Mini 638 - Batman Mafia - Prozacmod 1 - Over

[wolframnhart]

@UA

You said you were keeping your vote on Charter/Danger/Sthar8 because you felt him to be the most scummy. After your individual read through (which i think you are done with correct me if i am wrong) and any posts that have happened since then, do you still feel your vote is best placed there?

[sthar8]

551 has a cat reference in it. Do you know how to spell "cat"?
You still haven't given any explanation for why I would continue charter and danger's cat theme if it weren't some kind of restriction, or explained the apologies for breaking the restriction or what advantage scum might get from faking such a restriction.

1. I never said any of my evidence was perfect or undeniable, but when we have a behavior that suggests "X or scum" and another that suggests "Y or scum" and a third that suggests "Z or scum," it's time to seriously consider "scum" as the answer. As for the "speculation" comment, where did you expect me to get solid proof? Your defense against these points is no more than speculative as well. The difference, of course, is that I support my speculations with facts and reasoning.

2. Good point. The idea that he was trying to avoid attention while pushing that theory is still relevant, regardless.

3. Calling his "theory" WIFOM was backtracking from his previous posts in which he referred to it as logic. How was it "petty" or "low" of charter to vote someone for trying to pass WIFOM off as logic on day 1? And what was Godot's comment about charter if not an attempt to discredit his opposition by belittling him and appealing to the audience's sense of moral superiority?

4. Did I say he fake claimed? And where did you address this? I don't see anything in any of your posts that's even close to real support for townie motivation behind that action.

5. That's not what he did, though. He didn't call SL scummy, he just suggested that someone else might want to. That is

very

scummy, because it suggests that he wants the wagon to form, but doesn't want to be seen as part of it.

6. post 229

7. posts 260, 265, and 312 (near the end, after all the emotional appeals)

8. posts 308 and 312

9. But his empty garbage goes all the way to the start of the game. And a good portion of his posts near the end were complaining that others weren't posting enough. I'm saying that his disinterest in the game resulted from the fact that he was trying to avoid notice . He didn't want to generate any content, and no one else was creating any for him to comment on, so he lost interest.

10.

He. Did. No. Scumhunting. None.

All of his votes were on people who had voted him, people already under scrutiny from someone else, and random lurkers. Town wins this game by catching scum, and godot was not interested in doing that. I'm not buying your "he's a special little boy with special needs and a special way of helping" line. Some things are useful to the town, and godot wasn't doing any of them. While we're on the subject, you don't seem to care who we lynch, either. Maybe if you spent a little less time making up poor arguments that I'm not using to defend against, you might be able to hide your scumminess a little better.

Kloud, I missed this before, but it would be unwise to judge anyone's actions based on ABR's play in this game. He wasn't scummy, he wasn't townie. He was just stupid, and it was right to eliminate his unreadable idiocy early in the game.

[kloud1516]

Kloud, I missed this before, but it would be unwise to judge anyone's actions based on ABR's play in this game. He wasn't scummy, he wasn't townie. He was just stupid, and it was right to eliminate his unreadable idiocy early in the game.

What exactly are you referring to here, sthar8? Could you provide a quote or a post number so that I might address this and/or clarify for you and everyone else, please?

[Porochaz]

Fixed

[sthar8]

Your last post. 571. You assert that ABR's play is evidence against my thought that a post restriction is the most reasonable (and therefore obvious) explanation for the occurences of cat references in my role's posts. I argue that ABR's play was not reasonable as scum

or

town, and therefore it should not be used as a comparison, as any parallels would assume that charter and danger were even more devoid of reason and logic than they otherwise demonstrated.

[kloud1516]

Alright, I will now respond. I do realize that I repeat myself quite a bit below, but I felt that this would be the easiest way to clarify what I had meant. Sorry for the repetitiveness.

Heh. EBWOP.

it was a post restriction?

The answer to this should be painfully and blatantly obvious to anyone who can read.

Not necessarily, for references early within the game would say otherwise. ABR's continuous use of Joker references appeared to be a PR, until he was called out about not actually being the Joker. When he was lynched, it was revealed that he indeed had no PR, despite it seeming so.

Kloud, I missed this before, but it would be unwise to judge anyone's actions based on ABR's play in this game. He wasn't scummy, he

wasn't townie.

He was just stupid, and it was right to eliminate his unreadable idiocy early in the game.

Addressing underlined section:

ABR was townie. This was most likely just a typo, but I thought I should point it out.

Addressing rest of bolded section:

I agree with you completely on this, which I why I voted for him.

Your last post. 571. You assert that ABR's play is evidence against my thought that a post restriction is the most reasonable (and therefore obvious) explanation for the occurences of cat references in my role's posts. I argue that ABR's play was not reasonable as scum

or

town, and therefore it should not be used as a comparison, as any

parallels would assume that charter and danger were even more devoid of reason and logic than they otherwise demonstrated.

No, the point that I was trying to make is that just because it would appear someone had a PR doesn't mean that they do/did. It was not my intention to insinuate that this had anything to do with alignment; all I said was that just because something seemed to be the most reasonable explanation (and in your words "the most obvious") doesn't mean that the assumption is correct.

No, ABR's play was not reasonable; it was foolish and erratic in nature, but this does not refute the fact that almost everyone (myself included) assumed that he had a PR when he in fact did not. This knowledge is irrefutable, and so I feel that it is still valid no matter despite it not being reasonable.

[Addressing Bolded Section]: No, this is not true at all in my opinion. Many of my posts had Scarecrow references in them, or alluded to the idea that I was Scarecrow. I did not have a PR, but provided these references all the same. If you continue to believe that comparing ABR's charade of having a PR is incomparable, then I feel that my own actions do parallel my thought process; for while it may have seemed that the most obvious reasoning for me to provide Scarecrow allusions was because I had a PR, I did not.

I am not saying that is impossible that charter/danger/you have a PR, as there have been consistent Catwoman references from the get-go; what I am saying is that, even with PR being a possibility, the references could have also been merely a method of getting more into character to get as much enjoyment out of the game as possible--which was my reasoning for the Scarecrow antics.

I will once again emphasize that my point of post 571 was to only point out that the most obvious theory might not always be the correct one. This is a lesson that we as town seem to have failed to learn despite constant reminders. We all thought that ABR's claim of Joker was obvious due to his apparent PR, but then SL counter-claimed. We then thought it was obvious that because he had lied both about his character and continued to flop on his role that he was obviously scum. Some argued that, since the minority of players were most likely heroes that they were obviously the scum. We now have a hero dead, and he was a townie. All of these things have seemed obvious, and yet every time the obvious, most logical explanation was not the answer.

This is what I was trying to say with post 571. That is all. This was not a post serving as a case against you in the slightest, yet from your succeeding posts it feels as though you have assumed a very defensive stance without reasoning to. This may not be the case, but it is the impression you have made on me.

[sthar8]

point of clarification: When I refer to ABR being "not townie," I mean that his actions were inconsistent with achieving the town win condition, not that he was of neutral alignment.

I'm not intending to be defensive on this point. I'm pointing out the logical reasoning that should lead to a high probability of my role's peculiar habit being a post restriction. If you remember, the point came up because gremwell defended his predecessor by asserting that no other townies were behaving reasonably with regard to the early name-claims. In fact, his wording implies a tu quoque attack against me because he accuses charter specifically of said craziness. I'm refuting his point by pointing out that charter's cat references were dictated by a post restriction. Because he expressed doubt, I must now point out how it was the most reasonable conclusion to assume that I do have a PR. My entire goal regarding this topic is to maintain the validity of my attack on godot and refute gremwells' tu quoque attack.

As for your argument, I would point out that nowhere do I suggest that any of this is in any way indicative of alignment. In addition, I'm not disputing the

facts

of ABR's play, I'm disputing the validity of a comparison between it and charter/danger's play. Finally, I don't care what conclusions you

actually

came to. What I am arguing are the conclusions that you

should have

drawn.

Your comparison of ABR's play to that of my role involves Cartesian demons, assumptions that our reasoning is doomed to fail because of the possiblility that our perceptions are incorrect. Despite the anecdotal evidence you have experienced, it is an error to assume the possiblity that any of us are without reason, without any evidence. Such an assumption undermines

any

logical conclusion, therefore it can be discarded until it gains factual support.

Your comparison of my role's play to your own violates the principle of Ockham's Razor. You assume that four demonstrably different and random entities are likely to make the same playstyle choice independently of one another. Much simpler, and thus much more reasonable, is that we were forced into the feline flavor (oh god, now I'm doing it unconsciously!).

Your examples are all instances in which the town's logic was faulty, not instances in which the logical process failed you. Your assessment of ABR's claim failed to account for Darla's posting flavor. I hope you never assumed that ABR was scum, because his behavior did not logically indicate that (it indicated unhelpfulness and unpredictibility, which are often more dangerous than scumminess). The heroes=scum theory never progressed past speculation, because it's basis was not yet supported by evidence.

I'm not saying that you should be solidly sure that I have a post restriction, but given charter and danger's apologies to the mod and the high incidence of consistency in the cat references combined with the lack of advantage to faking such a restriction, the existence of a pr is the most logical, reasonable, simple, and obvious explanation.

Now that we've gotten that out of the way, what do you think about godot, then gremwell's play?

[wolframnhart]

Going back on UA's PR restriction and the Flameaxe Dick Grayson connection i have a question for everyone:

Did everyone get the real name of their char along with their alias?

[kloud1516]

Your comparison of ABR's play to that of my role involves Cartesian demons, assumptions that our reasoning is doomed to fail because of the possiblility that our perceptions are incorrect. Despite the anecdotal evidence you have experienced,

it is an error to assume the possiblity that any of us are without reason, without any evidence.

Such an assumption

undermines

any

logical conclusion, therefore it can be discarded until it gains factual support.

This wasn't the assumption/conclusion that I had reached in the slightest. The only point I was trying to make was that we shouldn't take things for face value without having sufficient evidence for doing so. I was not implying that players in this game have made decisions void of any reason or evidence, for that has not been and still is not the case. The anecdotal evidence/reasoning I provided was simply to point out that we should be cautious with our actions as we come closer to the endgame.

As I said, this was not the point I was trying to make. I will agree with you on the fact that such a line of thinking

would

undermine all efforts to reach a logical conclusion and, as such, also agree that this discussion should be put on pause until we have more information. Otherwise, we will just continue to detract from scum hunting efforts by us continuing to dwell on this alone.

Your comparison of my role's play to your own violates the principle of Ockham's Razor.

You assume that four demonstrably different and random entities are likely to make the same playstyle choice independently of one another.

Much simpler, and thus much more reasonable, is that we were forced into the feline flavor (oh god, now I'm doing it unconsciously!).

Again, this was not what I was saying. I was assuming nothing with my earlier posts, but merely saying that it was indeed a possibility that you did not have a PR based off of information already provided within the game. My reasoning for finding this a possibility may be faulty, yes, and I acknowledge that in light of your posts, but the possibility still remains nevertheless. I understand that each player cannot be expected to play in identical fashion, but this does not mean that the possibility of you not having a PR is invalid. Due to the consistency of the cat references, I am more inclined to believe you on this point, but it is in my nature to be skeptical and analyze every possible scenario--which is what I have been doing.

Your examples are all instances in which the town's logic was faulty, not instances in which the logical process failed you.

Your assessment of ABR's claim failed to account for Darla's posting flavor.

I hope you never assumed that ABR was scum,

because his behavior did not logically indicate that

(it indicated unhelpfulness and unpredictibility, which are often more dangerous than scumminess).

The heroes=scum theory never progressed past speculation, because it's basis was not yet supported by evidence.

1)

This is true.

2)

In post 226 I provide reasons for my vote. Did I find ABR suspicious? Yes; but this was wholly due to the fact that I felt I would not be able to believe a single thing he said. As I said then and will say now, his antics were unhelpful and distracting, for there was no need for him to lie as he did.

3)

QFT.

I'm not saying that you should be solidly sure that I have a post restriction, but given charter and danger's apologies to the mod and the high incidence of consistency in the cat references combined with the lack of advantage to faking such a restriction, the existence of a pr is the most logical, reasonable, simple, and obvious explanation.

Nor did I ever find you insinuating that I should. . I agree that their apologies and the consistency make the notion of charter/danger/you having a PR logical, and as I said in a paragraph above I am more inclined to believe you. Do I still think there is a possibility you may not have one? Yes; but at the moment there is no information to either prove or disprove either possible case.

Now that we've gotten that out of the way, what do you think about godot, then gremwell's play?

A reply to this question will come a little later today if I manage to get all of the work I need to finish IRL completed. I will start working on it, but I am not sure if I will be able to submit something by tonight, so bear with me.

[Porochaz]

Votecount sponsered by


Hutress

King Enigma – 3 - Zoneace, kloud, Wolframnhart

Gremwell – 2 – K.E., sthar8
sthar8- 1 – UltimaAvalon
BBM – 1 - Gremwell

Deadline set for 13th October, with the possibility of it being delayed if discussion picks up more.

[wolframnhart]

Going back on UA's PR restriction and the Flameaxe Dick Grayson connection i have a question for everyone:

Did everyone get the real name of their char along with their alias?

I should probably explain what I mean by this. UA asked Flameaxe:

BBM, are you Robin? If so, which Robin?

To which Flameaxe responded:

Robin, yes. Holy "role pm just says robin", Batman!

Then this:

Back to you Bam. Is your "Holy things are holy, Batman" thing a Post Restriction?

and from Flame to answer that:

Holy yes, batman!

One more from UA
[quote="UA]Also funny how "Holy relevant thing goes here, Batman" was Dick Grayson's thing. Who is now Nightwing. Who is dead.[/quote]

And again Flame:

My restriction was lifted the majority of day one, I wasn't told why, but it was.

Holy "my best guess is it was Darla, but I dunno, Batman!

So why would his role pm just say robin? And why give the PR of Dick Grayson's Robin when as UA pointed out, Dick Grayson was Nightwing, who is dead. My role pm gave me my char and his real name, so for a role pm to "just say robin" doesn't add up to me. So my question again is:
Did everyones role pm say their char name and their real name?

[wolframnhart]

EBWOP:

Also Flameaxe, why would you think it was something to do with Darla that lifted your PR?

[kloud1516]

Thoughts of Godot's play:

Day 1:

>I still have a hard time trying to form an opinion of Godot in regards to his early play. The early speculation of player alignment based off of characters and PRs did not make sense to me back then, and now that I look back on it I still find it difficult to actually take a side on the topic. Did I think that he was right to automatically assume his theories were supported with logic? No, for we had no evidence to support any hypotheses at this point. Even so, I do not feel that Godot's early assumptions indicate a whole lot, for others had voiced opinions of possibly set-up theory as well. Granted, these players acknowledged that the possible scenarios should be looked at once more information was acquired, as opposed vehemently insisting the theory was most logical, but they still did so nevertheless. I keep going back and forth on whether or not I find this scummy. I realize that this is a large proponent of Godot's early play, for, as you (sthar8) point out, Godot's typical contribution consisted of "I will post something later" and failure to do so, but I admittedly also had mixed opinions of charter at this point as well. I will read back over it again though, for maybe something else will stand out.

>The fact that Godot had continued to go on about how he believed that at least one hero would be scum and yet did not ever make a case when SL claimed stands out to me. I back then as well, and as I read back over the content old thoughts have began to come back to me. I found it odd that despite his insistence, the only comment he provided to SL was along the lines of "I knew you were a hero, and you better get ready for some intense suspicion coming your way." He never said anything else about it, other than that he was impressed SL was the only hero to come forward and claim.

>I will admit that I did not analyze Godot all that much Day 1. When I read something that I felt stood out, I commented on it. As I have already said, I had mixed opinions about both charter and Godot Day 1, as there were facets of both their play that I found to be a little off. Suspicions of either player did not intensify all that dramatically as the day progressed, for then ABR was caught in his lie and thus began his flip-flopping of role claims. His antics received my full attention for the rest of the day if I remember correctly, and so many of the thoughts I had about Godot or charter were lost in the confusion of the end of Day 1.


Day 2:

>Godot did not really contribute much of anything noteworthy. He requested prods on players, particularly Crub and Flameaxe, even going as far as to vote for both to boost their activity. He had another bout with charter, whom by this time I felt was much more suspicious than Godot. Later in the day KE provided his analysis of situation concerning Godot and the character claim. I agreed that the back-and-forth/indecisive nature of Godot during this period was indeed noteworthy, and I wanted to hear a response from him. His response was very lackluster, and even agreed with KE's assessment in that, when put how KE phrased it, his actions looked scummy. I wasn't satisfied with the response, but did not vote Godot for reasons I stated in the back-and-forth with KE.

Day 3

>Godot provides us with little of anything, then gets replaced.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I will concur that Godot's actions are questionable to say the least. He tried to play off theory as fact early in the game, then when someone came forth as a hero, he did nothing about it. His role in the character claiming was wish-washy as well, and his responses to others inquiring lacked any defense. He did not contribute to scum hunting in the slightest, and now that I am reading back over the thread, can see that he more than often just agreed with lengthly cases provided by others.

This being said, I found charter's actions much more suspicious than Godot's (reasons provided earlier in the thread, both in Day 2 and today). I know that you cannot speak for charter when it comes to what he was thinking at times, and I will acknowledge that you are

MUCH

more level-headed and logical than he, but the fact of the matter is that I still find his actions very suspicious.

I still feel that KE has demonstrated the most scummy behavior by far, rising above my suspicions of charter's actions, and the observations of Godot. As such, this is where my vote will be staying.

[KingEnigma]

There is a time coming up, I can feel it coming, where people are going to say "Prod KingEnigma" or "he hasnt posted in a while". This time will be followed gy a message from the mod.

I see you, Kloud, agreeing that Godot(gremwell) is acting fishy, and charter, and AGR and pwnz...and me of course! Though you have had it out for me for a while, though i think its more to do with me knowing your secret! Muhahaha.

I'm going to need the undecided to pick me or Gremwell and get this going. Kloud is clouded in his judgment of me and apparently everyone else he has voted for, never the first one the wagon...he has been pushing hard for me since i called him and godot scum together, and I'm still in that mindset. Aint no thang. Love to you all.

I really can not find anything new to say. Those two are scum.

[ZONEACE]

Well now for a change of pace.

The KE wagon has been stalled forever, so I'll move to my second suspect and hope this gets the game moving.

unvote vote sthr8

What do you all think of that?

[Gremwell]

to answer your question wolf, my pm did include my real name along with my villain name. I don't see why it would be any different for heroes.

also,

Unvote

didn't know I had one up

[Porochaz]

BBM is LA atm

[sthar8]

My role PM

does not

include a real name, though it does include some background information (apparently catwoman has a daughter, and is in jail for shooting someone called Black Mask.)

kloud: Glad we got that cleared up.

kloud and Zoneace: I'm willing to try my hand at reasoning out charter's actions, if you'd like to point out what you found the most suspicious. I can't promise anything, since some of his play is entirely inscrutable to me, but I can try.

Zoneace: what do you think of godot/gremwell?

[wolframnhart]

Thank you to sthar8 and Gremwell for answering my question so far, and i hope to hear an answer from the rest of you as well. So far it seems you do get a real name too, and if you don't that you at least get some background info, for a role pm to "just say robin" is beginning to look suspicious so far, but i will see what the others have to say.

[kloud1516]

I too received Scarecrow's real name in addition to his alias.

@sthar8:

I will provide you with my reasonings in just a little bit. I have to leave the house soon, and I am not sure whether I will have enough time to get a coherent post up.

[KingEnigma]

real name as well.

[ZONEACE]

I did not recieve my character's real name.


So i fully believe its possible someone else didn't receive a real name.

What does it all mean however?

[wolframnhart]

Personally I was thinking that a role pm to "just say robin" could not be, because I had gotten my chars real name along with his villain name. Also the fact that Flameaxe was given a PR restriction of the "holy yadda yadda batman" which was Dick Grayson's thing, who we know to be dead, was a lie as well, now I am wondering if I was just chasing will o' wisps.

[Gremwell]

but what does DBE have to do with his restriction being lifted?

[wolframnhart]

good question, one of which i asked, but one that probably won' be answered till he comes back