to streamline this.

On the whole VP/Porkchop affair:

Do you admit now that your reasons for your attack on VP were flawed completely or partially?


On this reply:

I said I was slightly suspicious of Radical Pi.

My point: Why didn't you do more than comment on it? If you had
suspicions you should've voiced WHAT those suspicions were and presented arguments to PI, just like you did to VP.

Example: you say that you don't see how he agrees so much with Daniel. What points were of issue? What is daniel saying that you feel shouldn't be agreed with. You left very little for PI to argue with and very little for us to consider. AKA it's too vague.

As for the comment on VP/Porkchop needing more focus, I don't buy your argument. If you wanted the spotlight to shine on folks who aren't too noticed you would've realized you already had a full argument with VP and decided to end it. Pork didn't get any coverage thanks to that. Shade, meanwhile, was able to hide behind the assault on me. You wanted people to go look more into YOUR debate, simply put.

If you wanted VP/Pork to get more focus you should've started the attack yourself. Even if you didn't want to vote, we have FOS and the good old Question to ask.

On-predefense: AG already addressed the problem with pre-defense

Yours does something on top of it though: your casting suspicion, then defending against the risk that they might be town. It's not just defending yourself, it's also being passive instead of active in the hunt.


Lastly, IP was your target then?

"I am slightly (slightly? Your main target is a 'slightly suspicious'?)suspicious of Radical Pi. I do not see at all how he can agree with most of Daniel's reasoning (which ones?). It seems like covering a scumbuddy to me.(loaded statement for a 'slightly') "

How can anyone respond to that? There's nothing direct to attack. It's unclear if it IS a true attack, thanks to the 'slightly' bit, and the last bit is a blunt declaration.

Impressively, VP does respond, leading to you throwing a misread accusation, which leads to you pulling out and voting for Shade for being silent...which is odd because I was already on Shade and fake at the time and, thus, you voting for shade helps keep Pork off the radar again.

I'll admit, though, that you had a good attack on Shade after that, though you waffle out when you thought we hit L-1


There.. TRIED to make it shorter. Summary:

1. I'm asking if Seeker still believes his first accusation on VP was valid or flawed.

2. His 'targetting of IP' was weak, soft, and with loaded words, making for an ugly argument.

3. His wanting to keep the focus on VP/Pork wasn't to keep a wide scan but to get people to focus on his argument instead.

4. Predefense is NOT a good thing to do. Predefending suspicion on someone with a "not saying they are scum" just looks ugly.

[dakarian]

Meh on one thing:

He doesn't recall saying that I did no scumtells because he was referring to Radical, not me. Egg on my face there.


Btw, Seeker, I see you declare that you messed up. The question is whether you messed up as scum and now want to change tactics or messed up as town.

I'm leading towards the former.

[dakarian]

Just about 24 hours without anyone posting.

On the matter "shade looked scummy"

Your accusation post came 7 hours after your vote. Your reason to vote was that he didn't post enough and was among 3 people who got the same treatment. 7 hours AFTER that, you did your analysis and had a strong attack against him.

Shade looked scummy to you, yes... but only AFTER you made your vote. That vote was a clear 'pressure' vote, something you say you don't do once the game is going.

So which is it? Do you pressure vote or not?

I'd also like to REALLY hear you answer VP's question.

[dakarian]

On the "pressure vote"

Oh.. that's so interesting.

Pi was my target. I wanted to see his response before deciding whether to vote.

Your argument doesn't match your actions. You pressure vote VP, tell him you stop pressure voting later on. You then avoid pressure voting PI even though he's your 'target'. You then pressure vote Shade.


I don't believe you misremembered all this. I believe you are Lying about your intentions. You're not crazy enough to be a 'confused townie',make too many loaded comments to be a 'scared townie' and you're too passive to be an 'aggressive townie'.


Your new attack is weak as well. FOS on me? NOW? A little late and using an old old argument. That's long been declared a WIFOM. And JUST a FOS for it? You STILL won't vote for me?

Also you focus on AG.. when just about EVERYONE has gone silent.

And your reason for voting for AG: he wants me and you dead. You didn't catch why?

You have been spending the whole time defending the most hated person in the game.

Look.. I'm the one about to get lynched here. Everyone that hasn't declared me scum has put up heavy suspicion, except for you (but you don't seem to heavily suspect anyone and havn't given much help in defending me). I have my reasons for my actions but I can read my own posts and I can understand why they want me dead. I've accepted that and will willingly accept the lynch if it will help things later.

Why you? You keep saying I'm not scummy without a ton of reasons why. You're defending me. That's a scumtell! It makes it look like you're 'helping your buddy'. Since everyone marks me as scum, that marks you as the 'other scum'.


No one is confused. Everyone wanted me dead. I threw out my list of questions to provide maximum usefulness in day 2. VP saw the loaded comment I made about you and asked. Then "I" accused you and aimed for your death. If you die you can blame me for it.

Want to mark me scum. Fine. Go for it. If the game goes like this I'll be the first lynch. I achieved my goals, made my theories, and hopfully, provided enough debate to kill the scum later. Vote for me and kill me off if you have the guts.

But you don't. You keep waffling. You're trying to stop defending yourself and getting aggressive (tactic change after a call out. UGLY!) but you don't know how. You can't summon the courage to bet that someone is scum because you know WE ARE ALL TOWN!

You know what I'll flip when I die. You know your vote will make SURE I die. You know killing me is poisoned wine.

But I'm sorry. BOTH wines are poisoned. Hammer me or defend me, you won't look any better. You die today or you die after me. Either way, I caught a scum.



Summary:

You're contradicting everything now. You contradict your own play style. You contradict your own arguments. You didn't misremember.. you're lying.

You're accused because you defend me and you missed that? You try to play aggressive but you can't play town because it's just an act. You know what I am. You know what you are.

So die scum. Either die today or I die and you go later. Doesn't matter to me so long as you die.

[dakarian]

@ Radical

You're suspicious of Seeker but not ready to kill yet. He's been debating with us for quite a while now. What questions do you still have that's leaving you to question whether he's scum or town?

Because you say you don't wnat to risk a L-1, but there's two people already crying out "go for the full lynch". It's alright to not feel that way too, but you must have some reason to pull back.

If you're waiting for Seeker's reply.. mind detailing the exact questions/accusations that you still see as up in the air?


@ Rayfrost

welcome, and don't mind the kitty.

[dakarian]

1) AG's 'Flip-Flop'

- Answer 1 and 2:

What it results is a spotlight, perhaps a FOS if it's that bothersome. All by itself, it's a horrible reason to declare scum, but when you catch it, it's time to ask questions.

For the last, active voting is neutral, purely enough. There's many reasons for both town or mafia to get active. Like all tells, town/scum/neutral, you have to mix it in with the person's playstyle and personality to see just what it means.

@ my 'lynch me' post

Working on keeping things short so I'll put it like this:

-Read the argument against Seeker. If you believe Seeker is scum based on the arguments and his replies the vote for him. If not, lynch me. If you think we both are scum then take us both out.

Don't read it any deeper than that.


About Mastin:

That's bearly a WOT. I've done longerjust recently and with FAR fewers quotes and far more personal text.

Mother#&(*#% The thing is 1596 words long WITHOUT the quotes! It's 8 pages double spaced!

...yah, even for me that's horribly insane. Sorry.

[dakarian]

1. Just to note, Litia is a Psycotic Vig. She's on your side but if you're a pet don't visit and hide if she's nearby.

2. Looks like we're back to waiting on Seeker again. Hmm, ok time to practice a wide scan while we wait: Going to aim at those who havn't commented/voted for Seeker. The four of us voting for him aren't pressure voting: we're aiming to kill. As such, the ones who aren't voting for him must either have some questions to ask regarding suspicions or can provide a counterargument to the accusations.

I'm aggressive, but I'm not deaf. If someone can help explain Seeker or show how our arguments are flawed then I'm all ears, and I don't instantly scream "OMG SCUMBUDDY!"


Fakegin

You said you'll post today. I'm eagerly awaiting it.


Daniel

He hasn't showed up since last sunday.

Mod: Prod Daniel if you please

Porkchop

Thanks for the reminder that it's L-1.

So, have you finished reading the debate? I'll admit it's a long one with the long back and forth posts combined with my 8 page essay (wish I was kidding there). I really want to hear your thoughts on the situation. Also, a little Meh on

@Danielsound: I'd like your read of Seeker, please. With reasoning.

Why ask another? Better to decide for yourself based on what was written than looking for commentary.


Radical

You say he's a "a little scummy"

You say you are "getting suspicious".

Let's be blunt: That's vague.

You suspect him, but you don't want him dead. That means you have reasons to believe he may be town. Tell them, specifically. What about the argument do you feel is off? What issues do you have that Seeker hasn't already answered? It's too late to be passive. If you DO believe he's scum for true then seal the deal. If you question, then talk.



Defend him, question him, or end him, but don't play on the sidelines.

Edited the url tags. All fixed - Omod.

[dakarian]

EBWOD: "Waiting on seeker again" isn't accurate, since we were waiting on Shadebreeze beforehand. Proper would be "We're waiting for someone to defend themselves again".

[dakarian]

To me, you're neutral since Shade's biggest problem was lack of content. We saw it as active lurking+ hiding. You're appearance made it clear it was inactivity. Now I personally have to just treat you like it's Day 1 Post 1.

You seem active enough, so just keep posting. Town or Scum, you'll show yourself off in due time.

[dakarian]

Accepted. The whole thing is crazy long. Feel free to tackle it in pieces.

And yes, you won't see another post that long from me again if I can help it.

[dakarian]

VP is right about that, btw. Scum tend to be the one to fuss about the doc death.

FOS RayFrost

Meanwhile, I'll need to get into a scan of Day 1.

[dakarian]

Still before deep scan but:

VP, when exactly did you have deep suspicions about Seeker back in Day 1?

[dakarian]

Ager, are you defending yourself over something done a day ago? Is that really necessary?


Also, you sound very bothered overall, especially given how little Ray's been able to post so far.

Vote: AG

Please talk. Did something really bother you about what was brought up about you?

[dakarian]

@Radical

Tree shaking mostly, like many of us are doing. AG is able to defend himself well enough.

If you're bothered by me asking him questions, I could ask you one that Ray suggested: Why DID you drop the hammer before Seeker could respond? He had been answering questions before after all.

[dakarian]

About Daniel's analysis:

-PI: the talk about him joining the crowd made me notice something: he rarely votes. He voted once randomly then did that 'fake vote' and, lastly, the hammer vote.

Also a bit ironic that he tried to trick scum into hammer voting then supplied an actual hammer later on.

He took initiative in voting on me now, which is good, but now puts an odd contrast with Day 1's actions.


-Seeker: Want me to be honest? It's easy to write that after it's all over. Could be honest, could be a rewrite. We won't know so meh.

Rayfrost: It's way early to mark him anything. He had a good start with the analysis rather than a 'omg I'm confused' post, but that just suggests he has some skill. It changes what would be a scum/town tell with him but not which he'll be. Of course it was written before the Doc comment, which is enough to shine a spotlight.

Fakegin: Seriously, the guy needs to post, NOW.

Porkchop: *sob*

VP: I don't know. Waiting on his analysis at the moment.

AG: You DIDN'T comment about him Daniel Just use the 'display posts from' dropdown boxes on the bottom to see JUST his posts.

I am wondering why he sounds jumpy to me.

Dakarian "mimimimi" hehe.

[dakarian]

Don't bother to use me to hide. I've had the spotlight on me for most of the first day and I'll accept the spotlight again. You SAID I'm an active scumhunter yet when you do something that catches my interest you try to pull away with a "pot kettle black".

So how about this. We BOTH threw a scumtell. Now we BOTH look bad and need to be questioned.


To answer the question, Part of analyzing Daniel's post was to comment on his talk about Porkchop. There wasn't much for me to say there so the quick *sob* with moving on.

Now why are you using me to defend your actions?

[dakarian]

I'll throw a question then.

Do you still suspect Daniel? If so, why?

And don't fling the ugly "I already said it. I won't say it again" bull. That never works.

[dakarian]

Interesting theory there. One question:

RayFrost used to be Shadebreeze. I was trying to keep Shade in the spotlight from moment 1 and kept on him till it became clear he was fully AWOL. I kept on that even when he became L-2. Blah, I admitted to believeing it was L-1 and ALLOWED it to happen.

To claim two scum, you DO need a scum connection.

Also "pressure from Ray and Dak"? Odd. I DID pressure you.. to make a decision:

Defend him, question him, or end him, but don't play on the sidelines.

You could've questioned him. You could've found something wrong in my argument. If I yelled "OMG DEFENDER!" you could've declared me a liar for saying I'm willing to listen to a counter argument. You, instead, not only joined in but provided additional arguments along with agreeing to everyone else's arguments then went with your hammer.

NOW you're saying that "you were pressured and felt you had to vote"?

Or did I read your Hammer post wrong? If so explain please.

unvote Vote PI

[dakarian]

Mod: Mind prodding Fakegin?

I know it was a three day weekend but just to be sure.

@Daniel

I'll take a quick anal update on Ray, including the Day 2 mess.

Also, A GOOD IC Mafia will be just as 'nice' as a townie IC. ICs doing their 'ICly' thing have to seperate their game from their instruction. They can't just go and hide info and ignore questions (or give wrong answers) just because it suits their game.

I doubt VP is a bad IC so consider his helpfulness as purely 'neutral'. You'll need to judge him by his 'game face' to see his true story.

If by 'mean' you mean "OMG Expert as mafia vs newbies.. oh noooes", that can happen: the mod set the roles by random and if the IC gets mafia then..yah oh NOOES.

[dakarian]

The question on Ager was mostly to poke at him. Even if I can explain his actions, a quick check to see his own explanation doesn't hurt. Note I haven't pushed the issue beyond that.

On the 'ironic hammer': What I refer to is that his 'trick L-1' on Shade was meant to look for someone willing to Hammer, suggesting that he believes it's suspicious. He then ends up being the actual hammer later on. It's not a big thing, but I keep tallies of such matters. It helps in trying to read a person, imo.

What bugs me more about his hammer is the quote you brought: that he did it out of pressure. He's not owning up to his actions. His hammer post stated that he had spent time reading the texts to the point of finding reasons that were his own. He had notes. He agreed with what was written before and had extra to spare. The post suggests that he felt sure about his vote: sure enough to fling the hammer.

The hammer alone isn't enough for me. My vote wasn't a pressure vote. I WANTED him dead. I ended my debate and pulled the group to the argument. I asked IP the "why hammer before his post" to see if he synced with my thoughts: that he could not defend himself when he was posting so there was nothing more to say. I'd accept that.

What I get?

"Why didn't you let Seeker respond before hammering?": I was feeling really pressured to vote from dakarian and RayFrost, and my gut told me that

they would go after me

if I didn't do the vote, claiming that I was just trying to get out of voting still

The bolded is double ugly.

IP, if that was your reason, does that mean you were willing to kill someone to avoid people "going after you"?

Should I be concerned by that?

[dakarian]

Ahh, I see the difference. It's not much different from fussing about a quicklynch. I'll give him that.

As for PI while he's answering your question he can speak about my own as well.

[dakarian]

About the Porkchop kill:

I dislike calling analysis of his death a WIFOM. You CAN end up in WIFOM territory if you let yourself, but it's a good way of finding motive behind the action when you compare it to the previous days. You just have to realize you're playing Theorycraft until you have hard evidence.

In any case, Pork was a pretty 'safe kill' for the most part. There wasn't much focus on him at all so it would leave us without many clues as to who his killer was. Low profile/quasi lurky people don't just make good mafia lynch targets, but also good NKs. Hitting Doc was a lucky break.


Meanwhile: Still waiting on PI's responses


MEANWHILE: hay AG:

I

still

think it was an attempt to frame Dak though, which is why I've given up pursuing him for the time being.

Funny. I don't see your first "Dak's being framed" post.

[dakarian]

AG, you're getting jumpy again. You might want to calm down.

@Ray, I do have a few things that pop out on AG right now but we have bigger fish to fry. Wide scans are nice and all but once we have a full target I really rather focus on that.


In fact, let's put the whole 'frame' business to rest shall we? You think I'm honest. Alright. As such, let's go this path: What's your take on PI really?

And don't go soft here. I'm leaving you only three choices:

1. If you believe he's honest, or there's a flaw in the argument against him then call it out. Be specific so we can reply readily to it.

2. If you suspect him but have questions then accuse him, question him. Be specific here to. If an action he did looked bad then ask why he did it. If you don't understand something then ask him the purpose. If you suspect but it's a general issue then find SOME question to ask, ANY question, and ask.

3. If you believe the arguments and don't think there's any question left then vote, and don't pressure vote: Vote to kill.

Which is it?

[dakarian]

@VP At the moment, I want AG to focus on PI/Kitten. I dislike how he views me but for now I want to hear more about how he feels about PI

@AG

While we wait for Kitten, I can ask you more about PI's past posts.

After the accusations made against PI ALL you have to 'take note' of is that he's being silent? This isn't Shadebreeze now. I put out a good bit more about PI than that and you didn't comment on ANY of it.

And a suspicions list? He's already declared me and Ray scumbuddies with Daniel being the 'top suspect'. What more do you need?

The replacement doesn't change the past and it's your feelings about PI's past that matter. How do you, right now, feel about the accusations made about PI's behavior?

Do you have a question about THAT!? If not, is there a reason why you see what we bring up as faulty? If NOT, then is there a reason why you are hesitant to being aggressive towards him?

[dakarian]

Oh, and by the way!

Dak, you said: "I'll take a quick anal update on Ray, including the Day 2 mess. " Did you did that and I didn't noticed? Still waiting.

"I'll take" = "Please give me"

Aka: You've done an analysis of Ray's Day 1 actions, but that was before the whole 'fussing about the Doc' bit from Day 2 and his actions afterwards. I was curious to see how you feel about him now.

Thanks for reminding me though. I did forget once I focused in on PI.


If you DO want an analysis of him from me, I'll give it though.

[dakarian]

Ag, at this point I'm going to believe you are ignoring my post on purpose.

I made a very up front and direct post on you and repeated it when you didn't reply to it the first time. Now you aren't even commenting on it. Your idea of framing is messy. I threw up accusations against him but most was in a post that threw accusations against many people. So far no one has mentioned about it except you.

Also if it was meant to be a frame up, shouldn't there be a renewed push to have me killed? If you believed it I was being set up to be lynched, then wouldn't the only person to have accused me, PI, look HORRIBLY SCUMMY to you? To you, he would've fallen right into your trap.

And yet you focus on others, just bearly mentioning him even after I pressure you.


This syncs well with the fact that I'd need to take in a new read on Kitten. PI looked horribly scummy, but I wanted more talk from him. Now that Kitten's on board, that'll have to wait.

Meanwhile, I'm just about done with you, AG.

unvote: Vote AG

If you won't talk to me then I'll pull your evidence from your corpse.

@Everyone: How does everyone feel about AG's actions up to this point? I personally am ready to string him up, but some additional third part analysis would be helpful.

[dakarian]

Ag's 'frame' goes like this:

Porkchop is NKed.

I'm accused of NKing Porkchop and lynched.


--

To make that work, I would have to have something linking me with Porkchop. I spotted a small back and forth in Day 1 when I was in the spotlight and my "talking points for day 2" post where I make accusations against him.

Apperently, this frame up was so obvious that it deserved a WOT (that didn't show up) and was enough to turn me from scum to town. The rest of the post explains why I have some trouble with that theory.

[dakarian]

@VP

That is what I said about how the frameup goes. According to him, Pork is NKed and I get accused and lynched for it.



On the WOT:

Oh. I did misread that. I know I could write a WOT on something like that.

[dakarian]

For the record, only I'm done with questioning you and that's only because you're actively ignoring me. VP and Kitten are still in accuse/question state and the others are either silent or thinking you as 'slightly scummy'.

So that's one Kill vote, one pressure vote and lots of FOS.

Speaking of which:

PI, Daniel, fakegin (especially you)

counter the argument, present a question, or declare him scum.

[dakarian]

Am I included in the "thinking you as slightly scummy" category?

Quick reading this (as in, only post I read since my last post):
'slightly scummy' comment = "They see AG as suspicious but havn't directly attacked him"

I might be wrong on who is included in that and who has been more aggressive. I'll do a deeper analysis on how everyone has been treating AG recently.

[dakarian]

@AG

You sound as if you believe you're no longer helpful for town. You sound as if you can't defend yourself no matter what. You believe that your death will help the town in the long run.


In other words, you sound almost like me, Day 1.

Almost because you're missing something.

When I was in your place, I didn't just keel over. I dove in, took a look at everyone I could, and gave an anal on everyone I had a suspicion of. I supplied it so that, if I did die, all of my information would be present for people to discuss about Day 2.


So if you want to do the same then be complete about it. Full Analysis of each person. Focus on 'who is scum' and avoid positive comments or excusing their actions. All suspicions down in one post. As it stands now, if you flip town, we'll have little to go on Day 2.

So post.

[dakarian]

At this point we're waiting on:

AG's defense for himself (though I wonder if if that's going to come at all at this point). At this point, it's been two days so

Mod: Mind a prod on AG?

Daniel's feelings about AG

Fakegin vote/direct accusations


If I get it right, as far as everyone else is going:

Me and Kitten are set on AG. I'm ready to kill. Kitten might be the same.

Ray and VP are focused on AG but still waiting for his response.



Oh, @ray. About scumhunting vs 'small things'

To me, scumtells and those 'small extras' I comment on are mostly to bring suspicion and a spotlight on a person. It takes something special to kill just for those things. Scumhunting can get tricky to read since it's either a tell on your role or a tell on your skill. I see it as less of a scum/town scale and more of a set of traits, with certain trait combos held for town while other traits held for scum.


In short, scumhunting and 'small things' all go into a pot which get mixed to show who you really are. It may balance out but, at times, it can actually accent each other.

[dakarian]

Fakegin, considering how active lurky you are and how little you've imputted into this game so far, do you really REALLY want us to start pressuring you with votes instead of questions?

Also, is the only time you post when you get prodded by one of us? Do you have NO PLACE to put your vote among Kitten, AG, or anyone else?


While you're waiting for AG, let me prod you some more then. Who's next on your list after AG and why?

[dakarian]

I was hoping to watch more of the Kitten/AG debate. PI was pretty scummy to me but I can't get enough of a read on Kitten yet. I was hoping the debate would produce more information.

However, while I suspect Kitten, my vote remains on AG. Now that he's under fire, he's a shell of his old self. Also, "I made mistakes" is not a defense in my eyes since it still doesn't explain your REASON for your actions. Why did it take ALL THIS TIME to get a vote on PI/Kitten? Why did you ignore my posts? You had reasons, even if they were 'bad reasons'. You didn't think "oh I'll make a mistake here". You thought "hmm, this might be a good idea". I wanted why. I get my own "I'm useless so bye" mess thrown at me and had to prod just to get the final analysis.

Meh


Lastly, Fakegin: let me get the strait:

There was a small bit of pre-game chat so you were too confused to randomvote.

You were bearly here so all you could do was "Sorry, I'm here" posts Day 1.

You're too worried about killing someone to vote at all

Even now, you respond only to prods and pokes or suspicions directed at you.

Did I get all that right?