Mini 792 - Tofu Mafia. Game over!

[SpyreX]

/confirm

[SpyreX]

I'll just say that if this goes 36 days for day 1 I may explode.

Vote: Vi

We cant have any village idiots around, right?

Right?

Guys?

[SpyreX]

vote Spyrex for already attempting to plant the seeds into the town's mind to keep the day shorter. If stated later, it might garner more attention from someone who decides that Spyrex is "trying to end discussion". Given early in the 'rvs' it is far more likely to go under the radar, yet still accomplish the purpose of putting into the back of towns mind that we don't want to the game to drag on.
I'm aware of the balance between content and fading attention spans, so on the surface it could just be an upfront opinion stated by Spyrex giving his view on excessive days. But...I look at effect, and the lack of surrounding context for the volunteering of that opinion, and don't approve of what I think it does, particularly if he tries to curtail talk later, because then the subject has already been broached, and by him, making it easier for him to head off discussion heading in the wrong direction (for him) because he can refer back to this statement about his aversion to month long day 1's.

If you're actually placing an A+ vote for my trying to keep the day shorter than well over a month, well keep it there. Because, well, I dont feel bad about it.

If there is in-depth discussion going on for 30+days and cases are being built and people are holding hands, etc, etc.. sure. In that case 30+ days would be a great thing.

If that actually happened, I'd eat my hat.

The odddest thing is that I'm actually tempted to take your whole post as a joke... or I would if you didn't imply it wasn't. Instead, it looks like trying way too hard.

Much like the push with the Porkens satire on how much /feelings a third vote gives.

The only thing that gives me pause at all is why the hell would a scum be so transparently aggressive before the end of page one?

Nothing adds up. But, yes, if your posts are serious I could sure see us moving quickly out of the RVS.

[SpyreX]

Spyrex, there are 2 issues I have with your statement.
First, it was a bit out of the blue. Maybe a humorous first post, sure, but an interesting topic to just start out with nonetheless. You chose the topic on purpose. Why you did, I don't really know, but it caught my attention.
Secondly, when I first read it, I thought you said 36 pages. Had you said that I probably would have left it alone because 36 pages in a 12 player mini would be a huge chunk of text. But I went back and you didn't. You specifically mentioned days, and in forum mafia where some people only get in to post every 2-3 days, they may only have 10-15 posts total for the span of that day. You know as well as I do that some go even longer than 3 days, and pop in with an "I'm here."
Also, by putting a time restriction instead of a size restriction on when you think the day has gone long enough, all you have to do as a scum team to restrict information is to slow post (you don't actually have to lurk, just wait an extra day to respond). Some wishy washy foot dragging tossed in, and it wouldn't be hard for you to get to that 30 day mark and start pressing to get the day over with.

Why I chose it? I read the rules and saw that day 1 was slated to be 36 days long and after I threw up inside a little bit at that idea then posted as such. I really dont think its all that strange.

As for the time restriction business. We have a deadline. A deadline that I think is too long, but a deadline nonetheless. If the idea was to drag my feet until the day was over... why would I make a statement when the main catalyst for it is already in place?

This combined with the fact (as much as I hate meta) you've played in a game with me not all that long ago where I asked for a deadline AND the first day went something like 38 pages in a 10 person game is just off.

could all players please answer the following questions:

1. what games (with links) have you finished in the last 6 months?
2. what are your on-going games?
3. what is your personal definition of lurking?
4. of the players in this game, which players have you played with in the last six months?
5. what other names do you play mafia under here?
6. what other sites have you played at within the last six months?

I REFUSE TO BE A PART OF THIS SUREFIRE ATTEMPT TO SUCKLE ALL THE INFORMATION NECESSARY TO SUBJUGATE US WITH YOUR DARKNESS

Or.

1.)
Open 122: http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 26&start=0
Mini 741: http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 61&start=0
Mini 702: http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... start=1250
Mini 758: http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... &start=475
Mini 739: http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... &start=875
Mini 712: http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... &start=725
Newbie 723: http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... &start=250
You can also check my wiki if there is others I've missed. I haven't updated it in a while, but.

2.)
Mini 706 (dead): http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 54&start=0
Wheel of Time Mafia: http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... start=1300
Lynch All Lurkers Mafia (dead): http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 46&start=0
Street Fighter 4 Mafia: http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 48&start=0

3.) There's two kinds of lurking that worry me. The simple "I can't remember you are in the game" litmus test for actually not playing the game (that once is realized normally becomes "You have to get lynched because you are lurking so badly I can't remember you are in the game.") and the more insidious content-lurking. Lots of posts, lots of words... but not a lot of meaning.

4.) Spring, Ecto, Porkens, Vi(ish).
Zorblag(ish), tajo, &flay in ongoings.
Ish means that one of us replaced into the game after the other was dead. So.

5.) None.

6.) Epicmafia doesn't really count as mafia, but sure.

[SpyreX]

I can see methods to the Adel-theorizing, although I would disagree with some of the push-pull in the last pages (which is scary because we're at all of Page 4)

@Korts - sup. I didn't forget you (I'm pretty sure you weren't in the game yet when I made that post, sheesh. I'm good, but not prescient).

I have to chime in though about Porkens and his "reactions" post. Clarify me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the purpose of that was reactions at all. It was a joke, a satire on some of the amazing that I know we've ALL seen in early day 1.

So, I dont get it.

[SpyreX]

A joke is an effective method of deflecting from a player real attack. Both the beginning and the end are not jokes. He chose those 2 players for reason. The question is, why did he abandon the first (after explaining why it was a null tell vite), It demands questions, I didnt read it as simply a joke. Im always reading between the lines behind the joke.

A joke can be, not is, an effective method of deflecting a real attack.

However, for that to be the case there would have to be a real attack to deflect from/to.

As for "abandoning" a vote.... I mean, maybe I'm waaay offbase here but the vote itself and the made up responses ARE the joke.

Short of some kind of "Porkens AND spring are scum and Porkens pulled the noobiest gambit trying to burn deflection away from a wagon that had no basis but somehow would get pushed to lynch in this setup because everyone else is sheeple" I do not get any scum (nor town) motivation for the joke.

It is simply null. A joke.

I'm really having a hard time figuring out your reactions and cause and effect with two of your major talking points thus far.

[SpyreX]

I'm "defending" him because your attack doesn't make sense. When combined with the "SpyreX hates discussion because of his noting wanting a month plus day 1 ways" business before it adds up to something that doesn't make sense.

Not that I think you're scum, yet. But by god its leaning that way.

On a surface level what you're saying isn't bad, but it just doesn't connect right.

Yea, we want out of RVS. Yes, it happens normally. No, it doesn't have to happen in like the 4th post of the game.

Yes, there could be secret ulterior motives for a "joke". No, it really doesn't appear to be the case here.

Its like some bizarro spaghetti syndrome. I cant tell if its the little townie that could or whitenoise scum ninja.

[SpyreX]

SpyreX: I meant Xyl's Relative Chaos. I am sad you forgot that we played together Sad

I was saying that when I made my "who have you played with" I dont think you were in the game yet. I haven't forgot you man.

As for Porkensgate.

Give me a legitimate scum-reason for that post. Something that would make any sense for it being anything BUT a joke. I read it, I laughed. Move on.

The fact it is such a talking point is strange to me and, maybe its meta creeping in, but in this particular game I cant see such a transparent maneuver from scum.

Not that he's town or not. Absolultey null. Because, well, this is all thats being talked about.

[SpyreX]

[quote='Porkens"]I have noted, and am wary, of the profound nut-slurping I've recieved from SpyreX. Call this distaning if you want! [/quote]

Ohh there's no slurping. You're absolutely null at this point.

If this whole joke continued being whitenoise that dominated, I'd be worried.

@SpyreX: Your vote still be on Vi. Does this because you think Vi's actions be scummy at this point or because you simply no have found anyone else worth voting for since the game started?

Unvote

I'm still looking. I'm definitely flirting with the idea of Ecto, but its not adding up. There's a couple people who feel town (OMG MY SECRETS) and a whole lot of nulls or non-contributors.

Of course, I'm waiting to see the rabbit out of Adels hat too.

So, it was there because I was lazy.

[SpyreX]

Well it looks like I've finally got someone I can vote for. Someone who I can really sink my teeth into.

Someone who has been there to snipe and jump on some spurious bandwagons.
Someone who unapologetically wanted a bandwagon for "generating content".
Someone who gave a rather lengthy post explaining in detail why at any given point his reads can change. In selfsame post also gave a page 7 "feeler" list of some townies (but of course not the entire game).
Someone who is justifying this latest move with meta. Sigh. Further, with a sample set of 1. Double Sigh.
Someone who agrees that said meta is weak, apologizes and then votes.

If I really need to megapost the above I will. I'd rather not.

Vote: Artem.

[SpyreX]

I'm interested in what you have to say about Artem.

Maybe I'm misreading something or it was the cloud of noise hiding Herod - because I'm just not seeing it in front of me.

Also, if this is what we get when you're feeling better.. good. I approve

[SpyreX]

Bandwagoning is a Good Thing, especially early on day 1. Artem has only been on the Porkens wagon before moving onto Herodutos, and gave solid reasons for both, in my view. I disagree that either were spurious, but even if they were, virtually all early bandwagons are somewhat spurious, because it's early and we have little solid information. As to "sniping", I think I understand what you mean, but I don't see where he's done it.

I think we're going to have to disagree, and in strong terms.

Bandwagoning, especially shameless bandwagoning, is not a good thing. By nullifying the responsibility of the vote you create a scenario where the end results are going to be detrimental far more often than they are useful.

1.) You're either going to push someone on minimal grounds to claim, to then turn around and do it again (this is a scum wet dream on day 1 and I've seen it happen which makes me all the more sad).
2.) You've eliminated the analysis of the votes that led to it to a degree - when someone can go "Hay, bandwagoning for information hoo" it can easily be parroted.
3.) You're going to cause someone to "crack" under bandwagon pressure and get lynched. Now, this doesn't seem like a bad thing except for the fact town tend to do this as often as scum (if not more)... which leads directly to a quick mislynch (much like a policy lynch) with minimal information garnered from it.

Oddly enough, I'd say shameless bandwagoning has the MOST negative effects early in the game - its much, much easier for scum to get away with.

And, now of course, why would I push so hard on Artem for this:

Of course the fact that you didn't go through with it makes you the guinea pig that we're riding on and not spring, so I'm not too heart-broken. Do you deserve to be lynched for your lack of vote (or lack of "sticking" to a vote, if you prefer) for spring? No. Do you deserve to have a wagon formed on you for the purposes of content generation? Heck yea. (though it seems that there are other candidates for competing wagons emerging)

Voting for "content generation"? Check.
Saying they shouldn't be lynched? Check.
Not saying or even insinuating they are scum? Check.

Thats enough checks.

Now, on a related note. Sniping.

These are normally one or two line "quips" that often are an alley-oop for a wagon... if others take it on first. Its a feeler of types and a scummy one at that.

Ecto, the number 36 is not arbitrary and the fact that you haven't picked up on it tells me that Spyrex is paying more attention to the game (by reading every single post) than you:

Porkens, given the cast of this game, I think we're all familiar with the cliche motions of Day 1. But it is these motions that typically generate content. As such, a third vote on spring would have been useful, even if it did lead to the typical scenario described by your self-dialogue.

Is this a slap on the wrist? "Keep it up Ecto, and you'll end up on my scum list"?

This is pro-town. Generating content is pro-town. Bandwagons generate content. I don't follow?

I addressed part of it. As for the other.

Useful

content is pro-town. A myriad of things can be done that generate minimal or useless content. I contend that "bandwagons" do not inherently generate useful content (and can often generate far greater negative results).

He did not say his reads may arbitrarily change at any given point. He said that he is less experienced and should rationally feel less confident about reading more experienced players, which is true. You'd expect someone playing correctly to be less certain relative to the skill of the players in question. Now, it's possible he could exploit this if he were scum, but that's true of things like voting; it doesn't make it inherently scummy.
I'm slightly biased here because one of my bugbears is people being too certain too quickly and then never backing out of it.

Its the fact it is there. Written out for the world to see.

A good townie isn't going to be set in stone. As information is presented reads should, and will, change. Telling people "my reads change" is a duh at best...and, of course, there is definitely reasons a scum would go in essence:

"I'm going to totally bus my buddy but if it doesn't bite I am going to "change my read" and feel that he is town."

Stating the obvious things a good town just

does

IS scummy to me.

I think I would be fine metagaming someone on the basis of one observation; people change, but not dramatically. He said there was a big difference in the level of aggression; it follows that he should be asking how likely it was that Herod's playstyle evolved vs. how likely it is that Herod is scum here. I would point out that Artem does not claim to draw a strong conclusion from it, merely "more likely than random", which is probably true on that basis alone.

This is partially bias, but.. meta is retarded and overused in general.

Meta

could

be used to bolster a case, but it should not be a key component of one. "You're playing differently" is a weak maneuver and designed by nature to just shrug off a mislynch.

So, yes, ANY time someone is getting votes (or being defended from said votes by meta) it catches my eye.

Further, it might be a bit different if Artem was the first to pursue this avenue. He's not. So, meta-wagoning follows a pattern I've seen.

Oh, and hey, ever plan on replying to:

Your other bullet points are addressed in more detail above, but this.

What do you

really

expect me to say?

No its not a slap on the wrist. Its what it is "This behavior is moving towards being scummy in nature. IF YOU ARE TOWN, perhaps you should think about it and perhaps not make yourself a target of suspicion. P.S. if you are scum keep it up.'

What in the name of everything would a "slap on the wrist" be? If I thought he was scum he'd have a vote. As it is, due to the exchanges (and subsequent disappearance) it is suspicious.

But, I'm content with my vote.

[SpyreX]

Say "I dont have strong reads and they will most likely change?" as scum? Hell yes he would.

It follows the "too timid" sniping I've seen and jumping when momentum (or the potential thereof) is present. See Porkens, the snipe on Ecto and now this.

[SpyreX]

He would do it if he were scum. But he would do it if he were town. I think he'd do it either way. So voting him for that is a bad idea, because it's useless in figuring out his alignment. That's my point.

Individually any of the things I've seen -may- make a useless conjecture. Together they form a pattern. One I don't like. That's my point.

The problem is that Ecto's argument was not scummy. Not only that, even Porkens said that he can see where Ecto is coming from (while disagreeing with him). By threatening Ecto with putting him on your scum list, you're discouraging Ecto from pursuing the point and getting even more reactions and response from Porkens.

Again, once wasn't scummy. Twice is either "trying too hard" or "scum leaping from the rafters".

On what basis did you single out meta to be the key component of my vote when I've presented reasons?

Hmm, gee, lets see.

Hero - is likely scum; He played very analytically and aggressively in our game together and I quickly (but correctly, mind you) nailed him as obv town. He's still being analytical here but the level of aggressiveness is quite a bit lower. Why?

Hero is the only one for whom my meta on them doesn't add up with their current playstyle. That sets off a red flag for me, but at the same time, he was a newbie in our common game and his playstyle may have shifted as he got more experienced. Hard to tell at the moment.

0) You're playing differently than your meta. Not only are you less aggressive, but you also seem more emotional and less cool-headed.

1) A townie shouldn't be asking for a vote. If you really are town, then all you're doing is distracting attention from the scum onto yourself.

2) You seem to be buddying up to Adel:

Is it scummy for me to not mention a newbie game, which I don't feel I contributed much to (and where I was town-aligned)? You got NKd on the first night because of your stellar play. I get NKd on the first night routinely simply because I'm an IC.

If it's not scummy for me to not mention that game, then what's the point of saying "they count"? Adel is trying to fabricate a feeling that not providing a full list of requested information is somehow scummy and I think you're blindly following that feeling without really understanding why.

3) Piling up on somebody early in the game is a great scum tactic, because they can easily bring somebody up to L-2 or L-1 and argue their way out with "it's not dangerous", or "I'm doing it to get out of RVS". This is why early wagons generate good content. The fact that there was no such wagon means that the scum are either shy or inactive. Lurkers aside, you yourself said that you're intimidated by the cast. (me being the other person who's intimidated, but I'd argue that I was pro-wagon from the start of the game).

0.) Meta

1.) A general "town shouldn't do this" when in context.. well

2.) A general statement that is then two paragraphs of meta.

3.) Bandwagoning is a great scum tactic. You said this. YOU SAID THIS ARGGGHHH.

So, yea, just looked at your case again. Happier with my vote now.

[SpyreX]

Scum can't get a wagon going by themselves because there's no enough of them. 2-3 scum are not going to put anybody at L-2. They need townies to help them. Why would we help them when it's just a scum tactic? Because it generates content.

Wagon generate content AND they are a tactic that scum employ (which is why they generate content; if it wasn't their tactic, we would get no content).

Freaking hell, I can't believe I have to spell it out.

Yes, you have to spell it out to me. I don't understand. For, alas, I am unmatched.

But, lets dissect the above some.

You're saying that a wagon generates content because scum join it? Does this mean said wagon is on town?

Thus, is the "content" your generating some form of "there is scum on this wagon." when that is in no way proved?

However, that is moot. I like, nay love, cognitive dissonance. Its one of my favorite tells.

Saying "bandwagons are a great scum tactic" AND being pro-wagoning as town would be one of those.

[SpyreX]

Well, individually I've said why I don't think they're good tells; none of them are more scummy when combined with each other, and if none of them are scummy individually, then it's not one person doing lots of scummy things. I don't see a pattern - what do you mean?

When each has, to me, scum motivation and there is more than one it forms a pattern of "actions undergone that have scum motivation consistently."

Thats good enough for me. If you don't see it, thats cool. Gimme a nice clean detail on Herod (because I can't see it and I know thats partially because Artem is on it) so if I look at it from your aspect maybe something'll click - although I doubt it.

Hey - you're both town, yeah? Stop it, this'll just make things worse. Miscommunication is a staple of mafia.

I know when people say what they dont, etc. I hold umbrage to this being simple miscommunication though.

[SpyreX]

Meta's being used to bolster and attempt to make a weak vote appear to be something that it isn't. Thats what I dont like.

And I missed those two little posts in not checking for posts while I was typing. It doesn't really change anything in my mind though.

[SpyreX]

props to Artem for quoting this gem. So if Ecto is leaning scum, you must think that he's scum, no? The internal inconsistency within these two sentences screams uncertain scum to me.

What?

If he's leaning scum that doesn't mean I think he's scum. That would mean I would be leaning that way in my "what the hell are you doing" read.

Thats different than a "you are being scummy and I am voting you because I want you dead" read. Which I have.

SpyreX, in 181, "bandwagons bad, long days bad..." is slightly scitzopherenic.

Shameless bandwagons ARE bad. Long days are retarded more than bad, but I'll swing it to bad and useless. Note: long days are more than a month.

[SpyreX]

And back to the fray with a few things I've missed.

I'm using other arguments to make a vote stronger than it would have been had it been based solely on meta. That is what I'm doing.

The other arguments aren't stronger and even if every other player in the game said "SpyreX, those are good arguments and not filler" I would have a hard time swallowing it. Its parsley to a steak that was left out in the sun.

Especially when later you say you found a "flag in his playstyle" that was based on a difference of, again, a 1-game sample set meta.

Well, then you can keep your vote that is based on me liking wagons, the twisting of my words and the misunderstanding of my points against Herodotus.

Ohh, this move.

Show, explicitly, where I am "twisting" your words and how. Further, show how this twisting can't possibly happen.

(This is a version of "How darest thou attack me for I am sooo town" which I hate. A lot. Kill worthy, every time)

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

Unless I'm mistaken, you've said that it's overused by townies, here. Perhaps it's bad and wrong, but nonetheless all the people using it were really, genuinely doing their best to find scum, and lynching them would have been a mistake. I don't see why that doesn't apply in isolation to Artem using metagaming here.

If Artem were scum, maybe he'd lie about metagaming and he would appear to be using meta here.
If Artem were town, he'd use metagaming and he would appear to be using meta here.
If you take the first one alone, then he looks suspicious. But if the second one is true, then actually, it's not. So, internally, when you're thinking about people, it's important to disprove the second one as well as try and prove the first.

Its overused by

everyone

. However, that aside:

Meta arguments by nature, right or wrong, are some of the weakest arguments one can have. They are far more easily waved away if wrong and are a great tool for scum to pile on with.

As for the second part...

I see where you are going. However it apparently is a difference in how we look at the game in general. I keep going "This series of events strikes me as off, because it would have definite gain as scum." and you keep replying "These events could be done by both scum or town, thus they are null."

Thats fine. However, allow me to digress some:

My vote.. I disliked Herod's random vote on Spring, it didn't leave any avenue for interaction. If you compare it to Spyrex's vote, he's clearly looking to get a response from Vi, for example. That seems more like what a townie should be doing. Herod's vote avoids starting a wagon on anyone, it doesn't allow any kind of meaningful response, and it's based on something out-of-game, which doesn't allow for any attack on him in the future. It's a little hard to articulate, but it's basically a "stay out of the limelight" feeling that scum so often give off. If you contrast that to Ecto's attitude for example, there's a big difference.

This is fine except for the next random vote afterwards is tajo who does almost the same thing yet one is town to you and the other is scum(my). Does this, by nature, make the action null?

32 is definitely bad. Continues the snipey snipey on a likely townie, but strawmans what he said. He did not say he wanted a short day 1, he said he wanted to avoid an overly long day 1. This subtly inflames the argument against him.

32 is a satirical joke just as Porkens. Again, one is town, the other is scum(my). Same scenario, different results. Null?

Note: I've got a decent vibe from you as of now Elmo but as its going we're running to a wall of me quasi-defending Herod and you quasi-defending Artem. Which isn't good because, well, it's not good. I'm gonna take a step back a bit and look at some other things.

[SpyreX]

Not true. In fact, "scumtells" are meaningless without a specific meta on a specific player to give context. There essentially isn't such a thing as a "universal scumtell" but there certainly are player-specific scumtells. Just because the vast majority of players don't do it right (i.e. effectively) doesn't mean that they are inherently weak as a class.

See I dont subscribe to "Billy's list of scumtells" either.

I look at the ebb and the flow of the game. Of maneuvering to a position where you can win as scum versus honest and direct elimination of scum.

And, as the amount of useful meta I've seen (omg meta-meta) couldn't be measured by any device known to man I'm going to continue railing against it.

[SpyreX]

try reading http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11368 or mini 703, any of the games I've played as town in the last year... like Open 83 Polygamist mafia, which I am sure you remember. My deep meta analysis helps us win that game.

... What deep meta in 83? I remember the lists vividly and the giant back and forth about Shy Guy AND then me bringing up a little point and you saying that made Nameless scum. Which it did.

I don't remember any actual "meta" in that game.

unvote, vote: SpyreX

Le sigh. As par for the course, I'll be waiting for an explanation.

However.

Well, for one you could try reading what I wrote. I was saying that I'm generally reluctant of letting townie reads go, so I'm trying harder this game. How exactly you translated that into "I'm going to bus my buddy...." is beyond me.

Did you look at Open 123 (Vengeful) like I asked you to? In that game, I got a very strong townie read on one of the scums and didn't let go of it the entire game. Tajo (town) kept trying to convince me but I wouldn't budge, so we ended up lynching the other scum, who (hooray us) ended up being the godfather. But the point I walked away with was that I need to re-evaluate my townie reads. This is the point I was trying to share and this is the point that you so graciously bastardized.

Yes, I can't read. I love getting busted with this one. This whole time I've played this game I've had midgets stay close to me and say all these pretty little symbols out loud.

I do like how you left out something though. A couple somethings.

Another aspect of it is slight intimidation with the cast. (I would still consider myself a newbie compared to a lot of you; no, I'm not playing a newbie card) As such, I'm being extra careful with getting "reads" on all of you. I've been called out on this playstyle in another game, where I've posted this (yes, Adel, I left this game off my list because I don't think a newbie game where I get NKd the first night is worth mentioning):

The point is that I'm doing the same sort of purposefully keeping players at null in this game because you're all ICs. When I mentally "reset" a player to null every now and then, I tend to get a better read on them and feel that I'm less likely to fall into "OMG obv town" mentality, which is described above.

This isn't just "town" above. You're actively saying you're going to reset back to null and see what happens. Get where that has a definite scum motivation.

Not to mention three paragraphs on the subject. Kudos for not mentioning the rest of it.

As for 123. Nope. Haven't read it. Don't care to. "I totally am changing this because I lost as town hence I am town now" doesn't bite.

Sure. Vote: SpyreX

His "You said that scums use wagons, so you wanting a wagon must mean you're scum. DURRR!" and his twisting of my words are good enough reasons for me. He's either really stubborn and doesn't want to see my point of view, or he's a scummerson with an agenda.

Yep. Thats been my whole point.

Not anything about your play as a whole and this bandwagon jumping.

What changed between the first time "I twisted your words" and this post where you actually vote?

(Hint: Its Adel's vote)

I'd say trap sprung but my lord.

[SpyreX]

Ok, you caught me. I want you hung up high until your legs stop kicking. Darn, wish my vote was a little more subtle.

Adel voted for you too? How grand!

You what else? Korts has expressed interest in reiterating his points against you. Wish he'd hurry up and voted you.

Sarcasm aside, you're way too stubborn to be town (especially in this group). You haven't even tried putting any effort into understanding what town motivations I may have. No, it's all scum motivations, somehow.....

I didn't say anything about the vote. Everything about the

timing

i.e. the fact you have had nothing change in your stance from when you weren't voting me until when you were... except for the fact Adel also voted.

Which, get this, follows what I've been saying about your voting patterns.

1.) Ectomancer says porkens didn't "stick to his vote".
- You repeat said sentiment and vote.

2.) Adel votes for Herod
- You then build your "case" (and dont vote until Herod goes wtf)

3.) I vote for you, give reasons.
- You then rebut. At this point you say I'm 'twisting' your words and bastardizing your statements.
- Adel votes for me
- You THEN vote for me

As for Korts? Whatever. I expect if he votes for me it'll be new and different exciting ground.

And "too stubborn to be town?"
I'll raise that with "too wishy-washy to be town"

Just a gloating scum that wouldn't even consider the opposite point. Should I list every single early wagon I've seen and point out the scum on them? You yourself said that early wagons lead to unnecessary claims. So why not start a wagon and see who's going to request/demand a claim? You don't think that would be beneficial to town? Wagons = good. End of story. Scums use wagons, so we get wagons, we get scums. Me wanting a wagon for this reason does not f-ing make me scum.

And how would you point out the scum on said wagons? Would they, in fact, be the ones that joined on for spurious or non-existant reasons? Or, maybe even, just said "generating content" or what have you?

If thats the case, look in the mirror.

Wagons are a tool. They are not inherently good. The reasons for the wagon forming are the measure of their worth.

As for, scums use wagons... considering that for town to win they must in fact lynch scum... town uses wagons. Scum try to manipulate them in the right direction. Huge difference.

Your proposition of wagoning for the sake of wagoning is scummy. I can't even, from the above paragraph, figure out what your "reason" is.

So, back when I asked you to consider 186-187, you said: "And I missed those two little posts in not checking for posts while I was typing. It doesn't really change anything in my mind though."

Now, you come up with the exact little piece of my quote that you decided to use in your "case". If I'm guilty of only quoting a part of my post when saying that you're bastardizing my words, then you're guilty of only absorbing a part (whichever part serves your scummy little agenda) of my post without paying attention the general message/point of the whole post. Yes, good townies should be open to changing reads. No, it doesn't come naturally to me. Yes, Open 123 is an example of it (and no it's not "I totally am changing this because I lost as town hence I am town now"; you should probably get yourself new midgets, because I won Open 123 as town).

... what?

The first paragraph is: while I was posting you put those two up and as I don't preview I missed them. After reading them, it doesn't change anything in my mind.

How the hell does that apples = b52 bombers in you actively leaving out quotes from yourself in trying to show how I "bastardized" your words is well.

I absorbed the message. I found the reasons for the post unnecessary as town and useful as scum. So, yea, it was absorbed.

I don't even care anymore. This game is supposed to be fun. Instead, I'm irritated to no end. In every game where I try and post more than once a day to play the f-ing game, some douche starts pushing bunk against me. ( http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10182 and http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8600 , if you want other examples of activity = irritation). Score 1-0 for lurking.

I'm tired of this shit, so I'm just going to go back to watching, since it seems that the less I participate, the more fun I have.

It is a game. About doing just this. If you want to lurk after getting called out thats fine. Not going to stop me.

Appeals to emotion are tech.

[SpyreX]

@Ecto:

That is not an easy situation and I wish you all the best. However, I would personally strongly suggest asking for a replacement and staying away from mafia games until you have it sorted out: a game based on subtle (and not so subtle) emotional and mental manipulation probably isn't the best place with so much real word things going on.

However, if this is some game move (which I'd hate to be true but I do have some cynic in me). Stop. Now. This is an area to not mess around with.

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

That said, Porken's statement firmly cements him as town in my eyes. No way in hell would scum take that stance considering the probable negative repercussions from it. So, thats something.

Now, to the real work:

This would have been a good point, if my vote hopping had been opportunistic, but it wasn't:
1) I liked Ecto's sentiment and decided that Porkens would be a good place to start the first bandwagon because, you guessed it, bandwagons are good. I explicitly stated that I had no intention of seeing Proken's lynched over the said sentiment.
2) As I said many times, Hero did not deserve a vote, but he was asking for one. It is part of my personality to do what I did (i.e., stick my tongue out and vote him). Since I voted him, I decided to bring up the other things I have been mulling over at the time. Adel's vote on Hero had nothing to do with anything, and I certainly wasn't going to pursue a Hero lynch with my vote/case.
3) Here's the way I see it. You're either a) a dense townie, who doesn't see my point of view, but who nevertheless is pursuing a lead (as somebody said), or b) a scum, who is purposedly closing his ears to my PoV because you need somebody to "sink your teeth in". Currently, I'm leaning towards b). Yes, I unvoted Hero and voted you after Adel posted his vote. However, I was still going to do it on Tuesday morning, because I've decided to bring the Hero thing to a closure.

Which brings up a question: Hero, why are you still voting me? You said your reasons are different. I would like to hear them, because I've explained to you how I can both see you as more scum than town and see you as not deserving a vote, which is what I understand your main reason for voting me is. Currently, it feels like you've parked your vote.

See, you say not opportunistic yet alas.

1.) You can keep thinking shameless bandwagons are good. Thats fine. Scummy, but fine. However, if your vote isn't to push a lynch, what is it for? To see who jumps on? If thats the case then is Porkens scum because no one jumped on?

Further, if "bandwagons are good" and there's another vote on you are you going to jump on yourself? Of course not. That would be retarded. As is the generalization that bandwagons are good.

2.) If he didn't deserve a vote then

why the hell would you give him one ever

? Further, you say above that "you can see him as more scum than town" and STILL don't vote? AND again you say you've built a case that isn't designed to peruse a lynch. Really?

3.) I'm not dense. Far from it. Listening to what you're saying and parsing it out as bullshit is NOT going "lalala I can't hear you". If thats the case then you're being just as dense going "Ohh, but I am town and therefore pristine and incapable of doing something scummy"

I'm not being wishy-washy. Quite the opposite, I've been saying the same things over and over for pages now:

Sorry, I guess I didn't spell it out enough: wishy-washy with your

vote

. Yes, you're adhereing to what your saying but your actions, especially the most quantifiable and useful one a town has, speaks otherwise.

1.) You voted for Porkens "to get a wagon" that you yourself said you didn't want to see get lynched.
2.) You then voted for Hero

after making a case

then said, get this, you didn't want to see him lynched.
3.) You're now voting me for being "stubborn townie or a scum closing my eyes to your PoV".

a.) All three of these are after other votes or sentiment expressed thereof.
b.) Two of the three you never even said they were scum. Or even scummy. The third, the one attacking you, you STILL are holding to the caveat I may just be "stubborn town" in preparation that if you got your way and when my flip came out "gee welp".

These actions bespeak no actual stance on, well, anything. A reed blowin' in the wind is useless. You dont want to be on book with anything hard. Nor do you want to stand out and make a case on your own without backing.

These are scummy things. Hence my "you are scum" vote. Not "you may be" or "if" this is "you are scum and I want you lynched for it."

A vote with a purpose.

[SpyreX]

Keep in mind we're past the inquisition. They're questions because questions catch the eye.

I'm not wasting time convincing scum they are scum.

[SpyreX]

Is the opposite true? Should we be looking at folks who were kind and receptive as more possibly scum than me or those who made no comment?

No. Results that are "normal" are, really, null. Its the fact you were outside a normal response in such a way that wouldn't fit scum modus operandi that made me make my statement.

[SpyreX]

I'd like more Korts activity like this. I approve.

@Spring:

If Porkens is a "jerk" does that make him town or scum? My statement says that being a "jerk" of that nature IS a towntell considering. I can't decide if you're saying he's null or what from your statement.

[SpyreX]

You just wrote, and I can't believe this:

Here is the list of people I find scummy: The people voting me + a lurker.

I'd still love Adel to explain how MY vote is "a witch hunt" considering even if you disagree I have actual reasons for my vote. And yes, I'm singling myself out because this mystery business has ended with an unexplained vote on me.

[SpyreX]

dude, you are not at lynch -2. This isn't "Why should you vote for him" time, it is "why should he be at -2 without clear and concise cases" time -- and so far you are not helping.

I see a bullshit wagon on a (relatively) weaker player, and a bunch of blather excusing it.

I do not want him to claim, and I do not want anyone else to vote for him right now. I want to clear and concise arguments, or GTFO his wagon.

If you really need me to detail and resummarize why I think he's scum, fine. I'll get that too you again and cover the same ground again.

My case has been, sans the fact its been stretched and pulled many times, the same "clear and concise" case it was when I laid down my vote:

Someone who has been there to snipe and jump on some spurious bandwagons.
Someone who unapologetically wanted a bandwagon for "generating content".
Someone who gave a rather lengthy post explaining in detail why at any given point his reads can change. In selfsame post also gave a page 7 "feeler" list of some townies (but of course not the entire game).
Someone who is justifying this latest move with meta. Sigh. Further, with a sample set of 1. Double Sigh.
Someone who agrees that said meta is weak, apologizes and then votes.

There's been more since. However, that basis stands.

Further, if you think this wagon is such bullshit, why not pull the rabbit out finally and explain this vote on me.

And, weaker player or strong player, the coincidental fact that his list of suspects is every person voting for him + a lurker vote IS noteworthy and IS going to stand out.

[SpyreX]

I'm saying that the "everyone voting for me + lurker" vote, when taken as part of this larger game, is scummy. Player-specific would require some kind of meta, which I dont have nor care to use, and universals don't exist.

So, instead it is a "circumstantial" (for lack of better word) scumtell.

[SpyreX]

I'm getting a scummy read off Elmo now. His defense of Artem is too strong for my liking.

I've been playing around with this in my head as well (because it bugs the hell out of me).

I can't fathom that strong of a defense for a scum-buddy*. However I, independently, find Artem to be scummy as all getout. Which, well, bothers me. It is too transparent day 1 to tie yourself so close with minimal gain. Unless Elmo is scum AND Artem is town.

Yet, see Artem's play and I just dont get it.

* This assumes Artem is not one of the classic "must-save" scum roles (see recruiter, etc). If this is the case Elmo doesn't even get to defend themselves and go off the plank tomorrow.

[SpyreX]

And just curious Adel: Ever gonna explain that vote on me / your information gathering?

[SpyreX]

which other roles are "must save"?

That was the first one that jumped to mind. Considering this is a normal others that are far fetched like scum vig or doc (or maybe even more conventional watcher, etc) might do it as well.

So yes, oddly enough in my head if Artem flips Goon I'd feel a lot better about Elmo.

SpyreX, I'm more than willing to explain anything if asked. You said you didn't feel it was productive, if I remember.

Our particular train of discussion was covering the same ground and increasing in volume. Neither of which was all that helpful, imo.

I find the series of actions that Artem has done to be scummy. You don't find any of them scummy.

At this point, until we have more information, I doubt either of us are going to budge.

It's about time someone got on this bandwagon.

Substance. Soon.

[SpyreX]

I'd like to see some real content from Ecto.

I'd also love Adel to explain, well, everything.

@Elmo:

I can -kind- of see where you're coming from. Doesn't change the fact that unless I KNOW you're town I'm taking what you are saying with a gigantic grain of salt.

And Artem has still been scummier than all getout.

I did a reread and I am overly concerned with a Hero-Adel connection (mostly the Hero to Adel way). I'll detail that out later.

[SpyreX]

unvote, vote Adel

unvote, vote: Herodotus
he bailed on Atrem, and now is wagoning Tajo. I don't think that either of those players are scum.

meanwhile he has made more than 70 other posts on this site.

Bandwagon now, please.

meanwhile he has made more than 70 other posts on this site.

Bandwagon now, please.

unvote, vote:populartajo
reason: http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/search.p ... opulartajo
he is actively posting in other games, joined a large game, and is actively lurking in this game.

[SpyreX]

@SpyreX: since I established that there was no contradiction between my vote on tajo and my unvote, you've posted 13 times on this site. Why is your vote still on me?

My snipes in my WoT game and/or my setting up the mini I started modding today?

My vote is still on you because I'm totally cool with this wagon. You're obviously paying attention and yet not doing a whole lot of anything.

"Lol reactions" is weak at best.

I've played your reindeer games and still waiting for a payoff. I've actively tried to give every benefit of the doubt about it and when you post see what I did in other games that just makes the face sad.

I've asked more than once about the mystical vote on me you had but I'm assuming its also "lol reactions" as well.

I'm also very bothered by the two pieces of exchange here:

in my last game, on I replaced in on day 2, during night 2 with 12 or 13 players alive, two out of the three players with night moves two of them targeted me.

I expect to get night killed in this game, obviously.

you are talking to a person that thinks in terms of days instead of mere pages. I think you may need to find a new stalling tactic -- this one isn't going to get you anywhere.

Expecting to be a night kill and implying that there is going to be no payout for all your Q&A isn't sweet.

Add into that this really offputting Herod connection (I'm hoping to actually do that analysis today) and that is plenty fine for the vote.

So nah I'm cool.

[SpyreX]

do you still stand by this statement?

Yep. Even if you pull the rabbit out I'm still going to think meta is retarded and maybe, just maybe, accept you are an exception to the rule.

Hey Spyrex, its been 18 days, was it worth it, or should we have lynched already?

18 != 36. But, yea I wouldn't have been heartbroken if Artem or (now) Adel saw the noose. We have fell into the doldrums yet that make my eyes bleed though.

[SpyreX]

Basic Herod Namedrop Analysis:
* Basic is the most simple of copying all his posts to word and doing a Find for the names (or shortens).

Adel: 97
Artem 77
Ectomancer (Shortened to Ecto): 8
Elmo: 35
Korts: 4
populartajo: 25
Porkens: 30
Spring: 27
SpyreX: 31
Vi: 32
Zorblag: 6

So, to start.
Herod has 43 posts. That is an average of 2.25 references to Adel in some fashion through this game.

Now, Artem is also far higher than what appears to be average. However, Artem has been a focal point so being higher than the norm makes sense... but Adel being a full 20 references higher?

Also, on the flipside: Ecto, Korts and Zorblag have less than 10 references in this game.

So, there is a connection between Herod and Adel. Now, the flipside isn't really there but, there's a reason for that:

Adel hasn't DONE anything this game. Its also making my eyes bleed a little at this new poking at Porkens (when its obvious what the questions are) for "stalling" when he doesn't respond verbatim. Hypocrisy, thy name is Adel.

So, yes, I am overly concerned. Enough that either would be worth voting because I'm calling shenanigans on this mess.

Not that this frees Artem from my megalithic grasp, but for now, it can wait.

how long have you felt this way about meta?

Forever.

[SpyreX]

Sure I'll work on the namedrop on everyone. It IS useful information.

Its past the time for the start. You need to finish these thoughts.

[SpyreX]

Adel Drop:

Artem: 24
Elmo: 30
Hero: 34
Korts: 9
Tajo: 48
Porkens: 18
Spring: 24
SpyreX: 32
Vi: 26
Zorblag: 7 (16 including reference to "Troll")

Artem Drop:

Adel: 30
Ecto: 18
Elmo: 3
Hero: 57
Korts: 10
Tajo: 14
Porkens: 36
Spring: 18
SpyreX: 48
Vi: 20
Zorblag: 0 (6 including reference to "Troll")

Ectomancer Drop:

Adel: 29
Artem: 11
Elmo: 14
Hero: 10
Korts: 2
Tajo: 19
Porkens: 30
Spring: 21
SpyreX: 23
Vi: 14
Zorblag: 1 (7 including reference to "Troll")

Elmo Drop

Adel: 12
Artem: 39
Ecto: 8
Hero: 49
Korts: 17
Tajo: 10
Porkens: 8
Spring: 11
SpyreX: 27
Vi: 12
Zorblag: 8 (17 including reference to "Troll")

Herodotus Drop

Adel: 97
Artem 77
Ectomancer: 8
Elmo: 35
Korts: 4
populartajo: 25
Porkens: 30
Spring: 27
SpyreX: 31
Vi: 32
Zorblag: 6

Korts Drop

Adel: 13
Artem 36
Ectomancer: 7
Elmo: 19
Hero: 14
populartajo: 4
Porkens: 14
Spring: 6
SpyreX: 31
Vi: 14
Zorblag: 24

Populartajo Drop

Adel: 46
Artem 11
Ectomancer: 9
Elmo: 15
Hero: 56
Korts: 5
Porkens: 8
Spring: 15
SpyreX: 6
Vi: 12
Zorblag: 12 (18 including "Troll")

Porkens Drop

Adel: 26
Artem: 27
Ectomancer: 19
Elmo: 7
Hero: 24
Korts: 1
Populartajo: 9
Spring: 25
SpyreX: 24
Vi: 3
Zorblag: 1 (3 including "Troll")

Springlullaby Drop

Adel: 15
Artem: 35
Ectomancer: 35
Elmo: 7
Hero: 6
Korts: 0
Populartajo: 2
Porkens: 37
SpyreX: 17
Vi: 3
Zorblag: 6 (29 including "Troll")

SpyreX Drop

Adel: 31
Artem: 30
Ectomancer: 19
Elmo: 16
Hero: 28
Korts: 8
Populartajo: 8
Porkens: 21
Spring: 8
Vi: 6
Zorblag: 4 (4 including "Troll")

Vi Drop

Adel: 57
Artem: 57
Ectomancer: 17
Elmo: 23
Hero: 53
Korts: 18
Populartajo: 29
Porkens: 25
Spring: 10
SpyreX: 19
Zorblag: 10 (74 including "Troll")

Zorblag Drop

Adel: 21
Artem: 49
Ectomancer: 25
Elmo: 17
Hero: 16
Korts: 13
Populartajo: 17
Porkens: 16
Spring: 42
SpyreX: 19
Vi: 23


BLAH, that was a hoot. I'll do some more details later since there was a few general things (how little Zor / Korts are talked about for the most part) but the Herod - Adel amount STILL is the biggest WTF.

[SpyreX]

That was quick and dirty. If there are any glaring errors let me know. Feel free to modify if you can justify.

As an aside though...

Lets say, ohh, 20 of your mentions of Adel are unnecessary because of pronoun use.

Lets also say that, in looking in depth, you have 10 more pronoun usages for everyone else.

That would push Artem up by 10 but still have you talking about Adel 77 times.

Now, when you look at the actual interaction and flow of the game a lot of Artem comments make SOME sense but a deluge of Adel?

That doesn't connect.

[SpyreX]

On a reread, I see SpyreX being a bit suspicious. He praises me for my activity in his ISO 25, when I start attacking Artem, his top suspect; this would be natural, if kinda unwarranted, but when I mention a suspicion of Elmo for his defense of Artem he immediately chimes in that he has had similar thoughts--despite the fact that before that, he mentions Elmo over a hundred posts before, claiming to have a "decent vibe" on him.

All this is correct. I approved of your content because you laid down firm opinions on pretty much everything going on up till that point in the game. You came out aggressive and strong. Which I like.

And, Elmo has been a whats going on kind of thing. I don't understand if both parties are town AND don't know each others alignments (stupid masons) being that willing to go on the defensive over an entire case on someone. Which, of course, was exacerbated through the discussions.

Now, for numbers:

Like I said thats quick and dirty and since I haven't played with the bbcode or what have you to get it all nice and neat I'll use the compiled list Adel made.

Things that stand out to me:

1.) Herod's Adel fixation.
2.) How little overall Korts & Zorblag (sans Vi's Zorbalgopolis (which I think is caused by a lot of quoting)) are discussed.
3.) The Artem-Elmo 3 / Elmo-Artem 39.
4.) Of course, the fact that spring has NEVER mentioned Korts.

@Elmo:

Herod's 3 quiet folk stands out, but how do you tie in the Adel-factor to it?

[SpyreX]

What specifically do you believe to be the significance of my mentioning Adel's name a lot?

Thats the thing. Contextually Adel's name came up way too much to make sense. So, I'm left with some kind of scum machinations for it:

1.) You are both scum and you are, for some reason, connecting yourself subconciously.
2.) You are scum and are laying a groundwork for a later Adel lynch.
3.) You are both masons (which really means you're scum I swear).

Otherwise, I don't get it.

However, your question does raise a valid point. I'm voting for the wrong one of you right now based on this solely. Its only because I have bigger scum-issues with Adel's play that I'm voting for them at the moment.

[SpyreX]

1.) I would know better.
2.) My mentions of Adel probably do not support that.
3.) And this is the reason why I asked. Mentioning another player a lot but deciding they are not fos- or vote-worthy is probably a mason tell. Are Adel and I masons? There is no way I'm going to answer that.

But you are role-fishing.

unvote
vote: SpyreX
I'll have to re-check, but I think I'd also be equally inclined to lynch Vi.

1.) Ohh I wouldn't do that could work, but we'll get to it.
2.) The sheer volume of connect overlaps any positive or negative connontations.
3.) The only town-town scenario where it would make sense to mention another player THAT MUCH is if you were, in fact, masons. Thats not role-fishing as much as common sense.

But, hey, who am I to argue when you setup a "zomg trap sprung" scenario that makes no sense.

Except to do this:

Unvote, Vote Herod

Additionally:

1.) Why are you mentioning Adel so much?
2.) Why was your instinctive response to my bringing this up to try and downplay the numbers like its going to change anything?

I think a full analysis could be useful, but there are issues like nicknames:
For me, add 3 for "PT", 5 for "tajo" and 1 for "Tajo" meaning populartajo. And 6 for "SL" meaning springlullaby. There may be others, but I don't recall them.
Another issue is that we've used pronouns, too.

That paragraph alone has two more "namedrops" than would be necessary with pronouns. If every pronoun I've used or quoted was counted for the player it referenced, I think you'd find at least Porkens, Korts, Artem, and SpyreX would be substantially higher.
Aside from that, a lot of the "namedrops" were either quote tags or within quoted or requoted text -- I've been asked about Adel a lot, including a couple of those tortured paragraphs.

Also, "Troll" should add 2 to Zorblag from me.

Spyrex, I'm guessing you'll want to amend those counts to include more nicknames?

Also, the data set does not include (or includes by some players but not by others) nicknames, as I mentioned in 431 and 434. I've done my own numbers and two others so far;

if SpyreX's original counts were correct

, these updates based on nicknames, prior to SpyreX 427, are also correct:

Considering, since its happened, you've spent a lot of energy trying to downplay how much you've mentioned Adel's name and are voting me now under some kind of rolefishing (which is the only damn explanation of you being both town) instead of, ohh, explaining it yourself maybe this'll spark some interest.

Or, well, get you hung. Thats cool too.

[SpyreX]

It wasn't role fishing for you to mention the idea of masons. It was role-fishing to push the issue of my mentioning Adel's name often. You found a possible pro-town role tell, and made a big deal of it.

Key is possible. Could you be masons? Sure.

Does that change the fact that this behavior is suspect? No.

Does this change the fact that you could, in fact, be scum? No.

I'm not going to shoot myself in the foot on the off chance I out a PR. That amount of namedropping is highly suspect and is going to be dealt with as such.

As an aside: voting for "rolefishing" is almost as good as "lol reactions".

1.) What you have is a sequence of individual events. I cannot fully answer why I created a pattern of which I was unaware; I can answer for specific instances, and I can also give you some broad, general factors that led to the pattern.
One reason I've put a lot of thought into things Adel has said is because I understand that he is probably the top scum-finder in this game. Consequently, if I decided he was town, I'd probably put a lot of trust in his analysis, and I wanted to see where his mysteriousness was going.
Two other reasons for the quantity of namedrops are that he has asked me several questions, and because I've been asked about him many times.
2.) I discussed nicknames in order to make your counts more accurate, and pronouns in order to provide more perspective on the effective precision of the counts.

Yes, I do have a sequence of individual events... which is going to be most everything. Not sure what you're shoot for there.

As for not being aware of mentioning Adel almost 100 times this game. Can't help you there.

And if this is "they are good, so." Well, that's not going to fly. Good OR bad if you are town the fact you do not know their alignment damn well should play a role.

2.) Yes, I said its a rough estimate. I have not the time nor inclination to do a full heads on positive / negative / null read on this mess. It was done for a single reason: to show how often in comparison you mention Adel.

In that case, I have not been bright scum in past games.
But I find it hard to see how his opinion will shift from "die die die" to "I can risk the game on Herodotus not being scum" without a sanity-confirmed investigation and an already-dead godfather.
Anyways, that's my fear.

This, of course, precludes you being dead before then. Again, this bothers me (surprise) because as town why the hell would you assume you wouldn't be dead?

[SpyreX]

I missed the part where you explained how using someone's name too many times made me a suspect. Frankly, I don't think you even believe that.

Except, of course, I did.

Add into that this really offputting Herod connection (I'm hoping to actually do that analysis today) and that is plenty fine for the vote.

I didn't think I needed to spell out "Scummy person A is doing something AND person B is attached to their hip and neither of them are speaking up about it which, in fact, makes me believe there is a connection between them."

Between that and the fact I detailed how I see this connection has having an obvious scum motivation (see the you're both scum / you're scum / you're masons (scum)) I'm not sure how you could say you would think anything BUT the fact I find it suspect.

This was in answer to your question (2) -- an explanation for why I brought those things up. You seem to be treating it as something new.

I presented my data as "This illustrates Herod-Adel being connected. This is bad."

You keep, in essence, attacking the data. Under the guise of making it more accurate, sure - but pinpoint accuracy wasn't the purpose of it. It was to do one thing and one thing only.

Do you think the scum are going to even consider NKing me?

Tonight? Ever?

Well, no, but thats because I am thinkin' you be scum.

Still, the day-1 building on you being alive at LYLO is offputting.

[SpyreX]

Is that votecount right?

Did we just hammer?

[SpyreX]

Welp, huh.

Apparently I missed Ecto's vote in there / wasn't paying close attention.

Looks like that IS lynch.

[SpyreX]

For Real FOS?

Considering ohh, Herod himself, Artem, Ecto, Elmo and you posted almost a whole page without noticing too the "for real" makes little sense.

[SpyreX]

CAPS LOCK: SRS BUSINESS

I didn't think I was even the L-1 (I missed Ecto's) BUT even if that were the case I wouldn't have cared and still done it.

So, I dont get how Herod managed to not notice that he, himself, was at near lynch and opted to not say anything with the multiple posts he made after I voted.

I'd love to see the "Meta is bullshit" setup since I'm pretty sure I've been damn square on meta is bullshit since day one. See wiki et every time meta is mentioned.

[SpyreX]

Shh, lets play a new game.

Its called if I had a bullet.

If I had a bullet and Hero flips town I'd shoot: Artem
If I had a bullet and Hero flips scum I'd shoot: Adel

Now its your turn!

[SpyreX]

Now see this is a new and fun game.

@Porkens:

Why inverse from mine? How does the Hero - Adel connection work if Hero is town and Adel is scum?

@Ecto:

Adel is shot worthy regardless of Hero's alignment?

@Artem:

What is the Korts / Hero connection?

[SpyreX]

Adel why you gotta hate my name so much. GOD

If Porkens / Hero was a scumpair, why fake not knowing the hammer?

If he's town the rationale for me I get - wrong, but I get it.

[SpyreX]

But by not even giving him a chance to fakeclaim if scum why put sooo much power pressure on yourself?

WIFOM'll only get you so far and that'd be a power no-lylo kinda move.

What Artem has to say IS interesting though.

[SpyreX]

Psh, this is the best part of the game. Its like unwrapping the present under the tree.

[SpyreX]

How's that work though? If you ARE town (which I'm not buying until I see a flip) how could them normalizing change the fact your results are skewed.

[SpyreX]

Welp. Huh.

Lets just get this out of the way: I shot Artem in the face.

[SpyreX]

Vig, o course'. Maybe I have other surprises in store, but that can stay for now. I'll just say 100% no wifom I do not want a doc protect tonight.

I'm also a little baffled by the tajo kill.

Adel: NOW can we have your information analysis?

[SpyreX]

When I'm vig, I like just getting it out in the open after my shot. What can I say?

Simplifies the process and puts me in a cc / believe it situation narrowing the lynch - which is especially nice if I shoot wrong.

And, with the Artem I didn't want any "OMG FRAMING ME" or business. Nice and upfront.

I'd like more Zor, Porkens and srs DGB action personally.

[SpyreX]

Do ya now. Thats easy enough. Dont protect me tonight and I wont kill. Simple as that.

[SpyreX]

SHH My breadcrumb!

[SpyreX]

God have I ever said how much I adore meta. MMMMmmmMMmmm

Time for some thinking out loud:

If I had a bullet and Hero flips town I'd shoot: Porkens or Ecto
If I had a bullet and Hero flips scum I'd shoot: Korts

Are you ready for assumation bullet time attack? I sure am!

So, I'm operating under the premise that if they are scummy enough to shoot, he'd damn well roleblock them.

Additionally, I have to operate under the premise that we're using some kind of NaR for roles.

So, from this: barring an actual SK or something nutso, Porkens/Ecto could NOT have performed the kill (whichever was targeted, but thats moot).

Thus, we put on our scum hat: you've got to send in a night kill. The mod, hopefully, has said you have to specify WHO is sending the kill (so the roleblocking is actually helpful). You don't necessarily know WHY, but you have to assume the chance of the naughty town roles (Tracker, Roleblocker, etc).

At this point, you'd probably want to send someone to perform the kill that was NOT going to draw said roles. An under the radar.

Both Porkens AND Ecto drew -some- flak throughout the day (from each other, oddly enough as well as others). The only ones, personally, I could see being higher profile would be: Adel & Myself (maaybe Elmo).

So, this makes the gut shriek the kill was performed by one of the lower profile players. Namely the grouping of Zorblag, Korts(DGB), Vi, Spring.

(Yes I realize this is modified by the existance of scum power roles vs goons, but)

Now, for the NK:

Tajo mentioned a few players but the focus of his hunting had a singular target: Adel.

I can't decide if this is an elaborate setup to get Adel mislynched or sooo obvious we go around the WIFOM horn 3 times.

On the other front of this, Tajo mentioned suspicion specifically of two other players: Zorblag and Spring. The zigzag attack to protect themselves for suspicion and setup an Adel mislynch? I can't decide.

In short:

Artem, Herod AND Tajo all being town has just made my brain collapse on itself.

Adel is Shrodingers scum at this point: I am now worrying that is a mislynch setup / obvscum move and every time I look a cat dies.

Zorblag / Spring strike me as highly likely candidates for scum who performed the kill.

Korts, if scum, replacing because of too many words WITH multiple suspects for the next day in twilight after a town kill makes my teeth itch. I dont get it.

Preview edit:

Who'd kill tajo? The guy we hung? Silly DGB.

[SpyreX]

Vote: Adel

If this is the fireworks show that your day one play is based around, color me unimpressed.

The compilation is nice - but no analysis at all? Really?

@SpryX: why didn't you vig me?

Ohh, I thought about it. However, with herod flipping town it removed the tie that pushed it over from "wtf" to "haha busted scum" which left me with my initial choice. Thus it was when I said who I was targeting.

Assumptions:
1.

SpryeX is not mafi

a and pulling an incredible gambit
2. Tajo was killed by the mafia group
3. At least one member of the scum group has played with Tajo before (probably more)
4. The mafia group includes 3 players

Living players that stated that they have played with Tajo within the last 6 months: SpyreX, springlullaby, Zorblag, Vi (assuming he meant "tajo" when he wrote "taco"), Adel. I know that Elmo is familiar with Tajo, and so is DGB.

Conclusion: The mafia group includes one (and probably two; possibly three) out of (Adel, Elmo, DGB, springlullaby,

SpyreX

, Vi, Zorblag) .. which basically only leaves out Porkens and Ecto.

This.. well.

1.) You're not following your own assumptions for your conclusion.
2.) Your subset includes 2/3'rds of the game that is still alive.
3.) Your assumption set / hypothesis doesn't include motive that would be present from playing with tajo before ("he's awesome, thus kill him despite his sub par play") that would preclude Porkens and Ecto out of the group.
4.) This is written as a scumlist but the only way it makes sense is "clearing" Porkens and Ecto - which has no reasons besides the above.

vote: Zorblag

does anyone else see why? (I'n not being cryptic for the sake of being cryptic, I honestly think that another townie will see what I am seeing)

His play concerns me because he has stayed out of the fray and, while cool and collected, hasn't said much. He's truly "under the radar" and has stayed off of any major wagon all of day one.

However, that doesn't really explain not just giving your explanation.

I'd skimmed a lot of SpryeX's posts, and I felt that there was plenty there to fill in those blanks once I had enough time to go back and be rigorous about it.

Some, sure. Like the fact I was paired with you. However, if you want to develop your "meta" on me feel free - I know we'll be playing more and you'll see despite everything else I am hard on my stance on meta. Always. Its... blah.

Moreso, I wish I could have seen this case to conclusion. Your notes themselves preclude the expectation I am lying about my feelings of meta - why?

I think so, unless the kill was just to set me up. Otherwise, I fail to see why a scum group made up of players who hadn't played with Tajo before would nk him.

It would be useful to look though the e games that people had played with Tajo, and identify which ones he was an especially strong player in. That would help eliminate the players within the brackets, or at least point to which ones might have been especially motivated to NK him.

See, this pushes it over the top. The fixation on meta is eliminating "common" factors:

1.) Tajo could have been seen as a PR playing close to the vest.
2.) Tajo was a high-probability target for a cop investigation due to his play and his kill would waste that information.
3.) On the flipside, Tajo had minimal chance for a doctor protect versus higher profile players / watcher protection.

And thats off the top of my head. There is the WIFOM-factor of you obv-killing him / someone setting him up.

I mean, of course "meta" could have played a role but there are plenty of in-game reasons to go for the kill. So, I think you're just not trying.

[SpyreX]

@Porkens - Are you also getting the creepy feeling that we are being setup for an either/or type of lynch/vig/SK at some point? Don't get me wrong, you don't give me warm fuzzies, but my hair is raised on my arms watching this. It went from us 'drawing fire' for whomever did the NK last night, to Spyrex accusing Adel of (falsely) 'clearing' us.

Based on what Adel said as part of the conclusion WAS in essence a clearing:

Conclusion: The mafia group includes one (and probably two; possibly three) out of (Adel, Elmo, DGB, springlullaby, SpyreX, Vi, Zorblag) .. which basically only leaves out Porkens and Ecto.

It says very little about the majority of the players except leaving you two out of the potential "obv scum" group. If thats something else you tell me.

I've got some more new and exciting ideas for tomorrow as well (mostly detailing out the other one). But we'll see.

As for setting you up for vig/sk (which would be me I'd assume). How the hell are 'they' going to set you up. If I decide to shoot you (which wont be tonight fyi) you can damn well be sure you're gonna know it ahead of time.

I figure that Zorblag is scum with Vi, but I didn't want to just come out and say it.

No reasons?

[SpyreX]

You might be a tougher nut to crack than some, but Vig/SK's can be 'forced to play along' with the 'town's' wishes. You could very well have your own reasons for playing along whichever you are. I know what Adel said, but I am also aware of the discussion section where Porkens and I were basically singled out as trying to draw fire to cover the NK last night even though there were at least 3 other people who could have been included (and were, but most assuredly separately from the 2 of us)
Adel also stated those assumptions as such (which have certainly not been established as fact at all). #2 is probable, but #1, #3, and #4 are hardly such and having you and Adel pattering along at each other building this pyramid of assumptions into something even close to a given and myself and Porkens being constantly paired is suspicious as hell.

I am the toughest of nuts. I am the super-walnut, filled with smaller walnuts until you break the space-time continuum - and therein lies my fruits.

Now, please, follow me here. Yes, you and Porkens are grouped by both Adel and I. However, the rationale for said grouping is different: and therein lies the rub.

1.) I have grouped you two together as an extension of what the town role blocker said in Twilight under the assumption that if he would shoot ONE of you he would also, in fact, nullify one of you for the night.

All this means is that if one of you are scum you did not perform the kill. Which leads me to believe that, if one of you is scum, the grouping HAS to include a lower profile player.

Also, you'll notice I've never said both of you are scum. Thats because I find Porkens/Ecto the lowest probability scum pairing in the game.

2.) Adel has group you two together under a, to me, bizarre conclusion that is "Everyone can be scum but these two." Which, besides being strange and clearing you two for reasons I can't understand, does very little to push the game forward.

So its a little irking to say we're both grouping you when we're not.

Troll has played 5 games as scum, and won 4. He is the more threatening scum player.

Thats awesome and all, but actual reasons within the game not some form of the genius gambit?

[SpyreX]

I'm taking the angle of "who killed Tajo, and why" -- I did not clear them. I hoped, when I started my post, that fewer players would be in the brackets, and I'm disappointed with the results, but I think it can be taken the next step to see which players here probably have a basis for a high opinion of Tajo's play as town.

I agree that Ecto and Porkens are highly unlikely to be scum together, but no average, at this point, I see the odds of one of them being scum as being about the same as any other random pair of players containing a scum player.

No, you took the angle of "who killed Tajo for meta reasons*" and those results were, in essence, everyone but Ecto and Porkens. Which doesn't help anything.

at this point, spring and DGB are far behind the curve for contributing to the game. Elmo and Troll seem pro-town to many players, but looking at their games as scum I think demonstrates that the reasons why some players here think they are town are about the same as the mistaken townies in thier games as scum.

DGB is a replacement and is doing leaps and bounds more than Korts did. Spring too, but yet.

However, you are all but saying you think Elmo and Troll are good scum picks but not giving reasons WHY. Meta isn't a reason. What have they done in this game that would lend credence to this?

Why did you decide to kill last night? Why didn't you decide not to kill last night?

Because I thought he was scum? Why the hell wouldn't I kill?

[SpyreX]

As I see it Tajo would be one of 4 or 5 players to meet that criteria.
As I see it Tajo would be one of 3 or 4 players to meet that criteria.
As I see it Tajo would be one of 4 or 5 players to meet that criteria.

So what made Tajo special? Meta may provide that answer.

And thats off the top of my head. There is the WIFOM-factor of you obv-killing him / someone setting him up.

Yes, he wasn't the only one to fit those critera. I never even pretended to think so.

HOWEVER, my statements were all in direct response to this statement by you:

I think so, unless the kill was just to set me up.

Otherwise, I fail to see why a scum group made up of players who hadn't played with Tajo before would nk him.

It would be useful to look though the e games that people had played with Tajo, and identify which ones he was an especially strong player in. That would help eliminate the players within the brackets, or at least point to which ones might have been especially motivated to NK him.

Which wasn't "meta will help narrow it down" it was "without meta, there was no reason to kill him."

Which I immediately, and with reason, called bullshit on. ASIDE from the obvious fact he was a clear proponent of your lynch - all of the above held true. Which, initially, you disregarded entirely.

the thing that is hanging me up is your claim, and your decision to kill.

Combined with the way Hero was rapidly hammered yesterday before I got going, I'm looking at the following narrative as a possibility:

SpyreX is scum, and was expecting me to push a major case against him. He decided to setup a fake claim of Vig, and started the "if I have a gun" claim yesterday. Once this day started, SpyreX saw that there was a second kill (expected if SpryeX is a SK, unexpected if SpryeX is mafia) and SpryeX claimed.

That lack of attention and skepticism his vig claim has drawn is standing out to me.

So, lets get this straight:

1.) I am prescient scum that knew there was going to be a second kill AND it was on a target I mentioned clearly in twilight AND, due to the above, it wasn't the kill that I, as scum, actually made risking a CC from the actual vig all to set you up and clear myself.

2.) I, as SK, clearly announced my target. I then proceeded to kill that target. I then, unequivocally, both said I wasn't going to kill tonight AND that I wanted no form of protection.

OR:

3.) I am exactly what I say I am. I clearly laid it out the night before. I then, due to #2 above, said that I wasn't going to kill today to make it absolutely clear that I wasn't compulsive vig / SK thereby damning myself if there IS two kills tomorrow.

I'll give you this: I'm pretty sure this is the first concrete thing you've said that revolves directly around the game. It's enough to make Occam roll over in his grave, but its something.

[SpyreX]

and I stand by that. Are you actually saying that "The player or players who killed him have played with him before" is not very highly probably true?

As that subset makes up enough of the game that it leaves (assuming 3 scum) a whole whopping one grouping (that involves the least likely scumpair) of course its true.

Its also, at root, worth very little. You've said In 2/3'rds of the remaining game there is probably 1, 2 or 3 scum. Huzzah!

I did not "disregard entirely" I'd already worked past that. Catch up, please.

Nah, I live on page 2 of the thread. Its hard for me to read and all.

Show me where it was brought up by you directly BEFORE your statement that I bolded.

As mafia, you wouldn't have expected a second kill, and you would have no way of knowing if there was a vig or a sk in the game... but that wouldn't change your gambit. Another member of your team could eventually claim doc.

You were a likely target for a tracker, and announcing your intended kill choice would be a nice way of covering for your team. Your fakeclaim would protect you.

So, we're clear. If I'm mafia the mafia kill was artem and ? -who has kept their mouth shut thus far- killed tajo. They also were totally cool with me claiming vig and not ccing.

As for not expecting a second kill. Yea, if I was mafia before the fact we had two kills sure that makes sense. Afterwards, however, me claiming one of the kills / not immediately getting cc'd is high-risk / low reward.

SKs commonly have NK immunity. Using your kill at the direction of the town will probably be better than no killing. Winning as SK is hard, and assuming you have a NK invulnerability, then you just have to prevent your own lynch, you don't have to worry about being NK'd.

I'm not killing tonight. No matter how much begging / etc there is. Unless you're NOW going to say I'm a kill-controlled bulletproof SK that should knock it right off the plate.

But I don't get why you would choose to kill N1 but choose not to kill N2. That isn't the optimal tactic for a vig. It would be better to lay low, and not kill N1, and kill N2 when your kill would be far less swingy and random.

Because I thought he was scum. Optimal schmoptimal. If I was a single-shot dayvig I'd probably use it day 1 if I had someone I thought was scum.

Also, note that Atrem stood a good chance of being investigated by a cop last night, and had a very low chance of being targeted by a doctor.

True and if there is a cop and IF they investigated him. My bad. Wont happen tonight, promise.

[SpyreX]

I'll leave the list talk alone for now and get to the other business at hand

please reformulate this question into something I understand. I have trouble reading and all.

You've said you didn't "completely disregard" the standard reasons why tajo would be a kill choice and said it HAD to be because of meta.

I then went, no, bullshit it most definitely does not and gave a list of reasons that made sense for why he could be a kill choice regardless.

You're saying you worked past that. I'm saying show how you worked past that, in game, BEFORE I called bullshit because I sure don't remember it happening.

yes, which means that there either isn't a vig, or there is a vig that is playing it very cool.

So if there is a vig playing it very cool why in the hell would they as a vig coming out now all but guarantees I'd be scum of somesort? You're going to snipe at me about optimal play and this is alright?

And if there isn't a vig I am either mafia that is counting on that fact OR a BP SK that is hoping there isn't a cop and I get to skate to lylo from claiming at the start of day 2... that then proceeded to get immersed in attacking you (which if you are NOT scum is going to really increase the chance of my getting investigated).

Course, that must mean I am a BP / Investigation Immune / Controlled Killing SK. Right?

you claimed the person that you killed. What you are lying about is your alignment. Why would that force a cc?

Then you are saying both kills are from anti-town sources. I want this clear.

how is this an optimal tactic for a vig again?
so your defense is that you are bad at mafia?
"bad at mafia" defense part 2?

Yep. I am terrible at mafia. So bad, in fact, that I unironically am part of a group called Bad at Mafia.

The hell is this?

If this is what its boiled down to - peace out. I'm done with this game for a bit. Ad hom's are awesome and all but I'm not dealing with it.

My vote isn't moving barring some space miracle of science. Do what you will.

[SpyreX]

I'll make this good because this is gonna be my last post for a bit.

ps for SpryeX: you can't both call your group "bad at mafia" and then call me saying "what is this, the 'bad at mafia' defense" an ad hominem attack as soon as I point out the huge gaping holes in your fake claim. You did not address why you thought it was better to vig night one rather than night two. Your defense amounted to "Because I thought he was scum. Optimal schmoptimal. If I was a single-shot dayvig I'd probably use it day 1 if I had someone I thought was scum." and "True and if there is a cop and IF they investigated him. My bad. Wont happen tonight, promise." which amounts to claiming to subscribe to horrible tactics as vig, uses "my bad" as the defense to the same #2 reason you thought Tajo was killed by scum, and doesn't do anything to explain why you thought Atrem was scum after the Hero-town flip.

You like to meta so much. Check my games. If you think I'm actually saying "ohh, whoops I am just bad at this game." get your proof.

No, instead as part of our argument you opted to go: You, SpyreX, are bad at this game because your play isn't "optimal". Not, SpyreX is scum because this play benefits scum more than town. Simply, that I am bad at the game because what I did didn't fall into your worldview (which, of course, is the ironic part of "Bad at Mafia").

So, if you are scum, like I think you are.. sure, that's part of self-preservation. However, regardless: get fucked. Saying that

I

am bad at the game or variations of "learn to read" is the quickest way to suck all the fun out of it.

Although, I'll give you this. I was lying about something. I'm only a 1-shot vidge. Thats why I'm not shooting tonight - or ever again. I was

hoping

to draw a kill and use my ability as best as I could. You can meta that too if you want. There's multiple references to it too in this game.

So, lynch one of us. I dont care. If you lynch me tomorrow when Adel goes "ohh gee my left-field theories that I used to try and push this lynch were wrong" you'll get lynched. 1-1 is fine.

The only reason I'm not replacing out is, well, I dont replace out. Maybe some time to cool my jets will help but as it sits I could care less right now.

[SpyreX]

Even a day away helps quite a bit. Expect two posts. This is just answering questions / comments (for the most part):

@Spyrex - wtf? There is no reason you should have let yourself be goaded into that. A lack of 2 NK's would have made me believe a lot more in the Vig claim (roleblocker is dead). At least you would possibly have gotten targeted for a kill, but now you just give up that you are essentially a VT after last night?

Two reasons:

1.) Pure irritation. Yea, its a game on the internet and all but any form of I am bad at the game gets under my skin. Sure I shouldn't have shown my hand so early but:

2.) I

was

afterall, lying. Its not hard to see after the way this went if another lynch went through that wasn't Adel or I that tomorrow when I was asked to kill I'd have to go "welp, nope sorry" and thus be an unnecessary suspicion at lylo.

@Spyrex: do you plan on posting ever again? What is it with people being so susceptible.

(meta meta blah blah) You know firsthand how irritated I get at the hom' defense. But, a breather does do wonders.

and finally:

as a one-shot vig, why would you use your kill the first night possible, instead of waiting until a later night when you would have a better shot of killing accurately?
Why did the Hero town-flip made you more confident that Atrem was scum?

I thought Artem was scum. I eliminated that from my set of suspicions allowing me to look at the game more openly instead of fighting with him AGAIN today. Further, it allowed me to try (and fail) to setup my own kill tonight as a VT protecting other power roles (which I have to assume exist because 1 shot vig + rb doth not a full townset make).

The only time I wouldn't shoot n1 if I had the ability to kill was if I had no scum reads. That wasn't the case. So I shot.

The hero town flip didn't make me more confident that Artem was scum. The important part was it eliminated the connection I saw between the two of you. Artem was independently scummy and I took my shot.

[SpyreX]

Now, to the real matter at hand. I'm even going to bold this to make it clear:

If Adel and I are both town, we're probably going to lose.

I'm not letting this drop. Ever. Thus, if we are both alive we are going through this every day. I'd power vote in 3-man lylo after this bullshit.

So, I'm eliminating the other options. Today's lynch BETTER be one of us.

And, if its me, when I flip exactly what I said don't you dare let Adel get out of this.

But, to the other side: Lets lynch Adel.

1.) We've STILL got this whole mystical questionnaire that hasn't developed into anything.
2.) The never explained Day 1 vote on me.
3.) The "lol reactions" vote on tajo.
4.) The graphs that look really pretty but have no analysis or anything tied to them (see the difference between this which appears pro-town versus the questionnaire that would actually require use)
5.) The "stalling" business with Porkens.

However, those are all little issues in comparison to the logical explosions of today regarding me:

Lets look at the first real set of solid logical opinions that was laid down:

Assumptions:
1. SpryeX is not mafia and pulling an incredible gambit
2. Tajo was killed by the mafia group
3. At least one member of the scum group has played with Tajo before (probably more)
4. The mafia group includes 3 players

Living players that stated that they have played with Tajo within the last 6 months: SpyreX, springlullaby, Zorblag, Vi (assuming he meant "tajo" when he wrote "taco"), Adel. I know that Elmo is familiar with Tajo, and so is DGB.

Conclusion: The mafia group includes one (and probably two; possibly three) out of (Adel, Elmo, DGB, springlullaby, SpyreX, Vi, Zorblag) .. which basically only leaves out Porkens and Ecto.

Now, minus how worthless the conclusion is on heart lets step forward just a little bit:

I'm calling a SpyreX + 2 out of (Porkens + Vi + Ecto) scumgroup.

Of this new and improved "scumgroup" only one person even begins to follow the conclusions of before. Vi. Now, yea yea its all moot because assumption 1 Adel is saying is now invalid (of course assumption 1 has nothing to do with the conclusion but) the fact that the entirety of this set of conclusions is now invalidated mentions nothing.

Then, there is the attack on me:

1.) Of the three options for my alignment Adel opts to disregard the one where I am town doing exactly what I am saying I did in favor of more far-fatched scum machinations where I started setting up an Adel mislynch yesterday in twilight and was quick enough on the ball to adjust (if mafia) today to make it work. Which is fine but:

Remember, I'm also bad at mafia. Which is it?

2.) Adel has been sliding along under the guise of an in-depth meta analysis on all the players. Yet (and keep in mind I think meta is retarded but) when it comes to light that what I've done with this matches my "meta" that meta is to be disregarded because meta can be manipulated? Really?

3.) I didn't know numbers were so apt to drastically different interpretations:

note that Porkens mentions SpryeX a lot, but SpryeX doesn't mention Porkens much.

As of the graph, I mentioned Porkens 21 times. The most I mentioned was at 31 and the least was Zorblag at 4. Porkens lies right in the "active median" for me (average for the group of active players).

On the flipside, Porkens mentions me 24 times. Which of the active/inactive slide for him nestles in even closer.

So, with a difference of three (as both fall within averages for the divide) somehow Porkens mentions me a lot but I dont mention him much. How's that work?

This, of course, leads us into:

4.) Adel has laid out this elaborate case on why I am scum. Now, that was dropped for Vi but then has been now dropped in favor of an Adel / Porkens voteoff?

The hell does that work? I mean, you've spent the most time saying how I'm scum / blah blah and how I've setup mastergambit(TM) to get you mislynched AND it goes without question that my vote isn't moving.

With all this, why in the hell would you opt for a third person instead of just letting the wagons compete on us?

Is it because, as is obvious from the answers others are giving, your theories are wack and you know that in a me/you today you'd get lynched thereby all but clearing me? Whereas Porkens has been lurkin' it up a bit much and there is a chance you could win that and force this issue tomorrow at lylo?

By God, I think that just might be it.

Ohh, and as an aside:

If you started a case on me why didn't you pick up and finish your "meta" analysis trap sprung about my talk about meta? Because it didn't fit in?

My vote isn't moving. This isn't even for Adel to respond to - I forgot the classic blunder of "convincing scum they are scum."

But, seriously, if one of us isn't lynched today I am not going to feel bad if we lose. The gauntlet is thrown.

[SpyreX]

Huh... that bolded section is supposed to be quoted. But, you get the drift

[SpyreX]

I mis read the chart, and read 8 (the number of times you mentioned spring) instead of 21 (the number of times you mentioned Porkens).

And noticed it before or after I brought it up? Keep on keepin on I guess.

I don't think that you are bad at mafia, which is why I have trouble accepting that you would use your 1-shot vig on Atrem following a Hero-town flip.

Gee that meshes up well with what was said before. Allow me to explain again:

I thought Artem was scum. Before I noticed how bad Hero was fellating you yesterday I was on Artem. I'm not sure what is so mystical considering I said clear out I was shooting Artem in twilight.

If you have trouble accepting that people are going to play roles different and I see enough gain in shooting someone I think is scum / trying to draw a NK for it early game versus waiting: get over yourself.

compare your posts in that game with your posts in this game. In that game, during day 1, you seemed a lot less invested than in this game, and your posts were much shorter on average. Your posting behavior (expressed as words/post) in that game does not align with your posting behavior in this game.

I'm not talking about the posts. I'm talking about the actions.

But, yes, comparing post quality when a mafia lept all over himself to get hung is a fair comparison.

And this has nothing to do with the fact you say "Yes, it matches his meta but disregard that lynch hoo"

the danger of you being town. I don't tunnel. I'm taking the case against you to it's logical conclusion, especially as you continue to make points that don't add up, and so long as you continue to change your story, and fail to answer my questions. In the meantime, I'm attempting to identify who your partners are.

Hurf hurf. What doesn't add up? I'm talking in the normal sense not the "I'm bad at mafia because I dont play like you' sense. As for changing my story ASIDE from laying out I was 1-shot what have I changed?

Also, I love "You may be town but I'm looking for your partners"

if I get lynched, and you are town, then it is probably game over for the town.

That works both ways. I swear to God if I get lynched and they don't powerlynch you I will probably explode.

Why aren't you suspicious of Porkens again? What logic lead you to conclude that Him and Ecto can't be town together?

... The hell about them being town together? I do NOT think they are scum together because of Porkens reaction to Ecto's problems day 1. Too high risk / low reward. Thats the big reason why I'm not "suspicious" of Porkens.

The hell does that matter though? I've got one vote. Its on you. Any opinions I have on other players can sit until this is dealt with.

no, I data dumped. In our game together as partners in Polygamist, I did a deep meta on FL, and used my meta knowledge of Sklitzer and Shy Guy (Guardian) to ensure our victory -- which you've given me props for on your wiki page an in the "are you a good player" thread.

Lets look at these:

I know, somehow, I was instrumental to the town actually pulling this out. However, I'm still not sure what I did. The mess around the hammer hurt my head - how do you not lynch someone who says they are scum? However, my partner was liquid awesome. A lot of fun all the way through. I think, if I ever do a Poly, I am going to push AGAINST the massclaim early even harder.

Adel - Adel was my partner in one of my first games and I really like the play. Aggressive without being tunneled. Its good stuff.

I'm pretty sure (as I said it) that the part I was talking about was after I posted some vote stuff and you called Nameless out as scum. Not anything to do with meta.

*As an aside: I love the fact you went to my wiki and started some hunt about me lying about meta when on my wiki it says my feelings about meta. Selective analysis hooo!

does this explain why you aren't answering my questions?

What other questions do you have? Go ahead and line em up.

please play to win.

OHH GOD MY THINKING YOU ARE SCUM MEANS I AM NO LONGER PLAYING TO WIN ALAS I AM DEFEATED

God damn your ego knows no bounds.

@SpyreX: if you are town, why do you think the mafia failed to jump all over your failings like I have?

The honest answer? The mafia (i.e. your partners) know that you're not going to get me lynched on space-voodoo theories and want nothing to do with tying themselves to you in this boat that, one way or another, is going down.

The me-to-you answer: My "failings"? Remember when I told you to get fucked? Yea, that was good times. I'll remember it fondly.

[SpyreX]

Yes DGB and I copied that from Adel (who is soo town).

@Adel:

I'll lay off if you do. Deal?

[SpyreX]

@DGB:

Without using meta, why is Adel obvious town this game?

[SpyreX]

note that I am pounding out posts rather quickly. Errors are bound to creep in. It was an honest mistake.

If its an honest mistake sure - but does that mean you're just fishing for reasons for me to be scum (and now tied to Porkens) for it?

I don't see why claiming that re-enforces your claim. Breadcrumbing your fakeclaim day 1 is good scum play, and your breadcrumb didn't actually tie you to your claim. As scum, no down side.

Sans the fact that I would be banking on there being no vig if I was scum.
If I am SK, by saying I am one-shot I have eliminated my ability to kill OR just screwed myself.

So, that only reinforces my claim when combined with the next day. Sure, in and of itself it means nothing.

as a 1-shot vig, shooting night 1 is sub-optimal to waiting until a later night. This is actually one of the few clear cases where one style of play is inferior. It isn't a matter of "style" -- simply a matter of accuracy and effectiveness.

Then I am inferior. I'd do it again in a heartbeat. So, yea, its a matter of "style" when I see definite advantages

way to go, directly ignoring what I typed again. Yes, you were a 1-shot vig in that game, and you shot N1. Looking at another metric of behavior, beyond the simplistic action, your style of play doesn't match like I would expect it to if you had the same role. to doing it (not the least of the cheers and huge swing if I had hit scum).

And I said the actions matched. Of course the posts didn't because, in that game, a scum all but fell over themselves getting lynched day 1. There was no need for large posts because the target was decided.

So, comparing my actions considering the roles = sure on a meta level.
However, comparing my posts considering how different the game has went = blah.

How is that ignoring what you said?

You've claimed that you thought Atrem was scum making obvious mistakes, and Hero was lynched hella fast, so I do think it might be a fair basis of comparison.

Yep. And I shot him for it.
And Hero's connection to you still makes no sense and I'm not even the least bit sorry for that lynch.
How that compares to the other game where mafiaplayer exploded and then went "I'm some kind of death miller" after trying to get me modkilled... I jsut dont know

(the above answers are classic examples of why meta is retarded)

isn't that enough? Your claim that you wanted to draw the NK doesn't explain why you changed your claim without the pressure of votes.

The shitstorm and absolute distaste I have for the "you are bad at mafia" clouds the judgment. And it was becoming apparent that I was going to be asked soon for a kill which I couldn't produce. I nipped that in the bud.

mis-quote.

Yea, beacause it wasn't quoted? I'll give the quote if you'd like:

the danger of you being town. I don't tunnel. I'm taking the case against you to it's logical conclusion, especially as you continue to make points that don't add up, and so long as you continue to change your story, and fail to answer my questions. In the meantime, I'm attempting to identify who your partners are.

So, I guess mine is a misquote. "You may be town, but I'm looking for your partners and not voting for you any more despite my case on you being scum"

why couldn't that be scum distancing?

Why aren't you suspicious of Porkens? (4th try?)

Not liking my answer doesn't mean its not an answer but we'll go again:

Porken's response to Ecto feels like a town response. It doesn't make sense for it to be either a bus or a Porkens/scum Ecto/town move because of the potential for instantaneous blowback + minimal gain.

so you want me lynched before any other players are looked into? especially Porkens

Look into them. I'm not stopping you. But, yes. Your lynch I am more than confident is a scum lynch so there ya go.

wiki pages are primarily used for bragging and player meta creation. You've built a meta that states that you "play for fun" rather than "playing to win" which is used to excuse you sub-optimal play, and you've built a meta of hating meta (albeit full of exceptions exceptions weasel words) so that you can ignore that part of play. Clever.

..what? Where/how/what the hell do you get that I dont "play to win" from?

As for all these exceptions: go for it. Show em. Show that I am secretly all about the meta and this is all an elaborate ruse.

For bonus points: show how this has anything to do with anything at hand.

read my freaking posts, and look for question marks.

No. I think I've answered any pertinent questions. If I've missed some and am going to continue to miss them due to some secret scum machinations bringing them into light in a concise manner benefits you and makes me look bad, no?

Whereas just going over and over he isn't answering questions well...

wouldn't that same behavior be better explained if they aren't my partners and are just sitting back and enjoying a townie fight?

A possibility if you're play was only slightly scummy. I don't see it as such.

if you are town, your failings include:
1. using your one shot N1
2. claiming without pressure
3. changing your claim without pressure

1.) I did it. I'd do it again. I see enough reason for it.
2.) Claiming without pressure makes sense when I am a 1-shot TRYING to get killed.
3.) This is a "failing" because, yes, I got hot-under-the collar with your hom'in.

So, 1 & 2 I'd do again and again. 3 was a mistake, sure.

And if objective players aren't expressing skepticism and thats the huge issue - why are you focusing on me? Why aren't you asking THEM why they didn't?

Preview edit:

not yet. You've claimed, so I'm going to continue poking you until I am convinced of your alignment.

God in heaven do you really think thats what I was talking about? I was talking about the degrading into incivility. I'm not going to stop pushing on your lynch.

[SpyreX]

I don't agree with this. He was a power role, and he was suspicious of certain players, and his wagon day 1 got busted. He wasn't on the Hero wagon.

Soo... the mafia knew they were hitting a power role when they did it?

And someone who almost got lynched is a good shot?

Especially one who said they "made their stance clear even without the vote" on the wagon? That you, yourself, made mention of?

[SpyreX]

that actually does make it testable. I stand corrected.

Damnit all I'm pretty sure I said just that and sure didn't get that response.

GOODDDD

[SpyreX]

Ohh yea if there is a full vig that didn't shoot that shoots tonight / an SK that was blocked or what have you I know I'm full well boned.

However, lynching Adel and having a scum flip SHOULD help some.

[SpyreX]

playing to win is not inherently respectful (you neglect the exploitation of stress and psychological tells) or enjoyable (other than the feeling you get from winning, in the meantime it is too much hard work)

Nor is it inherently disrespectful. If you really think that statement somehow means "I am not playing to win" I can't help you.

you state that meta defenses are invalid.

I guess I can be a little more clear with my distaste of gut and meta.

Of course I use them. Everyone does when they play to some level. However, my distaste is when the analysis process stops at this point. I've had gut reads and then went back and looked and, not surprisingly, found other points of play to 'back' my gut read.

The same goes for meta - if someone is playing differently I'll look and see what the difference is and how its affecting the game.

Meta defenses are blah all the time as far as I can tell.

I'm really not sure what you're aimin for here. Meta is retarded and any form of "this is because of META" is retarded. If, due to playing with someone, I see something different about their play it may force me to go back and reread and find actual for real reasons that their play is off.

So, yes. Meta is retarded. I did say meta defenses are also retarded.

You win?

[SpyreX]

Are you meta? How could my saying meta is retarded be construed as "You, Adel, the person, are retarded."

In contrast:

so

your

defense is that

you

are bad at mafia?

Is directed specifically to me, SpyreX, the player.

The name, if you see no irony in naming yourself Bad at Mafia on all levels, doesn't change one whit that that is an attack on me directly as a player.

As for telling you to get fucked? No. That wasn't respectful. That, however, came after you said "welp your just bad at mafia." That is a visceral response to your actions towards me.

As for the bolded.. cool?

ANYWHO, two legitimate questions:

1.) If I, in fact, was lying about my feelings towards meta - what was the scum motivation and scum gain considering who has died?

2.) If you, in fact, are town why did you not notice/care/say anything about how often you were mentioned by Herod contextually?

[SpyreX]

as scum with an especially high opinion of me, I expect that you (as scum) wanted to discredit me and my approach starting with page 1, and then after hero named me as town, and you couldn't count of me not having doctor protection.

I think one of your other scum buddies (Ecto?) named me as their target, "if" they had a gun.

If that is the case then any other game I have said meta is retarded is a buildup to pull this maneuver here?

day 1 was cut short by you and porkens rapidly lynching hero without even giving hero a chance to claim.

If

I

noticed it as a third party to the business how did you, who was being referenced, not notice it beforehand?

If someone had mentioned me damn near 100 times and we had no connection and I was town you can be sure I would have said SOMETHING about it.

How is that even an answer to my question though?

[SpyreX]

Gee, lets see:

Ohh meta, how I have missed you.

1.) Meta is retarded.

2.) These situations, while similar on the surface, are different enough that the use of meta regardless of statement 1 is not truly applicable.
3.) You are pushing your OWN meta on the actions of another player.
4.) AtE by itself isn't a scumtell. AtE in response to a scummy action IS a scumtell.

1.) Keep in mind I have no "play style" analysis on Pops. I haven't looked at his other games nor will I. I am basing it off this game. Thus, and if you like to look at my old games you'll see this sentiment:

Meta is retarded

, and if he's playing scummy NOW I want to lynch him for it now. If that's his meta, then we'll do this dance in every game we play.

This is the one thing I give you 100% on. You are right and I absolutely shouldn't have given Gimbo ANY slack because of the fact he is/was absolutely nutbag crazy and would do just that as town. I still think

metas are retarded

and reading that (albeit months ago) makes me a little sad at myself too.

I'd tell you to check my other games but that'd be meta. Wink Rest assured,

I think meta is always retarded

and people who play scummy should be hung for playing scummy and not have the free out when they are actually scum. So, if you think this is a point against me because you dont agree - well, thats really not a good reason now is it? (Would that be meta-meta?)

Meta is retarded

. This play is bad. Defending this play regardless of his alignment is bad.

So, you've ruled out KMD now as well on the grounds of..? You've done a lot more defending then hunting, for sure.

Now I get to rant on my favorite mafia topic...woo!

Yes, of course everyone has a playstyle. That is a given - each player, by the nature of being a human being, has a "meta". In the course of every game (when people have played together) it will play a role, but it should be a subtle role - seeing how people play could have a myriad of reasons and when used properly it is an excellent boost to a case on someone.

This, however, does not translate into meta being a shield for scummy actions. EVER. It is THIS use of "meta" that is far, far more common and, really, wrong. If a player is doing things that are by nature scummy (not voting, for example) then every game I would push on it because it is bad town play. Meta is not, and should not, be a method for scum to hide or for town to play poorly. As for responsibility? If I'm wrong about you and you are actually town I'll only be irritated because we've lost a town which makes the game harder to win - I wont wring my hands wondering if meta could have saved you; it is your responsibility to play the best damn game you can and if you are doing scummy things to not do them anymore. Not mine.

I'll hang scummy players every chance I get and I will never, ever, ever feel bad about it. I haven't had a lot of time on here yet but I think in every damn game there has been at least one player who was scummy as a "meta" and every game I wanted them gone and will continue to do so.

Using meta as a defense is always going to be retarded.

Using meta as part (not the whole) of a case is what it is meant for. I will never back down on that.

Thats enough from me for tonight - I hope there's more discussion tomorrow (although I'll be gone most of the day).

Ok, someone defending someone else based on

"meta" is retarded.

TRYING TO DEFEND YOURSELF WITH META AGAINST A BASELESS VOTE IS FLABBERGASTING.

Meta's are retarded.

Your meta (apparently being as scummy as possible) is double retarded. Do I know if that makes you scum? No, that was my big change in heart. Do I think you're scummy as all getout? Yes.

So, yea, once or twice I've made my stance clear.

noticing something, and picking the right time to comment on it are two separate tests of mafia proficiency.

Then I'll be happy not being proficient because why the hell would you let 100 attempts connecting you slide as town.

[SpyreX]

A question for SpyreX: Should Adel be town who would you think be most likely to be scum at this point either from a scum team angle or from individual actions?

For everyone: is it your impression that many people find Troll to be pro-town or did earlier in the day? Do you think that Troll be pro-town?

Troll be under the impression that most have Troll neutral to scummy and be trying to confirm this.

1.) If Adel is town I all but accept game over tomorrow. Almost all my reads are tainted by my Adel belief. Further I am very interested in the nightkill as well.

Singularly... probably Ecto.

2.) I find you neutral. Still. Its bothersome. I would love to explore it later. IF Adel is scum I'd push you towards town.

[SpyreX]

I'd imagine (and apparently am wrong already) that most are neutral or slight leanings.

[SpyreX]

from the POV of a town player, each other player (assuming 3 mafia and no sk) has a 36% chance of being scum right now.

50% above baseline is a lot of confidence, and is rare without a sanity-confirmed cop investigation (which is still less than 100% due to the possibility of unexpected role interaction).

You are basically saying that you, as town, are willing to accept a coin flip for the result of this game... your actual level of confidence can't be over 50%, regardless of what you think it is. This is called tunneling, and it is hella common in active townies that get other active townies lynched.

Yea, my confidence from your play can and is over 50%

But lets just say it was 50% on the head. That being higher than the baseline makes you a good lynch, no?

wait, are you characterizing SpryeX's moves as being the worst possible?

fuck, this is getting untenable for me. I basically bought SpryeX's claim as soon as he admitted to the 1-shot part, but I felt like I needed to continue rolling with it in order to defuse my wagon.

If am not what I say yes doing what I did is about the worst thing possible I could have done.

... and then lol, gambit? You're saying since I said I was one-shot you're... I... what?

Votes, please. Now.

At this point Troll thinks that Adel be more likely to be town than scum. Troll no has interest in lynching him this day. Troll similarly would prefer not to lynch SpyreX or Vi.

Troll's top choices currently be Porkens and springlullaby. If other wagons of interest develop Troll will state opinions about them but Troll no be interested in saying why Troll thinks that others might or might not be town at this time.

Troll would like it much if SpyreX would go through the exercise of assuming that Adel be town and figuring out who be the most likely to be scum based on that. Troll no cares if him changes his vote but Troll wants to see a more what him will come up with.

After lol, gambit you're cool with this?

But, anyways you've just said to me:

SpyreX, pretend everything is the same. Except you're a fairy princess. And you have a magic unicorn. And you have three heads. And gravity is subjective. Also, your unicorn can fly.

I'm jokingish, but pretending Adel is town is not useful to me. Adel is scum. If not nothing in this game makes sense and we lose tomorrow.

[SpyreX]

If Adel is scum at least one of (Ecto, DGB, Zor) is scum.

Discuss.

The knot is Gordian and I have given the solution.

[SpyreX]

Elmo makes me go around in circles, moreso day 1 than day 2 oddly enough.

All in all I can understand the process and the town motivations so I lean that way.

[SpyreX]

Ohh Zor you were looking a bit too deep at the reasons:

All three of you, DGB and Ecto just went "lol, gambit? Sweet."

[SpyreX]

@Spyrex.

Why are you setting this as Adel town/Spyrex scum or Spyrextown/adelscum scenario?

If Adel flips town, why should it be conviction of your guilt?
If you flip town, why should it make Adel scum?

I guess its not an "either / or" scenario. However, that doesn't change one iota that I think Adel is scum for not only the attack but the method of attack and doubly now for "lol gambit."

Adel is scum NOW, however if I were killed and flipped town that really eliminates the left-field arguments for my alignment brought up and leaves it squarely on "Pushing the non-occam's answer in self-preservation" which is scum++.

As for the other perhaps its just the general "Wow, he was pushing HARD for that lynch. Mega hard. Maybe he's scum..." and then back to the awesome Adel-logic for trying to push my lynch.

@DGB:

Saying that's what you felt is all awesome but your first post afterwards is:

We could move forward and lynch s-lullaby. Just an idea.

Which doesn't give me any feelings of that nature.

I don't see what Adel is up to. But I'm not going to lynch Adel for the same reason you've been complaining that he is doing to you and that is voting for sub-optimal play. You don't lynch a claimed Vig on day 2, there is no need in general, even if an SK.
Adel is clearly experienced enough to know that. Why would it surprise me for him to say gambit and admit it is not optimal play and he was looking for leapers?

Its not a question of "sub optimal play" its a matter of the attacks themselves. And the rest of the play this game.

The unexplained votes day 1.
The "stalling" business with Porkens.
The meta questionnaire that hasn't been used for anything.
The lack of..anything.. concerning Herod's fixation.
The selective use of meta. (see me, Zorblag "Being good as scum" when his town record is percentage-wise better)
The unnecessary ad hom's with me.
The difference in reactions from what I said versus what Elmo brought up.
The "lol gambit" after it became apparent not only was I NOT going to get lynched BUT that the attack itself was going to get her lynched.

Ultimately, really, the ONLY reason I can see that no one has hammered is that "Ohh, Adel is just being Adel."

Which isn't going to fly.

[SpyreX]

Why isn't Elmo on that list? Because he hadn't posted between lol gambit and my statement.

I don't get you though. If it so important that you're better than me then you can have it. Its not fun playing the game with you.

So, you win I guess. I have no desire to ever play with you again, good or bad.

Mod: Requesting Replacement