Open 81 - The New C9 - Game Over

[Greasy Spot]

Heh. You forgot to vote iamausername again at the end of that post, GS.

I put it in my sig but it hasn't shown up yet.

[Lowell]

I'll

FOS GS

for tunnel vision.

[StrangerCoug]

I'll

FOS GS

for tunnel vision.

Explain, even if you just spit out post numbers.

[Korts]

Yes, but we're not talking about presenting a different view, we're talking about forcing that view on the whole town, without the consent of the majority.

This is such a ridiculous statement I don't even know how to respond to it.

This is only re: your statement that "trying to undermine the majority is not a scumtell". It's not related to you vig-directing, only in the sense that someone mentioned how you're "undermining the majority".

Considering multiple (scummy/lurking) players for vigging is just not, as I see it, scummy.

Weren't you arguing the exact opposite like, three posts earlier?

Again, I argued that

overriding the majority

is a scumtell, compared to you saying it's not. I consider vig-directing to be scummy, but multiple vig-directing not any more so.

[Korts]

I'll

FOS GS

for tunnel vision.

Explain, even if you just spit out post numbers.

Oh come on. Just look at GS's posts. How many times has he voted for iamausername? And for what? Basically for questioning him.

[armlx]

Nothing has changed. Liking my vote, GS is being GS, SC hasn't made any posts that would make me think anything else about him.

[StrangerCoug]

Oh come on. Just look at GS's posts. How many times has he voted for iamausername? And for what? Basically for questioning him.

Let Lowell answer please. I asked because I'm the person who likes having reference points.

[StrangerCoug]

EBWOP:

Fairly long post with no serious content and obviously weak/false points. Play by play.

I'm pretty sure whoever the vig is is reading your posts and mine, because the vig might completely throw GS and Vamp out the window and pick someone else, if only for the moment.

Pointless comment.

See my response to the next quote, then come back and explain how this is pointless.

The vig kill N0 was obviously not based on somebody looking scummy, but I'm pretty sure there was a reason for it, as bad of a reason it may be.

Completely irrelevant point. Why do you bring up the N0 kill and on such an irrelevant and subjective scale, when neither of the quotes in your post address the N0 kill?

Because it relates to the paragraph above it. Call the N0 kill reasoning point e, if you will.

I agree with iamausername on point b, though. Idiocy is not a legitimate reason for a vote.

Calling others' arguments "idiocy" and not commenting further isn't just rude. That's also not a valid refutation of the argument.

You took this out of context. See iamausername's response to this.

I think the reasoning for vidging Vamp or Greasy Spot (and it is the same reasoning) is good. Both these players are totally useless if they're on the side of town, and if they're not, it will be hard for us to detect this, because they're not making any attempt to actually play the game. It's much better to vig these kind of players than lynch them, because the voting records on these lynches will give us far less information than those on a player who is actually participating because, as armlx said in his original vig-directing post, their lynches are not likely to be polarising.

In fact, iamausername, your response to point d implies that you approve of both Greasy Spot and Vamparific vigged. What's up with that?

See above. Obviously, this would take more than one night. That's fine by me.

OK, I believe your explanation.

Considering multiple (scummy/lurking) players for vigging is just not, as I see it, scummy. What's up with your question? Want to be looking like you're contributing, but don't know how?

See iamausername's response.

Basically, I highly feel that iamausername has defended his reasoning for strife220's post better than Korts have of both strife220's and iamausername's. I don't think iamausername gave me the kind of answer I was looking for regarding directing the vig kill being scummy, but he has presented his opinion of vig killing and I agree with it. Korts, on the other hand, shoots off the existence of a reason for the N0 vig as pointless and irrelevant, implies that I thought Greasy Spot was an idiot when looking back and reading would reveal that Greasy Spot thought iamausername was an idiot (and the mod called him out for it), and gives a flippant response to what I feel was a legitimate concern.

Unvote: armlx
Vote: Korts

[Korts]

I do not "shoot off" the existence of a reason for a N0 vig as pointless and irrelevant. Don't misrepresent me. I said that your point about it was irrelevant in that particular debate that you brought it up in. As for the existence of a reason for a N0 vig, it's customary to kill the village idiot or the guy who has a history of not being helpful, etc. I don't know why this is a matter of speculation for you.

About the GS-iamausername-idiot thing, my mistake.

The flippant response to the legitimate concern is, I assume, me calling you out for questioning iamausername's multiple vig target thing. I see how from your viewpoint it might be legitimate, but proposing multiple targets to the vig is, I think, better than telling him-her to kill a specific player.

Wake me up when I have to claim.

[Enlight_Bystand]

I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask for a replacement, I've got quite busy all of a sudden (I've already pm'ed rogueben)

[Lowell]

Okay. Uh, 375.

[StrangerCoug]

I do not "shoot off" the existence of a reason for a N0 vig as pointless and irrelevant. Don't misrepresent me. I said that your point about it was irrelevant in that particular debate that you brought it up in. As for the existence of a reason for a N0 vig, it's customary to kill the village idiot or the guy who has a history of not being helpful, etc. I don't know why this is a matter of speculation for you.

I misunderstood you. My apologies.

As for my calling you out over questioning multiple vig targets, that is correct and I wanted to make sure iamausername was on the right track.

Unvote: Korts

[silence]

Wow, silence. Are you really suggesting we should lynch fl just because she isn't a power role, or do you actually think she's done anything suspicious?

I didn't suggest lynching her. I just stated that might be what I would do if I had to decide now, as I haven't been convinced about anyone to be likely to be scum. After re-reading I'm further convinced that Vamparific's actions don't make sense and would probably lynch him rather than forbiddanlight.

About the discussion about directing the vig. I don't see any reason why that would be harmful to town. The vigilante is not forced to obey, anyway, it can only help him to have informed opinions. And the vig does not have to state his truthful opinion during the day, so stated opinions about vig-kills don't have to give away information about who the vig is.

On the other hand I don't understand the point about Vamparific-kill being 'non-polarising' and thus it being better to vig him rather than lynch. I'd think D1-opinions about the player who gets vig-killed can be analyzed as well as D1-opinions about the player who gets lynched. If Vamparific seems scummy, we should lynch him and let the vig choose his 'second-best' candidate anyway.

[strife220]

The excessive talk about the vig is unnecessary. IAUN made a comment I thought was scummy, I pointed out why I thought it was scummy, he pointed out why he disagreed with my point. Everyone can decide if they liked his defense, but there's no reason to get into a page long debate meant for the 'mafia discussion' forum. I think noisey posts are becoming a new pet peeve of mine.


Nothing else to comment on today. Vote on Korts still stands

[armlx]

Everyone needs to STFU about the vig right now as to not narrow down who it could be.

[Rogueben]

The Fonz replaces Enlight_Bystand.

[The Fonz]

Hi guys. Readthru coming.

[forbiddanlight]

Good show. I always love seeing a fresh perspective.

[StrangerCoug]

IGMEOY: armlx

Way to be polite about it.

(Note: I don't object to your saying we shouldn't discuss the vig, as I tried to avoid talking about it as well. What I object to is the way you said it.)

[forbiddanlight]

I don't. We've been jumping in and out of vig discussions all game. It doesn't need to be discussed. He was nice before. Maybe people will respond to the ruder admonishment.

[Lowell]

Vigs are useless anyway. There, I said it.

[iamausername]

IGMEOY: armlx

Way to be polite about it.

(Note: I don't object to your saying we shouldn't discuss the vig, as I tried to avoid talking about it as well. What I object to is the way you said it.)

Impoliteness is

definitely

not a scumtell.

I didn't suggest lynching her. I just stated that might be what I would do if I had to decide now, as I haven't been convinced about anyone to be likely to be scum. After re-reading I'm further convinced that Vamparific's actions don't make sense and would probably lynch him rather than forbiddanlight.

So you don't have any thoughts at all on any of the players who have been major points of discussion today? You have completely neutral reads on Korts, armlx, StrangerCoug, iamausername, BlakAdder, etc.?

P.S. I enjoyed Korts and StrangerCoug's little staged tussle there. So convincing.

[Rogueben]

Vote Count 6

StrangerCoug - (3) {forbiddanlight, Lowell, JordanA24}

Korts - (3) {iamusername, armix, strife220}

silence - (2) {Sun Tzu, -TinVision-}

iamusername - (2) {roflcopter, Greasy Spot}

Vamparific - (1) {Iron Man}

BlakAdder - (1) {Korts}

Not Voting: {BlakAdder, The Fonz, silence, StrangerCoug, Vamparific}.

With 17 left alive it will take 9 to lynch.

Prodding Vamparific.

Also I will be away from Friday through Sunday with no access to net so I will be unable to post here.

[armlx]

(Note: I don't object to your saying we shouldn't discuss the vig, as I tried to avoid talking about it as well. What I object to is the way you said it.)

What IAUN said, and it definitely got everyone to stop talking about it, am I right?

Vigs are useless anyway. There, I said it.

Will discuss post game.

[The Fonz]

Well, some thoughts:

Some people appear to be quite blind to what seems quite obviously a protown attempt to get the game moving by rofl with the arm/strife thing.

On rofl/armlx: Mafia players are an inquisitive bunch, rofl. You can't make a statement like that which begs the question 'how can he say such a thing at this stage?' and then attack anyone who asks you for rolefishing.
@Arm: re your list of three reasons, it's also possible he's a townie playing in the BJ/JDodge manner. More people should do this, actually, so that cops can feel free to breadcrumb.

(Incidentally- I tend to think that it might be a good meta, in games where there's no scum RB, for everyone to post each morning, 'If i were a cop, last night I would have investigated [Name], and got a [guilty/innocent] result.')

Don't like Iron Man random voting when there's actual discussion going on.

SC's 45: Apparently, you're not familiar with the scumhunting-by-assertion method.

armlx's 48: Disagree in the most fundamental way, but we've had this out enough times in MD.

BlakAdder's 49 looks very much like a piling on vote, to me.

52: No!

IM's 54: Stating that someone should claim is not rolefishing. Well, unless you fish with dynamite.

Arm's 56 basically says what i think re: Mason claims.

Rofl 62: WTF? No reason whatsoever to claim like that.

65: Actually worse is that mafia/SK now have the names of two players they know not to be cops.
Arm's 69: Why? It's a bit effing obvious who Rofl's partner was.

74: Yeah. With an SK out there, even if they were scum...

GS' 83: *headdesk*

87 Pings my scumdar like crazy

TV's 88:

Anyway, anyone suggesting roflcopter for today's lynch, under the circumstances and given his claim, should be hit in the head with a baseball bat.

/volunteer

93: Yes, yes you can say that. Very easily in fact.

In regard to all: still attempting to attack the claimed masons is a nulltell, on the grounds that it's never going to possibly work.

109/110: These posts make me happy.

115 is a reach, imho.

117: WOW. Really?

119: It can never be 'obvious' a vote is not omgus, since players never think reasons given against themselves are good.

120: Don't like SC's repeated use of FOSes and the like. Just a stylistic thing really- I just see them as a substitute for real content.

142: I'd normally see this as trying to shift, were vamparific not so blatantly scummy. But the VT claim? WTF? Totally unneccessary. Great job, guys. If FL is town, we now have three different players the mafia know aren't cop/doc/vig.

144: No, Greasy, no. Because were they ever wagonned, they could have claimed then, and we wouldn't have lynched them. So them claiming now doesn't actually reduce the chances of mislynch at all.

151: Or D), you find something scummy about their actions, but can't quite put it into words yet.

153-7: I'm having the same discussion in another ongoing game.

170: Not sure what to make of an opportunistic-looking vote on an opportunistic-looking player.

180: Vamparific clearly needs to be policy-wagonned into contributing properly.

195: I am amused by GS accusing anyone else of idiocy.

198 is good. Pissed off at her claim, but not actually feeling the FL wagon at all.

232: Korts should post in MD more. On the subject of his 'mistake' in general... well, i've been known to chastise people in-thread for giving away that they don't have a particular role. Unless something else comes up, inclined to believe him for now.

Rofl 242:

translation: pssst. hey scumbuddies, remember there might be a second doctor.

Yes, because he couldn't, you know, tell 'em that at night or anything.

244: Don't like how the Vamp wagon's dissipating without Vamp actually DOING anything.

250: WRONG! There is a time and a place for policy lynches. Also, Vamp's play is actually scummy.

279: is correct. THere's nothing at all wrong with saying, i think X and Y have a connection, and we should look at Y if X is scum. The 'setting up lynches' tell works like:

Well, X and Y have been arguing a lot. One or other must be scum. Let's lynch one, then if he comes up town, lynch the other!

281: Good point.

288: My God, I hate the easy lynch argument.

FL 303-304: And I also hate posts like this. TL;DR. Blinding us with text, a la vollkan. FL, we don't need a summation of everything everyone's done in the game. Give us your top couple of suspects, and why. Also, if necessary, point out a popular wagon you disagree with and why.

305: Oh come off it.

316 is the first piece of genuine-looking scumhunting i've seen from strife.

338: Yeah, i see what Iam's getting at. If Greasy felt there was no case on

either

of them, why didn't he say so?

341: You're also a likely person to buddy up to, for the same reason.

362 is a VERY good point. Explanation, please, strife.

364: You really think it's scummy to disagree with the majority? Besides, vig-directing is not really scummy at all, as opposed to doc directing.

369: No, no we're not.

And after all that-

Vote: Sun Tzu,

for posting just enough not to stand out as an obv lurker, but doing very little in the way of moving the game forward.