Mini 762 - Secret-role Mafia, Status: Mod Gone, Plug Pulled

[NabakovNabakov]

I'll also confirm, but instead I'm going too

Vote: NabakovNabakov

repetition is scummy

[NabakovNabakov]

/confirm

Vote: NabakovNabakov

repetition is scummy especially when you self vote; repeat the post of the person who used the claim that you were a repeater

Original content please

Fair enough. I like some humor to begin the game, but if nobody takes anything seriously, random voting is pointless.

So I am going to take your third vote on me fairly seriously. For the time being, that only means that your voting me from the perspective of "repetition is scummy" and then demanding original content is pretty hypocritical from where I'm typing (not to mention demanding for Page 1)

The contradictions in the case against NabNab seriously disturb me. At the very least, I will remove my vote from the wagon.

Unvote

[NabakovNabakov]

NabNab, don't you think its kind of unfair to choose whether or not you take someone's vote seriously? Isn't whether their vote is serious up to them, not you?

I was reacting to what looked like a fairly serious post. So for what it's worth (and not getting into any abstract issues of perception), it seemed that xen had already

chosen

to make his post serious. I chose to respond in a serious fashion (at least until I lapsed into third person).

Even without those sticky issues of perception; it should still be noted that while players have leeway in their seriosity (especially in low-wagon situations like this one), votes are essentially the only parts of our posts that draw on an authority deeper than merely how things are meant or how they are taken. Seven votes flanked by smileys will lynch somebody just as much as seven votes delivered in the diescumdie mode. So really, neither the poster nor the reader has the final say in the seriousness of a vote; that's up to the mod.

Mod: I am no longer voting myself. Xenaroth's count is listed at "0" despite having a vote

My bad. Good catch. Fixed. - the mod

[NabakovNabakov]

Actually, because Beyond_Birthday put me on that track, I'm definitely thinking Lowell's justification for voting xenaroth is crap. xenaroth, for good or ill, was about as much "in the fray" as one can be by the 23rd post. I find it highly unlikely that Lowell was following the same line of reasoning he later reported to Elias, and post-facto justifications are a mighty big scumtell in my book.

Vote: Lowell

[NabakovNabakov]

Huh, I just realized Millar13 is in both the games I just joined. However, he's been far more active in the newbie game. Definitely needs a prod.

[NabakovNabakov]

Grrr, activity is terrible. I'll try to stir something up:

Seriously guys, look at what Lowell has done here. He drops a vote on Xenaroth shortly after Xenaroth gets himself in some hot water with a bad joke. He's shown some inexperience, and the mob is gumbling, so a good time to start a wagon, right?

Lowell calls him on focusing on Skitzer, but he doesn't think it through (really, in a game with no confirmation stage, it's entirely plausible that a player could be left accidentially in the dark). Yes, 20 was the second time in a row Xenaroth mentioned Skitzer, but it was made only 13 minutes after 18, essentially a double-post. Elias lodges a complaint, and Lowell responds first by professing ignorance, then by issuing vagaries, then with the post-facto justification I mentioned in 38.

Of course, the phrasing of the above tale all but assumes that Xenaroth is town and Lowell is scum. Consider the first a hunch and the second a solid suspicion, but at least take some time to consider it (or something else; this game is dying!)

[NabakovNabakov]

I do find it strange, however, that Xenaroth talked about me in 2 posts with very little time between them. It doesn't make sense.

erm which two posts are you refering to??
If its post 18 and 20 they were made 12 hrs apart (18 @ 24 March 1:17 am and the other the same day but 1:30 pm)

All my initial posts were to try get people to post confirms and get peoples attention.

*slaps forehead* I should have noticed the am/pm bit!

[NabakovNabakov]

Howdy...no prod needed

This guy still has not posted anything useful, and I just spotted him posting in another game. Can we please wagon this jerker of a lurker?

unvote, vote: millar13

[/b]

Dear Elias,

I understand that you want to start a bandwagon and boost activity, but I don't understand how frequently changing your vote accomplishes this. There are a lot of lurkers in this game of both the standard and plain-sight variety. Why can't you just pick one?

Sincerely,
NabNab

[NabakovNabakov]

@Millar: Revenge Vote = OMGUS. Also, if I had to vote somebody on your wagon it wouldn't be the guy who started it. It would be one the two guys who wagoned mindlessly.

Also, AWA's post is looking pretty scummy to me. He goes through every player and has

nothing

positive to say about any of them. Looks like a fear of association combined with sowing some seeds. Seriously, why would my ability in "formal argument" be "tricky" for anybody but scum?

[NabakovNabakov]

False, this would make me scummy because as town I assume all 11 people (/12) are scum, and thus, I must prove their innocence. I also refuse to hint at who I think is innocent unless I have an investigation report to give town (usually day 2 (3) or later.)

This is a terribly unproductive assumption to make (and one that already seems broken by your friendly blue banter*). If townies are unwilling to trust players who make good arguments or defend players they feel are being railroaded, we cede entirely the advantage of organization/cohesion to the scum.

Millar is/was obviously frustrated (which, btw, is a sign of immaturity). This is not difficult.

I, like Elias and skitzer before me, am a dude. Try reading gender icons for once.

Why are you treating it like an anomoly that I "form arguments?" Any player who isn't lurking or a VI "forms arguments." That's what this game is. Why do you alledge that I would only make bad arguments if I were scum?

*BB, what is your read on AWA?

[NabakovNabakov]

Sex is irrelevant to me. Elias, admittedly, was dumb of me. Should have known male, but this isn't really game relevant.

You're right, it's not really game relevant, but I would point out that if you were actually looking at my posts at the time you espoused on my argument forming abilities, my gender sign would have been right at hand.

My read on AWA is "lack of posts" thus "undetermined."

Bullshit. The same goes for the vice-versa, AWA. How could you not have a read on the player whose (substantial) commentary you were responding to?

I assume that your arguments will eventually show your scum/town. The characteristics of your argument will be inherent of your alignment is my working theory.

Also, wrong (though potentially not bullshit). I endeavor to keep my arguments on the fair side of logic, but regardless of my allignment, that doesn't always happen; I am human. Either you are stating the obvious here (ie "I will learn about you from what you post") or you are holding me to an unrealistic standard, possibly with the intention of tearing me down from it at some point in the future.

And what's all this about my "potential to be dangerous?" I think this might have been the question that started it all, but: What's so dangerous about formal argument?

[NabakovNabakov]

1. Not wrong. I count on your humaness to betray your logic and thus reveal alignment.

2. Your formal argument may prevent you from being easily readable and thus, potentially dangerous.

I am human regardless of alignment, and I have used imperfect logic as both town and scum because I am imperfect. Again, you're holding me to an unreasonable standard.

This unreasonable standard actually contradicts your second statement. If you're so certain my arguments will reveal my allignment, how can they also make me hard to read? How can explaining my thought processes and accusations in a expanded and logical manner possibly make me harder to read anyway?

[NabakovNabakov]

I don't find much to comment on so far.

What about the several player-by-player evaluations that have already been posted? What about the discussion building around an L-2 wagon?

@Xenaroth: It makes me uncomfortable when you appropriate my posts like that.
@BB: But that doesn't mean you can completely discount the argument contained therein. What obligates a player to find his own defense?

my main suspision right now is Xenaroth he was going after players right from the get go and looking for someone to lynch right of the back.

I would like more explanation of this, because that was not my impression.

[NabakovNabakov]

Can I hear what your impression is so we can "compare notes" so to speak?

While I agree with Elias that this is fairly sketchy, I will oblige.

In the early game ("right off the back [sic]"), Xenaroth made two votes and one FOS (though he seemed to somewhere get the impression that he voted for Lowell). The first was on me, and while it was the third vote on my wagon, all votes were ostensibly jokes (one was mine), and I doubt strongly that Xena's vote was any gambit to lynch me.

I think Xena has said plenty in defense of voting skitzer. Again, it was a prod vote and was accompanied by neither fire nor brimstone, not looking to lynch.

The FOS on BB in Xena's 6 (I'm lazy and like to read posts in isolation, so sue me) actually struck me as much more cautious than aggresively looking for a lynch. Elias had been calling for a wagon, but Xenaroth instead went with just a vote.

If viewed entirely without context, the first instance could be pile-on wagoning; the second preying on lurkers, and the third wagon pushing. But none are all that pronounced, and because there is such a variety, there is no pattern. Thus, it is difficult to idenfity any scummy motivations.

Now, what were

your

notes?

[NabakovNabakov]

@Skitzer: Please don't invoke me. Thx.

@BB: A few things
1) Isn't it presumptuous to assume that you're the only pscyhopath in the game?
2) Pretending to be censored doesn't stop an ad hominem argument from being a fallacy.
3) Where did you get "two one liner 0% content posts" from to describe Millar? A simple isolation of his posts would, depending on your monitor size and perspective on what constitutes "content," prove that description quite wrong.

[NabakovNabakov]

@NabNab

Quick runthrough:

xena

looks worse as time goes on. At first he spent a lot of time worrying about who was and who wasn't posting enough for his liking. That struck me as scummy, but would be fine if that's the kind of player he is (ie. overattentive). Since the game has settled down he doesn't seem to have anything else to say. It makes me think he was using metagame posts at the beginning because he didn't want to risk saying anything incriminating.

This is the post where I got my suspision of xena, since Lowell brought up basically what I was thinking.

But I agree his voting may not of been as erratic as I said it was, but still I have to agree with the majority of what Lowell said.

If you're going to quote Lowell's post like that, you might want to take a look at the post where I tear into his position on Xenaroth. Also, this whole affair seems seriously delayed; why vote on Page 5 based on a secondary source from Page 2?

This just hammers home the points charter has made about Ash's scuminess. I would prefer to stay on Lowell, but let's see where this wagon goes.

Unvote; Vote: AshKetchummm

@Charter: Where exactly is your opinion on me coming from?

[NabakovNabakov]

@BB: Where did I say that Ash's vote being delayed made him less scummy? It was rolled in with my criticism of his defense, tied to it with an "also," and followed by my stating that it "hammered home" his scuminess. It was very obvious that I was saying that it

did

make him scummy. (Though I typically don't have a problem with people digging up old content on re-reads or what-have-you, when a player joins a current wagon with a line of thinking that's already been put to rest, it smacks of reaching. This is especially so when players involve old arguments but not old counter-arguments as Ash did)

You have made an enourmous effort in misinterperting my post to make me look like a hypocrite. Why?

I have moved my vote from Lowell to Ash because it is obvious that nobody has or will pay any damn attention to what I see as Lowell's scuminess, but that doesn't mean I don't find Ash scummy and deserving of a lynch.