Mini 720 - SPQR Mafia {Game Over}

[Yosarian2]

the new xtoxm wagon is made up of stupid.

Why is that?

Also, what "new" xtoxm wagon?

[dahill1]

the new xtoxm wagon is made up of stupid.

why is xtoxm not a good lynch?

[Tuberkulos]

i think yes, it should be taken more seriously if it was in an actual mafia game, because if i say "voting without reasons isn't scummy"

in every game i'm in

and then suddenly switch my stance here. then would be most certainly strange.

I'm confused here. Is it the number of times you say something that should be taken in consideration, where you say it, or both?

[OhGodMyLife]

Vote Count:

7 to lynch.

Xtoxm: 5 (Incognito, Assmaster, Glork, Yosarian2, dahill1)
dahill1: 3 (Pathetric, charter, Coriolanus)
Glork: 1 (Xtoxm)
Erratus Apathos: 1 (Rally Vincent)
Rally Vincent: 1 (Erratus Apathos)

Not Voting: 1 (Tuberkulos)

[Coriolanus]

Why is that?

why is xtoxm not a good lynch?

i'm starting to believe this is a post restriction

because i think his reactions, while being very bad, seem obviously townie to me, and as i said before there is absolutely no reason to rehash this wagon unless you genuinely want xtoxm dead today. xtoxm is a dead end unless you want the day to end now.

[Coriolanus]

[quote=Yosarian]Also, what "new" xtoxm wagon? [/quote]
this newest one, that came after the last.

[dahill1]

i think yes, it should be taken more seriously if it was in an actual mafia game, because if i say "voting without reasons isn't scummy"

in every game i'm in

and then suddenly switch my stance here. then would be most certainly strange.

I'm confused here. Is it the number of times you say something that should be taken in consideration, where you say it, or both?

both. i was using number of times just as an example.
ok here's the difference between the 2 situations:

Hypothetical Situation 1: a) I say it's not scummy to do "XXX" in a previous game I have played here.
b) In a later game, I call someone out for doing "XXX". This is a contradiction because I previously had stated my stance which was clearly "XXX" isn't scummy.

Hypothetical Situation 2: a) I post someone's opinion on "YYY" which is contrary to another player's in mafia discussion. The opinion states that doing "YYY" isn't scummy.
b) I call someone out in a game for doing "YYY". This isn't contradictory because I never agreed that doing "YYY" wasn't scummy.

[dahill1]

Why is that?

why is xtoxm not a good lynch?

i'm starting to believe this is a post restriction

that was obviously a crosspost you're stretching it

[Coriolanus]

it was a joke.

[dahill1]

it was a joke.

i know it was a joke about the PR
but you were trying to make the point that i'm mimicing yos

[Xtoxm]

Whatever, lynch me if you want. I'm town.

[Pathetric]

I'm not sold on Xtoxm being town (my other head apparently nearly is), but dislike the last two votes on him. Xtoxm's accusation that Yos2 slipped and revealed knowledge of his alignment seems baseless to me; but Yos2's response and vote is full of hyperbole. I don't see the manipulation in Xtoxm's post that he claims too at all, and dahill's vote just looks like opportunism.

On Patrick - He said he spoke with Ether about finding me scummy for meta reasons, and Ether disagreeing. I have never played Ether, so I see no reason why she would overrule his opinion on my meta, whcih makes me think they are scum and were infact discussing whether to attack me for my play fitting my scum meta.

And btw, I think it's too early to say whether i'm fitting my town or scum meta, given how little has gone on.

So those we be my top 3 atm. Glork today, imo.

You played with Ether in PYP3, and she's well aware of your meta. She "overruled" me for basically the reason given in your second paragraph, I think.

It's a Pot/Kettle thing. FWIW, I had gotten the impression that Yos2 has been involved in the game, so I'm curious to know how you can justify attacking somebody based on "lack of contribution" when you yourself hadn't done anything but a couple of random-votes up until that point.

I don't think this sums it up at all. I got the impression EA voted Yos2 because he didn't see how his contributions were helpful to hunting scum. I don't see why EA's not posting much before then should undermine his point, and I see where he was coming from. Although, I'm a little surprised that EA moved so quickly onto Rally Vincent after that.

Patrick.

[Rally Vincent]

Not liking Yos2's "contributions" so far.

Unvote
Vote: Yosarian2

unvote
vote: Erratus Apathos

EA votes Yosarian for "not liking his 'contributions' ", but doesn't back it up. It just looks like some random activity to me until he finds a better target.

I cast a one line vote based on a very early feel, and you predict that I'm probably not going to keep it for the rest of the game? Bold prophecy there, Miss Cleo!

I don't see anything wrong with Yosarian so far. Testing the waters with the alt question was also of interest for me. I'm curious in which way Coriolanus will react to a different subject in the future.

You could end this paragraph with "I'm chainsaw-defending Yos2!" in bold red using the largest font and it wouldn't be much more obvious than it already is.


RV's opportunistic chainsaw vote is the scummiest thing yet.

Unvote
Vote: Rally Vincent

Talking about opportunistic... and are you really trying to say that your post - that was nothing but a vote - was an attack that called for any kind of "defense"? Seriously?

I'd also really like to see some more content from Rally Vincent. Outside of his EA-vote post, I haven't really seen much else from him to be able to formulate a read off of.

Discussing player's metas is nice and all, but I can't really contribute to this because the only one I played with is Xtoxm. If I remember correct, Xtoxm told after voting himself, thinking he'd hammered himself, while he was a vote short. He was town then, but it got him lynched. Considering this, I don't naturally see Xtoxm as scum just for his self-vote + claim, although I cannot understand why he did it. For now, I don't wanna see a rapid lynch. I'd like to see wagons on other players, starting with EA. If we don't find an equal or better lynch, we can still lynch Xtoxm then.

[Yosarian2]

Whatever, lynch me if you want. I'm town.

...so, you're really going to totally refuse to explain what you were talking about, even if it means your lynch?

You realize that that's just incredibly bad play no matter what your alignment is, right?

[Yosarian2]

Also, what "new" xtoxm wagon?

this newest one, that came after the last.

Meh. There really isn't a "new" Xtoxm wagon, it's the same wagon that's been on him since he self-voted and claimed vanillia town for no reason. As I pointed out, I was right on the verge of voting Xtoxm anyway, and his last post pushed it over the edge.

[Yosarian2]

...Yos2's response and vote is full of hyperbole. I don't see the manipulation in Xtoxm's post that he claims too at all, and dahill's vote just looks like opportunism.

Well, I'd really like Xtoxm to explain what he was talking about there. His "Yos thinks I'm town" post, which he is absolutly refusing to explain, dosn't make any sense at all from what I had just said about him, and it just seemed scummy.

Of course, that's not the only reason I'm voting him. Not long before, I said:

If I was going to vote now, it'd probably be for xtoxm, but I think I'll hold off for the moment.

And you didn't have a problem with me when I said that. The only reason I didn't vote him was because I thought he was close to a lynch due to all the "lynch -2" talk, although he really was only at 3 votes out of 7.

As for dahill...I haven't played much forum mafia with him, but from my recollection of how he played in person at Starkadium, my impression is that he tends to follow people he thinks are "good players" a lot, irrespective of alignment. Glork and Ether will probably both agree with me about his in person play. I'm not sure if that's his forum mafia meta as well, though; anyone play with him recently in a forum game?

[charter]

I think Xtoxm is town, I don't like Yos or dahill's votes for him either. I'd vote for dahill again if I could.
I don't understand why everyone always blows up when someone self-votes. I don't even remember the last time I saw scum do it when it wasn't a hammer to end the day short.

[Yosarian2]

I think Xtoxm is town

Why?

I don't understand why everyone always blows up when someone self-votes. I don't even remember the last time I saw scum do it when it wasn't a hammer to end the day short.

Yeah, that was why I said it was "anti-town but not really scummy". Claiming vanillia for no bloody reason, though, is INCREDIBLY anti-town, and on day 1 that by itself is almost enough reason to lynch someone (because they claimed vanillia, which a scum would do but a townie should never do; and because it's a safe lynch; and because it limits the number of day 1 claims). Combined with the other scummy behavior, and his refusal to answer simple questions, he really seems like the lynch at this point to me.

[Coriolanus]

how could that possibly be a good reason to lynch him? you lynch someone for being anti-town because they would do more damage to the town than allowing them to live. xtoxm can't possibly do anything to further the damage done by the actions you cite, so there has to be a reason separate from the "anti-town" argument.

[Yosarian2]

how could that possibly be a good reason to lynch him?

Um, I just gave 3 reasons why him claiming vanilla for no reason is a good reason to lynch him. Town should never claim vanillia, at all, but scum tend to want to claim vanillia, so it's a scum tell. Plus, he's a safe lynch now that he's a claimed vanillia (he's either a vanillia or a scum), and if he gets lynched no one else has to claim, which protects the power roles.

Still, none of that is by itself quite enough reason to lynch him by itself, although it's close. I'm still waiting for him to explain himself about that one scummy post, though; that one really pushed it over the edge for me, unless he can explain what it was he meant.

[dahill1]

As for dahill...I haven't played much forum mafia with him, but from my recollection of how he played in person at Starkadium, my impression is that he tends to follow people he thinks are "good players" a lot, irrespective of alignment. Glork and Ether will probably both agree with me about his in person play. I'm not sure if that's his forum mafia meta as well, though; anyone play with him recently in a forum game?

my forum play is much much different from my person play.
in fact, that was probably the first time i played a serious mafia game irl
i really don't get why some people are saying they think xtoxm is town, as i have nothing to indicate that.

[Coriolanus]

Town should never claim vanillia, at all, but scum tend to want to claim vanillia, so it's a scum tell.

unless you can prove that the scum are more likely to claim vanilla than town are, this is basically just pulled out of your ass.
also, you're using "scummy" now. why did you even use anti town before? what function did that term have?

Plus, he's a safe lynch now that he's a claimed vanillia (he's either a vanillia or a scum), and if he gets lynched no one else has to claim, which protects the power roles.

exactly why i think he shouldn't be lynched today (although when i tried to verbalize that before glork shit his pretty little panties). he's got absolutely no information benefit; he's a sinkhole. so unless you've got a great reason for why he's scum, i see no reason to lead a bandwagon on him now. unless, of course, you're planning on getting him lynched. which is something that i really don't foresee unless xtoxm does something monumentally stupid.

[Yosarian2]

Plus, he's a safe lynch now that he's a claimed vanillia (he's either a vanillia or a scum), and if he gets lynched no one else has to claim, which protects the power roles.

exactly why i think he shouldn't be lynched today (although when i tried to verbalize that before glork shit his pretty little panties). he's got absolutely no information benefit; he's a sinkhole.

How so? Pretty much everyone has commented on him by now and said if they think he's town or if they think he's scum. If he gets lynched, then when we find out his alignment, we get information based on all of that, based on who was right and who was wrong and for what reasons. What we don't get is extra claims, and that's a good thing.

[Coriolanus]

because i believe we have better things to do than to run up xtoxm's wagon again and try for a lynch. perhaps i should have said "right now"; this day still has some juice, and if we're going to sacrifice it for xotxm wagon 2, i think it's a real shame. again, a xtoxm lynch is not simply going to go away. but i don't think it will be a cipher at all.

[Erratus Apathos]

has the "chainsaw defense" actually been ever proven to be a reasonable meta?

Has anything?

It's a Pot/Kettle thing. FWIW, I had gotten the impression that Yos2 has been involved in the game, so I'm curious to know how you can justify attacking somebody based on "lack of contribution" when you yourself hadn't done anything but a couple of random-votes up until that point.

I never said anything about "lack of contribution". I said I didn't like his contributions, that

should

make it clear that I'm not attacking him for a lack thereof.

You gave a vote for a bad reason. He voted you for it. "Oh, he's just doing a chainsaw defense of Yos2" is a really weak defense on your part, especally considering that I was in absolutly zero danger since no one else even thought me suspicious.

No, it wasn't a defense at all, it was an attack on RV. And whether you were actually in danger or not isn't important here, it's whether RV thought you were. And considering how quick he was to defend you from me, I'd say he did.

And your "that was just the random phase" defense is bad as well. Yes, it's ok to joke and fool around early in the game, I've got no problem with that. But if all you've done so far is joking and fooling around, and I've actually discussing game-relevent issues, you really don't have any grounds to attack my "contrabutions" as "unhelpful in finding scum" or whatever.

1: I don't need "grounds to attack". If I'm town and have committed scumtell X, that doesn't invalidate the tell. I would still be justified in bringing it up if someone else commits the same tell. Your argument here is pure ad hominem.

2: And even if it wasn't, the comparison you're trying to make between the sum of your first twelve posts and the sum of my first three is just silly anyways.

Obviously

if you apply post-RVS standards to my RVS posts, they're not going to stand up. Where does your "oh yeah well you haven't discussed game relevant issues" argument go now that I have discussed game relevant issues?

If someone does something that looks like an over-reaction to me, my natural reaction is to put more pressure on that nerve and see what happens, especally early in the game when I'm just trying to get something going. You really don't see how that can lead to finding scum?

No. I mean, I understand meta enough to at least understand why you'd ask Coriolanus if he was an alt, but once he said no, I can't see what there is to be gained from continuing down that path.

Yeah, the whole "chainsaw defense" thing is way overused. If you use it at all, you should use it when you already have caught and lynched one scum, then it might be worthwhile going back and seeing who tried to prevent the lynch, using several different possible methods, including the "chainsaw defense". But many attacks in mafia are always going to be based off someone else thinking your vote was scummy; you can't always just say "You're trying to chainsaw defense!!!"

Which is why I don't always just say that. Chainsaw defense is different from "attacking the attacker". By definition, chainsaw defense is only applicable to cases where X is attacking Y

with intent to protect Z

. RV said he thought Yos was town when he voted me. That's intent to protect.

Talking about opportunistic... and are you really trying to say that your post - that was nothing but a vote - was an attack that called for any kind of "defense"? Seriously?

If my Yos vote didn't call for any kind of defense, why did you defend Yos in response to my vote?