Mini 757 - South Park Mafia (Game Over)

[nicoliosgotpolio]

8. Because at this point it's about the discussion that has been going on and since everyone is on the same side, I won't say it until I know everyone won't counter it.

But if it's a valid point, why would EVERYONE counter?

[charter]

votecount coming later

[dejkha]

That actually makes sense. If you could have said that earlier instead of getting defensive it would of been better. Now that you know other peoples opinions on nameclaiming, what do you think of it?

Also, nameclaiming usually doesn't take place till atleast day two. Never seen it earlier in my experience. Hence I did/do not understand why it was brought up so early.

I said before that I'm against it, because people gave reasons as to why it would be bad (which is all I asked in the first place).

But if it's a valid point, why would EVERYONE counter?

It's a valid point if you understood what I was saying (the post I made that started all this) and since everyone seemed to be on the same side of not knowing what I meant, no one would deem it valid.

[nicoliosgotpolio]

I didn't write the first quote you used, just so you know

And, kay.

[dejkha]

Yes, I know. Quote error.

[nonny]

Right you said you were against it based on what

other people

said. I want to know why in your own words you now think it's a bad idea? It can be based on what others said, but what convinced you that it would be bad?

Cause like I said right now it looks like you are just trying to follow the majority in everything.

[dejkha]

Right you said you were against it based on what

other people

said. I want to know why in your own words you now think it's a bad idea? It can be based on what others said, but what convinced you that it would be bad?

Cause like I said right now it looks like you are just trying to follow the majority in everything.

Since everyone pretty gave every reasons as to why it's bad, I said before that Rest's reason seemed to make the most sense.

Everything? What does in look like I'm trying to follow in the majority other than the name claim issue?

[nonny]

You don't want to vote unless others will agree with your reasons.
You don't want to give your suspicions on others (me and spoilum) unless others are "openminded"
Really you don't try to say anything unless others will agree with you so far.
Also telling people to ask you to claim was very odd and unwarranted in this stage in the game.


You still didn't answer my question. But, I guess that is your shtick...to not answer questions. I mean it's great that you like Rest's answer, but are you always going to go just based on what others say. Or are you going to look into it and see why poeple say what they do and form our own opinion? Cause just following what others say isn't a great way to play mafia.

[dejkha]

You don't want to vote unless others will agree with your reasons.
You don't want to give your suspicions on others (me and spoilum) unless others are "openminded"
Really you don't try to say anything unless others will agree with you so far.
Also telling people to ask you to claim was very odd and unwarranted in this stage in the game.


You still didn't answer my question. But, I guess that is your shtick...to not answer questions. I mean it's great that you like Rest's answer, but are you always going to go just based on what others say. Or are you going to look into it and see why poeple say what they do and form our own opinion? Cause just following what others say isn't a great way to play mafia.

All the things you mentioned, except for the last one about claiming, were situation relevant.

Would you rather me make up a reason? There's no point in rephrasing what she said. I follow what others say if I agree. You can't always have an original opinion that someone else hasn't said. Just deal.

[nonny]

Okay so out of all the reasons the only reason you think it's bad to nameclaim is based on the theme? Sorry but regardless of the theme why would or wouldn't you want a nameclaim in this point in the game? Rest's reason was only for *this* game, and it was a little weird in of it self. Sure south park doesn't have very stereotypical good/bad guys, but at some point way later on we will probably have a mass claim since that happens almost indefinitely in games.

Why would I want you to make up a reason? I asked you for your reason in your own words...I even said you could take the base concept from what others said. Just in your own darn words.

Those are not situational. We right now are scumhunting, later we will be scumhunting. So why keep any suspicions about others from the town? Why keep information to yourself? Why only follow your suspicions if others will agree with you? Why are you so scared of others not agreeing with you?

[dejkha]

Okay so out of all the reasons the only reason you think it's bad to nameclaim is based on the theme? Sorry but regardless of the theme why would or wouldn't you want a nameclaim in this point in the game? Rest's reason was only for *this* game, and it was a little weird in of it self. Sure south park doesn't have very stereotypical good/bad guys, but at some point way later on we will probably have a mass claim since that happens almost indefinitely in games.

I said hers was the best. I don't care if it was only for this game, it's not like I'm using that reason in another game. She gave a reason regarding this game... I'm playing this game... I think it makes sense.

Why would I want you to make up a reason? I asked you for your reason in your own words...I even said you could take the base concept from what others said. Just in your own darn words.

Somebody else said it for me. Besides, I'd rather not say it in my own words when it'll give you a chance to get nit picky and tear it up to the point where I'm even more scummy for something incredibly tiny I said. And I know you would. Her reason was the best to me and that's all you need to know.

Those are not situational.

We right now are scumhunting, later we will be scumhunting.

So why keep any suspicions about others from the town? Why keep information to yourself? Why only follow your suspicions if others will agree with you? Why are you so scared of others not agreeing with you?

And we right now are all people, later we will all be people. Scumhunting wasn't the situation I was referring to. It's Mafia; we're always scumhunting. It seems like you're repeatedly trying to work around what I say. +Scumpoints for you. inb4OMGUS

[nonny]

If we are playing mafia then what is the situational area in which not revealing suspicions is legit?

I understand that you think hers is best, and that it is for this game in which we are playing. I want to know what you think of the concept in general because that is important I think. I can gauge what I do and don't need to know. If you don't feel like saying it whatever, but don't hide behind me. If you don't want to say it for your own reasons that if fine, whatever. But don't even try to say your only not saying it because what my response may or may not be, that is weak.

Now I'm gonna give it a break and let other chime in before saying more.

[Empking]

That said,

UNVOTE; VOTE:Empking

for pushing the hardest on this.

If it was obvious why wouldn't you just claim straight away? What is scum's motivation for seeing if you had a PR?

[caf19]

@ Riceball: facepalm, nobody asked you to fullclaim. Your last post is somewhat OMGUSy too. Why such a violent reaction?

It also makes much sense to call some players already lurkers...
But Spolium apparently did this as well (according to Caf), may I ask where as I apparently missed it.

Spolium did it in post 90. He informs me, however, that his beef is with active lurkers, not lurkers per se.

Spolium, considering the above, what do you think of Empking?

[Spolium]

1. Rest's reason stands out the most to me, when she said, "In South Park, just about every character has turned antagonist at least once, plus theme games in general just work better when scum have protections against NC, so we should probably assume that's the case here."

She's right about the characters, a lot of them have had different sides. Certain ones like Cartman or Mr. Garrison, would be able to be scum but seem town.

I can accept this. Rest's point was the most valid from a flavour standpoint.

2. Yes. I brought it up because you repeatedly were saying "Timmeh" and no one seemed to care. At the time I didn't know about PR's, given that I've never played in a game with them yet (as far as I know).

But you've already conceded that BSMv2 - the same language with a different subject - doesn't come across as neutral. Don't you see this is contradictory?

3. No, because the situation included people not caring that you seemed to be giving your role away. I don't think the butt sex metaphor is the same as the real statement I made.

You seem pretty stubborn about this, so I'll elaborate further.

The reason that BSMv2 doesn't come across as neutral is because the language used implies that the writer is not adverse to the idea. By saying "Spolium is doing it, so it doesn't seem like a big deal" the writer is implying that not much harm could come from it as far as they can tell. This, in itself, is an opinion (albeit one expressed indirectly) and your claim that you did not have any opinion whatsoever is entirely false.

Imagine if BSMv2 was posted by someone, totally unprompted. What if that person refused to provide a direct opinion on the matter until a majority of people had said it would be a bad idea, then went along with that majority? What does that tell you about this person?

4. I thought since it was silly, you might've just been jumping on it to attract attention to someone else, but apparently everyone felt the same way.

Given that my reasoning being "minor/silly" was the initial reason for your vote on me, how do you now justify your vote?

5.It might've posted it and I just didn't see it. That's a terrible thing to bring into a case BTW.

I strongly disagree that it is a "terrible" thing to bring into a case. You keep dropping wishy-washy disclaimers which give you leeway to claim ignorance in the event that you're wrong (and thus potentially lying) about something. You did exactly the same thing in your answer to question 2:

At the time I didn't know about PR's, given that I've never played in a game with them yet

(as far as I know)

.

I understand that it's necessary for townies to cover their own backs to avoid exploitation by scum, but you employ these disclaimers in such strange ways that they seem forced. How might you have missed a post, when you see the same thread content as the rest of us and can refresh the page at will? How could you not know whether you'd played in a game with post restrictions before, when such restrictions are obvious?

6a. If anyone understand what I said, I'd probably change my vote since she seemed to be pushing the case the hardest. If nobody knew what I meant, then obviously it's more likely a matter of opinion on how much she believes in her case.

This seems reasonable, if a little misguided. Why are you so willing (determined, even) to defer to the opinions of other players?

Let's assume for a moment that you're town. Let's also assume that three people agreed with you and said that everyone else was over-reacting over post 38. Bearing in mind that at least two to three players here are scum, how could you reasonably base your decision to vote nonny on the support from those three people?

6b. Since I have not, I'm not going to.

Please fill in the blanks:

Since I, dejkha, have not [blank], I'm not going to [blank].

7. Because I've played with him before and he was useful and logical player, so I figured if anyone would understand, it would be him.

Yes, that's it. We don't understand you.

What's more likely:

(a) that every player except for you is a close-minded fool, or
(b) you said something suspicious

Bonus question! If (b) is true, which of the following applies:

(a) you are - ironically - too close-minded to see why people think you said something suspicious, or
(b) you are scum?

8. Because at this point it's about the discussion that has been going on and since everyone is on the same side, I won't say it until I know everyone won't counter it.

Yes, let's all keep our opinions to ourselves until we're sure people won't disagree with us!

THAT WILL HELP CATCH THE SCUM

------------

I will read and reply to the more recent posts when I get home.

[dejkha]

Imagine if BSMv2 was posted by someone, totally unprompted. What if that person refused to provide a direct opinion on the matter until a majority of people had said it would be a bad idea, then went along with that majority? What does that tell you about this person?

I don't think BSMv2 is the same as what I said, so I may think of it different, but if I did think it was the same, I'd wouldn't think much of it. That person asked a question and waited on an answer. Then they agreed with the answers gotten because they made sense.

Given that my reasoning being "minor/silly" was the initial reason for your vote on me, how do you now justify your vote?

Based on whatever little things you've said/done that I haven't shared yet.

I strongly disagree that it is a "terrible" thing to bring into a case. You keep dropping wishy-washy disclaimers which give you leeway to claim ignorance in the event that you're wrong (and thus potentially lying) about something. You did exactly the same thing in your answer to question 2:

In question 2, I say "as far as I know" because of bunch of games I'm in/ have been in aren't finished yet so I wouldn't know. Only 2 games I was in were finished and they didn't have PR's. There's no reason to be certain of everything.

How might you have missed a post, when you see the same thread content as the rest of us and can refresh the page at will? How could you not know whether you'd played in a game with post restrictions before, when such restrictions are obvious?

Because I remembered clicking "Submit" so I don't see why it wouldn't have gone through. Post restrictions aren't always obvious especially since they can include not posting at all.

Bearing in mind that at least two to three players here are scum, how could you reasonably base your decision to vote nonny on the support from those three people?

I'm more inclined to think that scum would get on the wagon with people that didn't believe me, which obviously they have.

Please fill in the blanks:

unvoted

Yes, that's it. We don't understand you. Rolling Eyes

What's more likely:

(a) that every player except for you is a close-minded fool, or
(b) you said something suspicious

Bonus question! If (b) is true, which of the following applies:

(a) you are - ironically - too close-minded to see why people think you said something suspicious, or
(b) you are scum?

First answer: A
Second Answer: C) None of the above.

Yes, let's all keep our opinions to ourselves until we're sure people won't disagree with us!

THAT WILL HELP CATCH THE SCUM

^Someone who doesn't care what scum knows or when they know it.

[nonny]

I don't think it's gonna give scum the edge if you say who you suspect and why, with valid reasons.

[dejkha]

It might. Still, it doesn't matter when I say it, as long as I do. Which I will. There's no rush in saying it. Town shouldn't have anything to lose by waiting.

[nonny]

Oh yes we are all waiting on bated breathe for you to reveal your secret suspicions. *roll*

It does matter because there is a difference in when you say it. Based on the information that is available at the time you made the original suspicion. you could have just picked two random people(or two poeple that were" attacking" you) and really had no reason and just hoped the town would trust you and go after those poeple with thier own reasons. Then you swoop in and say "oh yes that is why i was after them too"

Again, how does hiding your suspicions help the town? Cause in all my experience it is a hindrance. This early in the game is the time that you least want to keep information from the town.

[dejkha]

I'll do a full sweep of the last 5 pages of the argument and I'll include all the reasons, with quotes and the like. If I don't, then you can say I was lying. Besides, I doubt it's anything anyone else would take notice to and maybe it's not even a big deal.

[nonny]

If it's not a big deal why not just say it? Also using all 5 pages just concludes that you did pick people and build the argument later. This happens all the time in mafia usually by newbs or by scum. Either way it's annoying.

[Spolium]

TIMMEEEH

Spolium, considering the above, what do you think of Empking?

Considering the above...? Empking's post in 137? Zaz's quote/your response in 138?

If you're referring to his fairly low post count, I'd say it isn't a huge concern at the moment because his contributions have been content related and relevant, if a little brief (though this is probably preferable to the brainfucking wallposts I've been dishing out). I would expect to see more from him as the game progresses.

One thing that concerns me is his role in the dejkha case. His initial response was that he noted dej's post 38 as "scummy behaviour" (somewhat nonthreatening) then he followed up with a vote based on dej's wishy-washiness, but he hasn't actually pressed dej for an explanation of either of those. I'd like to know why.

t i m m y t i m m y t i m m e h e h e h
----------------------------------------------

I don't think BSMv2 is the same as what I said, so I may think of it different, but if I did think it was the same, I'd wouldn't think much of it. That person asked a question and waited on an answer. Then they agreed with the answers gotten because they made sense.

Timarrrgh

Do I need to spell this out?

post 38

Would there be any harm in

saying which character you are

? As far as I know, the effects of each aren't known yet, possibly except for obvious ones like

Officer Barbrady

or maybe

Satan if they're in it

. Not that I'm suggesting

claiming your character

is the right thing to do, but with Spolium repeatedly

giving a Timmy reference

, it doesn't seem like it's a big deal...

BSMv2

Would there be any harm in

all having butt sex

? As far as I know, the effects of this aren't known yet, possibly except for obvious ones like

sphincter pain

or maybe

tearing if someone's too tight

. Not that I'm suggesting

us all having butt sex

is the right thing to do, but with Spolium repeatedly

offering butt sex

, it doesn't seem like it's a big deal...

Seriously, what is the difference here?

They're semantically identical passages.

What we might derive about the writer's opinions/intentions are the same in each case, and your opinions/intentions are an issue for the town right now.

When challenged over post 38, you claimed that you didn't have an opinion on the matter. When challenged further you started getting defensive and accusing everyone who thought post 38 was suspicious of being close-minded.

However, when I asked you about BSMv2 in contrast with post 38, you admitted (eventually, while under pressure) that the former "

doesn't seem very neutral

" before babbling on about the context of BSMv1 (which, in case you haven't figured it out yet, has nothing whatsoever with the point I'm trying to make with BSMv2).

This leaves us with a contradiction. If BSMv2 does not read as neutral then how can post 38 read as neutral? Please try to answer this without backtracking to the context of BSMv1, because the context of BSMv1 is irrelevant to this particular point. Timemememmegah

In question 2, I say "as far as I know" because of bunch of games I'm in/ have been in aren't finished yet so I wouldn't know. Only 2 games I was in were finished and they didn't have PR's. There's no reason to be certain of everything.
[..]
Post restrictions aren't always obvious especially since they can include not posting at all.

These are both fair points

How might you have missed a post, when you see the same thread content as the rest of us and can refresh the page at will?

Because I remembered clicking "Submit" so I don't see why it wouldn't have gone through.

but this doesn't make any sense at all. Why did you make a point of implying uncertainty of whether it went through? Why not just say "I replied to Rest, but it didn't go through"?

TIMMMAHaaaaaah

I'm more inclined to think that scum would get on the wagon with people that didn't believe me, which obviously they have.

Enlighten me: why is it so obvious?

What did you mean by "I may or may not change my vote"? Have you yet decided on whether you would change the vote to her based on your answer to question 6a?

Since I have not unvoted, I'm not going to unvote.

That makes more sense, thank you.

^Someone who doesn't care what scum knows or when they know it.

I care plenty; I also appreciate that there's a

big

difference between selectively witholding information from potential scum and witholding

all

information from everyone.

For someone who is so conscious of what scum know, you were pretty quick to explicitly announce that you suspected me (not that the vote was a conspicuous sign or anything)! Besides which, witholding scumhunt information from someone you openly finger as suspicious is a redundant exercise - if you're doing it to keep your suspects from knowing you're watching them then you've blown it by announcing it, and if you're doing it to see if they slip up you've blown it by putting them on their guard.

That aside, your refusal to assist in the scumhunt (i.e. active participation;, asking questions, discussing points instead of inventing amusing metaphors for throwing them in the trash) does not help at all; you say it doesn't matter when you post it, but I contend that it is quite important. What if you don't start presenting a case until, say, a week before deadline? If you are the primary lynch candidate at that point, for example, and your case is good enough to make people think you're town (but not good enough to unanimously follow it), the town is suddenly forced into a position where they're under pressure to collectively decide on another candidate. What good can come of this?

You're basically expecting the town to take a gamble and hope that you will respond not only early enough to allow room for absorption/development of your case, but also for the town to get a read on you which doesn't amount to "stubbornest douche in the universe". If you deny the town a read then they'll always be second guessing you, and scum will take advantage of this, so at best it's an anti-town move.

Also worth noting: the #1 scum objective (besides winning, obviously) is to deny the town an accurate read, or any read. This seems to be just what you are doing.

Timmyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

Incidently, I recall that you didn't address Rest's point in #61. I also recall that you did not so much as comment on this negligence when I brought it up in this post (or the mega-post which followed). Have you got an explanation for this yet, or are you going to keep avoiding it?

LIVINALIE, TIMMAH

Preview edit: Bloody hell. I'll try to keep the posts snippier from now on.

[Spolium]

EBWOT

immah:

They're semantically identical passages.

Apart from the emboldened parts, obviously.

Libbadjoowah, TIMMAH

[dejkha]

Timarrrgh

Do I need to spell this out?

post 38

Would there be any harm in

saying which character you are

? As far as I know, the effects of each aren't known yet, possibly except for obvious ones like

Officer Barbrady

or maybe

Satan if they're in it

. Not that I'm suggesting

claiming your character

is the right thing to do, but with Spolium repeatedly

giving a Timmy reference

, it doesn't seem like it's a big deal...

BSMv2

Would there be any harm in

all having butt sex

? As far as I know, the effects of this aren't known yet, possibly except for obvious ones like

sphincter pain

or maybe

tearing if someone's too tight

. Not that I'm suggesting

us all having butt sex

is the right thing to do, but with Spolium repeatedly

offering butt sex

, it doesn't seem like it's a big deal...

Seriously, what is the difference here?

They're semantically identical passages.

What we might derive about the writer's opinions/intentions are the same in each case, and your opinions/intentions are an issue for the town right now.

I guess I don't see it as the same. OH NOES!

When challenged over post 38, you claimed that you didn't have an opinion on the matter. When challenged further you started getting defensive and accusing everyone who thought post 38 was suspicious of being close-minded.

However, when I asked you about BSMv2 in contrast with post 38, you admitted (eventually, while under pressure) that the former "

doesn't seem very neutral

" before babbling on about the context of BSMv1 (which, in case you haven't figured it out yet, has nothing whatsoever with the point I'm trying to make with BSMv2).

This leaves us with a contradiction. If BSMv2 does not read as neutral then how can post 38 read as neutral? Please try to answer this without backtracking to the context of BSMv1, because the context of BSMv1 is irrelevant to this particular point. Timemememmegah

Because I don't think they're the same.

but this doesn't make any sense at all. Why did you make a point of implying uncertainty of whether it went through? Why not just say "I replied to Rest, but it didn't go through"?

Because I didn't want to.

Enlighten me: why is it so obvious?

I meant scum would more likely agree with the case on me, which they have.

I care plenty; I also appreciate that there's a

big

difference between selectively witholding information from potential scum and witholding

all

information from everyone.

What's the difference here? If I'm withholding information, you don't know if it's all or selective and there is potential scum, so I'm withholding it from them.

For someone who is so conscious of what scum know, you were pretty quick to explicitly announce that you suspected me (not that the vote was a conspicuous sign or anything)! Besides which, witholding scumhunt information from someone you openly finger as suspicious is a redundant exercise - if you're doing it to keep your suspects from knowing you're watching them then you've blown it by announcing it, and if you're doing it to see if they slip up you've blown it by putting them on their guard.

How do you know you're still my suspect? You have no idea if the information I'm withholding concerns you and nobody else knows if it concerns them. FYI, being scum, I'd like to think they're always on there guard, so I don't worry about that.

That aside, your refusal to assist in the scumhunt (i.e. active participation;, asking questions, discussing points instead of inventing amusing metaphors for throwing them in the trash) does not help at all; you say it doesn't matter when you post it, but I contend that it is quite important. What if you don't start presenting a case until, say, a week before deadline? If you are the primary lynch candidate at that point, for example, and your case is good enough to make people think you're town (but not good enough to unanimously follow it), the town is suddenly forced into a position where they're under pressure to collectively decide on another candidate. What good can come of this?

You mean what good can come of selecting to lynch one of two suspicious people? What bad can come of it? The case either persuades you or it doesn't or we're both equally scummy, in which case it shouldn't matter who you vote for. But if they're that under pressure, then they don't have to vote. Town is always under pressure to lynch the right person.

You're basically expecting the town to take a gamble and hope that you will respond not only early enough to allow room for absorption/development of your case, but also for the town to get a read on you which doesn't amount to "stubbornest douche in the universe". If you deny the town a read then they'll always be second guessing you, and scum will take advantage of this, so at best it's an anti-town move.

Well, then if I'm lynched you'll get a good chance to see who exploited it the most.

Also worth noting: the #1 scum objective (besides winning, obviously) is to deny the town an accurate read, or any read. This seems to be just what you are doing.

Things aren't always as they seem.

Incidently, I recall that you didn't address Rest's point in #61. I also recall that you did not so much as comment on this negligence when I brought it up in this post (or the mega-post which followed). Have you got an explanation for this yet, or are you going to keep avoiding it?

Explanation to what? I see no point. Restate it and I'll respond if I haven't.

[nonny]

I still don't get why you never redid the post taht you said you did and didn't go through? I mean that's what I would do if my post got lost in cyber space.