Mafia 82: International (Game Over)

[Netlava]

People are jumping on everyone for the little and stupidest things. Not sure if it is all intentional or not but most of it is crap. I have yet to find a case I can agree with. I should be making my own case but a few posts after I notice something someone else points it out.

If you want to make your own case, but someone else points it out before you can say it, then why do you think every case is bad? And are you suspicious of ANYONE?

hasdgfas, I'm curious what you think of earthworm now.

[hasdgfas]

Dynamo's posts:

Post 0: Confirmation. Ok, fine.
Post 1: I can't really tell what this is. If he's being sarcastic, it's not working very well. If he's following, then that's quite scummy.
Post 2: Wants in on the pact without really discussing it in any regards, which isn't pro-town at all.
Post 3: '/treaty' Do I even need to mention why this is scummy? I'll do it anyway. Don't bandwagon join something like this without giving reasons why it's a good thing. Same with a lynch.
Post 4: This comment really says nothing relating to the game at all. If you're going to take the time to make this type of post, at least post some game-related content also.
Post 5: A bunch of this post is comments that I seem to remember reading previously to this post. Look at the middle where he says he skipped the pregame because it was 'like a bunch of random crap'. Not a pro-town stance to take. He FoS's nhat even though he says he doesn't buy the suspicion on him. He also uses SC's comment about playing a different style of mafia(I don't know if this comment was a joke or not) as a reason to put suspicion on him. I don't understand how you can do that at all.
Post 6: Until you see a strong enough case? Shouldn't you be the one making the case? Sounds like scum just wanting to jump onto a good wagon.
Post 7: He contradicts himself here. He said he agreed to be the second person on the pact, then almost immediately after said he didn't jump on the treaty because there was no treaty at the time.(?) He also jumps onto a popular at the time wagon after saying he wanted a good case before voting.
Post 8: Major rolefishing. There is no town reason to say this. No town reason for morph's either, but Dynamo's was worse because he only wants information on how to figure it out. Town doesn't need that.
Post 9: Yes, it's pretty scummy. I think it may have been mentioned already, but if it wasn't, it sure was going to be momentarily.
Post 10: Um, thanks for that. Nothing game-related at all. It's as though he just wants to stay out of the spotlight.

That enough reasoning for you, SC? I think it's enough to make a D1 lynch at this point.

[hasdgfas]

hasdgfas, I'm curious what you think of earthworm now.

I haven't seen anything to make me change my mind about thinking him town, why?

[Sineish]

Er, did you read Animorph's post?

Yes, I did. I even quoted it in my post, twice.

Dynamo might've been fishing as well, but there is no way in hell you're going to convince me that Animorph wasn't.

He said he was pretty sure he knew another player's role. To me that is a great deal different from what DynamoXI said when he asked:

How would you know his role? Care to tell us how you came about this information?

On another subject entirely, it looks like the game has seriously slowed down recently. Not good when we're 9 days from a deadline.

@mod

, is this deadline fixed or are there any circumstances in which it might be extended?

Yes. The deadline can be extended or completely removed if the number of players that are red or darkred were to drop below seven again.

I'd like to see DynamoXI come back and answer some of the questions put to him, especially why he voted for Erratus Apathos after quoting Nhat's reasoning in post 401, telling Cass: "I voted because I had a case."

Mainly though, I would like to see the return of Cass for the following:
In post 282, she quotes StrangerCoug's reasons for voting Battle Mage and without specifying which of the reasons she refers to, votes for SC "For hypocrisy and badly stretched logic."
In post 349 she is asked about the logic and lists out the 4 points of SC's case. Unfortunately point 2 is a straw man. She says:

The pact will vote people based on whether or not they are in it (this is not true)

whereas StrangerCoug had said that:

it's misleading to vote people based on who is and is not in the pact.

This is a different point entierly. Instead of describing the voting behaviour of people in the pact, SC is saying that it is misleading to determine the alignment of those in and out of the pact.
Later in the same post she says that the 4 reasons comprise 'craplogic' and says that several others have made the same judgement. Looking back, I can't find where anyone else had mentioned craplogic with regard to SC's post. PeterGriffin (now replaced by Lowell) used craplogic in post 274 as a reason for voting for Untitled, again in defense of BM, but that's it.

It's subtle, but looks like she's trying to avoid suspicion for her voting behaviour.

Vote: Cass

[Cyberbob]

He said he was pretty sure he knew another player's role. To me that is a great deal different from what DynamoXI said when he asked:

How would you know his role? Care to tell us how you came about this information?

Not all that different in my mind - what animorph did is akin to a softclaim.

[Netlava]

I haven't seen anything to make me change my mind about thinking him town, why?

Just looking for inconsistencies, that's all, since both you and earthworm are on my watch list.

Earlier you said this:

This is quite scummy. You should be able to comment on something

And now, it turns out that earthworm has been active lurking for quite some time, but you didn't comment on it.

[hasdgfas]

This is quite scummy. You should be able to comment on something

And now, it turns out that earthworm has been active lurking for quite some time, but you didn't comment on it.

So because he made one post without pretty much any content, he's active lurking? I find that to be a crap argument.

[DynamoXI]

That enough reasoning for you, SC? I think it's enough to make a D1 lynch at this point.

Id say your dead on with your analysis but Id be wrong about you being right.

Apparently Im just a misunderstood noob that likes lurking. Anyways had some irl things had to take care of but Im back now.

Post 7: He contradicts himself here. He said he agreed to be the second person on the pact, then almost immediately after said he didn't jump on the treaty because there was no treaty at the time.(?) He also jumps onto a popular at the time wagon after saying he wanted a good case before voting.

Sarcasm my friend. Sarcasm. But you do make some good points ill give you that.

Major rolefishing.

Actually to be quite honest with you I had no clue wtf rolefishing was at the time and was honestly curious as to how someone would be able to deduce information on the first day. But once again your absolutly right and im a dumbass.

C) None of Dynamo's posts have been pro-town.

lol I thought some were protown *facepalm*

I'd like to see DynamoXI come back and answer some of the questions put to him, especially why he voted for Erratus Apathos after quoting Nhat's reasoning in post 401, telling Cass: "I voted because I had a case."

If I remember correctly, Cass asked me why i wasnt voting so I said I needed a case but then later on i think one of the posts really ticked me off so I was just like "you know what fuck it if you want a damn vote theres your damn vote happy now??" Might be wrong tho ill have to go read up on how hasdgfas broke it down.

E) We should lynch Dynamo.

Well a no lynch or lynching me seems to be the best possible choice here. The way i see it from your guys ends is that you all have really good cases that I can agree with because my posts are amazingly lacklusterly scumbagy. Personally I honestly havent read enough of the last 5 pages to say who would be a good choice. To me it seems like Im a noob, and people just cant read posts correctly but Ive understood thats not the case. Ive been digging a hole for a while now so If you do lynch me I see where your coming from and unfortunatly I dont have any useful rebutles for you to use because im pressed for time and im just fucking tired.

unvote

[Netlava]

So because he made one post without pretty much any content, he's active lurking? I find that to be a crap argument.

Nice mistake?

[Korts]

I'm back, although I'm on from a public hotspot right now, no net at our flat yet. I may be short and won't check mafiascum frequently.

I tire of the 'FoS is scummy' argument. It's got to the stage where no scumbag in their right mind would do it. Unless they were trying to go for a meta of non-commitalness. *cough*Korts*cough*

I don't see how you can dismiss a legitimate scumtell based on the fact that it happens rarely.

That's not what i said atall now, is it?

That's what I gathered. You say "no scumbag would do it" which I took to say that you don't consider it a legitimate point.

Also, I'm trying to be non-committal?

Yes. You were happy to admit this earlier. Why do you question it now?

BM

I was on the fence about the pact issue, but to set me up as non-committal overall is misrepresentation. I don't like you much right now, BM.

BM, the FOS tell is dying out, but similar non-committing tells still exist.

why are you not voting for Korts?

BM

On what grounds should he? The quoted sentence doesn't accuse me in any way.

Unvote EA because deadline is approaching and I never actually wanted to lynch him.

This seems to contradict "votes generally mean intent to lynch."

I think in this case it was "willingness to lynch".

Hascow's post 726 convinced me about Dynamo's scumminess; until now I just saw him as a lurker-scapegoat, an easy D1 lynch against the lazy newbie. It's still an easy vote for scum, but I'm pretty comfortable having him lynched. His defense doesn't help much, either; "some posts of mine were pro-town" and "I'm a dumbass" don't amount to much. Also, protip, Dynamo: No Lynching D1 is a big no-no. You'll be back at the same position pretty much D2, only with a night phase having decimated the town.

unvote, vote: Dynamo

[Cass]

Mainly though, I would like to see the return of Cass for the following: In post 282, she quotes StrangerCoug's reasons for voting Battle Mage and without specifying which of the reasons she refers to, votes for SC "For hypocrisy and badly stretched logic."
In post 349 she is asked about the logic and lists out the 4 points of SC's case. Unfortunately point 2 is a straw man. She says:
Cass, in post 349 wrote:
The pact will vote people based on whether or not they are in it (this is not true)
whereas StrangerCoug had said that:
StrangerCoug wrote:
it's misleading to vote people based on who is and is not in the pact.

This is a different point entierly. Instead of describing the voting behaviour of people in the pact, SC is saying that it is misleading to determine the alignment of those in and out of the pact.

Well, perhaps i misread or perhaps you misread, but that is how i understand his sentence. It is a confusing sentence though, so if I misunderstood I'm sorry.

Later in the same post she says that the 4 reasons comprise 'craplogic' and says that several others have made the same judgement. Looking back, I can't find where anyone else had mentioned craplogic with regard to SC's post. PeterGriffin (now replaced by Lowell) used craplogic in post 274 as a reason for voting for Untitled, again in defense of BM, but that's it.

I'm quite sure BM at least also called SC on his lack of logic there. I don't have the time to read everything back, but I seem to remember more people disagreeing with SC there, although perhaps not voting him for it.

Will post more later.

[markfg]

Making a post, internet was down. Will be able to get into the discussion some more tomorrow.

[raider8169]

People are jumping on everyone for the little and stupidest things. Not sure if it is all intentional or not but most of it is crap. I have yet to find a case I can agree with. I should be making my own case but a few posts after I notice something someone else points it out.

If you want to make your own case, but someone else points it out before you can say it, then why do you think every case is bad? And are you suspicious of ANYONE?

At the moment I have seen quite a few people jump the gun on something I see as weak but just because I dont see what they do doesn't mean they are automatically scum. I still have more pages as I am trying to find the cases on the larger bandwagons at hand. I have read peoples case but I want to read how they posted it so I have everything in context.

[armlx]

Dynamo's last post is just a pile of Appeal to Emotion.

[armlx]

I'm posting this in all my games. My computer power cord just broke again, same issue as last time. I'm going to be on LA for a week or two while I wait for a new one to arrive.

[Cass]

I think at least one of Armlx and Dynamo is scum. They could even both be scum, distancing, though that seems less likely. Of these, Dynamo is probably the better lynch, because his posts are far more anti-town - and rife with actual scum-tells:

Thats an ingenius plan you have forming together

Buddying up to BM. His other two posts day one are more buddying and /treaty. If scum was going to join the pact, I think this is how they would do it.

He starts the day with some meaningless fluff and says he'll reread and then vote:

Okay I wasnt able to get on for all of yesterday and wow I missed 10 pages of discussion? haha and it was all pregame! Thats I first for me. I find it funny how everyone could generate such an amazing controversy over something that seemed so meaningless at the time (considering it was pregame)
Im gonna go back and read up before I vote.

But in his next post he says:

I looked at most of the the posts since the game has

started

because the pregame to me was just like a bunch of random crap.

So he decided to skip the reading after all. Also, in this post he makes two foses and no vote. The vote contains a lot of 'haha', 'lol' and 'I'm confused', which makes it all sound very dishonest to me. Look at the two FoSes:

Nhat so far looks like he has drawn a ton of suspicion, even with his vote on untitled but it hasn't sold me yet (I mean his horrible logic doesn't exactly make him scummy, its just horrible logic). However I will FoS: Nhat

In other words: "He's not scummy, but he has drawn suspicion, so I'll FoS him and see if a wagon picks up."

Right now SC is the biggest blip on the radar for me with his "Mafia is a game of quality not quantity post" and then someone else shows us that almost half of his posts are one liners that aren't quality at all (at least thats how I see it) Along with the fact that he mentions that he has played a completly different form of mafia that floors me (It seems that he just interjected something so that he wouldn't just be saying "I understand now" FoS: StrangerCoug

Again, something that "someone else has shown us" and something completely irrelevant (SC he mentions a different kind of mafia - in no way do I see this leading to a FoS).
I question him about this and this seems to irritate him:

There you go cass: I voted because I had a case. The question is are you going to call that out and say that thats scummy as well? Because frankly at this point Im profounded at the menial things people call scummy.

Sounds somewhat defensive/paranoid to me. he then votes EA based on someone elses case. (I'm starting to see a pattern here...)
Then the infamous role-fishing:

How would you know his role? Care to tell us how you came about this information?

This post makes all my alarmbells go off.

Then his defense:

Apparently Im just a misunderstood noob that likes lurking.

Aww, poor little noob... Appeal to emotion and also not a defense at all. Followed up with an appeal to sarcasm, appeal to confusion and then some more appeal to emotion. And then he just gives up:

Well a no lynch or lynching me seems to be the best possible choice here. The way i see it from your guys ends is that you all have really good cases that I can agree with because my posts are amazingly lacklusterly scumbagy. Personally I honestly havent read enough of the last 5 pages to say who would be a good choice. To me it seems like Im a noob, and people just cant read posts correctly but Ive understood thats not the case.

If he flips scum, I'll definitely have to go back tomorrow and look for bussing there.

Unvote
Vote: Dynamo

[Cass]

EBWOP: "The

vote

contains a lot..." should have been "The

post

contains a lot..."

[hasdgfas]

So because he made one post without pretty much any content, he's active lurking? I find that to be a crap argument.

Nice mistake?

Please explain.

[Lowell]

unvote, vote dynamo

. Dynamo's last post cements it for me. That said, 740 is incredibly opportunisitic. The Cass case should be looked at again regardless of how this one turns out.

[Netlava]

Please explain.

Just checking if you were aware of an oversight.

unvote, vote dynamo. Dynamo's last post cements it for me. That said, 740 is incredibly opportunisitic. The Cass case should be looked at again regardless of how this one turns out.

What makes Cass's vote more scummy than others?

[Battle Mage]

I'm back, although I'm on from a public hotspot right now, no net at our flat yet. I may be short and won't check mafiascum frequently.

I tire of the 'FoS is scummy' argument. It's got to the stage where no scumbag in their right mind would do it. Unless they were trying to go for a meta of non-commitalness. *cough*Korts*cough*

I don't see how you can dismiss a legitimate scumtell based on the fact that it happens rarely.

That's not what i said atall now, is it?

That's what I gathered. You say "no scumbag would do it" which I took to say that you don't consider it a legitimate point.

I didnt say 'rarely'. I implied 'pretty much never'. Meaning in my mind, it is NOT a scumtell. You seem to think it is, and painted your comment with that in mind.

Also, I'm trying to be non-committal?

Yes. You were happy to admit this earlier. Why do you question it now?

BM

I was on the fence about the pact issue, but to set me up as non-committal overall is misrepresentation. I don't like you much right now, BM.

Aww, didums.
*kuddles Korts*

I'm not even sure if i'm voting for you. Assuming i'm not, i think you're OMGUSing shadows again. If i am, i guess you'll have to learn to live with the fact that this is a Mafia game, and if i think you're scum, i'm gonna try and lynch you- friend or otherwise.

BM, the FOS tell is dying out, but similar non-committing tells still exist.

why are you not voting for Korts?

BM

On what grounds should he? The quoted sentence doesn't accuse me in any way.

Jesus....do you ever stop and think 'is there really any need to get wound up about this?' 0.o

He said non-committing tells existed. I wanted to know what he thought of you, given that that was my view of your approach to this game. Understand? :Roll:

BM

[DynamoXI]

Buddying up to BM. His other two posts day one are more buddying and /treaty. If scum was going to join the pact, I think this is how they would do it.

Absolutly agree with you.

[Cephrir]

lynching me seems to be the best possible choice here. The way i see it [...] you all have really good cases that I can agree with because my posts are amazingly lacklusterly scumbagy.

I'm considering agreeing.

Especially given that the rest of this post, as someone pointed out, is nothing but appeals to emotion.

(Taking things ridiculously out of context is fun.)

[skitzer]

Vote Count Thirteen of Day One

(6) DynamoXI: armlx, Battle Mage, hasdgfas, markfg, Korts, Cass
(5) Cass: Netlava, Veronica13, OpposedForce, Lowell, Sineish
(3) armlx: Erratus Apathos, StrangerCoug, nhat
(1) StrangerCoug: Snaps_The_Pirate
(1) Untitled: JohnQPublic0
(1) animorpherv1: Cyberbob
(1) Cephrir: Untitled

(8) Not Voting: raider8169, cris150, maxwellhouse, Citizen Karne, MafiaMann, earthworm, Cephrir, DynamoXI

With 26 alive, it takes 14 votes to lynch!

Last Post Count Thirteen of Day One

Key:
Green - posted in last 24 hours
Blue - posted in last 48 hours
Olive - Posted in last 72 hours
Red - Posted more than 72 hours ago, prodded
Dark Red - Requiring Replacement
Dark Blue - Vacation/Limited Access

hasdgfas

Netlava

raider8169

StrangerCoug

MafiaMann

earthworm

Erratus Apathos

Cyberbob

armlx

Sineish

DynamoXI

Korts

Cass

markfg

Lowell

Battle Mage

Cephrir

Untitled

nhat

Citizen Karne

JohnQPublic0

Veronica13

OpposedForce

cris150

maxwellhouse

Snaps_The_Pirate

As there are six still in red or dark red, I will merely extend the deadline 1 week.
A

deadline

is now set for

September 19th, 2008

[Citizen Karne]

Misrepresentation and voting based on another's reasoning are also scum tells.

FoS: Cyberbob

I understand the first one but the second one is confusing. Why would voting based on someone else's reasoning be a scumtell? Surely others can make good points.

Unvote EA

because deadline is approaching and I never actually wanted to lynch him.

surely this is some kind of joke?

armlx seems to be the hot topic right now, but I don't really see the problem with him. in a game this size it's easy to lose focus on your vote - I just realised that my vote's still sitting on bm for no particular reason at this point.

unvote

vote: cephrir

for the above clanger.

I agree with you that cephrir's above post is quite odd but do you have any other reason to vote him?

Also, my gut read on Dynamo is disgruntled, poorly playing town, but my mind says I'm giving him far too much credit for his newbie card. I feel I shall end up voting him today, but not just yet.

FoS: armlx

for not replying to my questions yet. Please, you can take your time, but do not ignore them all together.