Newbie 767 - Game Over!

[MordyS]

Sorry, in the last post that should have read: "after knowing that Porkens considered Platypus' statement evidence against you..."

[muzzz]

2c. (You may suggest that you brought it up to show that you're willing to 'call one on yourself' so-to-speak, for the benefit of the team. That if you were Mafia, you would want to hide that evidence and not mention it yourself. Before you do make that argument, I'd like to say that I find it utterly unconvincing, as there is WIFOM territory there. Ie: A member of the Mafia trying to pass would make the exact same argument.)

Since we have no factual evidence at this point, any judgment we make now is implicitly based on expectations of behavior. Which makes it inherently WIFOM-able. So it's useless to just point out that something is WIFOM. Because everything is, today.

If you do bring it up, you need to make a statement about how you perceive the probabilities for both sides of the argument. Because that's the part that can actually be discussed in a useful way. Reading your post, I can imagine that you were trying to do that. But you might want to be more explicit in your wording.

[delathi]

Alright, here we go.

We'll see how this works out. I have gone back and looked over each post and made a snap judgment on each one in and of itself as to whether I believed the poster was hostile, friendly or questioning about it's subject. Then I put it all in a big excel spreadsheet and sorted it. Random (or seemingly random) votes are in there too but I'm looking for trends. Not so much trends as to who is scum or not directly, but more looking for who thinks they are on the same side as who, and have come to the following conclusions.

I understand that many votes have changed and many opinions have changed, that's perfectly fine, expected and good, but the focus here is what the poster was thinking when they posted.

Wolf : Hostile towards : MordyS, Porkins, Korlash, Delathi - Questioning towards : muzzz
IF Wolf is scum or town, it is likely that Platypus_Dude, Archaist or Phelan is also.

Ethan/MordyS : Hostile towards : Wolf, Phelan, Platypus, Delathi - Questioning towards : muzzz, Archaist, Porkins
IF MordyS is scum or town, it is likely that Korlash is also.

Phelan : Hostile towards : Platypus_Dude - Questioning towards : MordyS, muzzz
IF Phelan is scum or town, it is likely that Wolf, Archaist, Korlach, Delathi or Porkins is also.

Platypus_Dude : Hostile towards : muzzz, Delathi, MordyS - Questioning towards : Porkins, Korlash
IF Platypus_Dude is scum or town, it is likely that Wolf, Phelan or Archaist is also.

muzzz : Hostile towards : Wolf, Platypus_Dude, Porkins - Questioning towards : MordyS, Korlash
IF muzzz is scum or town, it is likely that Phelan, Delathi or Archaist is also.

Archaist : Hostile towards : MordyS, Porkins - Questioning towards : Delathi, Phelan
IF Archaist is scum or town, it is likely that Wolf, Platypus_Dude, muzzz or Korlash is also.

Korlash : Hostile towards : Platypus_Dude, muzzz, Porkins - Questioning towards : Archaist
IF Korlash is scum or town, it is likely that Wolf, MordyS, Delathi or Phelan is also.

Delathi : Hostile towards : MordyS, Phelan, Archaist, Porkins - Questioning towards : Platypus_dude
IF Delathi is scum or town, it is likely that Wolf, muzzz or Korlash is also.


Now breaking down the links to look at the ones that go both ways, not just one way as above.

Wolf - Platypus_Dude
Wolf - Phelan
MordyS - Korlash
Phelan - Korlach
Platypus_Dude - Archaist
muzzz - Delathi
muzzz - Archaist
Korlash - Delathi

These pairs are not currently the only suspects, but, in my mind these pairs seem to think that they are on the same side. Either they are convinced that they are dealing with a fellow townie, they are a scum pair, or there is some other reason that they have not spoken badly or voted against their pairing. I suspect that the scum pairing is likely one of these but am not completely convinced since this analysis goes against my gut #1 suspect.

[Platypus_Dude]

Why are you advocating L-1 on Platypus? Isn't this group pressure to claim? Also, I don't think the effect will be the same by now as when Porkens posted.

Why are you helping? I don't see any reason for your vote besides Porkens saying that we were connected. That makes me believe you're only trying to throw suspicion off yourself.

Porkens: Why are you connecting me with Phelan and Archaist? I only said they hadn't posted yet when Delathi had posted.

Um... seeing as how I had pretty much made it clear if there was a trigger happy newbie that hammered he would die there-after I'm pretty sure paranoia had nothing to do with the game anymore. Then again that could just me thnking highly of myself.

If you said you would lynch a trigger-happy newbie, do you think scum would hammer? If so, do you think they were more likely to hammer than town at that point?

Platypus_Dude : Hostile towards : muzzz, Delathi, MordyS - Questioning towards : Porkins, Korlash
IF Platypus_Dude is scum or town, it is likely that Wolf, Phelan or Archaist is also.

I've been hostile towards you?

muzzz - Delathi

Korlash - Delathi

Why would you post these two?

Also, Porkens isn't on the list. He's not a confirmed townie, so why isn't he on your list?

[delathi]

Platypus_Dude : Hostile towards : muzzz, Delathi, MordyS - Questioning towards : Porkins, Korlash
IF Platypus_Dude is scum or town, it is likely that Wolf, Phelan or Archaist is also.

I've been hostile towards you?

Post #44 - It wasn't big and likely unfounded, but it was an indication that at the time you posted it, you were not protective or conveniently ignoring. It indicated suspicion and that you, at the time, did not feel that we were on the same side.

muzzz - Delathi

Korlash - Delathi

Why would you post these two?

Because these aren't necessarily scum buddies, they indicate that the pairs named SEEM to have not made any attacks against each other, indicating that they seem to trust each other. I don't say that the reasons for the seeming trust must be a scum buddy, it can just as easily be unwaranted trust or just people who haven't gotten around to jumping on certain people. It would also be rather disingenuous to leave myself out of the analysis.

Also, Porkens isn't on the list. He's not a confirmed townie, so why isn't he on your list?

Because I suck and didn't proofread well enough.

Porkins : Hostile towards : Wolf, Phelan, Platypus - Questioning towards : Korlash
IF Porkins is scum or town, it is likely that MordyS, muzzz, Archaist or Delathi is also.

He doesn't form a trust pair with anyone.

[Archaist]

Now breaking down the links to look at the ones that go both ways, not just one way as above.

Wolf - Platypus_Dude
Wolf - Phelan
MordyS - Korlash
Phelan - Korlach
Platypus_Dude - Archaist
muzzz - Delathi
muzzz - Archaist
Korlash - Delathi

Since Korlash appears the most in this list (3 times) doesn't that mean he's your most likely suspect?

muzzz - Delathi

Korlash - Delathi

Why would you post these two?

One could also say that it would be suspicious to leave oneself out. I suspect that if he did leave himself out someone would have called him out on that. It's kind of a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. My opinion is that the town needs as much information as it can get.

[Porkens]

Porkens: Why are you connecting me with Phelan and Archaist? I only said they hadn't posted yet when Delathi had posted.

You connected yourself to them :p

[delathi]

Since Korlash appears the most in this list (3 times) doesn't that mean he's your most likely suspect?[/quote]

No, not specifically, what it means is that Korlash has more allies. Since there are 2 scum and he has a significantly larger number of people that don't seem to suspect him, it lowers his likelyhood in my mind.

[Wolf]

I suspect that the scum pairing is likely one of these but am not completely convinced since this analysis goes against my gut #1 suspect.

I see that your vote is still on Ethan/MordyS, so I'm assuming hes your gut #1 suspect? Or have i mistaken?

[delathi]

I see that your vote is still on Ethan/MordyS, so I'm assuming hes your gut #1 suspect? Or have i mistaken?

Correct

When MordyS replaced Ethan, there were two votes on him. Wolf and Me. He came out of the gate like gangbusters with an extremely well written post where he magnanimously removed Ethan's vote from Wolf. But in the same post, he votes for Platypus_Dude, someone others had already raised suspicion about, and still attacks Wolf by attempting to tie him to Platypus_Dude.

Wolf then unvotes.

MordyS then turns his attention to the other person with a vote still on him, Me, with an argument that basically boils down to; "I don't like your grammar." and "You made a correct assumption, how could that possibly happen?"

There is also the feeling he was less than truthful with his first sentance saying this was his first ever game of mafia. There seems to have been no learning curve, he leapt in with a full on good post, properly using esoteric game terms, acronyms and theory. In and of itself, this just raised an eyebrow, he's a smart guy most likely. But it made me wonder if he was telling the truth about his experience.

These things, combined with the earlier suspicions of Ethan, which looked scummy in a completely different way, lead me to him as my current #1.

[MordyS]

MordyS then turns his attention to the other person with a vote still on him, Me, with an argument that basically boils down to; "I don't like your grammar." and "You made a correct assumption, how could that possibly happen?"

As far as I know I made neither of those arguments. If you'd like to include quotes indicating where I did, I'd be happy to hear you out, but this seems to simply be a lie. (Or, more charitably, a misunderstanding.)

There is also the feeling he was less than truthful with his first sentance [sic] saying this was his first ever game of mafia.

I'm only responding to this charge because it attempts to impugn my general honesty about something metagame related. The reason I seem informed is because I read a number of Mafia threads in addition to the theory wiki before jumping into a game. ie: I lurked and studied. I highly recommend this process for both Mafia & life.

Moreso, it seems that you're attacking me here as:
a) OMGUS (I suspected you, therefore you find that scummy) and
b) I "leapt in with a full on good post, properly using esoteric game terms, acronyms and theory."

There's only one group who would try to shed suspicion on someone writing good posts, using game terms, acronyms and theory. That would be scum, as Town members always benefit from well considered arguments and ideas. Why exactly would you want a chilling effect among the Townies? That kind of argument can only dissuade other people from writing well-reasoned posts, and will culminate in the Town losing one of their advantages (reason + logic).

Furthermore, and I cannot resist this as a literature student, you write, "There is also the feeling he was less than truthful with his first sentance [sic]." What you should have written is "I also feel he was less than truthful..." What you wrote was in a passive voice, suggesting that other people feel as you do (There is the feeling -- among more than yourself?), which suggests a covert attempt to manufacture consent for something I haven't seen raised elsewhere. Ie: It's a fairly insidious and dishonest type of argument.

[Korlash]

Hey things have gotten a little crazy as of late on my end so sorry for my inactiveness. I plan *cross my fingers* to get back into this game after work tonight.

[MordyS]

As far as I know I made neither of those arguments. If you'd like to include quotes indicating where I did, I'd be happy to hear you out, but this seems to simply be a lie. (Or, more charitably, a misunderstanding.)

I went back to take a look at the post you were referring to. I can understand where you were coming from, though I think you misunderstood my criticisms.

1. I was not suspicious because "I don't like your grammar," as you put it. I was merely analyzing the language you use for a hidden agenda. On the first day, especially, this would seem to be one of the few tools we have to rout the Mafia. If you felt I was unfairly characterizing your post, you could have protested (or, if you had simply spoken loosely, you could have attempted to venture that as an explanation). I don't think - like I said in my previous post - we should be putting people off analysis.

2. I was not attacking you for "[making] correct assumption, how could that possibly happen?" That might be an alternative explanation for what happened, (a narrative you may be trying to forward), but that was not my argument. I attacked you for

assuming

information that you could only have if you were Mafia. You would rather pose that as making a "correct assumption," but you cannot pretend that was my argument.

Which is to say:
a. You argue that you make an assumption that panned out.
b. I argue that you relied on inside information.
c. You claim that I'm skeptical you could make a "correct assumption," saying that I asked, incredulously, "how could that possibly happen?"
d. But point (c) only makes sense if someone makes points (a). If someone makes point (b), point (c) is non-applicable.
side-point. This, along with your passive voice quote previously, suggests to me that you're very talented in assuming your narrative position and then pretending like everyone already agrees with you.

[delathi]

MordyS then turns his attention to the other person with a vote still on him, Me, with an argument that basically boils down to; "I don't like your grammar." and "You made a correct assumption, how could that possibly happen?"

As far as I know I made neither of those arguments. If you'd like to include quotes indicating where I did, I'd be happy to hear you out, but this seems to simply be a lie. (Or, more charitably, a misunderstanding.)

In 158, your first argument against me was based on how I formed a question. My question was why would a power townie say anything other than vanilla townie when pressed this early. It was answered and I agreed that it was a good idea to do so to prevent a mis-lynch. Your attack there seemed to be more based on how I worded the question and less on what the question was asking

The second was in the same post, your strongest piece of evidence, was that I correctly assumed that no one would throw the hammer on someone who had absolutely no evidence against them at the time, and if they did do so, they were almost assuredly idiot scum.

There is also the feeling he was less than truthful with his first sentance

[sic]

saying this was his first ever game of mafia.

Why do you feel the specific need to point out misspellings? Is it an attempt to belittle and create a sense of intellectual and therefore moral superiority? You are using the quote function of the boards, I don't think anyone is going to assume that the misspelling was yours.

I'm only responding to this charge because it attempts to impugn my general honesty about something metagame related. The reason I seem informed is because I read a number of Mafia threads in addition to the theory wiki before jumping into a game. ie: I lurked and studied. I highly recommend this process for both Mafia & life.

& life? Nice little backhanded swipe at the personal life there.

Moreso, it seems that you're attacking me here as:
a) OMGUS (I suspected you, therefore you find that scummy)

Not specifically, I thought it scummy that 2 of your first 3 targets were the people who had votes on you and the other one was already under scrutiny by others. Had you done so and I was not one of them, I'd have still found it suspicious.

b) I "leapt in with a full on good post, properly using esoteric game terms, acronyms and theory."

As I said, this in and of itself was a very minor thing, but I figured it was worth a mention to see your reaction.

There's only one group who would try to shed suspicion on someone writing good posts, using game terms, acronyms and theory. That would be scum, as Town members always benefit from well considered arguments and ideas. Why exactly would you want a chilling effect among the Townies? That kind of argument can only dissuade other people from writing well-reasoned posts, and will culminate in the Town losing one of their advantages (reason + logic).

I disagree with your premise. People hunting scum are very likely to look at everything said, attempt to find inconsistencies and question them. I saw your competence and grasp of the game at odds with your claim of inexperience and I questioned it. You responded with another attack. Painting me as trying to prevent reasoned argument is going a bit far here. I'll accept that you studied hard and came in with both eyes open.

Furthermore, and I cannot resist this as a literature student, you write, "There is also the feeling he was less than truthful with his first sentance [sic]." What you should have written is "I also feel he was less than truthful..." What you wrote was in a passive voice, suggesting that other people feel as you do (There is the feeling -- among more than yourself?), which suggests a covert attempt to manufacture consent for something I haven't seen raised elsewhere. Ie: It's a fairly insidious and dishonest type of argument.

I'm not a Lit student. I'm a married homeowner with a kid and I work in the tech field. I often write in the passive voice, deal with it. Although I will note that this is another attempt to belittle and reduce my arguments through an ad hominem attack on my perceived writing abilities.

[MordyS]

Although I will note that this is another attempt to belittle and reduce my arguments through an ad hominem attack on my perceived writing abilities.

You keep writing that I'm attacking your writing, as though I have a personal problem with your ability to articulate. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I am taking your writing very seriously and looking for what biases it can give away. My attacks are premised on the suggestion that instead of being a poor writer, you are in fact an intentional writer and that your words are worth parsing. Ie: I am not the one belittling you or making ad hominem attacks. You are doing that to yourself as a defense. Since I've now been accused of making ad hominem attacks twice, let's bring the definition of the ad hominem into the thread.

Argumentum ad Hominem (or "Attack against the Man") is a attack on the person, rather than on their arguments. It brings in irrelevant personal information or arguments about the opponent, in an attempt to distract either the opponent or the audience. This often happens in mafia games. Instead of attacking an accuser's arguments, someone will attack the accuser instead. Note that while sometimes the player's personality/playstyle does come into account during a game, this logical fallacy is more about attacking features that may not have anything directly to do with game performance. Thus, lurking is an assailable behavior; being European is likely not.

A phrase applied to an argument or appeal founded on the preferences or principles of a particular person rather than on abstract truth or logical cogency.

I didn't attack you personally. I attacked the implications I thought were inherent in your posts. You suggesting I did attack you personally, and then calling it an ad hominem attack is yet another example of you assuming a narrative ("My words didn't give anything away, they were just poorly chosen") and then attacking me based on your own narrative. I don't think you were just using poor grammar. I think you had hidden bias that your choice of words exhumed. My posts are absolutely NOT ad hominem though in either case.

[MordyS]

Not specifically, I thought it scummy that 2 of your first 3 targets were the people who had votes on you and the other one was already under scrutiny by others. Had you done so and I was not one of them, I'd have still found it suspicious.

Ethan/MordyS : Hostile towards : Wolf, Phelan, Platypus, Delathi - Questioning towards : muzzz, Archaist, Porkins

Now that's an internal contradiction.

[muzzz]

It was observant of MordyS to spot that grammar mistake. But honestly, I'm not sure if we should read anything into this. Keep in mind that most of us probably aren't literature students. Heck, I'm not even a native English speaker. And I doubt I'm the only one on these boards.

Delathi, I can't really tell if you're taking personal offense. But if you are, keep in mind that this is an internet forum. I.e., not an ideal means of communication. Chances are high that what you perceived is not what MordyS intended.

[muzzz]

There's only one group who would try to shed suspicion on someone writing good posts, using game terms, acronyms and theory. That would be scum, as Town members always benefit from well considered arguments and ideas. Why exactly would you want a chilling effect among the Townies? That kind of argument can only dissuade other people from writing well-reasoned posts, and will culminate in the Town losing one of their advantages (reason + logic).

Your premise here is flawed. There is

no

group that generally benefits from punishing reason and logic. They're weapons for the town, but shields for the mafia. Both presenting sound logic and attacking flawed logic are great ways to be helpful. But neither one of them contributes directly to finding scum.

[delathi]

Not specifically, I thought it scummy that 2 of your first 3 targets were the people who had votes on you and the other one was already under scrutiny by others. Had you done so and I was not one of them, I'd have still found it suspicious.

Ethan/MordyS : Hostile towards : Wolf, Phelan, Platypus, Delathi - Questioning towards : muzzz, Archaist, Porkins

Now that's an internal contradiction.

I don't see the contradiction, although if you will specify it, I'll respond.

Delathi, I can't really tell if you're taking personal offense. But if you are, keep in mind that this is an internet forum. I.e., not an ideal means of communication. Chances are high that what you perceived is not what MordyS intended.

Nope, no personal offense, just combative discussion.

[MordyS]

Not specifically, I thought it scummy that 2 of your first 3 targets were the people who had votes on you and the other one was already under scrutiny by others. Had you done so and I was not one of them, I'd have still found it suspicious.

Ethan/MordyS : Hostile towards : Wolf, Phelan, Platypus, Delathi - Questioning towards : muzzz, Archaist, Porkins

Now that's an internal contradiction.

I don't see the contradiction, although if you will specify it, I'll respond.

In one post you write that I've been hostile towards four people (Wolf, Phelan, Platypus and Delathi) and questioning towards three (Muzzz, Archaist, Porkins). That leaves one person in the game that, so far, I haven't been hostile or aggressive towards. So to write that I've only gone after three targets is a mischaracterization of your own analysis.

[Platypus_Dude]

You connected yourself to them :p

Is saying some people hadn't posted yet some sort of scumtell I'm not aware of?

In one post you write that I've been hostile towards four people (Wolf, Phelan, Platypus and Delathi) and questioning towards three (Muzzz, Archaist, Porkins). That leaves one person in the game that, so far, I haven't been hostile or aggressive towards. So to write that I've only gone after three targets is a mischaracterization of your own analysis.

I don't see where he said you've only gone after 3 people.

[delathi]

In one post you write that I've been hostile towards four people (Wolf, Phelan, Platypus and Delathi) and questioning towards three (Muzzz, Archaist, Porkins). That leaves one person in the game that, so far, I haven't been hostile or aggressive towards. So to write that I've only gone after three targets is a mischaracterization of your own analysis.

First three. Not only three.

[Claus]

VL/A for easter - I'll try to post a vote count later. If you need anyone prodded, please PM me.

[Claus]

Vote Count

Did someone ask for Stewardesses and Booze?



Platypus_Dude 3 - Phelan, Porkens, MordyS
MordyS 1 - delathi
Porkens 1 - Muzzz

Not voting: Platypus_Dude, Archaist, Korlash, Wolf

With 9 people alive, it takes 5 to lynch!

[Korlash]

Ok I promised a post... um...um...

Man note to self do not volunteer for 3 games at once when im already behind in one with lots and lots of words...

um...

I got nothing... bad Korlash... go sit in the corner... Anyone who knows me knows the last thing I ever want to do is lurk, or active lurk, or not post so... just bare with me... I bounce back... I really do...

No, not specifically, what it means is that Korlash has more allies. Since there are 2 scum and he has a significantly larger number of people that don't seem to suspect him, it lowers his likelyhood in my mind.

What exactly are you basing this off of? Why does having more allies, whatever that means, make me less likely to whatever?