Mini 672 - Tranquility (Game Over)

[Kmd4390]

I'm liking my vote.

charter (3) - Stef, Nameless, camn
Rishi (2) - DraketheFake, charter
melikefood (1) - stormer
Nameless (1) - Rishi
camn (1) - Kmd4390
DraketheFake (1) - SpyreX
stormer (1) - Malyss

Not Voting (2) - JDodge, melikefood

Mod Note: If you guys and girls would prefer vote counts in their own posts I can do that too, leaving it up to you. Until then, I'll keep doing this.

[camn]

You didn't answer my questions camn.

Do you mean "What is wrong with a healthy bandwagon on Rishi early in day one? ". .

The answer is.. Nothing at all. But if you think he is townie scum.. shouldn't you be asking HIM questions? Or is your method of scum-hunting to interrogate anyone who votes for you?

And if you MUST know.. I used the 4 minutes to check and make sure you only had one vote... because I don't really suspect you enough to be the 3rd vote. I'm not as impulsive as I used to be

[charter]

I spelled out why I was voting Rishi, they were not because I think he's a townie.

[Lord Gurgi]

"Now that you're all awake we can finally get down to business. Last night, the sheriff and his two deputies were murdered on the Hudson Bridge. Through our own efforts we have narrowed possible suspects down to the twelve of you in this room. The procedures laid down by the Godfather Council have dictated this procedure. I will return at a later date with further information as it presents itself." The young man walks out of the room, and the walls close together as he goes.

All players are confirmed, have at it.

[Nameless]

## Unvote: Charter, ## Vote: Rishi

The answer is.. Nothing at all. But if you think he is townie scum.. shouldn't you be asking HIM questions? Or is your method of scum-hunting to interrogate anyone who votes for you?

Until Rishi checks in again and responds (or not) to the allegations already made, there's not much use in asking further questions to him. And, surely, one can investigate several suspects at once?

And if you MUST know.. I used the 4 minutes to check and make sure you only had one vote... because I don't really suspect you enough to be the 3rd vote. I'm not as impulsive as I used to be

a) Why so reluctant?
b) It sounds like you're trying to pacify charter the moment he seriously questions you ... that's bad.

[stormer]

SO... What does this leave us? We've got TWO people who refuse to show their faces.

Well, here I am. Sorry, but I was out of town for a funeral, but I'm back now.

##Vote: Stormer

Back in the 80's, Stormer was one of my favorite characters on one of the cartoons that I watched.

Why did I choose this stupid name? I got it form this COD player,

anyway, charter, why so quick on Rishi?

[SpyreX]

Well, nice to see a game that abandons the jokes right away and gets down to being nice and scummy.

Vote: Rishi

Coming down on the "joke" by Stef is understandable.

However, the rest of it is saying a lot of nothing - a very good way to "blend" this early on, which is a red flag.

Yet, the one time you decide to say something you condemn the talk from one side while fueling the flames? You want the distraction.

[Kmd4390]

Ok, why so many votes on Rishi?
I'm thinking there is probably scum on that wagon...

[Rishi]

a) Overly elaborating on a joke statement and reading into an ambiguous reply.

The reply was ambiguous, for sure. That's why I asked Stef to explain further. I know that SpyreX's original statement was a joke, but was Stef's response a joke? What do you think the purpose of Stef's statement was?

b) Readying yourself to jump on those enjoying the theme before any problems have been caused.

You had been pushing (before this post) yourself to hash out the terminology. There had already been discussion on this point. And I think it's a tad bit silly to wait until AFTER we have problems to work out a solution. I wasn't preparing to jump on anyone. I was merely speaking in hypothetical terms. For example, someone insists, "I think X is town." Then X is lynched and turns up Mafia (innocent in this game). We go back and say, "Hey, you said that X was town, but they're not." Then the person has an easy out: "Oh, sorry. I meant that I thought he was Mafia. I got my terms confused because of the flavor of this game." We should all make sure we are using the same terminology so it doesn't cause confusion later.

c) OOT discussion at the beginning of a game might be IMHO annoying, but you're reading too much into it and then baiting further replies with your last statement anyway.

Yes, I'll concede that this may have been a bit of a stretch. But it's early in the game and we have to look at little things in order to get the game moving. However, I don't like that DraketheFake has provided almost no content in this game, but still took the time to make an elaborate off topic post about the Yankees. I don't think Kmd was at fault - he recognized that he shouldn't have belabored the point.

## Unvote: Nameless

We're out of the random stage. My random vote coincidentally was on you. Even though you're attacking me, you seem genuinely interested in scumhunting at this point, and leaving my vote on you would be nothing more than OMGUS.

[Rishi]

I spelled out why I was voting Rishi, they were not because I think he's a townie.

##unvote, ##vote Rishi

For the same reasons as Nameless's a and b.

And by spelling out, you mean that you know the first two letters of the alphabet. Good job coming up with your own reasons.

[charter]

Wait, so I'm not allowed to agree with people anymore?

[DraketheFake]

So.. JDoge has confirmed.. but still no Post?

Hm. Maybe I got lucky.

Hahaha, what? Admittedly this would have been more timely yesterday when it hadn't been a whole day since JDodge had confirmed but not posted, but to idly muse that because someone has confirmed but not thrown out an intro/joke vote post they might actually be scum pursuant to one's random vote is odd, to say the least.

The answer is.. Nothing at all. But if you think he is townie scum.. shouldn't you be asking HIM questions?

Or is your method of scum-hunting to interrogate anyone who votes for you?

And if you MUST know.. I used the 4 minutes to check and make sure you only had one vote... because I don't really suspect you enough to be the 3rd vote. I'm not as impulsive as I used to be

So wait... you waited four minutes to vote charter for bandwagoning,

not

on order to address his questions about your reasons for voting for him, but to ensure that you wouldn't be the

third

vote?

As far as the bolded section, asking questions is sort of how the game is played. Especially when someone responds to a hypothetical third vote with a "Meercats suck" type of placeholder post, then follows it up by jumping down the throat of the guy who voted him as if three votes was the magical scum number.

Ok, why so many votes on Rishi?
I'm thinking there is probably scum on that wagon...

Don't do this. For one, there's only three current votes due to Spyre's failure to unvote or use ##'s. For two, four votes isn't really particularly unreasonable, especially when one is ostensibly a random vote (mine). For three, if you think there's suspicious activity going on on a wagon, don't be so lazy: read the posts, point out what you think is suspicious, and go on about your business. Blanket statements like yours only serve the town with their ambiguity and make it sound like you have information that the mafia doesn't.

## Unvote: Nameless

We're out of the random stage.

My random vote coincidentally was on you. Even though you're attacking me, you seem genuinely interested in scumhunting at this point, and leaving my vote on you would be nothing more than OMGUS.

Okay, giant red flag. You would have been fine if you'd stopped at the bolded section, but no, you had to move on to the pat on the back and the implied suspicion of voting for somebody who's voting for you.

As far as terminology goes, everybody arguing that we should use the terms "townie" and "mafia" like we would in a normal game is either lazy (most likely) or town, or possibly both. In this game the mafia is the majority, and so if someone is acting "like a townie" they should probably be lynched. The terms "scummy" and "scum," on the other hand, should be unaffected since "scummy" has basically become an adjective for "suspicious," and "scum" is really an "eye of the beholder term:" in this game, the "scum" that need to be rooted out are the townies. Note that in the above Kmd quote nobody in their right mind would think that he meant "There are probably mafia on that wagon" in this game because, duh, of course there are - Mafia are the majority. Rishi made a good point, even if his example was extreme, and I'm not 100% sure why he's being attacked for bringing up the fact that we should probably consolidate terminology (the other things I'm a little clearer on).

Hm.

##Unvote: Rishi, ##Vote: camn

. His extreme caution with his vote and attitude toward early pressure make him seem the most suspicious so far. But

FoS: Rishi

for good measure.

[Nameless]

## Unvote: Rishi

The last paragraph is somewhat dubious but otherwise a fair enough rebuttal.

Wait, so I'm not allowed to agree with people anymore?

Your phrasing in #52 was notably misleading, which is never a good thing.

Now Watching Suspiciously: Kmd. Nine posts which amount to randomly voting, making several agreements of suspicion without elaborating on anything specific, and one attempt to label a group of players scummy based on the first small bandwagon (again no elaboration). It may be too soon to judge, but if this trend continues I'd consider Kmd highly suspect as scum attempting to remain active without actually contributing.

[Kmd4390]

Don't do this. For one, there's only three current votes due to Spyre's failure to unvote or use ##'s. For two, four votes isn't really particularly unreasonable, especially when one is ostensibly a random vote (mine). For three, if you think there's suspicious activity going on on a wagon, don't be so lazy: read the posts, point out what you think is suspicious, and go on about your business. Blanket statements like yours only serve the town with their ambiguity and make it sound like you have information that the mafia doesn't.

My observation was that the wagon came up very quickly on some one who was simply trying to get us out of the joke phase. Maybe there is scum on the wagon, maybe not. My point was that it seemed like every other post I read was "vote rishi."

As far as terminology goes, everybody arguing that we should use the terms "townie" and "mafia" like we would in a normal game is either lazy (most likely) or town, or possibly both. In this game the mafia is the majority, and so if someone is acting "like a townie" they should probably be lynched. The terms "scummy" and "scum," on the other hand, should be unaffected since "scummy" has basically become an adjective for "suspicious," and "scum" is really an "eye of the beholder term:" in this game, the "scum" that need to be rooted out are the townies. Note that in the above Kmd quote nobody in their right mind would think that he meant "There are probably mafia on that wagon" in this game because, duh, of course there are - Mafia are the majority. Rishi made a good point, even if his example was extreme, and I'm not 100% sure why he's being attacked for bringing up the fact that we should probably consolidate terminology (the other things I'm a little clearer on).

It is natural for me to use "scum" in reference to the minority. This was Rishi's point. You look like you are trying to use confusion against the town (the majority). If you want to enjoy the theme and use the terms in reverse, that is fine as long as you are specific in your posts. Try not to confuse anyone with it. I'm tempted to just start using majority and minority.

## Unvote: Rishi

Now Watching Suspiciously: Kmd. Nine posts which amount to randomly voting, making several agreements of suspicion without elaborating on anything specific, and one attempt to label a group of players scummy based on the first small bandwagon (again no elaboration). It may be too soon to judge, but if this trend continues I'd consider Kmd highly suspect as scum attempting to remain active without actually contributing.

I've had a lot of free time so I have checked all of my games and posted in them regularly.
If you have specific questions for me, feel free to ask and I will gladly answer.

[SpyreX]

Alright, we need to stop this white noise about terms really quick.

We all know that switching the flavor of the "good guys" and "bad guys" is a twist, and it makes for more interesting flavor from the mod, but it should not affect the game at all. We are all bright enough to know that "There might be mafia on that wagon" is implying there might be scum.

Honestly, the fact so much of this start has focused on that (after the joking was done) is suspect.

I did, of course, make a mistake with my vote so I'll fix it now.

##Unvote: DraketheFake, ##Vote: Rishi

I still feel like Rishi was saying a lot of nothing and it really bothers me the "Don't do this" (does thing he says not to do). It creates a distraction, much like the talk about town/scum has been.

[Stef]

First of all, since we're out of the random stage,

##unvote: charter

Now:
@Rishi frankly you put way too much into my joke. Don't like that. I'm not the kind of person who would try to bring suspicion upon a player without arguments. The purpose of my statement was to make a joke since nobody was really serious yet.

I don't care that much about the terminology as long as we understand each other and the game can run smoothly. Don't see a point in prolonging this subject too much. Scummy and scum should keep their meanings. The only words with reversed sense are town and mafia... don't think that's too complicated.

@Nameless Rishi's interpretation, although a little far fetched and annoying and probably caused by the fact that he didn't get is a joke, wasn't that elaborated.

Bating replies is also a fishing method so ..

I agree his behavior is scummy but voting a serious vote based on so little seems even scummier to me.

FoS: Nameless

@Charter you were kinda quit to jump the wagon. Since nameless's reasons weren't that solid i see even LESS reason for you to back him up without any arguments of your own.

Further away you still fail to provide better arguments regarding your vote but instead you try to bring suspicion upon camn.

Then your reply with "I'm not allowed to agree with people anymore" wasn't the best thing you could have posted imho.

[charter]

Why so quick to vote Rishi, you ask? Besides the two points I agreed with Nameless upon? It was the first wagon I could get to three votes. I thought the info gained from a larger wagon would outweigh the info gained from three smaller wagons. I believe we have gained quite a bit of information from my third vote on Rishi, with admittedly little reason, and none of my own.

I'd prefer votecounts in their own post LG,

but I don't really care a whole lot one way or the other.

[stormer]

ok Firstly

##Unvote:melikesfood

I see the logic in the bandwagon now
so you are trying to put loads of prussure to get a RC?

Mod Note: Tags Fixed...

[Kmd4390]

I believe we have gained quite a bit of information from my third vote on Rishi, with admittedly little reason, and none of my own.

What information have we gained?

[charter]

Camn votes and questions me for 'bandwagoning' Rishi to a harmless three votes. Nameless brings up good points in 54. Drake makes a good post in 61. Mostly a lot of discussion since then has risen from the Rishiwagon. I see a possible camn-Rishi connection from all this.

[DraketheFake]

My observation was that the wagon came up very quickly on some one who was simply trying to get us out of the joke phase.

Maybe there is scum on the wagon, maybe not.

Okay, you've just said almost nothing. Again, it behooves you to actually

make a case

if you think there is scum on a particular wagon. At this point in the game, with a (presumed) maximum of 4 townies, the odds are actually pretty good that any three random players would in fact be mafia. Your bolded statement also happens to be true of

just about every wagon

.

My point was that it seemed like every other post I read was "vote rishi."

This was not your point. What you said was:

Ok, why so many votes on Rishi?
I'm thinking there is probably scum on that wagon...

You used the word "probably" AND you hit the panic button at 3 votes. The only point to be extrapolated from this post is that you think it's scummy to place a third vote on somebody/put pressure on somebody. This is a pretty severe backpedal.

[charter]

Where is the backpedal exactly? I'm not really seeing it.

[DraketheFake]

"Severe" was a bad word choice; maybe "obvious" would have been better for my purposes, but then you seem confused so maybe not.

What I object to is him going from "thinking there is probably scum" on a wagon - which has its own implications about what he thinks of that particular wagon - to saying that his main problem with the wagon was the speed with which is occurred, especially supported by a line as non-committal as "Maybe there's scum, maybe not." He went from sounding sure of himself to speaking in generalities pretty quickly, in my opinion, and the basis for both of his points was merely a third vote.

[Kmd4390]

Okay, you've just said almost nothing. Again, it behooves you to actually

make a case

if you think there is scum on a particular wagon. At this point in the game, with a (presumed) maximum of 4 townies, the odds are actually pretty good that any three random players would in fact be mafia. Your bolded statement also happens to be true of

just about every wagon

.

I meant the minority and you know it. Stop trying to confuse us. Like I said, there could be

minority

on that wagon or it could be

majority

trying to get discussion going. I didn't think of it that way at first because most of the games I have played in start with a quick wagon like this and then accusations of wagoning. So basically, it could go either way and it's still too early to tell.

You used the word "probably" AND you hit the panic button at 3 votes. The only point to be extrapolated from this post is that you think it's scummy to place a third vote on somebody/put pressure on somebody. This is a pretty severe backpedal.

They were 3 very quick votes. I wasn't counting them exactly but I was seeing "vote rishi" a lot. As far as backpedaling: yeah, you're right. I backpedaled because I took time to think about it, changed my mind, and said so. I haven't backed off of the possibility that the wagon has

minority

on it but I'm not as convinced as I was.

Where is the backpedal exactly? I'm not really seeing it.

It's there.

What I object to is him going from "thinking there is probably scum" on a wagon - which has its own implications about what he thinks of that particular wagon - to saying that his main problem with the wagon was the speed with which is occurred, especially supported by a line as non-committal as "Maybe there's scum, maybe not." He went from sounding sure of himself to speaking in generalities pretty quickly, in my opinion, and the basis for both of his points was merely a third vote.

Yes, it was a quick wagon and it caught my eye. I don't think the

majority

(can I start saying townie again?) thing to do would be to ignore a quick wagon, especially when you don't see the case.

[DraketheFake]

[quote="Kmd4390"I meant the minority and you know it. Stop trying to confuse us.[/quote]

I honestly wasn't. I meant that, with only three votes, there's actually a more-than-reasonable chance that all of those votes come from majority players. I was trying to point out the flaw in your logic that an early three-person bandwagon is likely to have scum.

Yes, it was a quick wagon and it caught my eye. I don't think the majority (can I start saying townie again?) thing to do would be to ignore a quick wagon,

especially when you don't see the case.

This is better. Still not liking that you didn't make it clear that you didn't see the case, rather than just expressing concern over the speed, but that you finally came out with it is heartening.