Mini 694 - Office Supplies Mafia [Game Over]

[charter]

vote green crayons

[charter]

Green crayons has been caught. He's hoping to lurk his way out of this! Vote him now!

[charter]

I'd prefer votecounts in their own post, makes it easy to search for them.

[charter]

Happy with my vote on Green crayons. Would also be happy if there were more votes on him. Would also be happy if a wagon formed on Porkens. I would gladly join.

[charter]

Oh wow, didn't actually read salempc's post well. I'd wagon him too.

[charter]

Would also be happy if a wagon formed on Porkens. I would gladly join.

Then, for the sake of getting a ball rolling.

Unvote, Vote: Porkens

. Oh, and because he followed some bad reasoning.

Not sure how salempc wasn't contributing on a page two post when he already has a vote out there. Are you saying that there shouldn't be flags raised?

FoS: quints

for artificially high expectations. That looks like a flag to me.

Can we really have caught us a scum this early?

[charter]

VOTE GREEN CRAYONS

[charter]

Those were instructions to the rest of the office. I'm already voting him, if I could vote twice I would, but alas.

[charter]

charter - why is greencrayon such an obvious vote?

Not even obvious vote, obvious scum.

Honestly, though, I'm really not impressed by Charter's double vote with no explanation on green crayons.

Yeah, me neither. ...So I guess I'll bite. Better than last on the list, at least.

Unvote, Vote: Charter

.

A serious OMGUS vote.

Would also be happy if a wagon formed on Porkens. I would gladly join.

Then, for the sake of getting a ball rolling.

Unvote, Vote: Porkens

. Oh, and because he followed some bad reasoning.

Attempting to shift suspicion of of himself onto another easy candidate. Also, says he's voting "for the sake of getting a ball rolling" and then adds "he followed some bad reasoning". It certainly wasn't bad reasoning, and others pointed out the exact same reason that Porkens switched his vote, but GC leaves them out. I also feel 'the ball was rolling' without the need for more random votes.

Basically, he's switched his vote all over the place trying to deflect suspicion away from himself. Every vote he makes comes with worse reasoning than the one before it. Zero scumhunting, just voting others. Has scum written all over it.

[charter]

Also, says he's voting "for the sake of getting a ball rolling"

Which it was.

You said it, you tell me.

and then adds "he followed some bad reasoning".

Are you suggesting a vote cannot be made for multiple reasons? Because that's ridiculous.

No.

I also feel 'the ball was rolling' without the need for more random votes.

Wait. Are you saying my vote for Porkens was a random vote, even though I have already explained my original reasoning for voting him and have explained why I am keeping my vote there? Because my vote

wasn't

random, as I made clear when I voted for him, and it continues to not be random, as my reason for keeping my vote on him has evolved. Way to go to completely mischaracterize my vote.

Also, you're saying that "the ball was rolling" - basically, that there was plenty of contribution. But people were already pointing out that there was a distinctive

lack

of activity (or "ball rolling," if you will) right before this. Way to go to completely mischaracterize the environmental context of my vote.

Random was the wrong word, I should have said crappy. I didn't mischaracterize anything, I don't know where you get that from.

he's switched his vote all over the place

I've had three votes this game. Didn't realize that qualifies as "all over the place." ...Oh, wait. Because it doesn't. Talk about hyperbole.

No. You are wrong. Two terrible votes that early in game screams scum. Town doesn't keep revoting because it doesn't accomplish anything.

trying to deflect suspicion away from himself

...What? My three votes were Vamparific (totally random), charter (OMGUS to get me off of completely random) and Porkens (originally for voting on really bad logic). This "suspicion" that was on me when I changed from Vamp to yourself was two "random" votes from raider and charter from at the beginning. This "suspicion" that was on me when I changed from charter to Porkens was... two "random" votes from raider and charter from at the beginning. This is this biggest load of crap I've read in a long while. Please, show me examples of all this suspicion I was allegedly attempting to throw off beyond the one-two vote at the very beginning from yourself and raider.

What point does an OMGUS vote serve if not to put suspicion on someone else for no based reason? None. Why would town do that? They wouldn't. End of story.

Every vote he makes comes with worse reasoning than the one before it.

Oh goodness, I guess you're right. Wanting to go from completely random to OMGUS and from OMGUS to voting against bad, premature logic is a horrible progression. That's like... going from random voting to voting with a purpose! That's horrifying!

OMGUS is worse than random. Your whole 'premature logic' case is also crap. I don't know where you get that, I don't think anyone else saw that either.

Nice chainsaw defense. Duly noted.

How many scum do you think there are in this game? Another example of coming out the gates ready to jump onto whoever gains support.

charter says that I'm not just a good vote, I'm scum. He's claiming with 100% certainty that I'm the vote for today because I'm so obviously evil. Putting aside the fact that he's claiming a near impossibility on page four day start (which is scummish in and of itself), did you even read his post? He threw a lot of hot air in there to back up such a wild claim. All I did was pull back the curtain and show that all of his points were lacking examples (because examples don't actually exist), exaggerated or outright lies.

If anyone (besides GC) actually thinks that I'm "claiming with 100% certainty that [GC is] the vote for today" and that I'm not clearly overstating my suspicion, consider this a clarification, and I will start spelling everything out explicitly for you...

Charter needs to keep talking. He's made a ridiculously strong claim.

See above.

[charter]

[quote="GC"]

[charter]

So, you're no longer asserting that either of these two clauses, together or alone, are scummish? Quite interesting, then, that you brought up these points in your big post of my "obvious" scum activity when apparently you're not wanting to defend your comments.

No. Stop trying to think for me, you're doing it all wrong. You pull this conclusion out of your ass.

You claim that the environment around my vote was one of active contribution - that "the ball was rolling." Let's look at the posts prior to my vote:

No, I made no such claim. You made that for me... By 'ball is rolling' I mean there is something to work with, not just random votes.

In back-to-back posts your espousing a desire to bandwagon three different people. One of the reasons people like to see votes and bandwagons to occur is because they stir up conversation and contributions. Bandwagons used to this extent are sought when there is a distinctive lack of activity/contribution in a thread, especially in the earlier portions of a game. So not only were others acknowledging a distinctive lack of contributing activity, but you were suggesting a tactic on no less than three players which is commonly used to drum up activity when it is lacking.

No. STOP TELLING ME WHAT I'M SAYING. I'M PERFECTLY CAPABLE OF DOING IT MYSELF. Since you seem to need everything written out explicitly so you don't add your own spin, I'll start doing that for you. I like to wagon to pressure people, not to "drum up activity" as you put it.

[charter]

Damnit, I'm having trouble on this computer, rest of that post is on its way.

[charter]

Your suggestion that a town should stick by their original day one vote is preposterous.

No. I said that town doesn't need to change their vote all over the place, or make multiple votes with terrible reasoning. Switching your vote is fine, when done with good reasoning. Your votes did not have good reasoning.

OMGUS is used by scum to vote someone for no reason. Town votes people for a (legit) reason. Don't even try and pull that OMGUS is a null tell. It is not.

For starters, I don't know how many scum there are. At this point, I don't care - it isn't going to help me, or anyone else for that matter besides the mafia, to waste my time trying to deduce what the game setup is. Maybe there's only one scum. Maybe there are 11. How should I know? What's worrying is that you're suggesting I (and anybody else) should already have a notion of how many scum there are and then attempt to find/point out scummish actions of only that many people. This is a great strategy if 1. only mafia act scummish (which they don't, as townspeople have a habit of doing stupid, scummy things too) and 2. if I already knew how many people were in the scum group (which is a right reserved solely for the mafia and moderator at this point int he game).

I have never been in a mini with a number other than three scum.

IF ANYONE in this game has in the last year, please correct me, else I'm going to continue assuming three.

Secondly, your claim of me pointing out crywolf's chainsaw defense is an "example of coming out of the gates ready to jump onto whoever gains support" is a load of crap. crywolf attacked your attacker (me), not on logical grounds (e.g. by pointing out why my reasoning against you was epic failure) but by attacking the post itself (that it was "bloated") in a twist on the typical ad Hominem fallacy. How is that jumping on "whoever gains support?" crywolf wasn't gaining support, she was just complaining about having to read in a text-based game which hinges upon social interaction and logical reasoning.

NO. I DID NOT SAY YOU WERE JUMPING ON CRYWOLF. WHERE DO YOU GET THIS CRAP FROM? I said you're READY to jump on whoever gains support. Crywolf isn't getting support. You're positioning yourself to be there IF he gains support. READ WHAT I WRITE, NOT WHAT YOU WANT TO READ.

Heh. And after reading that, I'm supposed to believe that you aren't certain that I'm scum, even though you said that I'm "obvious scum" and that you would vote me twice if you have the chance because of it?

So me saying wagon you means that I'm certain you're scum? No, READ WHAT I WRITE, NOT WHAT YOU WANT TO READ. (RWIWNWYWTR)

1. He's a liar (and we know what we should do with them). He has mis-characterized a previous voting context and he has mis-characterized my voting pattern to make his case more substantial. The fact that these mis-characterizations are lies puts a pretty big hole in his case.

Ha, LAL is the greatest scum weapon there is. The rest of your point has been shot down, as it stems from your inventing what I'm saying.

2. He bases his opinions off of horrible reasoning. Like, anti-town reasoning. He has claimed that if you OMGUS vote, you aren't town - even though there is an overwhelming abundance of previous games where OMGUS votes were used by townsfolk. He has claimed that town players don't revote, and this is the first day we're talking about - a day when absolutely no information is given to the townspeople and a varied of votes will undoubtedly be necessary as social interactions and arguments evolve. The only people certain enough of their votes on a day start day one that they don't need to change them are scumbags.

RWIWNWYWTR

3. He doesn't fully address points made against him, and shifts his arguments when necessary to save face.

How is this scummy? Where did I shift my arguments?

4. He expects me (and presumably everyone else) to already know the setup of the game - or, at least how many scum there are. Who would know that outside of mafia? Nobody. Who other than a mafia member would make the mistake of assuming other players know anything about the game setup re: the size of the mafia? But then, to go one step further and then suggest that we should limit our criticism of our fellow players to a certain arbitrary number is to limit the town's potential for finding scum. If I find that player X, Y and Z are acting scummy, but later on player B does something incredibly scummish, am I supposed to just sit on my hands because player Y, who was a townie, decided to do something stupid and scummish earlier in the game? It's absurd.

Yes, I do expect people to assume there are three scum. Attacking me on an assumption as common as that is strawmanning.

And yes, stop making monster posts if you're not going to say anything. It's no fun to have to dig through a wall of eye bleeding text.

Vote: charter

Wait, so you don't agree with his case but vote me anyway? Why not vote him for his craplogic.

[charter]

1. The biggest and best aspect of the Charter case, for me, hasn't been mentioned yet; He has never changed his vote. You simply can not expect anyone to believe that you still have confidence in your random, day 1, post 2 vote. You have been "confident" about it since early in page 2, and no matter what else has gone on, you've dragged it along like a beloved dolly.

Wait, so you've never placed your random vote on the same person who you want to first vote seriously? I felt like my vote was obviously not random when I posted reasons for being suspicious of GC. Once again, I guess I'll explicitly state everything.

What I'd like to see from you is a "My reasoning" summary on your case on GC.

You're tied for my number two suspect with qwints because all you're doing is sitting back while me and GC go at it. You haven't even mentioned someone else. qwints I'm suspicious of for basically the reasons Porkens pointed out.

My reasons for voting him.
Throwing his vote around way too much while not scumhunting trying to put suspicion on others.
Terrible reasons for voting.
And newly added, twisting what I say to what he wants.

[charter]

Yeah, that's what I meant.

[charter]

charter, I don't agree that GC was twisting your words. He was certainly using them against you, but the inconsistencies he pointed out were present in your original posts.

If he's free to take what I wrote, and interpret it differently, then yeah, he's found a bunch of them. That's not hard to do though.

Because you didn't give me a conclusion. You simply acquiesced to the points I already made. Which meant to me you were in agreement. If you weren't maybe you should actually say something otherwise?

If something I write is confusing or incomplete, please ask me to clarify or elaborate before jumping to your conclusions.

I'll let you speak for yourself (which is different than what you're saying now): "Town doesn't keep revoting because it doesn't accomplish anything."

Ok, you got me. I didn't go back and copy what I wrote earlier. My jig's up. Lynch me.

I've been in minis where the scum amount is different than three. Why does it matter if it's been within the last year or not? Furthermore, you weren't just assuming that there were three scum, you were criticizing me for noting scummish activities of more than three people. Which meant to me that you know for a fact that there are three scum. Looks like a slip up to me.

The last year reflects the current trend on MS, plus, only yourself and perhaps Sydo have even played a mini from more than a year ago. I was criticizing you because you were noting scummish activities of numerous people, not just more than three. If you really think my assuming there's three scum (go check other completed mini's I'm in, I've made the same assumptions in several) is a slip, then I'm not going to argue this anymore.

Do you just not read your own posts? You said I was "obvious scum." ...That's what kind of tipped me off of you believing I was obvious scum. The other posts were just icing on the cake to cement that opinion. Wow. Is anyone else reading this drivel?

I guess my blatent overstating was missed.

Oh, yeah. That's why jeep used it to catch scum. And that's why it's on the wiki as a tell to watch for in order to catch scum. You must be right, the mafia community must be wrong. ...Our bad!

Go start a MD thread about LAL and see what people think about it today, not however many years ago it was put on the wiki. Lying can be beneficial to the town. GASP! Shock!

[charter]

For anyone still clinging to LAL...
LAL no longer valid = 17
LAL still valid = 8
Since GC refuses to listen to truth, I took the liberty of starting the MD thread about LAL and how it is no longer valid. It doesn't matter that it's on the wiki, I could start another thread and show that most of the wiki is horribly out of date and no longer valid as well if you're going to continue playing the game based on that.

Seriously, stop clinging to the wiki and start thinking for yourself.

[charter]

So charter, are you admitting to having lied?

Loaded question much?

I haven't lied in this game. I'm dispelling the ridiculous idea of LAL and that town can't lie.

Once I saw your 'lynch charter for advocating lying' (which is completely not what I said at all) and I realized that GC was going to keep hugging his LAL, I decided to be proactive, before more people get the same ideas in their head and its too late to make a productive lynch before deadline.