Mafia 759: Street Fighter 4 Mafia-That's Game!

[Tzeentch]

/confirm

[Tzeentch]

You cannot refer to previous events? Does this mean that you're not able to refer to stuff revealed in night scenes, that you aren't able to refer to stuff that happened a while ago, or that you simply aren't able to interact meaningfully with us at all?

If you don't answer this question, for the record, I will assume it is the latter. That could be a pretty damning post restriction if that's what it is, though.

[Tzeentch]

OK, the post restriction isn't nearly as bad as I feared for a few minutes there.

Vote: UltimaAvalon

, not for the self-vote, but for the call for a mass nameclaim. Totally unnecessary at this stage, and could easily help the scum.

[Tzeentch]

Unvote

for now. I'm at work so can't prepare a full analysis right now, but will check this properly tomorrow.

Quick question though first - Ultima: Are you saying that when you proposed a roleclaim, you did not actually want one? If so, why did you propose it?

[Tzeentch]

@tzeentch

Did you notice that the random stage didnt even last a whole page? I did, and it's glorious.

Thank you for repeating an unclear statement you had already made. I am asking for an explicit response: Did you actually want a mass nameclaim? Yes or no?

[Tzeentch]

You're the only one who wants this. What purpose does it serve?

Hm. Let’s see what the others say…

If you never wanted one, why did you propose it? And why did you even offer first if you never wanted one?

FoS: UA

*later post*

...And how are the RVS related to you first suggesting a mass name claim and later saying that you never wanted one?

Why is [the random stage] being short a good thing?
Why do you think it was short? (I want an answer about the town not you)

What purpose does "shortening" it in such a manner actually serve?
What reactions or information did this give except make you look scummy?

These are real questions.

Shortening the random voting stage just purely for a sake of shortening it is pointless. Especially when it pretty much leads to the same thing: a bandwagon on someone. All you did is to draw the bandwagon to yourself. Is that what you want?

Unless you actually are the mafia, it's an anti-town behaviour. The only thing you accomplish is to draw attention away from actual scum-hunting to you.

Yeah, they all understand.

Doing something inherently scummy is suspicious, whether it’s because you actually had suspicious motives or because you simply wanted to make an attempt, misguided or not, to prompt discussion.

However, we have no way of knowing why you made that play. So we naturally have to take it at face value – which is scummy.

What's more, turning around now and saying “I was just trying to speed past the random voting” is suspicious, simply because of a variant of LAL – you have either done something for suspicious reasons, or you tried to mislead us into thinking you wanted something you didn’t. Either way, you tried to mislead the town. And that is plain scummy, no matter how you look at it.

Vote: UltimaAvalon

– I’m happy with my vote there for now.

[Tzeentch]

Don't really like post 118 by Tzeenetch. I fail to understand why he felt the need to back up what he was saying with a whole bunch of quotes from other people (Look at all these people who agree with me!). He could have gotten his point across with the bottom half of his post.

Not quite - part of the point was that UA had said that I was the only one wanting [an explicit answer], and then asking what purpose it would serve. I was merely trying to point out that whilst I was the only one who had asked for an explicit answer, I wasn't the only one who was curious about the rationale behind his actions.

In other words, I was trying to demonstrate that I was not the only one following a particular line of thought.

As for me asking for it explicitly, I may as well explain that in more detail - this is a game of truth, lies and misdirection. As it is in the town's best interest, generally speaking, for people to be precise about their meaning, it felt counterproductive to leave an ambiguous response hanging. I don't like people dodging questions.

[Tzeentch]

Alright, first things first: No-one seems to have mentioned this, but I have not posted in a while. That was deliberate, as I know I post a LOT if I don't hold back, and I love the ability to read conversation from a relatively neutral standpoint.

That said, there's been a lot that deserves comment, but nothing that truly stood out at me. I'm gonna keep my vote on for now, but may well switch later - expect an in-depth analysis if and when this happens.

[Tzeentch]

I'm so not buying that reason of you that you didn't want a mass role claim but yet proposed it only to speed up the rvs. What would have happened if other players answered to your idea? I think that you wanted one at first, but backed off after you saw the reaction of most of players against it. Now, you're looking for a convenience excuse that justify your contradiction.

Vote: UA

@Tzee: Active lurking, and, by your own will? That's not a nice thing to do, whatever your reasons are.

IGMEYO

Fair enough. Perhaps I should clarify somewhat - if I post too much, I have a tendency to go focus too heavily on particular issues and ignore others. In other words, I'm aware of an emotional bias I can easily fall into, and am taking steps to prevent myself from falling into those.

As I say, I want a neutral perspective.

[Tzeentch]

Unvote

. This is definitely worth looking at.

Empking: He's not nearly the only one. You were hypocritical.

Mod: Is Psycho really still voting Shinnen?

[Tzeentch]

EBWOP: Shinnen, I think Empking considers "active lurking" to be posting without actually contributing. Lots of words, no content. To say things without actually giving a solid proof of your worth, to bandwagon and to rely entirely on "I agree" posts. It's hoping to slip by without commenting on the game situation, and to hope that people don't notice because well, you've been posting every page or more, so you

must

be active.

... I have no idea why I wanted to give so many descriptions there. But hey.

[Tzeentch]

Unvote

. This is definitely worth looking at.

Empking: He's not nearly the only one. You were hypocritical.

Mod: Is Psycho really still voting Shinnen?

I fail to see what me changing my vote with no facts involved is in any way related to someone trying to convince other people with no facts involved.

Because you've both voted for people based on meta rather than in-game reasoning?

Vote: Shin

Either back up your claims or stop it.

…

Also, I think I remember someone saying that UA likes to start games fast.

The hypocrisy comes from the fact that – near as can be told from context – you voted Shinnen for repeating a meta claim about you (although you didn’t vote her (I’m guessing your gender based on the pic, Shinnen) when it was first made), but in the very same vote you unvoted UA, giving as part of the reason the idea that you had recently discovered a meta reason that completely reversed your stance.

In other words, you voted for Shinnen for doing something that you did yourself in the very same post. How is that not hypocritical? Also:

What's vague about it? Why does that being vague matter?

If you find out that something is meta and not a scum tell, I think town are more likely to reveal that fact to the town and unvote than scum. Why do you disagree?

You didn't "find out" anything.

Proof please.

Deliberately removing context. Psycho wasn’t actually saying that you hadn’t received evidence, he (she? Damn the lack of obvious third-person pronouns!) was saying that we have no way of knowing that you’ve received that, and therefore are forced to accept a rather rapid turnabout based purely on “But I said so!”, which is not exactly solid evidence.

Oh, and you get an additional scumpoint for misrepresenting Shinnen – saying she was trying to persuade people to vote for you when she was explaining her reasoning to Blackberry.

@Tzeen: Thanks for the answer. It would seem that Emp wasn't interested really in the matter, just annoying as always. Still, I may have made a mistake with the proper term there, but my point is the same. He was willingfully not posting. And that's not a nice thing to do, whatever your reasons are. Why? Because it may be understood by other players as wanting to pass under the radar of the other players.

I take it you mean that I was willingly not posting? Your shift from second-person to third-person seems unusual here, but given that English isn’t your first language I’m happy to assume it was merely a slip of the

tongue

fingers.

Tzeen is p town and I approve of it. Although, I would have pushed into neutral reviewer later when things were going on versus now.

Porkens has the awesomest pair of votes on him I've seen in a while. One for "irking" and another as a sweet and wonderful OMGUS-filled croissant. There's a big difference between saying I'd shoot you if I was vig and telling a vig to shoot you (Hint, I'd put a bullet in you as well but I'm not claiming to actually tell someone else to shoot you).

Firstly, my decision to slip into the neutral reviewer mode is not, technically, pro-town – it’s a personal decision based on my own acceptance of my flaws as a player. If I’m not careful early in the game, I will tend to be one of the most prolific posters, and will often pick up on very, very small points and blow them out of proportion simply because there’s nothing else to pick up on.

Secondly, Porkens’ post stood out to me for another reason – when else has he referred to Sniper? What’s more, since Porkens’ last post, Sniper had only made one post – and that was calling Empking out on his change in stance. In-teresting.

And Porkens, you may not technically have said “I think the vig should kill Sniper”, but you implied it very, very strongly, and I read it as such. Any time you say “If I was this role, I would do that”, you are either saying “I think this is the most pro-town thing for that role to do” (and, unspoken, “… and therefore they should do it”) or “I would intentionally choose to do something that I believe is not the most pro-town thing to do”

Which is it?

Summary for the tl;dr crowd, in reverse order to the above:

Porkens is trying to direct even though he says he isn’t, and still hasn't given a reason, and Empking is being scummy in about four different ways, all at once.

Vote: Empking.

[Tzeentch]

If someone says "I would eat pizza if I could." Does that mean the same thing as "You should eat pizza."?

@Porkens: Yes, it does, actually.

Technically, it doesn't. However, Porkens eating pizza can be based on personal preference and affects only himself, so this is a misleading comparison.

A more accurate one would be "If I was ordering for all of us, I would order from a pizza house"" - which is equivalent to "I think whoever orders should order from a pizza house", because it affects everyone.

Spyre: There's no problem with suspecting Psycho, the problem is with Porkens trying to direct a town power role without reasoning. It's also not pro-town to say you suspect someone and then leave the reasons as an exercise for the reader, so I'd appreciate it if you could please explain your reasoning for suspecting him.

As for the reason why Emp is racking up the votes, I did give you a few reasons in that last post of mine.

[Tzeentch]

Porkens, there is no jakep in the game :p

Reading time methinks...

[Tzeentch]

nope.

Tzneenth's response to my report, by the way, is pretty suspect.

No vote, either way, very non-committal to a black and white situation. FOS.

Sorry, I guess I wasn't 100% clear with my phrasing before - I want to re-read the thread, with this accusation in mind, before responding properly.

[Tzeentch]

SensFan’s reactions to being fingered:

Porkens.

Confirmed sanity?

Initial response is to question the validity of the result, not the claim itself.
The response:

nope…

In that case you're Insane, Paranoid, or Scum.

Again questioning the result, but this time mentioning the possibility of Porkens being scum.

Why the fuck are you lynching a Guilty result from a sanity-unconfirmed Cop who just got his first result?

SensFan then continues to work the “Maybe Porkens isn’t sane!” route for some time, as well as strawmanning Porken’s comments…

I haven't seen a non-sane cope yet on MS, I have no reason to think I'd be otherwise in this game, so I didn't even consider it.

I don't believe that for a FUCKING MINUTE. That you've never heard of non-sane Cops.

Notice that what SensFan represents Porkens as saying is not at all what Porkens actually said.

However, the one thing that above all else makes me suspect SensFan is trying desperately to succeed is this:

Well I'm 90% sure he's not lying Scum. I don't think he's quite THAT dumb…

...

Actually, this is that I have role-based information that tells me he's lying

Put these together, you’re saying that there’s a 90% chance that he’s a lying townie. How does that work?

Add in this:

I'm an Untargetable Townie. Any role that targets me is blocked, and

any role that would get a result from targetting me gets none.

(Emphasis mine)

Why would you question the

validity

of the results where you’ve apparently been informed that there would

not be a result at all

?

On top of all that, SensFan’s reaction strikes me as someone who’s panicking – he’s using a lot of ad hominem, and attacking people for accepting a claim without evidence to not!

All in all...

Vote: SensFan

Also, Mod: Could you change the title to reflect that we're in day now please?

[Tzeentch]

EBWOP: That is L-1. Just an FYI to y'all.

[Tzeentch]

Tzeenctch.

Go read my posts. Then come back. Then answer your own questions.

Thanks.

I've read your posts. That's where I found all that stuff I quoted from you.

Don't try and deflect my points. Answer them.

[Tzeentch]

SensFan: I'm preparing a response now. But please don't be so brazenly and aggressively insulting - it really doesn't help your case, and it frankly makes me want to leave the game. Not because I'm not enjoying the game, but purely because I don't like people insulting me. I don't know whether it's because you're trying to get a rise out of me or simply that you're explosively aggressive without reason, but if you continue I will ask the mod to replace either you or me, simply so I don't have to play with someone with your kind of behaviour.

It's simply not called for.

[Tzeentch]

Why the fuck are you lynching a Guilty result from a sanity-unconfirmed Cop who just got his first result?

SensFan then continues to work the “Maybe Porkens isn’t sane!” route for some time, as well as strawmanning Porken’s comments…

Again, I wasn't ready to claim, for FUCKING OBVIOUS REASONS. Scum doesn't usually lie flat-out for no reason, which is why I'm still confused as fuck. I'm starting to lean Lyncher or something...

I don’t question you not wanting to claim. I question you immediately arguing that Porkens was insane instead of arguing that he was scum. It’s an unusual approach, can you at least accept that?

I haven't seen a non-sane cope yet on MS, I have no reason to think I'd be otherwise in this game, so I didn't even consider it.

I don't believe that for a FUCKING MINUTE. That you've never heard of non-sane Cops.

Notice that what SensFan represents Porkens as saying is not at all what Porkens actually said.

If he's heard of non-Sane Cops, why the fuck does it matter if he's never been in a game with one?

Because my issue with your post is that you were strawmanning him. You were taking his post and rephrasing it to make his point seem significantly weaker.

he’s using a lot of ad hominem

Where?

In fairness, this was simply me interpreting the repeated, gratuitous cursing and the aggressive posting style (along with statements like “even more fucking dumb if he ACTUALLY assumed [that there was a sane cop]”) as an attempt to attack a player’s character. I guess it’s just your style, but as I say, I find it confrontational to the point of disruptiveness – certainly it makes it much harder for me to consider what you’re saying fully rationally, simply because I don’t like people implying they think I’m an idiot – if not outright saying it:

Its people like this that make me want to stop playing Mafia. The intelligence of the site, as shown by the quoted post, is horrendously low, and I don't get enjoyment from arguing with dumbasses that are more stubborn than a brick wall.

Similarly:

On top of all that, SensFan’s reaction strikes me as someone who’s panicking

Confused as fuck, would have been more appropriate.

Again, this was basically due to your aggressive style and your casual cursing. If this is just your posting style – which I am willing to accept for now – then much as I find it distasteful, it’s not a scumtell.

Add in this:

I'm an Untargetable Townie. Any role that targets me is blocked, and

any role that would get a result from targetting me gets none.

(Emphasis mine)

Why would you question the

validity

of the results where you’ve apparently been informed that there would

not be a result at all

?

READ.
THE.
FUCKING.
THREAD.

GAMBITS.

This doesn’t actually answer my question at all. If

you

were running the gambit, I could believe it (just about), but if I’m reading your posts right, you thought someone else was running a gambit and decided to play along?

Are you aware that townies lying as a gambit almost always ends up with the town in a worse position, due to the confusion it sows when the truth comes out? Lynch All Liars exists for a reason.

and attacking people for accepting a claim without evidence to not!

Even if I had been attacking people for that (which I'm not), GROW A FUCKING BRAIN CELL. Are you seriously saying its scummy to expect you to *gasp* have to thinking for your fucking self, rather than rely on an admittedly unreliable role from an unreliable source?

No, but I also don’t think we should assume insanity without any great pressing reason. Being fingered isn’t a guaranteed result, but it’s certainly evidence in favour of the guilty result being guilty. Accepting an unfounded claim on day 2, when there’s plenty of time left to see if they’re lying, is standard. Later on, yes, be more careful. But to begin with there’s really no reason to assume that a claimed cop is insane.

Of course, the claim is not enough to vote in and of itself – but it is enough to investigate the history and watch the reaction, and as your reactions have struck me as scummy in every single post since then… Yeah, I’m happy treating his investigation result as evidence against you.

Finally, you have nowhere refuted any of my points or pointed out an error of logic on my part. So far, I will accept one error, which was my interpretation of your posting style. Everything else is based on what you have said, taken from the point of view of someone who has no reason to assume that Porkens is a townie lying as part of a gambit, and can see you slowly self-destructing under the successful fingering.

If Porkens comes forward and admits that he was running a gambit, I will happily unvote for the time being. But nothing he has said indicates he’s running a gambit, and somehow I doubt he will say that.

Porkens claims a result on me.
I claim I'm untargettable.
Lynch Porkens.
If he flips Cop, lynch me tomorrow.

Standard last-ditch effort – trying to shift the burden of proof, in an attempt to get rid of a pro-town power role

How about this – we lynch you, and if you flip untargetable town, we lynch Porkens?

Unless something drastic happens, I’m happy with my vote.

[Tzeentch]

Because my issue with your post is that you were strawmanning him. You were taking his post and rephrasing it to make his point seem significantly weaker.

If he claims he's never heard of unsane Cops, he's lying.
If he admits he's heard of unsane Cops, then why does it matter if he's never PLAYED with them? He KNOWS the possibility is there.

It's still a strawman. I'm not saying his argument was fine; I'm saying you misstated his argument to make it sound worse than it is.

Again, this was basically due to your aggressive style and your casual cursing. If this is just your posting style – which I am willing to accept for now – then much as I find it distasteful, it’s not a scumtell.

That's not going to fly, sorry. I have NO issues telling someone that they are being dumb, if they are being dumb. I don't curse at anyone, I curse to add emotion and intensity to my posts. Don't call things ad hominem because you feel like it.

... I just said that I misinterpreted your posting style AS ad hominem. In other words, aside from when you directly insulted me, I accepted that you had not used it, and that was an error on my part.

This doesn’t actually answer my question at all. If

you

were running the gambit, I could believe it (just about), but if I’m reading your posts right, you thought someone else was running a gambit and decided to play along?

Until everyone has responded to a gambit, the worst possible play is to call them out. I didn't see (and still don't see) Scum motivation for Porkens to flat-out lie. Therefore, I assumed he was Town claiming a false Guilty for reactions. A very similar thing happened in the first Mini Normal I ever modded.

Why is the worst possible play to call them out? You don't know if they're scum running an info gambit or town running one, after all, and it just leads to discord.

Are you aware that townies lying as a gambit almost always ends up with the town in a worse position, due to the confusion it sows when the truth comes out? Lynch All Liars exists for a reason.

Sorry, but that's flat-out wrong. I lie all the time as Town, as do some of the best players. LAL is at-best a contested theory, and at worst a very flawed and situation 'rule'.

Lying to misdirect about your role, for example not revealing if you are a doctor when directly asked, is one thing. My point is that lying as part of a gambit is very, very risky, and while I admit I've seen games where it's worked and caught one scum, I've seen many, many more where it's basically lost the game for town.

And before you ask, I don't have exact figures to back this up. The games in question are all at least a year and a half old, so it's unlikely I can dig them up.

No, but I also don’t think we should assume insanity without any great pressing reason. Being fingered isn’t a guaranteed result, but it’s certainly evidence in favour of the guilty result being guilty. Accepting an unfounded claim on day 2, when there’s plenty of time left to see if they’re lying, is standard. Later on, yes, be more careful. But to begin with there’s really no reason to assume that a claimed cop is insane.

I'm not telling you to assume insanity. I'm saying that its ridiculously dumb to assume sanity. Let's say he's Scum. Then I get lynched, flip Town. But he might have been Insane, or else Paranoid. The Town has no way to tell which of the three cases it may be, and I was lynched for no benefit, in the end.

Except you claimed that roles which get results don't get one when they target you. Even if he was insane, he still got a result - which means one of you is lying. Had you simply shown as "untargetable", there would be wiggle room, but you specified what happened when a result-role targets you.

Of course, the claim is not enough to vote in and of itself – but it is enough to investigate the history and watch the reaction, and as your reactions have struck me as scummy in every single post since then… Yeah, I’m happy treating his investigation result as evidence against you.

If you notice, I was just fine and calm about the claim until about 3 people jumped on me for no reason other than playing we-have-no-mind-of-our-own-and-rely-on-claimed-cops-to-win.

Actually, the main tell from your reactions was that despite having a role that made his claim impossible, you didn't challenge his claimed result, but instead challenged his assumptions. The way you reacted doesn't really mesh with you being in the situation you're claiming to be in to me (ugh, sentence structure!).

If Porkens comes forward and admits that he was running a gambit, I will happily unvote for the time being. But nothing he has said indicates he’s running a gambit, and somehow I doubt he will say that.

...and you say you don't mindlessly follow the claimed Cop...

I don't. But if he stated he is NOT the cop, that is a massive, massive change in dynamic. It's only sense to unvote and reassess in that situation.

Nice strawman, though. Especially given as, in the hypothetical I mentioned, I wouldn't actually be following a claimed cop at all!

Porkens claims a result on me.
I claim I'm untargettable.
Lynch Porkens.
If he flips Cop, lynch me tomorrow.

Standard last-ditch effort – trying to shift the burden of proof, in an attempt to get rid of a pro-town power role

How about this – we lynch you, and if you flip untargetable town, we lynch Porkens?

He's claiming that under the condition that he is sane and I'm not some sort of miller, that I'm Scum.
I'm claiming he's flat-out Scum unless he admits to having lied, in which case this whole thing is moot.

Again, Porkens said he got a result, you're saying that's impossible.

Interesting that you now want to lynch someone where very recently, you apparently felt they were 90% likely to be town.

But if you want to look at motivations, go ahead. If I'm Scum, my best bet is to keep arguing that we should wait for an Innocent result, or else his results are meaningless. What motivation does SensScum have to set up a total ultimatum, where AT BEST I get traded 1-for-1?

Because this way you get rid of a cop, and as SensScum knows that there's a good chance Porkens is actually sane, he knows that if he argues for waiting for an Innocent result, he could well be lynched the very next day to no benefit.

[Tzeentch]

Porkens: You've already lied once about an investigation result, claiming a guilty / bad / whatever result because of a suspicion. You then admitted that you did not get a result

after

the lynch.

You then conveniently targetted one of the people who died last night.

In addition, a very deliberate and deliberately vague action to tie you to Empking:

Oh, hey we forgot to test Empking (lol). On that subject, if the mafia decide to nightkill me tonight, I'll leave you all with this; There's an important exchange between myself and Emp, somewhere in this thread. However, you should infer no belief on my part as to Emp's alignment.

Three questions:

Firstly, why did you choose to target Nuwen?

Secondly, what did you mean about "an important exchange between you and EmpKing"?

And thirdly... why should we believe a word you're saying?

Vote: Porkens

- and I await your answers with interest.

[Tzeentch]

I was right about one replacement, I thought I might ride that horse a little longer. It was a last minute decision, one that didn't pay off.

No reason. Understood.

The answer to the second question should be obvious if you read up till, I dunno, the third page. I'm not going to say any more on that 'till it becomes pertinent. You

should

be able to figure it out.

Refusal to answer a question, along with the rider that I

should

know then answer, therefore trying to make me look foolish. Understood.

If you believe that I'm scum and bussed the godfather that hard, then you have no reason to believe what I'm saying now. Everyone has to make that decision on their own, based on what's transpired. I have no more or less evidence than I've already presented. I'm not going to say that what I did was safe, calculated, or necessarily pro-town (although the immediate result sure as hell was).

False dilemma, along with answering a different question to the one I'm asking. Understood.

You've just given me three reasons to continue voting you, you realise.

[Tzeentch]

EBWOP: I will be V/LA from the 23rd to the 31st of this month (yay Malta!) but will be trying to log on at least once a day if at all possible.

[Tzeentch]

I was right about one replacement, I thought I might ride that horse a little longer. It was a last minute decision, one that didn't pay off.

No reason. Understood.

Mmmmk. I guess you are welcome to your interpretation.

The only reason you have provided does not relate to the game, but to the situations of players outside the game. This has no game relevance, and is therefore not a valid reason.

The answer to the second question should be obvious if you read up till, I dunno, the third page. I'm not going to say any more on that 'till it becomes pertinent. You

should

be able to figure it out.

Refusal to answer a question, along with the rider that I

should

know then answer, therefore trying to make me look foolish. Understood.

Wow, you totally misunderstood. It's small, and real obvious. I'm encouraging you, if you want to know, to go read

the first three pages of the thread

. You know it's an

exchange

so you don't even have to read all the posts. I guess you're maybe making yourself look foolish? I'm not making any attempt to do so.

I did re-read the first three pages. I'm actually fairly sure I know what you're talking about. But you avoided the question, and the way you're phrasing it makes it sound like you want me to know but don't want to tell me. That seems a bit... off.

And thirdly... why should we believe a word you're saying?

If you believe that I'm scum and bussed the godfather that hard, then you have no reason to believe what I'm saying now. Everyone has to make that decision on their own, based on what's transpired. I have no more or less evidence than I've already presented. I'm not going to say that what I did was safe, calculated, or necessarily pro-town (although the immediate result sure as hell was).

False dilemma, along with answering a different question to the one I'm asking. Understood.

ERk, um...what? Uhhhh...I guess you wanted me to say, more directly "The only reason you should believe me is because I got an investigative-immune scum lynched day 2?"

You got lucky. You attacked someone, using a lie as the sole reason for the attack. What's more, I asked why I should believe you, and your response heavily implied "If I lied, that means I bussed my own godfather" - which has overtones of WIFOM, but more importantly is a false dilemma that ignore the option of you being in a seperate scum group.

You lynching scum is great, don't get me wrong. But it's definitely not a reason to believe you.

You've just given me three reasons to continue voting you, you realise.

Your attack is bizarre and needlessly combative.[/quote]I tend to suspect people who lie to get someone lynched. It would be incongruous for me to suspect you and not to attack you.

We can at least be sure that Porkens has some ability that's not a mafia nk, since someone died on the first night and he wouldn't have known that I had roleblocked him if he didn't try to use one.

Unfortunately, we can't. Remember that only one person died night 1, but two died night 2 - is it not possible that his kill was blocked night one and another kill went through? It's just a hypothesis, but it fits.

That Porkens targeted the person who died is just circumstantial. I don't see anything damning in your post (373), so I feel that your vote on Porkens is poorly placed. Also odd that you vote him before waiting for what you assume will be unsatisfactory answers to your questions.

You don't think that someone lying to get someone lynched, pursuing the lie relentlessly for the entire day, and only admitting to it once the lynch had gone through is suspicious?

As for the vote... I was pretty much certain that Porkens wouldn't be able to answer to my satisfaction. My questions weren't rhetorical, but it would have taken an exceptionally strong set of responses to dissuade me from voting, and the main point of them was to bring these questions to everyone else's attention.

[Tzeentch]

Unfortunately, we can't. Remember that only one person died night 1, but two died night 2 - is it not possible that his kill was blocked night one and another kill went through? It's just a hypothesis, but it fits.

I forgot to take into account the number of deaths N2, but still, if Porkens tried to make a kill N1 and it didn't work, he wouldn't have known if it was stopped by a blocker or a doctor because he wouldn't have gotten a result PM from the mod. Whatever Porkens tried to do N1 was an action where he would expect a result.

But he didn't admit that he knew he was blocked until SensFan admitted his guilt, but then specified that he was still untargetable. At that point he would know why his kill attempt failed - and it would still sound feasible that he was actually an investigator without a result.

You don't think that someone lying to get someone lynched, pursuing the lie relentlessly for the entire day, and only admitting to it once the lynch had gone through is suspicious?

If he admitted his lie before Sens was lynched, I think we would have probably lynched Porkens, so that wasn't really an option for him once he came out with the claim. If find his actions to be... abnormal, but considering the role Sens turned out to be playing, I don't think it makes any sense for Porkens to have bussed him.

Firstly, I've already offered an interpretation of events where Porkens is scum but did not bus SensFan. Secondly, if his behaviour was "abnormal" for a pro-town Porkens, why is that conceivable but him making an equally weird play as scum not?

[Tzeentch]

It took me a little while to understand what you're trying to say here, so correct me if I'm wrong.

Do you mean you think that in a twelve player game we have three scum groups (sk, mafia, whatever Porkens is), all of which have a killing ability, in addition to maybe a vig?

I don’t think it’s likely. I think it’s incredibly unlikely. I was merely using it as a method of demonstrating that the “he bussed the godfather” theory was not necessarily the only option.

Besides, a two-man Mafia and two SKs (and no vig, a variety of RB / doc abilities, etc) doesn’t seem too insane. But we’re delving into speculation of the unlikely again.

In addition, I don’t think it’s impossible that he

did

bus his own Godfather. I think it would be an incredibly strange decision and a massively risky gambit, but if it had resulted in him being considered “confirmed town” it could have theoretically been a gamewinner. The bigger problem with that is that in that case, Sens would have figured out what he was doing and not mentioned the whole untargetability aspect of things.

I didn't get lucky, it was pure skill. I was right, he was scum. I DID lie, I lied my ass off, that doesn't imply a bus at all, and I never implied that. What I said was

if you believe that I am scum and bussed my own godfather, then you have no reason to believe what I am saying is true.

But your investigation result failed. You had no way of knowing he was scum. Are you saying that you were 100% certain that your scumdar was correct there?

And thank you for clarifying the second point. You weren’t using a false dilemma, just answering a completely different question to the one I asked.

So you're with SpyreX on this second scum group theory. I guess it's not outside the realm of possibility. I know Spy has played in a 12-player game with two scum groups. Still, with the flips we've seen so far; I doubt it.

Again, I don’t actually believe there is another scum group. It was simply an observation that it was possible, to prevent us from being blinkered into making assumptions without good reason.

LAL, fair enough, but threatening me with "you've just given me three reasons to continue voting on you, you realise [sic]" is...not productive?

*shrug* Every one of your answers fired up my scumdar. Besides, it’s not exactly a threat if I’m already voting you, is it?

I defy you to come up with a set of "answers" that would have satisfied this imaginary criteria.

Simple.

To the first, point to one or two key posts which make you suspicious, or say something about his playstyle, or explain why no-one else seemed like a better choice.

To the second, if you don’t want to explicitly point it out, then maybe explain why it was a significant exchange which makes no indication of suspicions. Or even explain why you don’t want to answer it – I would have been happy with that too.

To the third, hold your hands up and say “You have no reason to believe me. I’m just using my instincts to do what I can for the town, and decided to ran a gambit based on a strong impression which turned out for the best.”

Of course, they would also all need to read as complete and total honesty. More than anything, you would have needed to plain and simple

look townie

while answering my questions. I don't deny that it would have been a truly impressive post.

One question, Porkens: Why did you come out and attack Sens so aggressively?

Thats not my theory: it was just one of the more obvious possibilities that sprung to mind. For your result on Dan makes sense dan could have been a "specific target SK" and done it as well.

In fairness, a lyncher is, in a sense, a “killing role” – their entire role is based around making sure one person dies in one particular way.

So, I'm definitely leaning Porkens is town (or at minimum, not-scum (could be a 3rd party I guess?)).

Now that is a possibility I had not considered. I guess he could be a neutral role of some sort… it makes about as much sense as him being, well, anything else.

Right, need to go finish packing for holiday now, so I will see you… well, they should have internet access there. I’ll do what I can to get on at least once a day.

[Tzeentch]

*waves*

Whilst my time online is a shade too restricted to post meaningfully, I want to let you all know that I am here and am keeping up with the game.

Unvote

to prevent anything untoward happening while I'm unavailable; also,

FOS: SpyreX

for two barely-substantiated attacks today. You voted Sironigous without giving a good reason (in fact, on a quick re-read I can't see you say

anything

about Sir until now), and then voted Empking almost immediately for (validly) questioning Porkens' reasoning for the vote.

Looks to me like you're looking for an excuse to attack people.

[Tzeentch]

OK, back from holiday now. It's too late for me to really analyse the game situation here, but it looks to me like:

- SpyreX is still the most scummy.

- One of Rok or Sir is scum, however neither leaps out at me as being the scummier.

- Blackberry needs to post!

I'll make sure I get online tomorrow, when I am reasonably well rested, so I can contribute properly.

[Tzeentch]

Yay Blackberry!

When did I become the most scummy to you Tzeencth - I dont even remember you really referencing me at all. Especially not #1 scum suspect considering this cluster of bizarre.

The reason you don't remember me saying that is because I haven't, 'til now. I don't actually consider you the #1 scum suspect right now - I just think you're the most scummy. It's the distinction between evidence and gut feelings - you feel scummy to me, you just don't (significantly) look it.

2.) Porkens Day 2 comes out and says sens is guilty. However, Porkens says he WAS roleblocked and that was

mysterious voodoo lying

raw skills

that lead to a scum lynch.

fixed.

I'm glad to see at least rok playing again.

It was not raw skills, Porkens. You claimed you

knew

Sens was scum when you didn't. That's lying, and no amount of pretending it was pure skill can hide that fact that you pretended to have knowledge you didn't in an attempt to get someone lynched based purely on a suspicion.

Once more - why should we believe that you are what you claim to be?

[Tzeentch]

A

It was not raw skills, Porkens. You claimed you knew Sens was scum when you didn't. That's lying, and no amount of pretending it was pure skill can hide that fact that you pretended to have knowledge you didn't in an attempt to get someone lynched based purely on a suspicion.

B

Once more - why should we believe that you are what you claim to be?

In A you say I didn't know Sens was scum (ps that means im not scum)

B is repetition of the same unanswerable question. But, if in A, you've established that I'm not scum, why wouldn't you believe me?

A: Again with the false dilemma. It's perfectly possible to be scum, yet not know who a member of the scum is - either by being part of a different scum group, or by being a variant of a mafia traitor. Plus, I don't actually know - or have any great reason to assume - that you didn't know Sens was scum, other than the WIFOM of "But why would I bus him then?"

But thanks for not arguing about it being a lucky scumlynch.

B: Another false dilemma. Even assuming that you're not scum, that still doesn't mean I should necessarily believe you're a cop and not, for example, just trying to take control of the game because you honestly think you're smarter than everyone else put together.

[Tzeentch]

If I am not scum, or at least a scum variant, why would I lie about being a cop? Do you seriously think I would lie to "take control of the game?" Why would I risk, as a townie, loosing two innocents?

I don't know, but then I don't know why a pro-town cop would claim on day 2, without a result, trusting to judgement (which is not infallible) that they were correct, and making themselves a tasty target for the scum. I also don't know why, in that situation, the cop would then admit their own deceit in twilight!

I didn't seriously think anyone would do what you're claiming to have done, so asking "Do you seriously think" that you would do anything is kinda meaningless here.

And as for you, as a townie, risking losing two innocents - you did that when you claimed and fingered Sens despite not having a result. If you had been wrong, you would quite probably have cost us the game singlehandedly.

What disturbs me the most about you, Tzeentch, is that you present all these "why should we believe you" arguments but not once have you actually voted for me. You don't think I'm scum, or you'd be pushing for my lynch, so I think your goal is to simply try to discredit anything I say (which, by the way, is a false dilemma on your side because the most you can hope to discredit is my

reports

).

Firstly, the reason that I keep bringing this up is that you keep claiming that luck wasn't a factor in lynching scum. It was. Tell me this: Did you even consider, before claiming, that you might be wrong about Sens' alignment?

Secondly, I actually voted you in my first post of the day. Don't try and misrepresent what I did, especially not when it's a major part of your justification for a vote.

Thirdly, what do you mean by "[that] is a false dilemma on your side because the most you can hope to discredit is my

reports

" - what's the false dilemma? You don't seem to be referring to me presenting a dilemma at all.


Also, I note that I am the fourth person you've voted in your past six posts, which were all from the last two pages. Of those four:
- one had no explanation in the post - the only content in the post was "okay." (Returning to Empking after switching onto BB from him - who were you saying OK to, or was it just in a general sense?)
- one was an acknowledged bandwagon vote back to BB, again without referring to either the person you voted or the one you unvoted in the post.
- one was a move to Rok because "I'm going to assume [he] is a lying scum" on the basis that an SK could essentially decide the game (hm, looking at the third scumgroup again after all, huh?). If you did have reasoning behind this one, which is possible given the revelations of the past couple of pages, you could at least explain it.
- and one was to me, apparently based on me not doing something which I had in fact done.

Spyre, I apologise - I did you a disservice in saying you seemed most scummy. You still feel a little... off to me, make no mistake, but Porkens is definitely much, much more suspicious right now.

Vote: Porkens

[Tzeentch]

MOD: I voted Porkens in my last post.

[Tzeentch]

I'm amazed at Porkens' play there.

Seriously, Porkens: If you were wrong about Sens, you could easily have lost the town the game with that gambit.