Mini 765 - Welcome to Hambargarville GAME OVER!!

[burfy]

/confirm

[burfy]

Hey to everyone. I was hoping the game would have started by now, but them's the breaks.

I'm going to be out of town for about three days. I've PMed hambargarz about it and I'm just letting you all know.

p.s Go town!

[burfy]

vote: the world no.1 noob

for having a name that takes too long to type.

And for anyone who didn't notice, I'm back now.

[burfy]

wow, this is confusing. there are like multiple cases going on independent of each other.

Can we get a vote count

so it's clear who are the targets, please?

[burfy]

The above post was to Idiotking, sorry.

yeah, figured. No worries

Umm, does anyone else see something wrong with this statement?

sorry for the delay folks, i didn't push the "Watch this topic for replies" link and forgot about this thread. My bad

[burfy]

Not what i saw with the watch topic but a good spot. I was thinking, surely he would be reminded about this game by the PM he gets and then would go confirm. Why would you possibly need to be watching the thread to know/remember when to confirm. Of course what you said works too, what if when he gets the PM he is distracted by another idea and his first thought isn't to confirm but to do something else, like pm another player.....

But what you said actually makes some sense too. Two inconsistencies?

Not sure if it adds to anything and i don't want to make a mountain out of a mole hill. I'd like to hear an explanation from someone

[burfy]

And having seen the vote count and having some reason to do this

unvote

[burfy]

wow, this is confusing. there are like multiple cases going on independent of each other.

Can we get a vote count

so it's clear who are the targets, please?

Is this your first mafia game?

Yes! You've gotta go to the thread first to push the button. If you go there why not confirm at the same time? It's only one word.

Yes, but he didn't do either. So I'm gonna ignore that and chalk it up to Hanlon's Razor. Why are you making a big deal out of this?

And having seen the vote count and having some reason to do this

unvote

What reason did you have to do this?

Unvote: Idiotking

,

Vote: burfy

.

What are you doing?

Ok, no, this isn't my first mafia game. If it was my first i would be playing a newbie game. Not sure if you were trying to accuse me of something with that questions or what so i'll leave it at that unless you elaborate.

Next, the reason i unvoted i thought was fairly obvious. My standing vote was random, the reason was because his name was too long(???). Clearly an insignificant random vote. However, we were heading out of the random stage and i had some suspicions of someone for a genuine reason, hence i acted on that. If i had been convinced of Wall-E's guilt, i would have voted but i wasn't certain and wanted to give him time to answer, so i simply unvoted to show i was taking my voting more seriously now.

Let me reverse your question on you, What reason did you have for voting me? The reason you provide for your vote isn't a reason, its a question: What reason did you have....
My only assumption is that you were concerned about my stance against WallE. Is that it? Because if so, you voted for the wrong person. I merely unvoted and was waiting to hear something from wallE, while Ojanen had already jumped in and voted. I'm not placing blame on Ojanen here, i'm just stating that you reason can't have been that i was making a case against WallE because i was the more mild/reserved of the two people campaigning against him.


All in all, your post in question seems odd to me. You ask me one question, and then vote me for not specifying a reason that was fairly obvious for

unvoting

and not re-voting.

I'll be frank with you. What i draw from this is that you and WallE are most likely scum together. You've suddenly seen your partner draw suspicion that maybe rings truer with you than with the rest of us. our partner also isn't responding in this thread so you decide to jump in and defend him/draw away the fire. That's what i see. Not sure if its true and i want to hear from WallE about the confirming thing. But this seems logical

FOS: Wall-E, X

And you might have blown it too. Not sure if Wall-E intends to return to this game but if he hadn't and had been replaced and no one had spoken up, the whole case would have collapsed because the replacement wouldn't be able to answer about the confirming stage and there would be no other leads. At least now, even if Wall-E does get replaced we have a lead and a good idea of who to focus on.


Better get talking son

[burfy]

VT = vanilla townie. Basic townie, nothing special like a cop, just standard.

Ok, Wall-E, what i found puzzling about your comment was how come you needed to watch the topic for replies to know when to check in. I was notified by the PM i received. Now, i theorized possibly it was because after you saw the PM you were distracted by something else and forgot to confirm, not to watch for replies. The fact that you forgot to click watch replies twice is also somewhat suspicious.

[burfy]

OK, so with Hambargarz intervention on the PM convo, it has more or less killed the pursuit of a case against Wall-E but fair enough.

burfy is scummy for trying to identify targets. Furthermore, he unvoted because of the vote count.

This might be view by some as over-reaction, i seem to get that every game, but it's who i am so i'll do it anyway.

First i assume the identify targets is based on the vote count rather than a reference to scum hunting. Further more, go back and look at the sequence of posts, starting at 69. First i call for a vote count. couple of posts later i then bring up a question about Wall-E's comment. Almost immediate agreement from Ojanen, which i reciprocate.

Then, next post, the vote count comes up and shows two people to have 2 votes. I then unvote from one of these.

However, from my understanding you're suggesting I asked for a vote count so i could jump on a bandwagon. So surely i could have either stayed on my vote or switched

and voted

for the other person with two votes. Instead, after starting a case against wall-e i unvoted and haven't voted since.

I didn't think the reason you unvoted was obvious. I could tell that it was a random vote, but you said you were unvoting because of the vote count. W1N had two votes, though - hardly a reason to unvote. Combined with how you wanted to see who the "targets" were,

that makes me think you were looking to get on a wagon inconspicuously.

Having seen no real wagon, you unvoted without revoting, so that you'd be uncommitted to any position when opportunity (a townie wagon) arose.

about bold: that is a really bad idea. If i were scum, and i'm not, unvoting to leave me free makes no sense at all. I would be far better off staying with who ever you're on so if a case develops against them, you're already there and above suspicion. Most likely one doesn't so you just switch from there, joining the wagon from another vote or from no vote draws the same amount of suspicion both ways.

Anyway, my point is i unvoted after i had presented a case so i was not unvoted because of the count but because of the suspicions i had. It was an indictation i was getting serious and considered the RVS over.

[burfy]

First things first, request to Idiotking and Cubarey: can you guys please get avatars? It does make a difference.

Ok, sorry for not posting my thoughts earlier.

Idiotkind

: Neutral. More or less started on the back foot so has been tied down. very active since but hasn't made big decisive moves. Maybe slightly townie

Cubarey

: Annoying. very good at reading part of the whole. possibly forcing a hunt too much, not sure which way he goes. Thinking he's just forcing it too much rather than having bad intentions.

X

: Not sure how he convinced himself to vote me but i'm biased. bit of a twitchy trigger finger. Keeping up a few cases and not afraid to vote.

Wall-E

: Scummyest. Can't get over post 73. has has spurts of activity, makes him hard to read.

Ojanen

: neutral with slight hint of town and a tangy aftertaste. No real read other than hasn't done anything anti-town and has done enough for that to be worth something.

Kreriov

: similar reason to Ojanen but for some reason just neutral. not sure why but just don't get the town feel from him. Thought he was fairly active but can't remember specifics, maybe a very good scum but at this stage equally towny.

Yellowbunny

: quite town. very on the ball with well formed opinions on all cases. Has injected himself well into conversation and i believe to be analysing everything privately.

Noob

: playing noob defence for others. Getting a neutral read because he hasn't posted enough. Noting the noob defence point for later as right now it doesn't tell me anything. More likely was calling it as he saw it but maybe not.

Everyone before this i made notes on during a reread. Starting from here i had to do a specific filtered reread to see these people's input. Would normally say, no read but feel like making the effort. Basically, they either aren't posting enough or it isn't memorable enough. Maybe both

Jase

: Has rarely posted. Not really injected himself into the conversation but has provided his views willingly. Slightly suspicious because he might be trying to blend into the scenery by standing back and only talking up so people occasionally remember he's there. Almost working if he is. But at the same time has also provided complete analysis' of others so he's certainly here and keeping up to date. Just needs to make a bigger impression when he/you see something worth mentioning.

Lleu

: another reread. didn't like this admitted tunnel vision but maybe it works for him. Hasn't posted enough. Suspect he'll flake. No read at all. majority of his posts were near/in RVS so can't get much from them without follow up from logical stage (rest of game)

Hm... think I'll focus on one person at a time here

qwints

: Focused on the Wall-E case fairly exclusively until he was pacified when he hasn't really brought much to the table about everyone else. Can't say even after reread. Neutral/no read


End of the day, can't vote. Wall-E is most suspicious but i can't see the facts changing much and it's not conclusive. i never vote for anyone other than the one i think most scummy but even if i did, i wouldn't now. No one else out there worthy of voting.

[burfy]

Wall-E, read both my and your words. There is no contradiction. What i said is i never vote for anyone other than the most scummy person. Not that will always have a vote on the scummiest person at all times.

In this case, the reason i didn't vote you is because i didn't find the evidence conclusive. In fact prior to the reread and seeing how clearly post 73 makes it, i didn't have you high up the list at all.

[burfy]

Umm, does anyone else see something wrong with this statement?

sorry for the delay folks, i didn't push the "Watch this topic for replies" link and forgot about this thread. My bad

Yes! You've gotta go to the thread first to push the button. If you go there why not confirm at the same time? It's only one word.
I was wondering if scum could talk amongst themselves during N0. Then the natural reaction might be PMing your scumbuddies first.

Your problem with me is this bit, burfy? I believe this has been explained, but if you want to throw your vote away, all I can say is, "What about this is scummy?"

Rather than ask, say, for clarification, you seem to be swinging the gavel on me, and I dislike closed-minded townies. It feels too much like tunneling for my taste.

To answer your question, what i find scummy is the possibility that you were pming another player during N0 when only the mafia are allowed to communicate. It's possible and so puts you under some suspicion.

I'll assume the comments about tunneling and throwing away votes isn't directed purely at me seeing as i haven't actually voted for you yet. Hardly 'swinging the gavel'.

[burfy]

It's possible that I am the mafia and so I am the mafia?

I hope you can see the problem with this argument.

Yes, i can see the problem with that argument, which is why i didn't use it. If i simplified everything down to that level, i'd be really good at this game.

[burfy]

yellowbunny wrote:
Can you please elaborate on why you find Burfy scummy?
Sure. Burfy asked for a vote count early on to "see who the targets were." That sounds like a mafioso looking for a wagon. Later, he also unvoted in a reaction to the vote count...and the person she unvoted was at 2 votes. Basically, he didn't want to look like a wagonmaker.

Intersting...Burfy..what do you have to say on this issue?

Plenty. Ok, step by step. I asked for a vote count and probably said 'to see who the targets were' because i hadn't been paying enough attention to the game and it had completely missed me how a couple of cases had sprung up. By seeing who had votes it makes it clearer where the cases are and easier to find while rereading.

Next part, i unvoted in reaction to the vote count because i was past the stage of random voting. my random vote was on someone but i felt there was a case arising which might be worth voting so to signal my intentions to take it more serious, i unvoted.

Also, i have to point out a flaw in X's logic.

That sounds like a mafioso looking for a wagon.

Later, he also unvoted in a reaction to the vote count...and the person she unvoted was at 2 votes.

Basically, he didn't want to look like a wagonmaker.

Don't the two bolds contradict each other? First I'm looking for a wagon then i'm trying not to make a wagon? I don't get it.

Flaws in logic aside, the part X fails to mention everytime he mentions his case against me but which i point out everytime anyway, is that between my requesting a vote count and unvoting i make 2 posts where i first mention and then reveal suspicions of Wall-E with regards to the non-confirming thing. X purposely ignores this and says he can't see how i could think that was a case and i could be unvoting based on that. While i say, it is a case, still going now and stronger than his against me, and it was the reason i unvoted.

We're going in circles here. I see this explanation as perfectly reasonable and sound. And i see flaws in X's logic. Yet no matter how many time i have presented this X remains unconvinced and brings it up again and again. So i assume he also feels the same way about his case as i do about mine so i can't see this getting resolved. For this reason, forgive me if in the future i don't type out this much again and instead refer inquirers to past copies of this.

[burfy]

I disagree that you've caught X doing something significant here, burfy.

I agree with you. Never said, or at least never meant to say i thought there was anything scummy about this from X. Merely annoying

[burfy]

Also, i have to point out a flaw in X's logic.

X wrote:
That sounds like a mafioso looking for a wagon. Later, he also unvoted in a reaction to the vote count...and the person she unvoted was at 2 votes. Basically, he didn't want to look like a wagonmaker.


Don't the two bolds contradict each other? First I'm looking for a wagon then i'm trying not to make a wagon? I don't get it.

Those do not necessarily contradict each other. You could be scum looking for a wagon to join...but want to avoid starting a wagon yourself. So that way, if you joined a wagon, you could distance yourself from it by saying "oh, so-and-so started this wagon". And as scum, you def. wouldn't want to be viewed as the person who started that wagon.

We're going in circles here. I see this explanation as perfectly reasonable and sound. And i see flaws in X's logic. Yet no matter how many time i have presented this X remains unconvinced and brings it up again and again. So i assume he also feels the same way about his case as i do about mine so i can't see this getting resolved.

Do you find this behavior scummy? Or do you think X is misinterpreting your actions?

First part, fair enough, makes sense but if i was scum how does unvoting help me? In theory i unvoted because i was afraid of starting a wagon? I had voted said person during the RVS, no one could honestly claim i was the creator of that wagon. Would work better for me to sit there quietly and hope i slip by unnoticed as the votes pile up. By unvoting i have to revote and everytime you revote you need to provide reasons. Each set of reasons is more potential evidence against you.


Anyway, the fact is i unvoted and didn't vote again. If i was either looking for a wagon or trying to start one, unvoting acheives neither. So i don't get what he's on about.


Second bit, no I don't find it scummy. I'm not going use the words misinterpreting because everything had two sides to it. In this game you have to look at both sides and see which one makes more sense. I think X has seen the mafia side of it and likes it but is ignoring other possibilities. Tunneling i guess but i don't think it has true mal-intent behind it.

[burfy]

My activity should drop over the next couple of days. I've rather unexpectedly got to leave town but i should be back in two days time.
I might manage to check in here over that time but don't expect much from me at all.

[burfy]

@172- I agree with walle and disagree with burfy here, your vote is/was not on the "scummyest" person as previously claimed. Your 2nd sentence I am assuming you meant "Note that I?"

No, i did mean what i wrote. To clarify: I will only vote for the scummiest person but that does not mean i will always have a vote on someone. Case in question, i would not vote for anyone other than Wall-E because i thought he was scummiest but i didn't vote for him because i didn't find the evidence worthy of a vote.

I think you might have got my view point back to front. Anyway, not a major point. I'm going to have to look up the rest of your comments

[burfy]

Sorry i haven't been posting much guys but i haven't been home much the past week. I've been trying to at least skim read with the little time i have but the game has rather kicked up a gear recently so it's hard to take it all in.