Open 284: Tit for Tat (Over)

[AurorusVox]

Vote: ConSpiracy

Voting for a no lynch eh?

[AurorusVox]

Ohai wagon. My vote isn't random, btw.

ConSpiracy was protecting himself from any preliminary RVS analysis by voting No Lynch. Or he was actually toying with the idea of a no lynch due to the fact the game starts with 13 players instead of 12 (I was half expecting him to defend his choice with this) and wanted to see if the idea took. He now says its a joke. Super serious face, engage.

[AurorusVox]

Shattered Viewpoint, how have you been "playing mafia" more than anyone else here yet?

[AurorusVox]

Oh, my bad. I thought that the additional town player was meant to make no lynching a better alternative than in 12p games in D1, based on percentages.

[AurorusVox]

Funny, I don't recall claiming that I have. I'm just ready for y'all to stop this nonsense.

So you want everyone to do something that you yourself have not yet done?

---

Who SERIOUSLY votes for a No Lynch?

Scum?

And the fact that you're still pushing it (in comparison to Uite who is asking other people different questions) allows me to skip RVS entirely.

I'm hardly "pushing" it - unless you see explaining my vote as "pushing"? Also, doesn't this:

Oh, my bad.

hint that maybe, just maybe, I've acknowledged that my reasoning was flawed?

---

aaah400 foses CES but keeps his random vote?

Unvote; Vote: aaah400

AurorusVox + silverbullet + aaah400 is the scum group. Calling it now.

would u like to explain how i am on the list? u havent said a specific reason but just accusing the 3 but of course Aurorus has a reason to be in the scum group. but all i have done was random vote.

Would you like to explain what you think the reason for me being on there is? Because when CES made that post - guess what - the only post I'd made was a vote, which at that time I hadn't explained was not random. SO, why is (what looked like) a random vote a good enough reason for me to be on there, but not for you? Hypocritical much?

[AurorusVox]

I'm still liking my vote.

Vox, I see you trying to distance yourself from a mistake here, so I'm going to keep my vote on you. Nobody SERIOUSLY votes for an RVS No Lynch unless it's their first mafia game, and I can't believe that you taking that seriously wasn't you trying to push a lynch prematurely.

Is "admitting" the same as "distancing"? If so you're just putting me in a Catch-22; either I deny it was a mistake and "push" it, or I admit I made a mistake and you say I'm "distancing". Do you think the misunderstanding about 12p/13p is a mistake only scum make?

[AurorusVox]

If I thought that NL was a "more viable strategy" in 13p than in 12p (and know that this is a 13p, a relatively new change made to Mini Themes), I should still not take a No Lynch vote (which could have been a tester balloon as far as I knew) seriously? And

beyond that

I should not find it scummy that he explicitly denied any sort of voting pattern, however small, during the first stages of the game?

And then when I see someone acting scummier, at the same time as realising 1/2 of my reasons for finding ConSpiracy scummy are not true, I'm now not entitled to shift my vote elsewhere?

[AurorusVox]

The NL was an obvious RVS vote

Part of my problem with it was that its NOT just an RVS vote. Yes, RVS is random for town, but for scum its never random. By not voting anyone, CS was preventing any rudimentary or preliminary voting analysis.

[AurorusVox]

No.

With this logic, if you flip town, you'd shock me.

In fact, lets take a majority vote. Who here thought that ConSpiracy's NL vote was particularly scummy because he was trying to stop any and all voting analysis?

My logic is sound.

Scum know who is town and who is scum: Y/N
Scum do not therefore vote randomly: Y/N

A vote for no one prevents a vote on a someone: Y/N
A vote for no one prevents connections between the voter and a someone: Y/N

4 Yesses = A vote on no one circumvents scum's predicament of not being able to randomly vote

[AurorusVox]

You guys do realize that aaah obviously is not speaking English as his first language, right?

He's scummy beyond that. There are logical inconsistencies and lack of reasoning in his posts. Like this:

and of course i have a feeling both Cogito and Vox is scum

^You haven't said why you think I'm scum. You also haven't answered my question to you earlier.

[AurorusVox]

aaah, you were calling me scum before I voted for you. Nice try though.

[AurorusVox]

Lol. u dont understand the idea here. I have said you have been following Congito with your vote. Congito has been suspecting me as i have been questioning and commenting on his posts which his posts does show signs of nervousness but you are helping him. I think its because u want to make me the first wagon.

No

you

don't understand. You said I was scum

before

I'd even mentioned being suspicious of you. Why did you think I was scum back then? You can't say it was because I'm "following" Cognito when I hadn't even mentioned you when you first called me scum.

---

Because he's assuming ConSpiracy is 100% scum

Woah. Since when did I say I thought ConSpiracy was "100%" scum? If he was 100% scum I'd be telling people I had hard evidence and voting him right now.

[AurorusVox]

@aaah
You kept a random vote on someone when there was someone else who you actually thought was scum. There was no reason for you to not vote that person. You still haven't voted that person.

So am I now scummy because I disagreed with your voting? Again, this isn't right. You said there was a reason for me to be considered scum before I'd even mentioned you.

---

104 is another winner. this could just be dh misunderstanding, though.

I'm wondering this. He's not talked about anyone else yet, and he's been putting words in my mouth, so its beginning to look a little desperate on his part :\

---

Vox, is that not the basis of your argument? He's scum and he's trying to confuse town by voting No Lynch?

There's a huge difference between

building cases

and pointing out

suspicious acts

, and saying someone is 100% scum. My point is that voting for no one has a scum motivation as I have already shown. Therefore I voted for the person who did it. I think the no lynch vote was scummy, and ConSpiracy is scummy for it, but I am not saying he is 100% confirmed needs-to-die-today scum.

DH, what do you think about ANYONE in this game, other than me?

[AurorusVox]

Hi. Still hapy wih my vote. You guys should vote Aaaah. It's good for the soul.

Because?

Because of all the reasons I've said that you have yet to answer, maybe?

[AurorusVox]

DH, I've said clearly that I don't

know

he is scum. It's not like I've said "I know he is scum, and so therefore his no vote is scummy." I have said his no vote is scummy, and therefore I think he is scum. Why would it be the other way around? I have proven and shown why I found the no vote to be scummy, which was reflected by my vote. If ANYONE had voted for no lynch, I would have said the same about them. Yes, for my point to be right he would have to be scum but that's how this game works. For anyone's cases to be right, the person the case is on has to be scum.

[AurorusVox]

No I don't see your thought process.

-That quoted post, my sound logic, was to explain to you why I found his no vote scummy. You said that there was my logic was wrong, i.e. that there was no scum motivation behind voting for no one. I showed you that there was.

-Of course I had a null read on him before he voted no one. His vote was in his first post. How am I supposed to read him before he's posted anything?

-HOW does it assume that he was scum before he no voted? Please explain this. It assumes that "no lynch" RVS votes are scummy, yes. Therefore when he voted for no lynch, I found him scummy. You're getting context, cause and effect all mixed up.

Context: Voting for no one is scummy.
Cause: He voted no one.
Effect: Therefore I found him scummy.

[AurorusVox]

Meh. If it's an in general thing, then I suppose it's just supplementary.

Unvote

That's why I made sure to say "Scum" and not explicitly "CS" in my logical explanation post ._."

[AurorusVox]

@aaah; you've basically failed to say why you find me scummy three times now. Every time I prove that you don't have an argument, you just ignore my response and say something else that isn't right.

RE: CES' early scumlist that included us both, you said I deserved to be on there but you didn't. This is where my problem begins:

"Would you like to explain what you think the reason for me being on there is? Because when CES made that post - guess what - the only post I'd made was a vote, which at that time I hadn't explained was not random. SO, why is (what looked like) a random vote a good enough reason for me to be on there, but not for you? Hypocritical much?"

You then said I was scum because I was following CES in being suspicious of you, but:

"You said I was scum before I'd even mentioned being suspicious of you. Why did you think I was scum back then? You can't say it was because I'm "following" Cognito when I hadn't even mentioned you when you first called me scum."

You then tried to switch tracks again:

"So am I now scummy because I disagreed with your voting? Again, this isn't right. You said there was a reason for me to be considered scum before I'd even mentioned you."

---

I want to know why you thought I was scum back when you first said it. I've kept asked you three times now to explain it, and each time, you've failed to do so.

[AurorusVox]

^so aaah has now posted content. With regards to my particular suspicion of her; I don't see at any point where she explained her early scumread of me. So after failing to attribute a reason to it three times, she's now pretending it never even existed - and drops the FoS she had of me due to subsequent actions. Interesting.

[AurorusVox]

(page three)

"

AuroraVox

- votes me as i was keeping my vote on Silverbullet (random vote) and i FOS CES. I ask y am i on the list wen i have only did a random vote and AuroraVox states y is he on the list wen he also did a random vote only? then y push for no lynch. Lets move on anyhow"

Let me break this down as to why I voted you:

You had a RANDOM vote on someone, i.e. you didn't know whether or not you thought they were scum, or worse yet, you didn't think they were scum
-You made sure we knew it was random because you said RVS next to it
-There was someone you thought was scum
-You did not vote for them, but kept your vote on someone you didn't have a read on
-You were voting for someone you didn't have a read on whilst NOT voting for someone you read as scum <--- that's the problem

Then, BEFORE I voted for you;
-You said that you

shouldn't

have been on the list for only having a random vote.
-You said that I

should

have been on the list
-My only post at this point was (what looked like) a random vote
-When I called this hypocritical, you started saying that I was suspicious for actions taken AFTER the post in which you called me suspicious

Now you've dropped your suspicion of me (as DH drops his suspicion?). I think you were calling me scum because everyone else was and you wanted to go with the rest of town.

---

Can I ask; why do you FoS Mothrax when he "needs to post information" but not don_johnson?

[AurorusVox]

CS: You said that you thought aaah's wall had scummy elements to it but unvoted her. Can you explain why?
Considering that you had unvoted: why did you FoS DRK and call his actions "very scummy" but not follow it up with a vote?

[AurorusVox]

SV, you have posted basically the same thing since Tuesday 15th February (excepting one request for prods).

It all amounts to: "aaah is scummy but I can't say why" and "I'm keeping my vote." Do you feel you've given all you can give to this day now? All I'm seeing is prod-dodging/active lurking "my vote stays" posts with no proactive scumhunting on your part.

[AurorusVox]

DRUNKPOSTING

Aaaah lynch >>> SV lynch >>> CS lynch

I would shift ot SV to get some pace and pressure to the game but i dont klike that Aaaah says to vote him. No offcence but i dont think aaah is quite up to bussing...

[AurorusVox]

DRK do town have "motivation" to take cheap shots?

[AurorusVox]

I side with CES on this. He can't know 100% that you are scum. So he has no reason to promise to fall on his sword since it would be helping the scum if he does so and is a townie. Using his refusal as the basis of a case/vote is incredibly anti-town.

The niggling doubt is: if aaah was scum, she'd have no reason to make this proposal. Hmm. I still want to see her lynched though.

[AurorusVox]

It's a "niggling" doubt; it doesn't make up for every scummy thing she's done. Plus, the potential for it to be WIFOM (whilst low given the rest of the reasons I find aaah scummy) can't be overlooked. Also, the fact that she's already claimed VT makes her a great lynch for the day.

If you look on my wiki you can find a link to all my games, if that helps.

[AurorusVox]

Been out of action for the last few days. Back with a catchup post...

Can someone

please

outline that case a little better? That wagon's been going long enough that surely

someone

knows what it's about. I sure don't.

My reasons might help?

---

More of aaah's contradictory playstyle...

Yo people. I can give up my life and hammer myself if u guys think im mafia, if i flip town, then i would suggest to go for SV or DJ please.

i think [CES] is just noob player

Lol at ces. i would seriously hammer myself just to lynch you. i don't like the way you play so meh w/e

And i still find you suspicious after your first post.

=_="


---

Despite the above...I'm willing to relent on lynching aaah today if it's absolutely necessary. Aaah is by far my

preferred

lynch but the wagon stagnated a long time ago and no one else seems ready to oil the wheels. For reasons stated here I will add to the delicious SV pressure with:

Unvote; Vote: SV

(L-1)

If your read is solely based on meta, what do you make of Silverbullet's meta read saying the opposite to yours? Have you no other reads beside the aaah one? Do you have ANYTHING to say about aaah other than a meta that you can't/won't talk about?

[AurorusVox]

Vote: aaah

, with an openness to lynching SV instead if the aaah wagon hasn't got the wheels today either for some reason. I don't see any reason to not lynch either one of these people today since its what should have happened yesterday.

[AurorusVox]

8 alive should mean 4 to lynch, so here's the L-1.

Vote: Hohum

DRK ninja'd what I was going to say about the VC.

[AurorusVox]

Sorry guys

V/LA til Tuesday

[AurorusVox]

Brief thoughts while I procrastinate:

RE: "Only one proper lynch" Both were pretty swift, with a bad hammer from aaah on the second.
The modkill hurt town, there's no doubting that.
I'm surprised aaah wasn't vigged by RC after he tried and failed N1.
We thought DH was the rolecop due to a lack of changed vote by everyone else and knowing that aaah was town. Uite was unexpected.

I don't mind sharing the QT if the others don't either.

[AurorusVox]

Ehhh, I got confused by the numbers and thought it was the win there and then >_>" I thought DRK didn't want to put the L-1, and thought by doing it there and then I could allow him to quickhammer.

[AurorusVox]

Sorry ._."

But I think BEFORE that we played well >_>"