Mini 745 - Moving Day Mafia (GAME OVER!)

[don_johnson]

porkens, may i say you are doing a much better job than your predecessor. however, if you click on Zero's wiki link it may explain where dej is getting his information and why he is hesitant to lynch the poor bastard. but i digress, dejkha's activity seems to have jumped quite a bit here.

Top of page 16 vote count:

killa seven 4 (Tovarish, dejkha, Jazzmyn, ZEEnon)
ac1983fan 2 (q21, Zer0ph34r)
dejkha 2 (Herodotus, ac1983fan)
Plonky 1 (don_johnson)
Tovarish 1 (Porkens)

Not voting: killa seven, Erratus Apathos

With 12 still packing it takes 7 to lynch.

Note: this vote count should be accurate as of this post.

Prods: killa seven, q21, Tovarish, ZEEnon, Zer0ph34r

[Porkens]

porkens, may i say you are doing a much better job than your predecessor. however, if you click on Zero's wiki link it may explain where dej is getting his information and why he is hesitant to lynch the poor bastard. but i digress, dejkha's activity seems to have jumped quite a bit here.

Awww, shucks

I read Zero's wiki as you advised; my god that makes my brain hurt. I see where you guys are coming from, but I would just hate to be part of the game that helped him use that meta to live as scum.

At any rate; I wouldn't cry tears of blood if he lived through day 1.

After looking at the vote count again, I'm probably going to do something else with my vote before too long. However, I want to hear from Torvish first.

@Tovarish:

Why have you taken it upon yourself, so many times, to defend ac1983fan?

RE:

Forgive ac for not voting at every random trun of events. I can't blame him for not finding scum, I'm having a hard time too. A lot of the earlier part of the game seems to be more of a debate about theory rather than actual scumhunting- or maybe all this is just going over my head- btu your post makes very little sense, and is trying to reinforce a serious logical fallacy. The scum can always find scum, they know who they are

FOS- Don Johnson .

Why would the Mafia act so mafia-ey? If the populace would permit me to engage in a little WIFOM, we're looking at the inverse of "Too Town." As in nobody could act that scummy and really be scum. Play yourself up as such an obvious mafioso we don't think anybody could be that stupid and leave you in the clear.

That said, AC's voting patterns do give me pause, but until I see further evidence to the contrary I'm going to chalk his patterns up to general eagerness- towards a kind of self fufilling prophecy.

^ Right now I see AC as eager to lynch k7 precisely because he's so unhelpful. While I see it as tunnel-vision, it's not particularly scummy. Yet.

There are some who think that while k7 is not obvscum, he could be a useless townie and still deserves to die. I am not one of those people. If you read the last two pages, maybe you'd have noticed that sentiment reflected in ac and to a lesser extent zer0, some people voting for him are not fully convinced that he is scum. This was a legitimate point. No need to be a dick about it.

[Herodotus]

At the time of that statement, nothing I had read throughout the thread had made me think anyone was scummy enough for me to want to vote for them. However, killa seven's playstyle hurts the town. And actually, it's worse than lurking, since he actually posts when prodded, but never provides any useful information to the town. Therefore, at that time, the killa seven was the only lynch I was could support, simply because his playstyle is incredibly anti-town. Now, however, cases have been brought up that have made me reconsider.

That's what's bugging me. Your original statement gave a sense of "no matter what, I won't support any other lynch." Maybe I was just misreading it.

If I find somebody a little suspicious, I'm not quite willing to vote for them.

That logic could lead to lots of no-lynches, but I suppose at this point we're past the issue.

It's not in every game that someone says "I'm going to vote for you later!" then "I'm going to vote for you 24 hours from now!"

Then why don't

you

say them every game?

For one thing, saying those things insincerely could lead to a lynch-all-liars mislynch.

(which will more than likely continued to be argued because of his awful counters which will probably end up being a disguised version of "don't even bother explaining")

Whether you're scum or not, bullying will only antagonize people toward you.

You need a read from me on someone I'm voting for? Shouldn't the vote at L-1 pretty much say by itself "I think he's scum"? That's not the mention the reply I gave in 214. And like you said when you asked me for my reasoning: you could all assume you knew why I voted. And I assumed you did also, so that's why I didn't explain it when I voted.

Assuming we know why you voted is bad. If you're scum, it might let you choose a reason later based on circumstances, or if you're town, it might lead people to find you suspicious when your reasons are better than what was assumed. I think you already knew this. As a side note, people would not necessarily have seen your vote as L-1 (which was part of my point.)
The person who voted before you, EA, has stated that "I was voting k7 because I had very little read on him, and hoped lurker pressure would draw him out. The read I had on him was a weak scum vibe in which I had very little confidence." Clearly your vote for a different reason did not speak for itself. In fact, votes seldom do; votes posted without an explicit reasoning are very different from typical votes. As far as post 214 is concerned, that's the post I'm calling minimal and non-committal. And the fact that you only said that little after being specifically prompted means you were trying to say even less.

If I have a change of opinion or something to point out, I'll let you know. I don't post for the sake of posting.

Helping to find the scum doesn't always start with, or even necessarily include, changing your opinion.

Other than these two points, I'll let others decide for themselves how they feel about your defence in your post 371. There are different ways to interpret some of your actions in this game. You've listed motivations based on your being town-sided, and I've offered motivations based on your being scum-sided. Mafia is not a game of offering people the benefit of the doubt -- it's up to the town as a whole which interpretation seems more likely.

[ac1983fan]

2. Ac attacked someone for attacking you. That's a form of defense.

Maybe in an indirect way. But it wasn't my intention to defend dejkha.

[dejkha]

[quote="dejkha]
As far as I know, all his other games are still going on, so you may not infer that.

I'm on the list because Ac defended me? He didn't defend me. He had a reasonable reaction to something scummy your predecessor did.

1. You're 4th on my list of suspects, why are you freaking out?

2. Ac attacked someone for attacking you. That's a form of defense.

3. Why are

you

defending Zero?[/quote]

Defending someone is not a scum tell when it's not stretching to find something wrong. Ac had a reasonable response to what Plonky said. And it looks like you're using that way more than you should be as an excuse to suspect people.

I wouldn't say I'm "defending" Zer0, but you can call it what you want. It's his meta; he would've told you the same thing (just like he did with people in other games).

FoS: Porkens

dejkha's activity seems to have jumped quite a bit here.

Hero's giving me things to say. Before, there was nothing for me to comment on.

As far as post 214 is concerned, that's the post I'm calling minimal and non-committal. And the fact that you only said that little after being specifically prompted means you were trying to say even less.

Oh well, that's my reason. I wasn't

trying

to do anything except give you the reason you asked for. You understand what the reason was, even if you don't agree with it, correct? If so, why would I need to add any more to it?

Helping to find the scum doesn't always start with, or even necessarily include, changing your opinion.

[/quote]

I know, that why I said I have "something to point out". Meaning if I have anything to comment on, question or find suspicious, I'd say something.

[q21]

Right, I'm willing to entertain the possibility that acfan is, in fact, a repentant townie since he no longer seems to hold the view of let lynch k7 even if he's town. I'm still suspicious of him, though, just not quite as vehemently so.

unvote

That in turn makes me more willing to entertain the idea that dejka is scum. His incredibly reactive play makes up a part of it, especially the way he's overreacted to being 4 on Porken's scumlist.

Some of his responses that I haven't been very impressed with.

And when I said "it's up to everyone else as to how far they take this", that meant, I'm not gonna push it on anyone. Here's the difference between scum-tells and scummy actions: a scum-tell is something that scum may do and a scummy action is something you think scum

might

do. If I thought someone did something scummy, that's an opinion. Scum tells are not. So since it was my opinion, I'm letting everyone else think what they want about it.

Disagree with this paragraph. Scumtells are a matter of opinion. They're just opinions with some precedent for backup. There is no such thing as a foolproof scumtell. Don't like this justification.

You need a read from me on someone I'm voting for? Shouldn't the vote at L-1 pretty much say by itself "I think he's scum"? That's not the mention the reply I gave in 214. And like you said when you asked me for my reasoning: you could all assume you knew why I voted. And I assumed you did also, so that's why I didn't explain it when I voted.

No, it was not obvious that you thought he was scum. I offer both EA and acfan's votes as examples of people who weren't so certain he was scum. 214 never says you think he's scum.

Going to

Vote dejka

[q21]

Forgot to append this to my post.

MOD: I have a rapidly approaching project deadline and am therefore highly unlikely to post anything for the next 72 hours or so.

Noted, good luck with the project!

[dejkha]

That in turn makes me more willing to entertain the idea that dejka is scum. His incredibly reactive play makes up a part of it, especially the way he's overreacted to being 4 on Porken's scumlist.

Wow. Then you'll be seeing a lot of overreacting if it takes that little for you to think it is.

Disagree with this paragraph. Scumtells are a matter of opinion. They're just opinions with some precedent for backup. There is no such thing as a foolproof scumtell. Don't like this justification.

I don't care what you like. Obviously, since you disagreed, the subject is a matter of opinion and thus doesn't make the opinion scum or town specific, so using it to support a case makes it seem like you just want to get on my wagon.

No, it was not obvious that you thought he was scum. I offer both EA and acfan's votes as examples of people who weren't so certain he was scum. 214 never says you think he's scum.

I don't need to say it. It should be a given. Unless I actually have to say whether I'm voting for him because I think he's scum or town. In which case, we are in some serious trouble.

[Zer0ph34r]

I like reading this whole q21 vs dejkha thing. I think they could both be scum just trying to hide it up. [Just a thought].

However: I'm gonna stick with my original vote.

vote: killa seven

[killa seven]

^ BOOOOOOOOOOOOOO at that vote

[don_johnson]

^ BOOOOOOOOOOOOOO at that vote

is this your idea of quality contribution? care to post

anything

besides crap?

[Porkens]

Porkens wrote:
[quote="dejkha]
As far as I know, all his other games are still going on, so you may not infer that.

I'm on the list because Ac defended me? He didn't defend me. He had a reasonable reaction to something scummy your predecessor did.

1. You're 4th on my list of suspects, why are you freaking out?

2. Ac attacked someone for attacking you. That's a form of defense.

3. Why are you defending Zero?

Defending someone is not a scum tell when it's not stretching to find something wrong. Ac had a reasonable response to what Plonky said. And it looks like you're using that way more than you should be as an excuse to suspect people.

I wouldn't say I'm "defending" Zer0, but you can call it what you want. It's his meta; he would've told you the same thing (just like he did with people in other games).

FoS: Porkens

Attacking someone for a valid reason is not a scumtell, obviously. However, if that attack serves as a defense of someone else, then it can come into question. In addition, defending someone, instead of letting someone defend themselves, links you to them. Note, here, that

you

just called it a defense.

After being pointed to the wiki, like I said, I understand the conundrum with Zer0. However, you specifically said "it (his meta)'s not much to go by." That's more than just informational; you're trying to sway me towards your opinion.

Finally, an FOS on me? Could you please explain that a little more clearly? Right now it just looks like OMGUS to me.

[dejkha]

My post pretty much summed up my reason for the FoS. The the question that DJ asked Plonky that we'll never get an answer to, which seemed to be a slip.

[Porkens]

Tell me if this is incorrect;

You are FOSing me because:

A) I think defending someone by attacking their attacker, even if the attack is also legitimate, is a scumtell and/or connects those two people on some level.

and B) I accused you of defending Zer0

Is that accurate?


Separately, plonky had some bad ideas; I'm not going to argue that. Just looking at the case-post DJ put up, however, I'd say he was at least consistent. Also, I don't see a clear question in that post for the theoretical plonky to answer. I think DJ was looking for an "answer" to the general case by way of defense, perhaps?

[ZEEnon]

Notice: Will catch up on all my games tomorrow.

[Herodotus]

I guess someone upset about having lynched Zero in his last game decided to write a warning to all future towns Zero's a part of.
"Zer0ph34r has been lynched on the first day of every game he's been in so far. Two of these times were due to the fact that Zer0ph34r claimed to be scum when he was not..."

But:

I agree with Porkens's implication that it would be foolish to let him use his meta to survive regardless of scumminess.
There is, first, a chance he has been intentionally building a meta to exploit, and I'd not want to let him get away with it when he happens to be scum. But even if it's all unintentional, it would still work to his advantage if he was always discounted.

Helping to find the scum doesn't always start with, or even necessarily include, changing your opinion.

I know, that why I said I have "something to point out". Meaning if I have anything to comment on, question or find suspicious, I'd say something.

True, and in retrospect my response did unintentionally gloss over that part of what you said, but I would expect you to have been able to find something to point out. Or at least comment on what little Killer said in the meantime.
I think I can see a non-OMGUS reason for your fos on Porkens, but I'll let you tell us about it. This would be another example of a situation where it's important that you state your reasons.

[don_johnson]

Attacking someone for a valid reason is not a scumtell, obviously. However, if that attack serves as a defense of someone else, then it can come into question. In addition, defending someone, instead of letting someone defend themselves, links you to them.

Note, here, that you just called it a defense

.

maybe i'm mistaken here, but dej specifically stated that he

wouldn't

call what he did a defense. >>

I wouldn't say I'm "defending" Zer0, but you can call it what you want.

someone please explain this if i am reading it wrong.

Also, I don't see a clear question in that post for the theoretical plonky to answer. I think DJ was looking for an "answer" to the general case by way of defense, perhaps?

there are three questions for plonky in post 302. perhaps you missed them, but they are the sentences that end with question marks.

personally, i don't think zero has been "intentionally" building anything except maybe a fort with his giant legos. at least he's voting.

[Porkens]

Don; I think the pronouns are getting a little vague. I was referring to this statement, by Dej, about what AC did:

2. Ac attacked someone for attacking you. That's a form of defense. (Para: Therefore, I suspect AC and or Dej are scum)

Defending someone is not a scum tell when it's not stretching to find something wrong. Ac had a reasonable response to what Plonky said. And it looks like you're using that way more than you should be as an excuse to suspect people.

This, to me, could indicate that Dej admits the attack was, at least in part, a chainsaw defense.

there are three questions for plonky in post 302. perhaps you missed them, but they are the sentences that end with question marks.

I guess I misunderstood the intent of the questions; I thought you were building a general case and wanted plonky to respond in general.

1. If we use votes to express suspicion, and being anti-town is not a satisfactory reason for voting somebody, then are you saying that you are not suspicious of anti-town behavior?
   
   
2. really? aren't scum often "anti-town" players?
   
   
3. i find this interesting, mainly because bandwagon analysis is a much better tool once someone has been lynched and their alignment is revealed. it does make sense to look for "oppurtunistic bandwagon jumpers", but why are you so sure that these "jumpers" are better targets?

1 and 2, to me, look like rhetorical questions that just poke big holes in plonky's logic; not actually meant to be answered.

3, after reading it again, does warrant an answer, but it's not a hold-up-the-game earth shatter-er answer. I mean; no, we'll never know why plonky thought the "jumpers" were better targets than the lurkers, but...that's minor at best, no?

[Porkens]

personally, i don't think zero has been "intentionally" building anything except maybe a fort with his giant legos. Rolling Eyes at least he's voting.

I dunno, I'm pretty sure he writes his own wiki...

[don_johnson]

Don; I think the pronouns are getting a little vague. I was referring to this statement, by Dej, about what AC did:

2. Ac attacked someone for attacking you. That's a form of defense. (Para: Therefore, I suspect AC and or Dej are scum)

Defending someone is not a scum tell when it's not stretching to find something wrong. Ac had a reasonable response to what Plonky said. And it looks like you're using that way more than you should be as an excuse to suspect people.

This, to me, could indicate that Dej admits the attack was, at least in part, a chainsaw defense.

i guess we have to disagree there. i still don't see an "admission".

I guess I misunderstood the intent of the questions; I thought you were building a general case and wanted plonky to respond in general.

yes, i was looking for a response in general. i was simply responding to your statement of not seeing any questions.

1 and 2, to me, look like rhetorical questions that just poke big holes in plonky's logic; not actually meant to be answered.

3, after reading it again, does warrant an answer, but it's not a hold-up-the-game earth shatter-er answer. I mean; no, we'll never know why plonky thought the "jumpers" were better targets than the lurkers, but...that's minor at best, no?

no, you cannot answer these questions and i did not bring it up to imply that i wanted you to. but no, they were not rhetorical. i expected answers. i wanted plonky to clarify his statements. the added vote was mainly to pressure. you stated you didn't see questions. i am just pointing out that there were.

I dunno, I'm pretty sure he writes his own wiki...

good point. i should read it again, but i thought he referred to specific games. we could always research the authenticity of his wiki. personally, i am getting more "dumb" vibes than "scum" vibes. K7's lurking seemed much more intentional. alas, they may be two peas in a pod.

K7: i do see your point on zero's vote, but your play is hypocritical. i.e. you have no credibility in this thread, so even if you find something scummy, you are giving noone here any reason to believe you, which only further empowers the idea of a K7 lynch. a townie should present better reasoning than post 384.

vote: K7

would rather see

you

lynched than anyone at this point. i don't believe you are dumb, and i can't find a townie reason why you would be acting the way you are. you are flagrantly riding an anti-town playstyle in hopes of just slipping under the radar. you must be scum.

[Porkens]

i guess we have to disagree there. i still don't see an "admission".

Ok, fair enough.

yes, i was looking for a response in general. i was simply responding to your statement of not seeing any questions....etc

I gotcha, no worries.

@Torvarish:

Just to ease your read, you have questions to answer in 376.

@Dej:

388 and 390 for you.

On to other business:

I said I'd do it and I'm doin' it:

unvote, Vote: Killa Seven

Die, scum.

[Herodotus]

Tell me that's not a hammer. Bad timing, IMO...

[Porkens]

It's a hammer. Why is t bad timing, IYO?

[Herodotus]

There were a small handful of details that needed to be addressed, after which we might have been virtually guaranteed to find scum. Now it may be too late.

[don_johnson]

There were a small handful of details that needed to be addressed, after which we might have been virtually guaranteed to find scum. Now it may be too late.

and twilight won't work because...