667: Random C9 (Game Over!)

[JDodge]

/confirm

[JDodge]

Vote: Moospiker

Your deduction is the opposite of what your logic would indicate. Please, remedy this.

[JDodge]

FOS Jdodge

how is his deduction the opposite of what his logic would indicate

For an attempt at a response to something not directed at you, this is preeeetty half-assed.

[JDodge]

Vote: JDodge

He's being whiny.
*notices the bandwagon and crouches to jump off if it goes lynchy*

If you're worried about lynching someone, then why are you voting for them? A vote, being an action which is used

to lynch someone

, would probably

not

be your best avenue to pursue if you are not willing to lynch the person you are voting for. Again, deduction, logic, opposite, remedy.

[JDodge]

Jdodge. votes can result in a lynch, but they have many more uses than just lynching people. you can use it to force pressure on people, get conversation started, which is what all this is doing right now.

I am aware. Conversation doesn't just happen because someone places a vote - you have to stir the pot before the true flavour of the soup comes forth.

[JDodge]

Vote: JDodge

He's being whiny.
*notices the bandwagon and crouches to jump off if it goes lynchy*

If you're worried about lynching someone, then why are you voting for them? A vote, being an action which is used

to lynch someone

, would probably

not

be your best avenue to pursue if you are not willing to lynch the person you are voting for. Again, deduction, logic, opposite, remedy.

Ah, but you see the vote itself was half-jest, seeing how this is the random voting stage and all. Citing the fact that my logic is flawed is pointless, as there was no logic in my vote. I notice you dance around your point a lot. I hope you don't plan on using vocabulary to shield yourself from suspicion.

Citing that your logic flawed was not pointless. And are you seriously trying to discredit me by saying that I'm "dancing around my point" when I

clearly state my point and then state my reasoning

, which you would notice if you actually read the post?

[JDodge]

Vote: JDodge

He's being whiny.
*notices the bandwagon and crouches to jump off if it goes lynchy*

If you're worried about lynching someone, then why are you voting for them? A vote, being an action which is used

to lynch someone

, would probably

not

be your best avenue to pursue if you are not willing to lynch the person you are voting for. Again, deduction, logic, opposite, remedy.

Ah, but you see the vote itself was half-jest, seeing how this is the random voting stage and all. Citing the fact that my logic is flawed is pointless, as there was no logic in my vote. I notice you dance around your point a lot. I hope you don't plan on using vocabulary to shield yourself from suspicion.

Citing that your logic flawed was not pointless. And are you seriously trying to discredit me by saying that I'm "dancing around my point" when I

clearly state my point and then state my reasoning

, which you would notice if you actually read the post?

Yes, I am. You use a great deal more words than are necessary. This is not, in itself, a bad thing. However, I've seen it used as an attempt to appear to be saying something. I only meant that this will not work.

However, you attempt to do exactly what I'm talking about when you make a bold claim, in this case that pointing out my flawed "logic" was not pointless, and then switch to an emotional appeal, as evidenced by your emphasis using italics, the emphatic 'seriously' and the overall offended tone. You're trying to defend yourself, but you don't have an argument to make, so you attempted to demonize me in the aforementioned ways.

That

is the sort of thing I meant you should avoid, because it will not fool me.

Here is where I draw the line and call bullshit. You are the one who is attempting to demonize

me

through the usage of twisting my words to suit your image, which in and of itself could be you defending yourself through an offense. Your own argument is in and of itself a complete and utter fabrication.

First, we have:

If you're worried about lynching someone, then why are you voting for them? A vote, being an action which is used

to lynch someone

, would probably

not

be your best avenue to pursue if you are not willing to lynch the person you are voting for. Again, deduction, logic, opposite, remedy.

And then, on the next page:

I am aware. Conversation doesn't just happen because someone places a vote - you have to stir the pot before the true flavour of the soup comes forth.

JD is contradicting him- or herself. Contradictions with no logic given for their existence more often than not mean that the person who spoke them is engaged in lying or some other unscrupulous act. Townies have nothing to gain from lying, as they have no knowledge about which to lie. Therefore, if a person is lying, then that person is almost certainly scum. And so, by proxy, is a person who is contradicting him- or herself.

1. How is this a contradiction? I say that you shouldn't place a vote if you aren't willing to lynch someone, then I state that you can start conversation sans vote.

2. Townies have

plenty

to gain from lying in the current meta. Lynch all liars is completely outdated.

Also, I notice that Moo has, thus far, jumped to the aid of JD at my every attack. This is possibly scum-buddying.

I agree that Moo does seem a bit off at this juncture. Hence my vote.

[JDodge]

i don't like the idea that agreeing or disagreeing are scum-tells. when someone makes an argument, you either have to agree with it or disagree with it. whether or not you express your opinion is up to you though.

Not true. You can very easily take a neutral and apathetic position - taking a side is

never

a requirement. Give me an argument with two clear sides, and I'll demonstrate.

[JDodge]

Here is where I draw the line and call bullshit. You are the one who is attempting to demonize

me

through the usage of twisting my words to suit your image, which in and of itself could be you defending yourself through an offense. Your own argument is in and of itself a complete and utter fabrication.

As I'm sure I'll say many times over the course of this game, where's your evidence? You made a point, but you gave nothing to support it.

Yet you don't have to give anything to support your claims?

1. How is this a contradiction? I say that you shouldn't place a vote if you aren't willing to lynch someone, then I state that you can start conversation sans vote.

I may have misread your statement. By 'stir the pot', I assumed you meant that you agreed about the alternative uses of voting. If this was not the case, you may say so, and I'll happily drop this particular line.

Not the case.

2. Townies have

plenty

to gain from lying in the current meta. Lynch all liars is completely outdated.

Explain yourself. What could a townie lie about and benefit? Note, of course, that concealing a power role is not lying. It's keeping information secret. If the target of an attack is scum, than logic will support that conclusion. If the target is town, some amount of misdirection must be used to make the target appear scummy.

Of course! It's not

lying

, it's just

not being entirely truthful

. And did you just say you'd misdirect the town to make anyone you think scum appear scummy?

I don't see a contradiction there. I think it's bad how he had to come back later and add to his statement, but I don't see contradiction or backpedaling.

Evidence, please? Your statement is an opinion.

Opinions are important.

Furthermore, JD's first statement said that I shouldn't vote if I'm not trying to lynch. JD later "added" that you have to 'stir the soup' to get things going. That's a contradiction, cut and dry, assuming I have not made the mistake I mentioned above.

This is the bullshit I was talking about. I said that you have to "stir the soup", which you can do

just as easily without voting

, then you attribute it to voting. You're dense.

[JDodge]

Yet you don't have to give anything to support your claims?

I gave specific instances and an analysis. You've given sentences that disagree and do nothing else.

You've had your claims disproven by short, concise lines of logic, and you then continue to argue that they're true

despite

them being complete bullshit. And

you know it

.

I may have misread your statement. By 'stir the pot', I assumed you meant that you agreed about the alternative uses of voting. If this was not the case, you may say so, and I'll happily drop this particular line.

Not the case.

All right, given that I was correct about your meaning, you have contradicted yourself. Why did you change your opinion so suddenly? And, in case you want to ask me for evidence, go ahead and look at my last post to refresh your memory.

JESUS. FUCKING. CHRIST. YOU ASK IF IT WAS THE CASE OR IF YOU WERE MISTAKEN, I SAY YOU'RE MISTAKEN, YOU CONTINUE ON AS IF I SAID YOU WEREN'T.

Explain yourself. What could a townie lie about and benefit? Note, of course, that concealing a power role is not lying. It's keeping information secret. If the target of an attack is scum, than logic will support that conclusion. If the target is town, some amount of misdirection must be used to make the target appear scummy.

Of course! It's not

lying

, it's just

not being entirely truthful

. And did you just say you'd misdirect the town to make anyone you think scum appear scummy?

Don't take me out of context. I said that misdirection must be used if a non-scum player is to be lynched because they are not scum and will behave as such. Therefore, only scum benefit from lying.

So... how exactly does stopping a

non-scum lynch

benefit scum?

And don't swap the names on the quotes around like you did in your original post (I've since restored them), it's a really sneaky and underhanded way of distancing yourself from your own statements.

Evidence, please? Your statement is an opinion.

Opinions are important.

How? Opinions prove nothing; they are absolutely subjective. Evidence is what shows guilt.

The only evidence that exists is what exists in the mod's posts. Show me where in the mod's posts that it says "X is scum" or "Y is town" or what have you, and I'll give you that.

All your so-called "evidence" is just as subjective as an opinion.

This is the bullshit I was talking about. I said that you have to "stir the soup", which you can do

just as easily without voting

, then you attribute it to voting. You're dense.

Don't blame me just because you can't explain yourself properly. It's a basic tactic to use a vote to put pressure on someone, just look at any game on this site. I'll agree that there are methods of pressure that don't involve a vote, but seeing how much you squirmed as soon as I made mine, I'm happy with my choice.

I defended myself against bullshit claims. Don't blame me for you being a blithering nitwit.

Thing is, I don't like the way that you jumped on me for agreeing with JDodge. If I want to state my opinion, I'll agree, disagree, or take a totally different side. I wasn't trying to appear to be posting content. I was stating my opinion, which happened to be what JDodge said.

That's fine, but you didn't add anything to the discussion, which makes you appear scummy. Townies benefit from discussion, scum do not. That's why those who don't say much look like scum.

Scum can benefit just as much from discussion. It's kind of hard to steer the town when you aren't saying anything. Are you seriously new enough that you think everything is

that

black and white?

In conclusion, the scum are KR and Moospiker, who is making a really poor attempt at a bus.

[JDodge]

In conclusion, the scum are KR and Moospiker, who is making a really poor attempt at a bus.

what makes you so sure about this? the only way you can know who the scum are is if you are one yourself. and since i don't see your name in there at one of the scum, its either a lie, or a guess, so what makes you so certain?

I never said I was certain. I only said what I

thought

. You all love to take things as literally as possible, don't you?

Yet you don't have to give anything to support your claims?

I gave specific instances and an analysis. You've given sentences that disagree and do nothing else.

You've had your claims disproven by short, concise lines of logic, and you then continue to argue that they're true

despite

them being complete bullshit. And

you know it

.

Given that you are the one defending against my claim, maybe you should provide some evidence. Looking at your posts thus far, you seem to have a problem with it. Quote, if you please, instances where you have given "short, concise lines of logic" or I will quote where you have failed to do so.

1. Let's get one important thing straight.

The only evidence in a game of mafia is what the mod tells you.

There is no proof, there is only hypothesis and conjecture and theory; this isn't a major point, but the misuse of this annoys the hell out of me.

2. I'll do it later.

As to your point, a non-scum lynch does not require lying. Townies will act like townies, and scum will act like scum. Therefore, lying can be used only to make scum look like town and vice versa. Only scum would benefit from that situation.

If this was the case, seeing as most lies are easily spotted, then mafia would be incredibly easy for the town to win.

You can play as scum without lying, and you can play as town without being entirely truthful

. There is such a thing as "practice what you preach", in such a position that would make lying as town entirely unuseful. A better reasoning line is "what goes around comes around", in which you take the scum's best weapon (the almighty lie) and use it to counter their own lies.

Insults are hardly a proper rebuttal. You have no other way to defend yourself, so you put up this feeble attempt to deter me. You acted irrationally and my vote stands.

Yet irrationality is not in and of itself a tell. What's your real reason?

That being said

, I am indeed beginning to change my mind about KR slightly - afatchick seems to be more likely than KR every second, and his buddying up to Moo seems incredibly awkward and off.

[JDodge]

Her?

Indeed.



Currently waiting on JDodge.

Nothing worth noting has happened since I last posted. Anyone with eyes can see that.

Why do you have to "wait for me"?

It's time for moo to die, people. Get on it.

[JDodge]

Fine, I'll claim. I'm cop.

D

amn!

P

lease, can everyone post a bit more?

Q

uickly?

From page four.

DPQ

. Caeser-shift back a letter = COP.

There you go.

Let's quickly go with note #1 here - Anyone can breadcrumb. Anyone.

Breadcrumbs should not be taken as any more proof than someone saying "I'm X".

#2 -

Unvote, vote: afatchic

. If you can't see why afatchic is scum, you need to get glasses or contact lenses or laser eye surgery or euthanized.

Also, points off for charter for saying he has somewhere acceptable to place his vote yet does not actually do so.

[JDodge]

ill answer it anyways. anyone can breadcrumb anything. just because someone breadcrumbs something doesn't really mean that they have to have that role. however, unless there is a cc, you never vote a claimed PR D1.

2 things.

1, are you trying to use the breadcrumb

against

moospiker here? That's pretty terrible.

2, there can be logical reasons to vote a claimed power role on D1. This is not such a circumstance.

Hopefully that answers Vi's question as well.

[JDodge]

Be back with you tomorrow, etc. etc.

[JDodge]

Alright then folks, just have one last thing on the to-do list before I get back into this game. It's sad that from the couple of posts I just read almost no one noticed I was gone.

[JDodge]

his buddying up to Moo seems incredibly awkward and off.

This is in a separate category. For claiming to be suspicious of Moospiker after this post, you didn't do a great job of showing it beforehand.

Indeed. I made up my mind on Moo when I was reading those posts, and decided to declare my suspicions.

Did you miss the 'when I get some time' part? I really haven't made a case on anyone else, so I felt like it might be a good idea to post some reasons rather than an out of the blue vote.

WIMP

my honest guess would be that it seems like i am buddying up to these two people because for the last little while it has been mostly us three talking, so i am bound to agree and disagree with stuff they say.

So your excuse is that you may have been "inadvertantly" buddying up to them because you were the ones doing the most talking?

That's just plain ridiculous.

I like how 166 and 167 are Moo distancing from afatchic after afatchic attempts to say "I wasn't buddying up to Moo". That's classic.

JDodge is being bumped up on my list because he recently made another rather rash statement about afatchic (Post 155), and then misrepresented afatchic (Post 160) while totally avoiding afatchic's question of "how i am obv. scum?" (Post 157).

I haven't avoided it, I've just ignored it entirely until the point I have time to present a full case. Big difference, mostly wording.

Im not sure, but i will prolly get attacked for saying this, but i agree with what you said earlier i think, if moo is scum, its very likely that there could be a doc breadcrumb in there somewhere, which is why breadcrumbs can't be taken all that serious.

I hate it when people attempt to disarm their statements in an attempt to deflect suspicion. If you really believe what you say, and you really have a good basis to back it up, you really shouldn't be worried about being attacked. Furthermore, your statement is complete and utter bullshit and has no logical basis at all, you pretty much outright say Moo isn't a doc, I'm now entirely certain I'm right.

There is an 86% chance that the setup will have a cop in it. I highly doubt Moo would be scum gambiting on claiming cop D1 and risking trading 1 mafia for 1 cop.
Plus, there is no direct relationship between asking for a claim and one's own role. I can easily see Moo reach the conclusion "Krisreizer is at L-1 already. Claim." regardless of whether Moo is vanilla, power role, or scum.
Also your conclusion "Not protown in the least to out the doc" would imply that in all situations in which player X is at L-1 and player Y is asking for a claim, player Y is antitown because he potentially could out the doc. That's absurd.

Run numbers. See what each setup says for 2 mafia goons, and goon-RB. I think under the goon-RB setup it would be a worthwhile gambit for the scum. Same under 2 goons. You're also underestimating the power of outing the cop in either of those setups, not to mention that the 1-in-7 possibility of double-cop would discourage a cop counter-claim plus make the cop fakeclaim a lot more tempting for the scum.

That's up to page 8. Working through the last three now.

[JDodge]

only worrisome thing is generally brash statements at ends of a couple long posts.

JDodge is being bumped up on my list because he recently made another rather rash statement about afatchic (Post 155), and then misrepresented afatchic (Post 160) while totally avoiding afatchic's question of "how i am obv. scum?" (Post 157).

and the fact that I have more positive read on you.

All of which are personality-related. It's called metagaming. Use it.

I don't want to comment on the eldarad-charter argument of page 9. Too much useless fluff and word-twisting to be useful in either way. People are likely more tending to side with charter due to his straightforward answers. I agree with that to some point.

I looked at JDodge's activity on the site. Excluding his most recent "be back tomorrow" message, which was essentially a non-post, he had around 80 posts on various other threads since his October 7th post. Not posting because of time constraint reasons is understandable, but avoiding the game while having tons of time is a significant scumtell. So now JDodge is a very solid #2 suspect for me, only slightly behind elderad.

Was not of the state of mind nor the level of interest required to play at the time. I will actively admit I was avoiding this game while having tons of time.

I'm also wondering why JDodge is (still) JDodging this game. I wish I could do that with my games. *takes notes*

It takes a lot of practice.

That's all I care to comment on for now.

[JDodge]

This is actually getting quite ridiculous. I'm not in this game to defend afatchic. I'm not in this game to defend why I think someone is town. I'm in this game to catch scum, not townies. I'm not going to say why I think afatchic isn't scum anymore, or why I don't care if he's lynched. This is the last time.

Pretty sure if you truly believe what you're saying then you can continue to comment.

Don't ask me again, I'll ignore everything you write from now on if you do. I'm tired of wasting time not lynching eld and talking about afatchic. If that's who you guys want to lynch, you're going to do it without my vote, get used to the idea.

No, you won't ignore him. If you do ignore him, I will make it my mission to get you lynched, be you scum or town, because you will become entirely useless to the town as a whole.

Let me ask you this, what is better for the town on day one, lynching a townie after 10 pages, or lynching scum in the first five posts?

5 players -> 2 scum (LyLo)

~versus~

5 players -> 1 scum

This one seems obvious. I think you're giving "information" a little too much credit here.

Seems obvious, but no, he's pretty much dead on. You'll be surprised how many games with a mafia quicklynch early on D1 end in a town loss. The issue is he gets to this point in an incredibly awkward manner.

Afatchic case summary coming soon. May be later in the week, though.

[JDodge]

Back to work!

#1. Eldarad, you should probably stop being so self-preservative. I was

doubting

that you were scum, yet now it seems you're trying hard to get any lynch that

isn't you

.

#2. Mach-Maf: Meta me. Thanks.

#3. Case coming within the next couple of hours, later today if I fall asleep drudging through the horrific monotony that is this game.

[JDodge]

i don't like the idea that agreeing or disagreeing are scum-tells. when someone makes an argument, you either have to agree with it or disagree with it. whether or not you express your opinion is up to you though.

Point #1. Note the subtext of this post. He basically outright says you have to either agree or disagree with everything (which is only beneficial if you have a single goal in mind. Townspeople do not have this single goal, as their win condition is an abstract; the scum

know

who they have to get rid of, etc.).

Point #2. He says that while you either have to agree or disagree with every statement, you don't have to

express your opinion

. Agreement is a form of expression of opinion. Are you saying that you can agree or disagree, but it doesn't have to reflect what you actually think?

It's an odd line of logic, yes. And definitely the weakest point of my case. But I want further discussion on it nonetheless. But this also ties into my next point:

At this moment, but I'll read it through soon again, I'll support Jdodge.

unvote Vote:KrisReizer

this is exactly what we had the half a page argument about, if you wanna agree that fine, as long as you explain yourself in the process, this just looks like buddying up.

Point #3. Outright hypocrisy. How did nobody notice this?

also aviny you seem to be trying to hard to make a case against me. im sure you can pick and choose anyone in the game and find posts that don't fit right or something, so what makes mine right there so bad? i was just explaining my thoughts on the topic at the time, which i would consider helpful. so for right now my vote just went from random to serious. that was some good guessing on page 1 wasn't it!

Point #4. An attempt at disarming an argument against him by saying "everyone looks scummy sometimes, so why is this any different". Sorry. That's not how it works in reality.

Because I'm an idiot, and still learning how forum mafia is different from face-to-face mafia.

i don't like this comment, if any type of mafia you should never ask for a claim that quickly.

Point #5. Argument based on personal opinion. This is a difference in playstyle matter. It has no bearing on alignment either way. NEXT!

the main thing that aggrevates me is that claiming is good, when done right. but it should only be used as a last resort. i attack so many people for being like its L-2 you better claim, or L-1 you better claim, when you haven't even provided your case and given him a chance to defend themselves. a claim should only come when you are nearly positive that they are scum and nothing they say can convince you otherwise, except a claim, which wasn't the case with moospiker here. hence, one of the reasons i think he is scummy.

Point #5b. Argument based on personal opinion with personal experience cited, sans results of said personal experience. Unfortunately this disqualifies Point #5 of my case, but it does leave us with an interesting bit of information.

QFT. while i haven't finished many games to be able to see peoples roles and see if this applies to them, i know from personal experience that its true. i always get so aggravated when im town and can't convince them that i am town.

Counter-point #1. This does sound very sincere, and it does seem like it would be an unlikely thing to say as scum.

why do you think moo is lynch worthy

Point #6a. This will come in handy when we get to point #6b. Remember it.

And that is the end of the analysis of afatchic's posts throughout the month of September. October upcoming.

[JDodge]

Can we get a lynch on Moospiker?

can you give your full case on her, im wanting to wait for the replacement before i cast a vote, its always good to get a new perspective on things.

The role fishing. The not doing anything productive this whole game.

The being scum

.

well that seems like a decent reason right there. haha
but yeah this game has come to a near halt, so im going to spice things up a bit.

Vote: Moospiker.

Point #6b. Just

3 days

before this he did not see the case on Moo. Suddenly, without explanation at all, he votes Moo. For shame.

however i don't think it is a good idea for people that have played the whole game and have made there opinions pretty clear to make a detailed list of what they think of everyone at an L-1 position, or close. it just gives the scum way too much info to go on. say everyone puts one person on the bottom of each list, then the scum know that person will be hard to get lynched and should NK them to get them out of the way. and even though its likely that the doc would also decide to protect that person, there are no garuntees that we have a doc since only about half the possible roles have a doc in them.

Point #3b. Let's rewind for just a second.

i guess the way i said it was what made it sound bad. i have been suspicious of moospiker most of the game, just not enough to put him at L-1 and give someone an easy hammer. longer days are better for the town, so i normally play cautious instead of rushing my actions. i just thought that on the first page he seemed town since he seemed to be trying to help, however once he was under pressure i haven't liked how he has acted at all. and it isn't the way you are making it out to sound that i saw an easy lynch target and jumped on it, i have been there the whole time.

Let's go through the logical steps.

- Longer days are good for the town
- Longer days lead to more info in the open.
- Info is bad for the town.
- Ergo, hypocrisy or malice?

Vi really don't see how you can use that as a vase against me since for the better part of the game it has been me, charter, and moo the only ones participating. The case was already up about moo, i haven't really seen much wrong with charters play, which is why i haven't put many cases together. if you want to vote me at least make a decent reason i might can defend against.

Point #7. I don't find anything wrong with this post, but this typo made me laugh. Heh. Vase.

That's all I've got. Sorry for the delays, school and work have been murder. I've had time to update The Mole every now and then, mod my own game, and ease into my other game, and not much else.

Now, commence with the dissection, dissention and of course bitching.

[JDodge]

#2. Mach-Maf: Meta me. Thanks.

No thanks. I don't consider meta to be a valid defense. I evaluate this game only.

I am going to take that as a reason to mostly ignore your opinions, because if you can't see the value of meta in a game, you are more worthless than someone who never posts.

[JDodge]

#2. Mach-Maf: Meta me. Thanks.

No thanks. I don't consider meta to be a valid defense. I evaluate this game only.

I am going to take that as a reason to mostly ignore your opinions, because if you can't see the value of meta in a game, you are more worthless than someone who never posts.

Go take a look at Mini 574 Portal Mafia. In that game I went after Flameaxe when he and many others used his meta as defense. I had none of it and eventually pushed enough to get FlameaxeScum lynched that contributed to a town win. That's just one example of where my stance was actually quite useful.

Congratulations. It worked. Once.

One example does not prove you at all correct, it proves that you got lucky once.

[JDodge]

Also, you expect me to go back and look at past games where your stance worked but you refuse to look at past games yourself?

Hypocrite.

[JDodge]

And another thing. I looked at the game you mentioned, and you DID lynch Flameaxe for reasons that are standard to his meta. Granted, you were correct with the lynch, but the pretense was shit.

[JDodge]

Congratulations. It worked. Once.

One example does not prove you at all correct, it proves that you got lucky once.

This is not a case of me getting lucky, but rather a case that confirms the underlying reasons why I think the meta-defense is invalid:

If Player X has a well-established meta M when X is town, there will always be incentive for X to also use meta M as scum to trick everyone and increases X's chances of winning as scum. Thus, meta M is not a valid reason that supports X being town.

This assumes that people can shut off and/or alter their subconscious at will. If you're only looking at "X ALWAYS DOES Y AS TOWN, HE IS DOING Y NOW, HENCE HE IS TOWN", then yes, I might agree. But when you're looking at what I like to call

long-term psychological indicators

regarding what people's mindstate is like when playing as scum v. playing town, then meta is completely and utterly invaluable.

Also, you expect me to go back and look at past games where your stance worked but you refuse to look at past games yourself?

Hypocrite.

See above. There's a distinction between using past games to determine town/scum and using past games to counter your point "if you can't see the value of meta in a game, you are more worthless than someone who never posts."

Yes. One benefits your laziness, and the other benefits your not coming up with a sufficient counter-point.

[JDodge]

@JDodge: Back to this actual game instead of our debate on meta theory, are you saying that when in a town "mindstate", you have a meta of ignoring a game while being very active in other threads?

---

I have noticed quite a reliable trend in which afatchic promises to reread to catch up and never delivers the promise. In earlier cases he used real-life constraints as an excuse, but in the most recent case he has posted over 30 tmes in other threads while ignoring this one, so clearly afatchic doesn't consider contributing to this game as a priority, which is very antitown. I wouldn't mind lynching afatchic now.

Big FoS: afatchic

Note that said other threads are not mafia games - I have mafia playing moods and non-mafia playing moods. I feel that contributing when not in the former leads to terrible results and a continuation of the latter.

[JDodge]

All right, time to tune out the new guy.~

Why are you ignoring him? Because you're losing the argument?

I'm not liking my vote as much since kuribo replaced in, and eldarad has been piquing my interest for some time, and I think an eldarad lynch is more likely to materialize before deadline, so...

Unvote, vote: eldarad

[JDodge]

All right, time to tune out the new guy.~

Why are you ignoring him? Because you're losing the argument?

If ignoring the other person is how you win an argument, I suppose so.

So the answer is "yes", or is this some flippant sarcasm instead of an actual response? Because, y'know, it was a

response

I was looking for.

I'm not liking my vote as much since kuribo replaced in, and eldarad has been piquing my interest for some time, and I think an eldarad lynch is more likely to materialize before deadline, so...

Unvote, vote: eldarad

easy lynch gogogo

Smart lynch gogogo

[JDodge]

I guess this is just because I didn't think Kris was scummy then.

JDodge, elaborate your vote for eld, or I will vote you.

Yawn. Maybe later. I can't really elaborate much more anyways other than:

1. The way he was blameshifting was really fucking awful

2. He's IMO a more likely lynch candidate than kuribo, making my vote more useful on him

3. I am satisfied with kuribo's contributions thus far.

Anything else, oh high and mighty lord and master of vague and empty threats?

[JDodge]

unvote, vote JDodge

Can dish it out but can't take it, eh?

[JDodge]

What now?

I'm guessing your vote is solely motivated by the tone of my post, else you're pretty much a complete hypocrite for asking me to justify my vote or "you'll vote me" (oh god no. help me. what a horrible, horrible thing to happen.). I then did justify my vote, in my characteristic sarcastic and self-referential manner, and then you proceed to vote me anyways. Actually, either way you're pretty much a complete hypocrite, so that doesn't matter anyways.

[JDodge]

You're getting quite worked up about it. I just managed to get you to match your contribution to this game over the last month. I had no intention of lynching you.

Your justification is extremely poor.
1- I suppose.
2- A little early to already decide this.
3- Not even a reason to vote for eld.

1. Yes, quite.

2. Deadline is Thursday.

3. It is, however, a reason to unvote kuribo, and with aforementioned deadline on Thursday, I want to have a vote out there somewhere.

[JDodge]

Whoops, thought the deadline was the 13th, not the 16th. My points still stand, just replace Thursday with Sunday.

[JDodge]

JDodge, anything changed since we don't have a deadline until Moo is replaced?

I am still disinclined to move my vote again.

Kuribo not finding KR protown in the least is odd. Not necessarily suspicious, but odd.

[JDodge]

Brilliant idea fresh from the noggin'.
Whoever sees the post where Sim announces Moospiker's replacement first, post in bold something like "[Moospiker's replacement] we have already massclaimed, everyone has claimed townie, can you confirm Moospiker's claim that you are indeed a townie? Please answer immediately."

The point is to do it before he can read the thread. Hopefully he doesn't see this post, and I don't think we need to discuss this and increase the chances of him seeing it. I really see no downside to this idea.

Aside from the numerous moral and ethical issues that this raises, I agree. The only problem being that anyone with a brain will look back at what Moo claimed,

especially if they're scum

, to avoid such an issue. So basically, useless. Also, people don't take well to entrapment.

[JDodge]

*JDodge - My attacks on JDodge actually contributed to his revival in game participation, the exact opposite of "unlikely to respond".

I don't buy this.

@JDodge:

Validate plz

That's about half-true. I wouldn't have said nearly as much had I not had the theory discussion with M-M, but his attacks on me didn't contribute anything really.

[JDodge]

He's saying I'm scum cause I post in other games more frequently than this one...
Actually, he's not saying it, he's trying to get you to say/think it. Quite scummy of him in fact.

So do you think Vi is scummy then?

Any thoughts on Sche since he has replaced in? Still happy with an eldarad-Sche scumteam?

I'm actually waivering on Sche. It's nothing he's done, but my whole case really was based on Moo's asking for a claim, while claiming cop, on page three. Still by far the scummiest thing I've seen this game, but Vi is getting continuously worse and making me question my earlier read.

I'm still sold on you, but I think your partner will be determined tomorrow, not today.

Vi, I don't know what scumhunting you expect me to do. I think I've found me a scum, no need to continuously post stuff against eld.

You know what I just noticed?

Vi starts going after charter. charter finds Vi scummy.

Sche pretty much ignores charter. Charter begins wavering on Sche.

Moo butted heads with charter more often than he did not. Charter found Moo scummy.

Afatchic kissed charter's ass for most of the game. Charter found afatchic "obviously town".

There is no way in hell I'm going to believe this is coincidental. I'm inclined to believe that either:

A) Charter is actively trying to get the people who disagree with him and/or find him scummy lynched in order to prevent further suspicion being reflected upon him (AKA self-preservatory in a scum frame of mind)

B) Charter is an egotistical jerkbag who does not actual work and instead thinks that anyone who agrees with his arbitrary suspicions must thusly be scum. (I'm a bit inclined towards this one).

Thoughts?

[JDodge]

Vi, I don't know what scumhunting you expect me to do. I think I've found me a scum, no need to continuously post stuff against eld.

kk
I think I've found me a scum (in you). I'm going to go play in my other games now; see yas D2. The rest of you can sort it out from here. People, vote charter.

~

Obvious problems:
1) You could be wrong. (Imagine that)
2) You've basically stopped playing. Lest you forget, there's more than one scum around. You could help your own cause by pointing out who the possible scumpartners are based on your eld suspicions.

Blatantly anti-Town. Why are people not voting charter for this.

Because it seems (from my perspective) that charter is solely a poor player and a lazy dickhole as opposed to scum? How exactly is him stopping after he things he's found something "suspicious"? Lazy, useless, assholish, yes - but it does not realistically equate to anything worth being suspicious of. Charter is clearly just another one of the people who tries to use the quiet, low-reasoning methods without understanding how they actually work. Which is stupidity, not scumminess.

You have much to learn in the ways of how people on MS are generally retarded.

Let's analyze your two reasons, shall we?

You could be wrong.

Yes. So could you, so could any of us. The issue herein is the amount of security one feels in their convictions - if charter really does feel

that solidly

about his suspicions, then it would follow that regardless of what he does

nothing is likely to change his mind

.

You've basically stopped playing. Lest you forget, there's more than one scum around. You could help your own cause by pointing out who the possible scumpartners are based on your eld suspicions.

You're also making the (fallacious) assumption that he is no longer reading the thread - you have no basis to stake this claim upon, thus your reasoning is invalid. If there is anything that would motivate him to change his mind, he would thus notice it through reading the thread.

You seem to be assuming (for whatever bizarre reason) that if you read something 20 times as opposed to once then somehow everything magically becomes clear to you and you can pick out every scum in the game. In theory, this

sounds

like a good idea. In reality, life doesn't work that way. You're actually more likely to overscrutinize (which is bad - attempting to indict someone on bullshit is one of the worst things you can do as town), which leads to poor play in and of itself.

I eagerly await your rebuttal.

[JDodge]

Because it seems (from my perspective) that charter is solely a poor player and a lazy dickhole as opposed to scum? How exactly is him stopping after he things he's found something "suspicious"? Lazy, useless, assholish, yes - but it does not realistically equate to anything worth being suspicious of.

Charter is clearly just another one of the people who tries to use the quiet, low-reasoning methods without understanding how they actually work. Which is stupidity, not scumminess.

I don't buy this explanation. Quiet and low-reasoning, sure, that sounds somewhat like charter (a little light on the "quiet" part). But even a lazy, useless, assholish Town player is more open to who should be lynched, and the ones I've encountered in my experience will actually look at other players given enough of a kick in the rear. charter's

refusal

to scumhunt is inexcusable.

You're stereotyping. Stereotyping is bad. You need to look at charter as charter, not charter as the lazy, useless assholish Town player.

Then

you will see what I mean.

Yes. So could you, so could any of us. The issue herein is the amount of security one feels in their convictions - if charter really does feel

that solidly

about his suspicions, then it would follow that regardless of what he does

nothing is likely to change his mind.

Which doesn't exempt him from participation.

I'm not saying to exempt him from anything (exempting anyone from anything is generally bad). I'm saying that it explains everything quite well, which you have yet to refute.

You're also making the (fallacious) assumption that he is no longer reading the thread - you have no basis to stake this claim upon, thus your reasoning is invalid. If there is anything that would motivate him to change his mind, he would thus notice it through reading the thread.

Contradiction. You've already said that charter believes so strongly that nothing will change his mind. Further, I'm genuinely surprised you don't remember lurkers, people who read the thread and yet do not play except when convenient. Lurking is a great scum tactic, as is active lurking - posting but not contributing.

Not contradiction. I've said that nothing would change his mind. How does that mean he'll stop reading? I've noticed a tendency among new people to have some sort of fetish with assuming the worst and considering it fact. Lurking is a

terrible

scum tactic because it's one that scum will tend to get called on quite often. I maintain that with the popularity of the whole "lynch all lurkers" meta, that lurking in and of itself has ceased to become a valid tell. Active lurking as a tell is also rapidly becoming invalid.

I eagerly await your rebuttal.

Actually, I wouldn't much care if you chose not to rebut this post. With a known lurker/slacker who is also my #2 suddenly pushing a defense on my #1, I'm now considerably

more

interested in seeing charter lynched.

People, vote charter.

My, my, we're a bit snippy today, aren't we?

[JDodge]

I will ask JDodge once to stop insulting me.

Your request is denied. I will call you assholish as much as I wish, because you are indeed assholish.

YAY HAMMER

[JDodge]

Allow me to refute a good number of your points.

Moospiker/Scheherazade is Scum

*Moospiker did not breadcrumb until he was at L-2 and saw afatchic ready to move against him. That seems horribly late, don't you think?

No. He saw his lynch coming, saw he was going to have to back up his claim somehow, and breadcrumbed there in self-defense. He may not have wanted to breadcrumb, but did so as a self-preservation instinct. One could argue that he breadcrumbed there because he saw the lynch coming and decided he was going to fake-claim cop to deter info, but that is:

A) Unnecessarily risky, especially when you consider the likelihood of a cop

B) Not something I'm inclined to think Moo would come up with.

Ergo, this should be used as either a very slight tell

for

Sche-cop or as a null-tell altogether. Leaning heavily towards the second.

*Scheherazade hammered eldarad. Granted, I didn't like the eldarad lynch toward the end anyway, but notice who was on the wagon - charter, JDodge, M-M, and Scheherazade. I highly doubt that NO Mafia were on the wagon; in fact, by the virtue of knowing my own alignment it's impossible for there to have been no scum on the wagon. The door is definitely open for Scheherazade to be Mafia, especially if one takes the hypothesis that charterxJDodge is a scamplay.

Why is the hammer suspicious?

*afatchic and Moospiker had a dynamic going, noticeably around Pages 3 and 4. Even though afatchic thinks Moospiker is scum for a long while, he doesn't vote him until charter confronts him about it much later. The charter+afatchic dialogue starting in Post 109 is an interesting read along these lines. afatchic generally seems to like sticking up for Moospiker under the premise of defending him.

Valid. Makes false assumption that if Sche is scum, kuribo must therefore be scum. This is not true - everyone tends to assume that the correct play for scum in lylo fake-claiming cop is indeed to come forth with a guilty. However, this generally leads to a my word v. your word argument, which Sche can avoid this by "clearing" someone and then pitting the three people who already seem to be at each other's throats against each other.

*Some of (but not all of) Scheherazade's case on eldarad, looking back on it, was just weird. After the initial post he heavily accuses eldarad of being useless (asking unnecessary questions), which you can guess my opinion on considering I've been after charter for a while. He also seems to make a point of getting eldarad to claim, saying his earlier claim was a lie. I'd call that an obvious, nonsensical rolefish. With all this said, though, eldarad really did seem to enjoy acting scummily, and ammunition of all qualities was plentiful.

*The fact that Scheherazade was neither blocked nor targeted last Night, given how we've already seen that a successful investigation could end the game by process of elimination, is quite striking.

Assumes there is a blocker present. Cannot be used as a tell, not enough information to assume tell is valid.

[JDodge]

Assumes there is a blocker present. Cannot be used as a tell, not enough information to assume tell is valid.

No it doesn't.
If there is no blocker, then a successful investigation like this would be fatal if the Cop cannot be discredited.

Wrong. Look at the setup list to see why. I'm honestly stunned at why neither you nor charter (especially you, seeing as you seem to be great at over-analyzing everything) the distinct possibility (however unlikely) that kuribo is a GF.

Why is the hammer suspicious?

Some of Scheherazade's ideas of what is suspicious do not resonate with me. You quoted my thoughts on it later.
More suspicious is the wagon, which all but guarantees that at least one of you, charter, or Scheherazade is scum.

You say it yourself here - "ideas of what is suspicious". It really seems like you

believe

that Sche is sincere, but don't

want to admit it

.

No. He saw his lynch coming, saw he was going to have to back up his claim somehow, and breadcrumbed there in self-defense.

How does that change anything?
L-2 and rising would be a good time to think about how to dodge the noose. A claim would be a good way to do it; crumbs would be there to show that you've been meaning to claim eventually since... oh wait... you were put to L-2 and had incentive to claim to save your own skin. Crumbs are much more effective the earlier they are made, IMO.

'Mind if I give you some food for thought along these lines, just to speed this along a little?

I'm the Doctor

, and I protected Scheherazade last night. If nobody wants to counterclaim, and Scheherazade IS indeed a Town-side Cop, then charter and JDodge have giant targets on them. Unless someone wants to argue that kuribo/afatchic is the Godfather...

The incentive to save your skin is just as big for a cop as it is for scum.

And nice try, but I'm the doc.

Vote: Vi

My guess is Vi-kuribo over Vi-charter. I

highly

doubt that Sche is scum. I think kuribo is more likely than charter based on the M-M kill last night, which indicates doc-hunting.

[JDodge]

"Nice try"? It was quite nice, wasn't it?

Vote: JDodge

Wrong. Look at the setup list to see why. I'm honestly stunned at why neither you nor charter (especially you, seeing as you seem to be great at over-analyzing everything) the distinct possibility (however unlikely) that kuribo is a GF.

Why yes, I DID mention it. You didn't quote it. A one-in-seven chance, raised to a decent ~41% assuming both a Cop and Doc and lowered to zero assuming not both. It's still not anything I would want to take for granted (though you seem pretty willing to suggest Vi-kuribo regardless based on NK WIFOM).

You mentioned it in the post I quoted, and not before then - in other words, you mentioned it when it would have the most effect, which is backing up your claim.

And I'd say my so-called "NK WIFOM" is pretty damn valid until you can come up with a reason why it isn't.

At the time you said this, charter hadn't been here in a while; I'm not sure why you're harping on him for not assuming a special case immediately after Scheherazade gave a result.

Because the possibility was there. Generally, you see something, go through the possibilities, and then make a statement on it. This went the other way around. Same for you.

It really seems like you

believe

that Sche is sincere, but

don't want to admit it

.

I don't know if Scheherazade is being sincere; I don't have enough of a meta on him.
Some of what Scheherazade was punishing seemed to be more in line with bad play, rather than actual scumminess.
This is something I'd like to discuss with Scheherazade.

You're unwilling to excuse charter's behaviour as bad play, but you're just as happy pushing against Sche for being unwilling to excuse bad play?

That said, the Doc-claim scenario we're in now seems to fit the hypothesis of Scheherazade telling the truth, at least initially...

The presence of a doc in the setup, except in one highly unlikely scenario, confirms the presence of a cop. It would be a very, very stupid gambit to pull off by now.

I think kuribo is more likely than charter based on the M-M kill last night, which indicates doc-hunting.

I don't want to admit that you're right, what with you being obvscum from my point of view, but that seems plausible at surface. Only one of the main seven setups allows for a Cop to be protected by a Doc in every case, and assuming two Goons and no further information scumside it seems like the better play to just hit the Cop and not expect

the Spanish Inqusition

a Doctor.
There are, of course, two small wrinkles in this logic.
1) Standard NK WIFOM - intentional misdirection, propagated by a semi-outed scum himself.
2) It's quite possible for this to be a Godfather C9 where kuribo is a Townie. And that's where your pick for my scumpartner fails the logic test.

The issue here being that we've narrowed it down to the following setups:

C9
Pie C9
Two of Four A7
Bird C9
Godfather C9

Out of these, I would make the following assumptions:

There is no mafia roleblocker. (Rules out Pie C9)
The mafia had some reason to not kill the cop.

NOW, if you're scum, you know the role of both yourself and your partner. In the case of C9, Two of Four, and Bird, there would be two goons. This also fits numerous setups

sans doc

, which means that the only logical play is to attempt to kill the cop.

However, if the scum has a GF, then they possess the knowledge that there is a cop, hence they know that if they attempt to kill the cop, they will almost certainly fail. Therefore, their only chance is to attempt to find the doc as soon as possible; this allows them to kill the cop, thus allowing them to stop the damage before it ruins them.

Therefore, I make the easy, logical assumption that this is indeed GF C9.

And furthermore, my pick for your partner is

not

setup-based insofar that I believe Sche's investigation damns kuribo; rather, it is based on my current opinion of whom I feel is best linked to you. Your rocky history with charter does not seem like distancing to me.

I'd worry about it after your lynch, personally. With two claimed Docs and only one possible, today's fashions in noose fitting seem obvious.

Your smug is showing.

[JDodge]

And I'd say my so-called "NK WIFOM" is pretty damn valid until you can come up with a reason why it isn't.

And furthermore, my pick for your partner is not setup-based insofar that I believe Sche's investigation damns kuribo; rather, it is based on my current opinion of whom I feel is best linked to you. Your rocky history with charter does not seem like distancing to me.

So it's not NK WIFOM.
I'm assuming that kuribo's out-the-gate hate on me DOES look like distancing to you? Strange world.

Not distancing. Bussing. Scumpartner seeing his partner is going down and trying to ship him out of there as soon as possible.

You're unwilling to excuse charter's behaviour as bad play, but you're just as happy pushing against Sche for being unwilling to excuse bad play?

Not nearly "just as happy". I also said that Scheherazade had some justifiable reasons for voting eldarad. charter said "I believe this guy is scum" on page 7, said "I still believe this guy is scum" on page 10, and the rest of it was waiting it out. Not that he seemed to have any objections to hammering afatchic... (342)

Sche hammers for "bad play", you hold an objection; are you saying you wouldn't hammer charter for "bad play" (also, I find it interesting you seem to be now

admitting

that charter was playing badly) given the scenario?

A few things to press on here. One is how close he is to charter the obvscum. I'm tired of being ignored on this. Does anyone have any reason to say that charter was NOT playing the part of Mafia D1? The active lurking in plain sight. The refusal to scumhunt. The weak suspicions cast about against people who were looking against him. The desire to hammer afatchic while claiming outright that afatchic was most likely Town.

The being scum.

Yet JDodge

defended

charter, and charter was the only person other than himself that he defended all day. charter even treated us to a display of the most fakey distancing ever starting in 371. Am I the only person to whom this seems obvious?

Bad play, not suspicion. Your afatchic-town to afatchic-scum point is easily countered when you consider that people change their mind.

A second one is his jump to the eldarad wagon. He called early on to lynch Moospiker, and when Moospiker claimed Cop to lynch afatchic as his partner. JDodge was repeatedly called upon to justify this afatchic vote (leaving me to fill in the blanks, which in retrospect I shouldn't have done), and he only did so multiple pages later, in a two-post extravaganza.

I didn't feel like posting my case then. I'm going to go ahead and say "meta me" again, like I did to M-M.

But he drops all of it as soon as kuribo replaces in for afatchic, and pursues the popular eldarad lynch instead. When charter asks why, the only objective reason he gives is about eldarad's "blameshifting", which I don't buy (how different is this from charter's pushing suspicion on people who are suspicious of him? Apparently, the difference was that eldarad had a more likely wagon).

I have a good meta on kuribo, and I thought I had a good meta on eldarad. Kuribo looks solidly town to me, and eldarad looked pretty damn scummy.

On a related note, I will repeat that the odds are slim to zero that there were no scum on the wagon (this would require a Vi-kuribo scumpair). The eldarad wagon consisted of:
*charter (who had been hating eldarad blindly for multiple pages)
*JDodge (see previous paragraph)
*Machiavellian-Mafia (for the sake of a wagon, and that his unwilling-to-post lynch idea fell through)
*Scheherazade (misinterprets eldarad's paraphrase as a quote, "disingenuity")
Machiavellian-Mafia has been shown to be Town. If we're going to assume Scheherazade is indeed a Cop, then that leaves... charter and JDodge as the scum pushing the mislynch. Notice that both of them were also on the Moospiker lynch as well, and charter was within a post of hammering afatchic (who JDodge was already on the wagon of).

I like how you declare that me and charter

must be

scum because we comprised half the eldarad wagon.

Now, a few questions for you, since you seem to be doing my job for me with your pathetic attempts at mudslinging:

- Why was the eldarad lynch a bad one?
- Who (of charter and kuribo) do you feel is most easily linked to yourself?

I would also like to propose the following:

We lynch one of (kuribo, charter) today instead of one of (myself, Vi).

In so doing, we auto-win if we get it right. Otherwise, assuming a GF (which I still think is most likely), we have to make this sort of lylo decision

twice

instead of once. Thoughts?

[JDodge]

Christmas shopping, preparing for finals, whatnot, etc.

[JDodge]

I think it's jdodge + kuribo. Gotta do some rereading before voting though.

Also, I was thinking. It might make sense not to lynch jdodge/vi today. If we nail scum today that isn't them (and assuming sche is cop) then it's an autowin tomorrow. Of course this excludes the scenario that it's jdodge/vi, which I find very possible.

FINALLY SOMEONE ELSE GETS IT!

Not distancing. Bussing. Scumpartner seeing his partner is going down and trying to ship him out of there as soon as possible.

Um... what? I was in no danger at the time. This makes zero sense.

You had already claimed doctor, had you not? Again, I think it

incredibly

safe to assume that this is the Godfather C9 setup, thus meaning that you would (as a scumpair) have knowledge of the setup containing a doctor. This means that by you

claiming

doc you put yourself in at least 3 times as much danger as you would need to normally. Honestly, were I your scumpartner, I'd have done the same thing and attempted to get you lynched to put myself in a better position for tomorrow, especially when you consider that you're almost certainly not a godfather seeing as that would be an obnoxiously risky gambit (although somewhat clever, I don't think any scum power role in their right mind would dare claim a power role they know exists within the setup).

Sche hammers for "bad play", you hold an objection; are you saying you wouldn't hammer charter for "bad play" (also, I find it interesting you seem to be now

admitting

that charter was playing badly) given the scenario?

Hardly.
I could much more easily rationalize eldarad trying to play well, but failing. charter's play has been both bad and scummy; he wasn't even trying in the first place. (But if it wins him the game as scum, perhaps it's not bad play. Hmm...)

So you can see eldarad as "trying to play well, but failing". Yet it still seems that you only see charter in the black-and-white categories of "good play = town, bad play = scum". Although I am getting rather sick of trying to defend charter's actions considering it seems he's just using me to fight his battles for me (the lazy ass), I would like to again point out that charter not even trying is not necessarily scummy. Especially when you point out that not even trying is

contrary to the scum motive of attempting to get townies lynched

, AND contrary to the secondary scum motive of attempting to blend in. Your entire line of logic against charter blatantly ignores the law of common sense in favour of the law of "he's not doing anything, must be scum".

I would argue that, in this current age of mafia wherein you have numerous people who have a more lurking playstyle, that lurking has ceased to become a meaningful tell and that lynch all lurkers is used solely as a tool to attempt to condition players into the standards of play that those who use it wish to enforce.

Bad play, not suspicion. Your afatchic-town to afatchic-scum point is easily countered when you consider that people change their mind.

And what kind of bad play is it for you to defend someone who

refuses

to defend himself, hmm? It's nonetheless striking that charter changes his mind about someone he insisted was most likely Town for a brief period when it became likely afatchic was going to a lynch, and as soon as afatchic showed up he backpedaled on it.

Why wouldn't I defend someone who refuses to defend themselves? Why should we only hold the bad against someone while refusing to look at the other side of the coin? Why is it scummy for me to attempt to prevent what I feel to be unfounded suspicion being laid upon someone?

I concede the second point when you put it in that context.

Writing off everything charter is doing as Bad Play is simply not going to fly. It's just my personal belief that people in general aren't terminally retarded and at some level know what they're doing and the consequences thereof.

That's just because you don't have enough experience with the idiots who play to become jaded enough to realize that people

are

terminally retarded and really

don't

know what they're doing and the consequences thereof. I'll admit that the naivety defense does make your pushing of charter much more believable, but I'm finding it hard to accept that defense all things considered.

I didn't feel like posting my case then. I'm going to go ahead and say "meta me" again, like I did to M-M.

I already have. Even if I were to buy that you brought yourself back to the

horrible monotony

that is this game, I still think it would have been more attractive IYO if people would just listen to you and fill in the details on their own.

Meta doesn't excuse everything. If I'm wrong on this statement, I'm going to quit whatever it is I'm doing and emulate your playstyle. (It certainly can't

hurt

my win %.)

Yes. I do think it would've been more attractive if people had looked for themselves or at very least remained cognizant of my opinion regardless of how much meaning was behind it at the time. Instead, people tend to dismiss opinions without what they feel to be "sufficient opinion" behind them. This is flawed because it essentially says "you're not allowed to have an opinion unless it's good enough for me". This is not necessarily an indictment against you, but rather a distaste for the current standard of play.

Yes, meta does not excuse everything. You're expanding my point to beyond the scope of what it contains. Please, just look at what I asked you to look at in a meta context.

I have a good meta on kuribo, and I thought I had a good meta on eldarad. Kuribo looks solidly town to me, and eldarad looked pretty damn scummy.

Well that's vague enough. Explain, especially since you're currently accusing kuribo of being my scumpartner (and your bussing link is nonexistent).

My metas on kuribo and eldarad are from roughly the same time. On a theoretical level, since my meta on eldarad proved to be wrong and presumably outdated, I can assume the same about my meta on kuribo. Thus my opinions in a meta context are invalid, thus I must use a non-meta context. I find non-meta contexts to be overly circumstantial. I feel that this makes my play overall worse. That was a typo on the whole "kuribo looks solidly town" bit, I meant to say kuribo

looked

solidly town.

I like how you declare that me and charter

must

be scum because we comprised half the eldarad wagon.

"Must" is a strong word, one you don't use unless you mean it in probabalistic terms. And that's you putting the word in my mouth.
Moreover, you're misrepresenting my position a bit. I said "there is at least one". That would be charter... or you, if we're leaving Scheherazade out. That's easy enough. And since both of you were pushing the same wagons earlier, I'm going to go ahead and say BOTH of you. This is separate of any individual claims against either of you, although they support each other nicely.

No, not really. You say that the scum was pushing the eldarad lynch. You then note that Sche and M-M are town. You then posit from that that both me and charter are scum

for the same reason

. It's pretty hard for you to argue that you're not indicting both of us on the same charge here. You're also arguing that at least one of us must be scum, then applying that in such a way that both of us must be scum - which is downright awkward, really.

- Why was the eldarad lynch a bad one?

He wasn't the best lynchee available IMO. I'm still

extremely

displeased at Scheherazade that he hammered without mentioning charter once. Further, half the four-person wagon (JDodge, M-M) was there in large measure for the sake of getting a lynch to occur, leaving charter (no comment) and Scheherazade as the people actually pushing eldarad as scummy.

You're indicting me on pushing the wagon and then lumping me in with one of two confirmed town players reasoning-wise? That's a bit odd, isn't it? Furthermore, how am I scum for supposedly pushing the eldarad lynch when you're saying that only Sche and charter were pushing the eldarad lynch? Something is ROTTEN IN DENMARK HERE.

- Who (of charter and kuribo) do you feel is most easily linked to yourself?

Neither. The person most easily linked to me was Machiavellian-Mafia.

Answer the question. In fact, I just noticed that the first time you voted me was when I asked you a question and then called you out for not answering it - perhaps you didn't

want

to answer the question for whatever reason.

Hmmmm.

In fact, I noticed this little hypocrisy too:

Oh hey, Scheherazade! I thought something was wrong with the forum for a second.

(And I wasn't referring to you as one of the utter n00bs in my other games; you actually have a grasp of the English language, ergo you're better off than 20% of the people I've seen.)

Thought you didn't believe people were "terminally retarded" in that way? Seems to be a bit more convenient for you to change your mind on that now, doesn't it?

I object. One hard lesson I've learned is that you Never Let Scum Go If Promised Another.
It's guaranteed that between me and JDodge, there is at least one Mafiate. However, it is NOT guaranteed that there is one between charter and kuribo. Considering that the primary proponent of the Godfather C9 setup is the person I

know

is scum, I think it's quite possible for Scheherazade to be your partner. Unlikely, eh. Possible, undeniably.
Moreover, your plan implicitly assumes that the line is clearly drawn between Vi-kuribo and JDodge-charter. It's not, and for you to propose this plan I'm curious as to whether you're capitalizing on this.

Again, I am almost entirely certain that this is GF C9. Which means there is a cop. No counter-claim means Sche is a cop. Sche being a cop means he is not scum. Sche not being scum means that by lynching one of charter/kuribo, we have a 50/50 shot as a town of lynching the correct one. I protect Sche, you can't kill me because that would expose you anyways (meaning you have to kill whichever of charter/kuribo is town). Sche investigates one of us. We lynch according to Sche's investigation. Town wins automatically.

Otherwise, we have to take a separate 50-50 chance which leads to insta-loss if we're wrong. If we're right, and I'm right about there being a GF, then we have to make the same 50-50 tomorrow. Which, according to my math, means lynching one of kuribo/charter gives us a 50% chance whereas lynching one of myself/Vi gives us a 25% overall chance.

Also, I never said anything about there being a Vi-kuribo and JD-charter line. I said solely that there were two parallels - Vi-JD and kuribo-charter. I prefer lynching on the latter to lynching on the former at the moment.

[JDodge]

I'll be back next week - I'm moving to a new house and things are a bit hectic.

[JDodge]

Mod:

any chance of any sort of deadline extension due to my extended L/A period?

I'm pretty much back fully now - I'll work on this later.

[JDodge]

January 8 seems okay for now. As much as I don't to force a decision in a touchy situation like this, I want a decision to be made in the first place; and I'm cynical enough to believe it'll take a deadline to do it.

Please note the V/LA in my signature... I'll see you in a few days.

Why in the

fuck

would you not accept a deadline

extension

when you know that not only is someone going to be gone for a week, possibly more, but that you will also be gone?

I still don't understand the assumption that there IS a godfather.

It could just as easily be C9, Two of Four A7, or Bird C9.

Probability mostly. It actually

couldn't

just as easily be C9 or Two of Four A7, although either one is still possible.

It IS possible that the obv-doc-hunting night-kill was part of a ruse for JDodge to propose Godfather C9 today; hence why I was hesitant to call Godfather C9 certain. Even so, it's good to keep in mind.

WIFOM.

Allow me to save us some time - you'll go on some tangent about how it's not really WIFOM and WIFOM is a term that's overused by people who don't know what it means when really that is the

biggest fucking cop-out in the book

. You

KNOW

that's pure, unadulterated bullshit you're attempting to shovel down our collective gullets, otherwise you wouldn't have defused it with your little "IT'S GOOD TO KEEP IN MIND" line.

This means that by you claiming doc you put yourself in at least 3 times as much danger as you would need to normally.

Wait, hold the phone. Let me trace this conversation.
--kuribo's out-the-gate hate on you D1 was bussing.
-Why do you think this? I was in no danger at the time he replaced in.
--You claimed Doctor today to place yourself in danger.
I've already been in one Time Abuse Mafia, and I'm pretty sure I only signed up for one. No, I didn't claim Doctor D1, nor did KrisReizer IIRC.

Let's retrace your points you claim I'm trying to make here.

1. No. I'm talking about D2. kuribo's overt hostility is understandable D1, but I'd think that any well-reasoned person would at least show some skepticism throughout D2. I find it somewhat odd that he did in such a way go right after you on D2. Keep in mind that I don't

know

kuribo is scum in the same way that I know you're scum - any point against him will be tangential by nature and thus open to interpretation.

2. See above.

3. What the fuck? How could you possibly draw this conclusion from that line of logic?

Honestly, were I your scumpartner, I'd have done the same thing and attempted to get you lynched to put myself in a better position for tomorrow, especially when you consider that you're almost certainly not a godfather seeing as that would be an obnoxiously risky gambit (although somewhat clever, I don't think any scum power role in their right mind would dare claim a power role they know exists within the setup).

"Were I your scumpartner" WIFOM aside, I know of one scum power that would try it - a player who thinks he's clean countering someone he thinks can be bullied out of the game. If you get me lynched today, it doesn't matter if you're the Godfather or anything else; you win. Why would a Godfather be the one counterclaiming? Perhaps because he has a better reputation than his Goon partner, or more experience/confidence.
Moreover, if the Godfather were so concerned about getting lynched today, then perhaps in addition to counterclaiming he would push the lynch pressure off himself. 'Sound familiar? This would in turn allow him to use investigation immunity such that if he were investigated N2, he would be able to indict the other player immediately. All of the benefits of claiming Doc plus all of the benefits of being a Godfather, even with an authentic Doctor in the game!

Fails the essential point of the jig is pretty much up when they lynch either himself or the real doc.

Do you seriously think anyone would find either of us to be a pushover?

That being said I don't think there's much further we can get on this point. I won't belabour it.

So you can see eldarad as "trying to play well, but failing". Yet it still seems that you only see charter in the black-and-white categories of "good play = town, bad play = scum".

More like "not trying to play well, and failing".

I would like to again point out that charter not even trying is not necessarily scummy. Especially when you point out that not even trying is contrary to the scum motive of attempting to get townies lynched, AND contrary to the secondary scum motive of attempting to blend in. Your entire line of logic against charter blatantly ignores the law of common sense in favour of the law of "he's not doing anything, must be scum".

Towns self-destruct more often than not. Being on the periphery, or active lurking, is just fine if the Town's willing to lynch itself to LyLo.

The current environmental meta dictates that active lurking is extremely scrutinized and as is such now fails the secondary scum motivation. It never fulfilled the primary scum motivation.

I would argue that, in this current age of mafia wherein you have numerous people who have a more lurking playstyle, that lurking has ceased to become a meaningful tell and that lynch all lurkers is used solely as a tool to attempt to condition players into the standards of play that those who use it wish to enforce.

I don't have such a big deal with lurking as a playstyle as long as what you say when you DO show up is convincing. Active lurking is by definition failing at this, and is either a sign of staying in the background (see above) or being a playstyle miller. I've lost too many games to lurker-scum to agree with you.

Because you fail to recognize the importance of meta in the general context of a mafia game. Allow me to go off-the-subject a bit and say that this is not really at the moment a game-related gripe; this is definitely a theory subject that I want to hit on a bit. Active lurking is by definition something that should be noticed, picked up on, placed in context, compared against similar contexts, and scrutinized thusly as with everything else in the game as a whole. Nine times out of ten, people will fail at least one of steps two through four in that line. Most often three and four.

Why wouldn't I defend someone who refuses to defend themselves? Why should we only hold the bad against someone while refusing to look at the other side of the coin? Why is it scummy for me to attempt to prevent what I feel to be unfounded suspicion being laid upon someone?

Good question. I would reserve that for unfounded suspicion, and only for people who cannot defend themselves (V/LA or getting replaced). The first part we can debate for a while longer, but the second part is where charter fails.

One of the primary motivations of a townsperson is the preservation of the town, and a secondary motivation is the full scrutinization of every member of the town. I don't really think you can fulfill said secondary motivation if you're not allowing a proper defense of actions to be laid down as that means that you are looking solely at the negative whilst ignoring the redeeming and/or negating qualities.

That's just because you don't have enough experience with the idiots who play to become jaded enough to realize that people are terminally retarded and really

don't

know what they're doing and the consequences thereof.

Which should be taken into account when looking at them. I'll defend people that I feel are newbs/n00bs when I believe I can understand why they're doing what they're doing if it's wrong. However, the suspicion should still surface that the person being defended is scum when it piles up, or if things stop becoming fully explicable by the n00b card.

And this differs from my defense of charter how exactly?

I'll admit that the naivety defense does make your pushing of charter much more believable, but I'm finding it hard to accept that defense all things considered.

I'm feeling masochistic today. Why is it hard to accept?

Because as you demonstrated in above quote you do have a great understanding of how the whole point/counter-point part of mafia works.

The flip side to this approach to scumhunting is that it essentially lets you direct the scumhunting efforts with seeming-little research effort of your own. That's a great place for scum to be. *continues taking notes*

No, not really; yes, it removes

accountability

, but on the flipside it adds the illusion of complete uselessness. And in the current environmental meta, deadwood tends to be cut adrift rather quickly.

I'll be back next year with more. This is a rather large FREAKING WALL O TEXT to slog through, you see.

[JDodge]

WIFOM.

Allow me to save us some time - you'll go on some tangent about how it's not really WIFOM and WIFOM is a term that's overused by people who don't know what it means when really that is the

biggest fucking cop-out in the book

. You

KNOW

that's pure, unadulterated bullshit you're attempting to shovel down our collective gullets, otherwise you wouldn't have defused it with your little "IT'S GOOD TO KEEP IN MIND" line.

Are you done with the CAPS and

italics

? They make your attempt to stuff words into my mouth more convincing, or they would if I didn't have other plans.
First, you're saying that I'm going to try to talk out of both sides of my mouth - saying that it's not really WIFOM, but that I defused it with that tag (implying that I'm conceding that it is). Give me a little credit here.
Second, permit me to astonish you - what I suggested IS WIFOM. It's not possible to know either way based on the given information, though it isn't the most likely scenario. Thus, it's good to keep in mind but it's not something to concentrate on. (Which if you look at what I said in context would be the obvious conclusion.)

1. Tough, deal with it. I'm not trying to stuff words into your mouth. You're projecting your own skewed ideas onto me to the point that you could just simply point your head at a screen and play movies in a theatre.

No. I'm not saying that you're going to try to talk both sides. I'm saying that you know damn well it's WIFOM but you'll use it anyways.

Regardless of whether you admit it is WIFOM, you're presenting it as the most obvious conclusion when in reality it is only the obvious conclusion if you so decide to take the route of say, JD is evil, Vi is ultimate good. Which in general is a bad stance to take no matter what side you're on.

1. No. I'm talking about D2. kuribo's overt hostility is understandable D1, but I'd think that any well-reasoned person would at least show some skepticism throughout D2. I find it somewhat odd that he did in such a way go right after you on D2.

Um... what? Rereading, I don't see him "going right after me", except to some relatively passive degree. I do see him turning to skepticism after the Doc claim.

A WTF period after your claim is reasonable with the whole thing.

3. What the fuck? How could you possibly draw this conclusion from that line of logic?

I didn't draw that conclusion. You did.

No. I didn't. Again, projection, head, screen, movies, theatre. I said that your claim

put you in more danger

. I never once said that your claim was intended to put you in more danger. I think it was more likely than not a misinformed gambit designed to flush the real doc out of hiding, which again fits with my doc-hunting in GF C9 theory. Every scum action in this game has been intended to take down the doc to the very end.

Not distancing. Bussing. Scumpartner seeing his partner is going down and trying to ship him out of there as soon as possible.

Um... what? I was in no danger at the time. This makes zero sense.

You had already claimed doctor, had you not? Again, I think it

incredibly

safe to assume that this is the Godfather C9 setup, thus meaning that you would (as a scumpair) have knowledge of the setup containing a doctor. This means that by you

claiming

doc you put yourself in at least 3 times as much danger as you would need to normally. Honestly, were I your scumpartner, I'd have done the same thing and attempted to get you lynched to put myself in a better position for tomorrow, especially when you consider that you're almost certainly not a godfather seeing as that would be an obnoxiously risky gambit (although somewhat clever, I don't think any scum power role in their right mind would dare claim a power role they know exists within the setup).

So let me try this again.
You) kuribo is apparently bussing you

D1

D2.
Me) Why? I (still) was not in any particular danger.
You) You claimed Doctor to make yourself more of a target. If I hadn't beaten you to it, I bet kuribo would have counterclaimed. To bus you.
Or something like that. Whatever the logic string is here, I can't find it.
Not to mention that assuming that the scumpair is Vi-kuribo, there'd be no reason for us to bus each other. Bussing as planned strategy is overrated.

What the everloving fuck? Do you even believe the shit that's coming out of your mouth now? You even

admit

that you can't find the string of logic, which you seem to take as a cue to fill in the blanks yourself. So allow me to do my favorite thing in the whole game of mafia and rip a half-assed, bullshit argument made out of nothing to little teeny tiny bits showing exactly where you're being a complete pillock.

1. Kuribo started bussing you midway through D1, when he thought you were a relatively safe target considering the general lack of attention paid to you. This has the effects of distancing as well as making it look like at least someone is paying attention to you.

2. You were not in particular danger on D1 when he started. I admit that I failed to mention this in my original argument. You became in danger when you claimed doc.

3. You claimed doc to flush out the real doc. Without lynching the real doc, you stand a hefty chance of losing. I think your resistance to the lynch one of kuribo-charter play is based on this.

I would like to point out the following sentence repeatedly: "Not to mention that assuming that the scumpair is Vi-kuribo, there'd be no reason for us to bus each other."

More WIFOM dressed up as fact. Not even a qualifier this time.

Of course there is a fucking reason for you to bus each other if you're scumpartners.

You're right. Planned bussing does reek. I'm saying that kuribo's bussing was opportunistic and based on your actions, not some moustache-twirling evil plot to blow up freaking China or something.

Fails the essential point of the jig is pretty much up when they lynch either himself or the real doc.

Not really, no.
If the real Doc is lynched, the game's over. If the GF is lynched, yes, the jig is up. I'm hypothesizing that that's why you're pushing the pressure to the other players.

I'm pushing the pressure to the other players because I feel that:

A) We're more likely to agree on one of them over one of us today, because the game IS over today if we don't lynch (thanks again for denying us the deadline extension, Mr. Dickwad. And no, I don't mean Sim (<3))

B) I feel there is as clear a parallel between kuribo/charter as there is between Vi/myself. Which in turn makes A possible.

C) I feel that it is more fruitful to lynch between one of them because I don't believe that any GF in their right mind with a cop in the setup would fakeclaim a power-role that they know is in the setup first thing D2. Hence if I am correct and this is indeed GF C9, one of kuribo/charter must be the GF. By lynching one of them, we make it insta-win for town or insta-loss town. By lynching one of us, we make it half-way win for town or insta-loss town. I'm simply playing logic and the odds at the moment.

Do you seriously think anyone would find either of us to be a pushover?

Not you, no.

Do you believe yourself to be a pushover? Do you believe you project the facade of being a pushover?

The current environmental meta dictates that active lurking is extremely scrutinized and as is such now fails the secondary scum motivation. It never fulfilled the primary scum motivation.

So since you actually care about the meta trends, you wouldn't do it. (in theory)
I'm having a hard time applying this to anyone else, since I know I haven't seen it happen outside the times I initiate said scrutiny.

The vast majority of scrutiny happens in people's minds, not on the pages of a game - this is because people don't want to be

that guy

. The one who brings up ACTIVE LURKING while everyone's having fun thus dragging them down into a pit of despair. The one who feels the need to blab endlessly about every single freaking thought that crosses into their mind. I don't think we can get much further on this point. I also think it's crossed into theory-land where it should be allowed to roam free over the bright green pastures of the Strawmen next to the quick-flowing river of wine.

Back on topic, it's bringing up the topic of active lurking that sets the gears in the backs of people's minds into motion and creates the spark that sets the pastures ablaze and starts the river flowing with blood. Also, starry skies.

EXCISING ABSTRACTION

One of the primary motivations of a townsperson is the preservation of the town, and a secondary motivation is the full scrutinization of every member of the town. I don't really think you can fulfill said secondary motivation if you're not allowing a proper defense of actions to be laid down as that means that you are looking solely at the negative whilst ignoring the redeeming and/or negating qualities.

I sense a line of garbage here.
If someone can't defend themselves, okay fine. If someone

refuses

to defend themselves, that's their problem. Besides, there's still the option of presenting a better case on someone else.

The best offense is a good defense. Oftentimes you can expose flaws in an argument against a person who looks otherwise solid because they're attacking someone who isn't defending themselves properly. This seems to be falling into difference of opinion on how to play the game-land as opposed to actually in the game-land. NEXT TOPIC

And this differs from my defense of charter how exactly?

However, the suspicion should still surface that the person being defended is scum when it piles up, or if things stop becoming fully explicable by the n00b card.

Suspicion rising above counterpoints =/= ignoring counterpoints in favour of suspicion.

No, not really; yes, it removes accountability, but on the flipside it adds the illusion of complete uselessness. And in the current environmental meta, deadwood tends to be cut adrift rather quickly.

But you, unlike many others, have a meta to hide behind. So for you it's most certainly where you want to be.

People don't hide behind their metas. They are their metas. The fact that you do not grasp this is why you cannot grasp my theories.

[JDodge]

Four days to deadline.

charter, kuribo, Sotty7. Now would be a good time to discuss who among JDodge and myself you'll vote for. Questions are welcome.
(To head off the alternative of kuribo vs. charter, that only makes sense in Godfather C9. While Godfather C9 is probable, it's not as definite as the fact that one of me and JDodge is lying. In other words, what Sotty7 said.)

At this point, one of:

Vi/kuribo
Vi/charter
JD/kuribo
JD/charter

is guaranteed. By lynching out of the second subset, we in effect increase our chances given random chance by a considerable margin.

I will move my vote to kuribo on the day of the deadline if we go that route. I suggest Vi state whom he is willing to vote out of that group. I also want kuribo/charter to say whom they'd like to lynch out of me/Vi. If we can get a consensus between one side or the other, we have minimal reason to not go that route.

[JDodge]

At this point, one of:

Vi/kuribo
Vi/charter
JD/kuribo
JD/charter

is guaranteed.

Except it's not

guaranteed

.

Why would any scum in their right mind out of kuribo/charter vote the other when it's pretty damn obvious that one of us is scum? And in the Vi/JD case, wouldn't they hesitate more? And since there has been no quicker attempt on anyone thus far, if you're saying that Vi/JD, kuribo/charter, or Sotty/anyone is anywhere

near

worth mentioning as a possibility at this point, you're a bit completely out of your mind.

By lynching out of the second subset, we in effect increase our chances given random chance by a considerable margin.

WIFOM.

Cold, hard fact. Do the math, or look at one of my many posts where I do the math for you. Then again, I've given up on you actually reading the context of any of my statements after during our last little debate (which was, you know, actually helping) where you just said screw it and decided to completely ignore everything I said.

I will move my vote to kuribo on the day of the deadline if we go that route. I suggest Vi state whom he is willing to vote out of that group. I also want kuribo/charter to say whom they'd like to lynch out of me/Vi. If we can get a consensus between one side or the other, we have minimal reason to not go that route.

There's a noticeable problem here. If one Mafiate and one Townie are supposed to agree to lynch either the Mafiate's scumpartner or an unrelated Townie, which one do you think they're going to agree upon? You aren't even considering IYO-confirmed-Town Sotty7 in this at all, instead relying on one Mafiate to bus the other in order to hit scum today. This is a Bad Idea, straight-up.

Au contraire; by forcing them to agree, we

guarantee

that we're lynching someone at least one townie agrees upon. I want to use Sotty as a tiebreaker. Furthermore, forcing scum to commit to a suspicion is generally a good thing. Pull your head out of your ass and start thinking.

As far as kuribo vs. charter, considering I'm not overly fond of either of them and haven't advocated either of their lynches yet (nor do I still) I would need to look over it again.

Gee. Another cop-out response. How unpredictable.