Mini 757 - South Park Mafia (Game Over)

[Spolium]

I gotta get to bed really, but there's one thing in particular I'd like to check now.

Enlighten me: why is it so obvious?

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

Let me rephrase: how do you know this is the case?

[GhostWriter]

Okay, sorry. Got a bit distracted with this game, and since I was rather... restricted in my access to the internet recently (I am involved in entirely too many activities), I couldn't get a good read on this game. Just read over it. A lot has already been covered, but I want to look at a few things in a recent post.

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.

Alrighty, let's start here. This is clearly you just BS-ing. How could he NOT be a suspect for you? He was a suspect before, and what has he done differently then before? Nothing. He's still a suspect, and if he isn't, then you really DO need to explain that one. However, since you clearly point out that what you claim he is doing by calling attention, yet again, to your lack of actually helping the town, for fear of "helping the mafia", (which is complete bull, by the way, since we start off blind and need all the help we can get), is scummy. If we're looking in the wrong direction, then telling how and why. Don't just stand there absent-mindedly telling us to aim elsewhere, while you paint a giant bullseye around yourself.

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.

That definitely not what I read from what Spolium said. You make it seem like he's just talking about asking the town to pick between two people. That's not the case. He's saying that if you keep this up, and the town continues to focus solely on you, only to have you whip out some kick-ass, whambo-jambo that proves we might be wrong the week of the deadline, then the town is stressed to produce a solution within a ridiculously short time, and to hope we get it right and don't kill the wrong person. Hell, for all we know, it could not be you, and also not be the people you point at. But your case could show you to be a strong scumhunter, worth keeping around, despite being a little off this time.

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

No, no, no, no. This is probably the dumbest thing for a townie to say, when being persecuted in a way they can prevent. I have watched it happen way too many times, to townie and scum alike. And do you know what happens when it's a townie? It's not always their attackers. Especially in cases like this. You are not doing anything spectacular enough to stop everyone from believing it to be an honest mistaken miskill if you are lynched and flip town. Even after me posting this. Hell, I'll even believe it. Why? Because you refuse to cooperate within the town's best interests. Don't assume that we'll see it as scum opportunist pushing a lynch. Town can just as easily push a lynch that seems right, while the scum hop aboard for the ride. You can't assume that your death will prove a damn thing, other then the fact that you are dead, and sometimes, game mechanics don't even allow you to assume a dead player is dead. So don't you dare use that as an argument, and still claim that what you're doing is in the best interests of the town.

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.

Except right here, right? After all, how can we get an accurate read on you, or your scumhunting methods, if you deny us the right to see them? By denying us the full list of who you currently suspect (I had to word it that way, since, you apparently might not still suspect Spolium, though we all know you do), and listing the reasons on

why

you suspect them, then you deny us an accurate read. By denying it, you cause yourself to look scummy.



Now, you claimed you wanted open-mindedness from the town when you give your case. dude, it's mafia. EVERYTHING has to be taken with a grain of salt, including this case built on you. So why not just tell the case, and attempt to clog some arteries? Don't give that bull on the mafia getting help. That's crap. If it's a case on them, then that's a good thing. It's not like you can secretly send it to all the town players, and rally them for a secret lynch. Put the case out, let us do with it as we will. If it's good, it's good, and will be listened to. If it's not, then you shouldn't have brought it up in the first place. Either way, you can't just sit on it, because the longer you do, the bigger the case against you will grow. And then you'll probably die with it, and if you flip town, and if it could've helped, it'll never be told.

[nonny]

Some good points from Ghostwriter, looking forward to dejka responses. Thought I doubt he will be any more forth coming with someone asking him for honest answers.


I'm start to think dejka is just conceded and thinks we have nothing better to do then argue with him about this.....oh wait so far we don't!! So let's continue!

[GhostWriter]

You never know, Nonny. We might get bored and decide to do something else. Like vote(for those of us not voting him already).

Also,

Unvote.

[Spolium]

GHOSTWRITER IS READING MY MIND AND IT IS SCARY AS HELL (btw that show was awesome)

Timmmaaah

I guess I don't see it as the same. OH NOES!
[..]
Because I don't think they're the same.

No dej, you do not get to palm this off. Read each passage in #146 again, and

explain

what makes post 38 devoid of opinion (i.e. neutral) in contrast to the lack of neutrality in BSMv2 .

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.

You didn't want to make a clear and understandable statement without wishy-washy disclaimers? Try harder.

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.

PROS & CONS OF WITHOLDING ALL INFORMATION FROM SCUM

Pros:

- scum don't have any clue whether or not you're onto them (assuming you don't announce it to them)

Cons:

- town don't have any clue whether or not you're actually scumhunting
- denies the town information which may prove useful (e.g. a subtle tell or contradiction)
- denies the town a read on you, attracting negative attention needlessly
- denies the town sufficient time to study/absorb/develop any case you may present
- timmehhhhh

The difference is that all those cons are negated.

Mafia isn't about "

dejkha vs scum

", it's "

town vs scum

". the town's best chance to win is as a cohesive group, not with everyone holding their cards as close to their chest as possible. Scum

want

conversation to be stifled and distractionary, and if you're town then you're giving that to them on a plate.

-- Teh-T-T-Tim-Tim-Tim-TIIIIMMMAAAH --

Ooh, and don't forget to answer my question in #150! It concerns my very favourite thing you've said so far.

[Empking]

Non-Dejhka voters: Why are you non-dejhka voters?

[Spolium]

Timmargh.

I almost forgot:

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.

You see no point? In the post which I linked (#89 - here it is again) I mentioned Rest briefly, and followed with a point about your failure to address an argument of hers (which was also made by nonny, in a more roundabout way). Do you have an explanation for your failure to acknowledge or address said argument?

Tirrrmeh. Jibbadooberaaargh, TIMMY

[dejkha]

I gotta get to bed really, but there's one thing in particular I'd like to check now.

Enlighten me: why is it so obvious?

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

Let me rephrase: how do you know this is the case?

Maybe I missed it, but who understood what I initially asked, answered the question and never questioned it at any point after?

-------

Ghost: "That is all BS and stop playing scummy."

Dej: Opinions, opinions.

No dej, you do not get to palm this off. Read each passage in #146 again, and explain what makes post 38 devoid of opinion (i.e. neutral) in contrast to the lack of neutrality in BSMv2 .

Can't put my finger on it.

You see no point? In the post which I linked (#89 - here it is again) I mentioned Rest briefly, and followed with a point about your failure to address an argument of hers (which was also made by nonny, in a more roundabout way). Do you have an explanation for your failure to acknowledge or address said argument?

I still don't know what you're talking about, but I'll assume its how she made a similar statement to nonny. I thought Rests was better I guess. I dont even remember what Nonny said, but since I went with Rests reason, I'll guess I didn't particularly care.

[ZazieR]

I'm not voting Dejkha, because I'm of the opinion that there are two players who need some attention as well.

Unvote Vote RBT

I just love it when players think something is scummy when it applies to them, but not when it's applied to somebody else. So please explain why you didn't have any comments about us questioning Spolium's PR, while you FoSed (and voted one) players questioning you about a possible PR.

[caf19]

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.

To clarify: I had become concerned with Empking's contribution, which appeared to consist of quietly pushing along the dejkha wagon, while staying 'in the shadows', as it were, and attracting little attention to himself. His most recent post, in my opinion, yet again embodies this: he is implying that non-dej voters should have to explain themselves, and therefore that voting dej is a more correct position to be in. This exemplifies what I see as his highly laconic and 'business-like' approach to the game: getting votes on, geting wagons moving, with minimal consideration or exploration of options. As you had expressed a willingness to go after active lurkers, I wondered if you had got a similar impression. Interesting to see your thoughts.

@ nicolio: you haven't elaborated much on your suspicions either. Is dej your top suspect, or someone else?

[Empking]

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.

To clarify: I had become concerned with Empking's contribution, which appeared to consist of quietly pushing along the dejkha wagon, while staying 'in the shadows', as it were, and attracting little attention to himself. His most recent post, in my opinion, yet again embodies this: he is implying that non-dej voters should have to explain themselves, and therefore that voting dej is a more correct position to be in. This exemplifies what I see as his highly laconic and 'business-like' approach to the game: getting votes on, geting wagons moving, with minimal consideration or exploration of options. As you had expressed a willingness to go after active lurkers, I wondered if you had got a similar impression. Interesting to see your thoughts.

@ nicolio: you haven't elaborated much on your suspicions either. Is dej your top suspect, or someone else?

I've asked them about it because it seems to me from reading the thread that everyone agrees with Spoilum.

[Spolium]

Timmmeeeehhhh

Maybe I missed it, but who understood what I initially asked, answered the question and never questioned it at any point after?

I think it's more relevant to consider that three players hadn't even commented on post 38 when you stated scum were "obviously" among those voicing suspicion of you;

RBT, fuzzy and ghostwriter

It is highly unlikely that there are more than 3 scum in this game, so they could neatly reside in the above group.

Nice try, though. This will prove useful if you flip scum.

Can't put my finger on it.

Oh, do try.

I still don't know what you're talking about, but I'll assume its how she made a similar statement to nonny. I thought Rests was better I guess. I dont even remember what Nonny said, but since I went with Rests reason, I'll guess I didn't particularly care.

Forget it, I've made it clear enough. I'll just file this under "dodged questions".

TIMMYYY DEBLERRGH

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

I'm not voting Dejkha, because I'm of the opinion that there are two players who need some attention as well.

Mind if I ask who the other attention-starved player is?

vote: RBT

I just love it when players think something is scummy when it applies to them, but not when it's applied to somebody else. So please explain why you didn't have any comments about us questioning Spolium's PR, while you FoSed (and voted one) players questioning you about a possible PR.

Good point.

RBT, I hope you also have a better explanation for your reluctance to explicitly state that you had a PR. I don't buy "

It makes me feel like I'm talking down to people, which tends to aggravate the person I'm talking to

" - if someone asks you whether you have a PR and you answer their question directly, how can they get aggrivated?

That aside, it seems odd for someone so concerned about being condescending to make comments like "

for those who missed the announcement of a PR on my part, then you should go and figure it out

" and "

clearly, if I didn't have a PR, I wouldn't use "mkay" at the end of every post I've made

".

HAAAAAAH. TIMMAH

[GhostWriter]

Ghost: "That is all BS and stop playing scummy."

Dej: Opinions, opinions.

Opinions? Well, in a game controlled by the general opinion of the masses, I think you should beware the opinions of the majority. I dare you to argue about it not being the majority. Now stop screwing around. because, yes, you are screwing around.

[Spolium]

To clarify: I had become concerned with Empking's contribution, which appeared to consist of quietly pushing along the dejkha wagon, while staying 'in the shadows', as it were, and attracting little attention to himself.

Yes, I agree that this is a matter of concern.

His most recent post, in my opinion, yet again embodies this: he is implying that non-dej voters should have to explain themselves, and therefore that voting dej is a more correct position to be in.

I'm not so sure about this - that post doesn't seem to imply that any particular stance on Dejkha is preferable.

This exemplifies what I see as his highly laconic and 'business-like' approach to the game: getting votes on, geting wagons moving, with minimal consideration or exploration of options. As you had expressed a willingness to go after active lurkers, I wondered if you had got a similar impression. Interesting to see your thoughts.

Many players start off with a more reserved, laconic style that picks up as D1 progresses. To an extent he could be described as an active lurker, but not so much that it would stand out to me as shifty at this point - normally I'd be more interested to see for how long he continued in that manner.

[Empking]

I don't think I am an active lurker. I was the strongest advocat for RBT to claim PRed. I was also one of the first to have suspicion of Dejkha. I haven't posted that much due to the fact that I find Dejhka the scummiest and nobody seems to disagree about Dejhka being scummy only that there are scummier players.

[nonny]

Only thing to add is about dejka "forgetting" what I said. If someone asks you a question about what anyone has said thus far you can simply go look it up. Not just dismiss it as unimportant because you didn't remember it. If you need re-read the whole 7 pages, will take 10-30mins. Come on be a little pro-active. But if you keep dodging questions because you don't remember what was said (when spoilum is nice enough to give you links), or you think you answered it but it didn't go through, niether or those are helpful to town in the least.

The benefit of forum mafia is that you can double check what poeple said you don't have to just take it on thier word that they did or didn't say something.

[charter]

So I've been really sick, so this is just a check in count.

Vote Count

dejkha - 4 (caf19, Spolium, RestFermata, Empking)

Empking - 1 (Riceballtail)
Riceballtail - 1 (ZazieR)
caf19 - 1 (fuzzylightning)
Spolium - 1 (dejkha

Not Voting (4)

nonny
nicoliosgotpolio
EsoMonty
GhostWriter

With 12 alive it takes 7 to lynch!

[nicoliosgotpolio]

I'm up and reading right now. But I think I should wait until tomorrow to post cause I'm running on one of those BFC monsters, and I'm not so sure about my current comprehension.

[ZazieR]

Spolium, I'll eventually tell, after he has posted his thoughts about the recent events. So far, there's only one post with content from him.

[nicoliosgotpolio]

Actually, I wouldn't mind a dej lynch at this point...

vote: dej

[GhostWriter]

Is L-2 a good enough time for you to feel like maybe you need to start talking about who you suspect, Dejkha?

[nonny]

Is L-2 a good enough time for you to feel like maybe you need to start talking about who you suspect, Dejkha?

QFFT


A why would be nice, nicilio?

[nicoliosgotpolio]

He hasn't really tried to explain himself about anything this game.

[nicoliosgotpolio]

Lucy: I've got a new philosophy, Charlie Brown!
Charlie Brown: Oh good grief... What is it?
Lucy: Tentacles make EVERYTHING better! ^_^
Charlie Brown: ...

TOTALLY off topic, but it was Sally with the philosophies, wasn't it?

[GhostWriter]

Holy crap, you're right! I forgot... Thank you!