433: Dry, bland, generic mafia: Game Over

[pete d]

vote: dom:inc

YOU STOLE MY POST!!!

[pete d]

Yeah, i mean come on, if a 2-vote never got put on someone nothing would ever happen. and wouldn't THAT be fun!

(in a 7 player game it wouldn't be overly suspicious imo, maybe a bit, but how else is anyone going to get reactions and etc.)

[pete d]

Sure discussion is good, but you have to have something to actually discuss. So far, all we've had is random voting + one or two randomish wagons that will no doubt fall apart soon. Dasquain's 4th vote might seem a little suspicious, but seriously, where is the Southpaw wagon going to go?

[pete d]

ummm... you're still voting for Southpaw yourself...

[pete d]

well, I just did a search on thorgot, he's posting in other games, so i find it a bit suspicious that he hasn't unvoted Southpaw or anything since his first random vote despite the early wagon that's formed. I guess that's worth a

FoS: thorgot

may as well

unvote

my random vote seeing as we are "discussing" now (oooh serious)

[pete d]

My vote was random. Why is it suspicious that I didn't unvote him?

By not unvoting, in effect you are saying that you support the wagon that formed after your random vote. Just because your vote was random when you put it on, doesn't mean that it stays that way; It should be viewed the same as the other contributors to the wagon. Pretending otherwise is sneaky.

[pete d]

The current situation reminds me a lot of what happened in McDonalds mafia (a recent mini theme i was in). In that game, StallingChamp proxied his vote to Glork for the weekend or something (he was going to be away) to create discussion, and a couple of people objected, and there was a big argument over the usefulness / scumminess / whatever of the proxy. As it happened, i made some bad posts, a wagon formed on me (i was town), but it switched onto a blundering scum.

What I'm trying to say is, I can see where both sides of the argument are coming from; just because there are differing opinions, doesn't mean that those who disagree with you are scum.

Myself, I'm a bit more suspicious of the people who have stayed out of discussion, the quasi lurkers (the most notable being dom:inc, Eletrair, gorckat).

btw, I disagree with the use of the "classic scumtells" argument, its like trying to add weight to your arguments without adding much substance. I'd rather Fonzy just say "blah blah blah blah; this is scummy behaviour imo" or something like that. But I am probably nitpicking.

[pete d]

@ Dasquian, I'm guessing your voting me because you think I'm scum? Well just for the record, I'm not.

Claiming 'not-scum' is another common scumtell.

In this case, i think what Dodgy said was pretty incidental, and your response of "its a scumtell" seemed a bit hollow, like it was in place of a proper argument. Your other scumtell reference I'm not as concerned about (where you said that Dodgy's defensiveness over the wagon was a scumtell) because you already made arguments about it / explanations.

[pete d]

ok... well, i guess that's a dramatic way to end the "initial discussion" faze... seems like a good time to look over the game thus far and decide who we think is the most suspicious.

[pete d]

Hrmmm... I'm a little suspicious of superstring trying to get something going on Gorckat (not that I'm not a bit suspicious of the non-contributors, gorckat, thorgot in particular); it just seems to me like you're pushing it a bit hard. I agree with Fonzy (although i think he may be missing out rule number whatever it is, you know, the one about not mentioning... um... who was it again? i dont know, i think we weren't supposed to mention somebody in the thread. anyhow.). It would be nice to hear from gorckat though [/euphemism]. I'm buying Fonzy as town at the moment.

[pete d]

(Though my 'outstanding defensiveness?' Pot, kettle...)

I guess I remembered this part, and sort of glazed over the bit where you talked about overreacting / accidently fused together the concepts of overreacting and defensiveness in my mind. Or it could have been because I thought he was being defensive. Anyhow. Sorry 'bout that.

[pete d]

I'm not going to comment at my role at this time. I see no convincing reason to claim, so I'm not going to give the scum any role information.

I agree with this 100%. I don't like how the Fonz has gone after CES so rabidly.

CES isn't very suspicious, but he did retract a doctor claim, and being "definitely town" is a death warrant.

The Fonz, for attacking Dodgy, isn't very suspicious to me, because he is drawing too much attention.

Gorckat isn't very suspicious to me, because he is so inactive.

Dasquian, I find you somewhat suspicious, because you are that perfect level between Gorckat and The Fonz, being active and helpful but not offending anybody.

This doesn't really make sense to me at all, particularly the last point. It sounds to me like someone who isn't paying much attention to the game.

I'm feeling a bit suspicious of superstring and fonzy. I know i said i bought Fonz as town before, but his recent behaviour has made me a bit more apprehensive of him. superstring seems overaggressive to me, its more of a gut feeling on my part, he seems a bit opportunistic to me. Eletrair and dom:inc both seem to be fence-sitting a bit (dom:inc hasn't commented for a while though).

[pete d]

@ superstring: Your votes on gorckat and Fonzy seemed opportunistic to me. there ya go.

@ gorckat: When I said that I bought Fonzy as town, it was before he started attacking CES. Fonzy's actions since then I don't agree with. I thought that should have been obvious from my post:

I know i said i bought Fonz as town before, but his recent behaviour has made me a bit more apprehensive of him.

minor FoS: gorckat

for misrepresentation. I say minor, because it seemed like a minor point from your post.

I don't like how dom:inc suddenly appeared when I said he was getting suspicious, and immediately joined in the FOS'ers on Fonzy. Now it could be a coincidence i guess, but I still find it suspicious.

[pete d]

@ dom:inc : 1. Me saying you were fence-sitting implied that I found that a bit suspicious 2. yeah, I guess I didn't really pay much attention to the order of FoS's, there just seemed to be a general vibe against Fonzy, and super had already voted him. And you would have had to have had the reply tab open for about an hour. It just seemed to me like you were absent through most of the discussion, then popped in and agreed with the majority of the town.

[pete d]

why not.

vote: kilmenator

. she seems to be lurking a bit; i don't like her last two posts, seems a bit contradictory saying that we shouldn't focus on CES, but that she finds CES scummy. It's like she was trying to both make CES out to be scummy but distance herself at the same time. I also don't like how she suggests that potential doc's should leave hints.

[pete d]

I guess it's about time a posted again, but I don't see much else for me to say that I haven't already said. I'm still happy with my vote on kilmenator.

[pete d]

Pretty much as per my previous post. I think you stayed out of discussion for the most part and haven't commited to anything; your posts in regard to the CES situation seem to be trying to put pressure on whilst keeping yourself distanced.

[pete d]

I don't get why dom:inc is so hung up on me using the word "town". Everyone is the town. When you mod games, you use the word "town" to describe the collective group of players. I don't see how this detracts from the argument I made. When I said "majority of the town", I would have thought it was obvious that I meant "general consensus" or something similar.

@Inhim: mind explaining "scummy mediating"? It seems like a sketchy term to use.

[pete d]

sorry, I thought the whole wink thing meant you were being sarcastic

[pete d]

@Inhim: mind explaining "scummy mediating"? It seems like a sketchy term to use.

[pete d]

Up through what I had read at the time, I think you ran back and forth about opening Day 1 bandwagon votes being helpful to questioning the Southpaw bandwagon's direction.

So... do you still think that?

*cough* bump *cough*

[pete d]

I'm still here, sorry for not posting much (check sig). I don't really feel like I have much to add at the moment. I don't have enough time to go through a detailed analysis of recent posts; I'm still happy with my vote on kilm. I will be able to post more in a fortnight exactly. Until then I'll try to keep track of the game.

[pete d]

If this is the case against me, you basically just called CES scum, because I am distancing from him... and you think I am scum... that doesnt make much sense at all...

Um, no, what I meant was that you were keeping yourself distanced from the situation, not from him. If I thought CES was scum, I'd say so.

CES- DOdgy was scummy, and then the claim was retracted, and now he is just flying under the radar for the most part, most of his posts have been pretty useless and have added nothing. Also, the LAL applies here for me, because retracting a claim, pretty much means the first player lied, therefore making that person a liar.

So why aren't you voting for CES.

I find kilm suspicious because of the general lack of making arguments against other players, lurking, and I found her posts on CES scummy.

[pete d]

Just so nobody "accidentally" puts on a hammer, I'm pretty sure inHim is at -1 right now.

[pete d]

He is scum and no one is putting pressure on him to claim, so he isnt posting...

And yet, you still are not voting for him.

[pete d]

I'm not sure about the getting CES to claim, but his lack of posting definitely isn't helping. I would really like to see some input from him before day ends.

[pete d]

unvote, vote: CES

pending contribution from CES.

The lurking has gone on too long. I don't see any reason for him not to be participating.

[pete d]

unvote

/waits

[pete d]

Dude, I unvoted you because I decided your "I am not claiming because it would be bad for the town" strategy convinced me you probably were town after all, (mainly because I've never seen scum try that) so I didn't want you at lynch -1.

I'm not convinced by this reasoning.

Now I am finding myself suspicious of you again, mainly because of language like this:

I'm open to him not being partnered with kilm, of course (although that would be a nice twofer).

You just sound so damn smug about it. I just made an impulsive decision. We can let MBL go and see if he survives the night and maybe deal with him tomorrow.

This reasoning seems weak also. Suspecting someone for being smug, or for how they say something? I would think that

what

they say would be more important, rather than how they say it.

[pete d]

I'm weighing up whether I prefer an Inhim lynch or somebody else. Inhim seems to be contributing logically and being helpful. There are some things that are suspicious, like the refusal to claim and the witholding of the rankings (I'll have to review Sweenytodd's actions also). I don't really see a problem with saying someone is suspicious / scummy but that this could wait for tomorrow or there is another player you'd rather vote for; several other players have said as much. I guess I'm not opposed to his lynch, it would give us decent information to work with day 2, and there has been those couple of suspicious things that I mentioned.

I would prefer somebody I find more suspicious, such as kilm or OtM, or perhaps superstring, but there could be difficulties in garnering support. I may as well

vote: Off the Mark

. Worst case scenario, the Inhim wagon sticks.

[pete d]

Dodgy sent a threatening letter to someone claiming to be the forum administrator and saying he'd gut their cat or something. I think it's pretty clear he was on some bad acid or hopped up on Twinkies. Do you really want to attribute significance to his play?

If this is so, how can you attribute alignment to his actions when it is difficult to attribute significance to his play? I'm not just pulling out a quote to make this argument, this is pretty much how I'm seeing the situation at the moment. For me, Dodgy's behaviour is hard to judge, because there's a sense of irrationality hanging over it. CES's behaviour seems easier to judge; to me, the withdrawal of the claim made sense, and his lack of contribution was suspicious (but then, he could have had RL problems, someone said he pulled out of another game?).

MBL: Realistically, who do you think should be lynched today?

[pete d]

I understand her suspicion of Pete D here, but I think it is possible that Pete was simply working under the theory that CES was scum and I think kilm overreacted a little bit here.

No, I was suspicious of kilm's behaviour, and I explained this.

[pete d]

Can someone explain deadline rules to me please, or point me towards where they are?

4.) If a deadline passes without a player or No Lynch receiving a majority of the votes, the day will end with the person with the highest votes being lynched. If two players are tied are tied for the highest number, then the player who reached that number first will be lynched,

ie, whoever has the most votes at deadline is lynched; a normal majority (ie 7 votes) is not required.

[pete d]

Hey guys, I'm back and will catch up ASAP. lol at the headline.

[pete d]

vanilla townie

[pete d]

My suspicions, in relative order from least suspicious to most:

kilmenator - Essentially confirmed as town due to lack of counterclaims and unlikelihood of 3 anti-town killing parties.

Dasquian - Hasn't really done anything that's stood out to me as suspicious. The most townish looking player from my perspective.

Nanookthewolf - Eletrair's post 15 was a bit strange, and Eletrair did lurk for a bit, but apparently had RL issues. Was "pretty sure" that MBL was scum, also put inhim at -1.

Pie_is_good - Pressed for a claim from MBL citing "much, much information" which could be gained. Kept vote on MBL up to deadline, despite expressing that he wasn't keen on the inhim wagon, and that he found Off the Mark suspicious.

superstring91 - Seemed somewhat opportunistic to me midway through day 1, kept a vote on MBL despite admitting it had no basis, promising to return to move it / add some comments, but didn't.

i understand your worries here, but i don't think scum would claim vanilla. they would claim a power role. discrediting the real power role, and playing the rest of the game in their position.

This post also struck me as strange.

gorckat - Seemed to go along with the crowd, wagon hopped a fair bit and lurked early on day 1, however gave better arguments for his votes later on day 1. Stood out to me that he said that he was suspicious of thorgot, then he was less so of OtM, then he was suspicious of OtM, and now he's got OtM on his town list.

off the mark - His early vote on Dasquain day 2 seemed rash. Some of his day 2 speculation doesn't make any sense. Seems to be pushing for a Nanook lynch. Weak arguments for his suspicions:

Of the vanilla claimers, I am also suspicious of Nanook and Pete D.

Mainly because I was suspicious of them on Day1

and they were late to join the "let's all massclaim" discussion. Not a strong argument, I know, but there it is.

Agreed 100%. But I don't think gorckat and Fonz are both scum. My suspicion list right now looks something like this:

inHim
MBL
gorckat (if gorck is scum, I think Fonz and Dasq are probably ok)
Pete D
Fonz
Dasquian (if Fonz is scum, I think it very likely Dasq is too)
IH (not sure what to think of him, I need to see more)
Nanook (been getting pro-town vibes from him lately, so he is almost off the list)

btw, in case you didn't notice my sig, I was away 6-11 July, and when I came back there was little to comment on at the time apart from claiming.

IN summary:

Suspicious: OtM
A bit suspicious: gorckat, superstring
Maybes: pie, Nanook
Leaning Town: Dasq
Assumed Town: kilmenator

[pete d]

If you were scum, it seems you would assume Dodgy was telling the truth about his claim and not look elsewhere for a doc, so this leads me to believe you are telling the truth.

If he was scum, I guess that would be likely, but I don't see how this means you believe him. I don't really follow your logic here.

Nanook's statement doesn't really change my opinion of him. It seems credible, however I do agree with gorckat's post 664.

[pete d]

Firstly, I think that superstring should reply to OtM's analysis before we add specific comments. I want to see his reaction / arguments.

Secondly, the analysis has swayed me a little in OtM's favour; I still need to reread through specifically gorckat and OtM and consider my previous suspicions, but on my scale it has put him back down on the same tier as gorckat and superstring for the moment.

As scum, I'd think you would have disincluded all the "NCN" posts and the protown vibe posts - you could have easily done so and been significantly more presuasive.

I'm not sure I agree with this. If he had done this, it would have been easy to check back over what he left out, and this may have worked against him. That said, I have experienced a completely BS analysis from a scum against me in another game, and OtM's analysis doesn't strike me as BS at all.

[pete d]

It may also be useful to examine the kilm wagon (just before the inhim wagon):

I put a vote on, stayed there for a while

gorckat votes inhim to make him explain "scummy mediating"
Gorckat votes kilm
gorckat votes thorgot

OtM votes kilm
inhim votes kilm

dasq votes inhim

superstring comes in, doesn't add much, votes kilm

gorckat votes kilm (-2)

> inhim wagon builds up.

My updated relative suspicions:

gorckat, superstring

OtM
pie, Nanook


Dasq

kilm

[pete d]

pete: What exactly are you showing with your kilm wagon listing? You show my votes moving at the beginning, which I've explained previously. Did anyone else move their votes during the kilm wagon?

If I'm more suspicious to you than I was previously, can you tell me why?

Basically I thought the kilm wagon was the first significant bandwagon after the discussion about Dodgy / CES, and should tack on to the start of OtM's analysis. As for you being more suspicious than before, it's more OtM had dropped down a little on my suspicions list, whilst my previous concerns re you and superstring still stand.

Now, pie and OtM voting gorckat, I know the game's a bit stagnant at the moment, but I find this suspicious. OtM has pushed his suspicions of a number of players (Nanook, superstring, gorckat, and earlier Dasq) today, especially superstring of late, but has put a second vote on gorckat. With superstring not responding, I don't understand why he's decided to go after gorckat.

FoS: Off the Mark

. Pie, a couple of little things, not switching to OtM late day 1 and dropping his suspicions of OtM too quickly (imo) after the PBP. But, pie's vote on gorckat is consistant with his previous statements.

Nanook's also staying out of discussion a bit recently, perhaps trying to duck under the radar?

[pete d]

I checked, and superstring and Nanook are posting in other parts of the site (superstring's last post was on August 2, Nanook's on July 31).

vote: superstring91

.

FoS: Nanook

for lurking.

[pete d]

FOS: Pete D for misleading us with this info.

Perhaps "are posting" could be restated as "has posted" in superstring's case; However, even if he has been posting sporadically, he would still have received his prod.

And if Pete D is scum, I find it likely that gorckat is too. Notice how after my gorckat vote, Pete calls it into question and FOS's me, but after my superstring vote, Pete goes out and finds some corroborating evidence (which turns out to be sketchy) and then votes for superstring along with me.

2x FOS: OtM

. Blatant misrepresentation. I rightly called you out for your contradiction in voting gorckat. Your superstring vote had nothing to do with mine. I had previous concerns, and seeing that superstring would have picked up his prod but still hasn't posted convinced me to put a vote on. I will keep it on at least until he posts.

[pete d]

Well, I was wrong about superstring and nanook not posting. My bad.

unvote

.

[pete d]

Only problem is, due to Pete D's recent reaction to my votes, I can't see Pete D and superstring both as scum. So we have to get it right between the 2 at the top of your scummy list.

Can anyone else see something wrong here?

[pete d]

First off, HUGE FRIGGIN FOS: OTM and PETED for lurkerlynching. What the hell, people? We're pretty much at LYLO here. Why would you ever, ever vote for a lurker, unless you want to hit an easy target?

My vote was based on his D1 behavior, it was not a vote because he was lurking on Day2, but the lurking has not helped my opinion of him.

QFT. OtM and I had already voiced our suspicions of superstring.

[pete d]

ok, flea's had ample opportunity to post something of substance.

vote: somestrangeflea

[pete d]

Why take a risk on a lurker when we have information?

We are not "tak(ing) a risk on a lurker". We have genuine reasons to be voting superstring / flea which have already been presented. Superstring lurking for some parts of the game =/= we have no information on string / flea.

[pete d]

^^^ It concerns me how apparently little confidence you had in your -1 vote on SSF.

I'm getting rather bored of this game, it's time for something to happen.

Experiment time.

Do not like

[pete d]

[quote=Off the Mark]I didn't expect that you would. My hypothesis is that you and Gorck are scum together. Your pattern of how you've responded to my votes fits that theory too perfectly. [/quote]

By that I guess you mean when I legitimately pointed out your contradiction in voting gorckat earlier on (which you yourself acknowledged afterwards), then expressing concern when you switched to gorckat just now after you had seemingly built a case against ss/ssf and put him at -1. imo my sentiment has been completely warranted. If it had been any other player than gorckat, would you be criticising me now? Do you think that I would have reacted differently?

Would you mind elaborating on what you are referring to with the argument of a voting pattern / pattern in responding to your votes.

[pete d]

I vote gorckat, you FOS me.
I vote superstring, you vote superstring, gorckat votes superstring.
I vote gorckat, you say you don't like it.

1 and 3 are misrepresentative. I didn't FoS you because of the player, I foSed you because of your actions. Same with 3. Like I said, if it had been anyone other than gorckat involved, I would still have said exactly the same thing. Question: Do you think that the sentiment of my concerns was wrong?

As for 2, thats pretty selective. I mean, you revoted string afterwoods, does that make you scum with me and dasq? Or how about Nanook, superstring and pie, they all voted for MBL, they must be scumbuddies too right?

[pete d]

Actually, yeah, I do. I had had recent suspicions of gorckat too, so it wasn't inconceivable that I'd vote for him, for the sake of starting a bandwagon. I explained that when I voted him.

But you had a problem with it. You even helped change my mind.

But now when I see the whole pattern, I don't trust you anymore.

(emphasis added). Feels like you're trying to blame me for changing your vote. As for you having had recent suspicions, you had moved gorckat up to Neutral iirc, but still had superstring and Nanook as suspicious, they were'nt posting.

I never felt that good with my vote on gorckat, but I felt we needed a bandwagon to get more reactions. When I read Pete D's post, I thought, "yeah... why am I voting gorck right now?"

The only way the ssf bandwagon moved along as a result of being correct is if Pie and kilm are the other 2 scum, and I can't accept that. I also can't accept a quick bus when scum has a chance to win today with a mislynch + a good night for them. There is still a good chance that ssf is the SK.

Why not {ssf / pie / PJ}. I could see that.

Plus I'm tired of arguing with scum.

I'm a bit tired of arguing with you as well. Funny thing is, despite your arguments, I'm not really seeing you as scum at the moment, based on my opinion that ssf is scum, your analysis on string and your votes on him / ssf are points in your favour.

You seem to be over-questioning my theory and throwing suspicion in my direction and - most tellingly - trying to accuse me of being scumbuddies with superstring without really thinking about what that means regarding my previous actions.

Your theory SHOULD be over-questioned, because we are in a critical situation. I agree with the latter part of this post, regarding your previous actions towards string.

[pete d]

Limited Access for the next week and a half due to exams

[pete d]

pete d is being quiet, or at least giving me that impression. Would like to hear more.

Did you not see my LA post? I don't see how I've been contributing less than pie, PJ, ssf or kilm, plus nothing much has been changing. I'm still happy voting ssf, I think I've made myself clear on my suspicions, what would you like me to post? As for would I vote gorckat, I'm not sure, I have found him suspicious, but I can't see both gorckat and ssf being scum together, and I'm more convinced that ssf / string is the scum. So no, my vote stays on ssf.

[pete d]

Nothing is really happening. OtM, Dasq and gorckat are arguing, but its likely none of them will move their votes. kilmenator, wherever you are, you need to post or make up your mind to vote. No lynch isn't going to fly.

People were happy enough to pile on SSF's bandwagon. The only reason he wasn't lynched is because I unvoted him. Now I think those people were scum.

You seemed to be the one who "pile(d) on" a -1 vote on ssf without much consideration, given how readily you changed your vote.

Anyway, old ground. This day is not going to be ended by myself, OTM or gorckat, nor anyone else who has stated a firm opinion. It's hard to resist continuing the back-and-forth (as indeed I have failed to do here), but the people who will define this day are the ones who haven't come down on either side of the line or have been AWOL.

That means they need to post, not us.

QFT

[pete d]

Question for Dasquian and Pete D:

What makes you so sure that Gorckat is not scum? You have gone to great lengths to defend him. (especially Dasq)

As for would I vote gorckat, I'm not sure, I have found him suspicious, but I can't see both gorckat and ssf being scum together, and I'm more convinced that ssf / string is the scum. So no, my vote stays on ssf.

Please point out where I have defended gorckat at all.

[pete d]

Pete - that goes back to the voting pattern more than anything you've explicitly said. You didn't like my gorckat votes both times, but you voted along with me for superstring quite happily. I don't think you've come out and defended him, but looking at your voting, perhaps you should. Saying one thing and doing another is scummy.

I've already been over all of this.

[pete d]

gorckat: out of curiosity, why have you placed pie as "slightly scummy" (instead of, say, neutral)?

[pete d]

mafia killed IH and dasq, kilm presumably killed MBL, so dasq killed fonz and I

Anyway, if pete d intentionally setup the connection between himself and gorckat back on day 2... dang, that was smooth.

It wasn't really like that at the start of day 2, I was just waiting to see which way things went. I realised the situation a few days before OtM drew the connection iirc. All the power roles taken out on night 1 was pretty sweet.

[pete d]

btw thanks to the mod and all the replacements

[pete d]

I also made one mistake this game which I will post when I post all the night choices around 9 tonight.

I had a one-shot night protection too, but someone forgot to apply it

o_O
So dasq... who would you have taken out n3? pie, PJ or OtM? (presuming gorckat would have still gotten lynched...)