Mini 788 - Fantasy Mafia [OVER]

[Mixologist]

Also before I forget:

@Mod- I will be V/LA the 23rd and 24th. Expect little to no content.

[Yaw]

@Mod- Can we get prods on our MIA's?

Sens happens to be away for the weekend. I'll prod if you're more specific about who you want prodded. Otherwise, it'll get done when he gets back Monday or Tuesday.

In the meantime, have a

Vote Count:

Andycyca - 4 (KMD, Tony, ortolan, Goatrevolt)
ortolan - 3 (Sudo, Shadow, Andycyca)
TonyMontana - 1 (xofelf)

Not voting - 4 (orangepenguin, Starbuck, Empking, Mixologist)

With 12 alive, it takes 7 to lynch!

[Goatrevolt]

While wonderful in the sense of theory, I'm not sure it really works out that clean.

Nah, it doesn't always work out clean. I've seen townies be hypocritical before, most often in the case of a lurker attacking someone else for lurking. I've been in that position before, and sometimes you just have to suck up the hypocrisy and push the envelop anyway, if you legitimately feel the other player is scum.

Townies try to act in a manner that benefits the town, but there's not really a consensus on what consitutes a townie action, so what seems like a good townie move to the player making it could easily look scummy to another.

Right, but that's not hypocrisy. That's two different people with differing viewpoints. Hypocrisy would be more like me being aggressive early on, and then later attacking someone else for aggressive behavior, suggesting that it's scummy to be aggressive.

So how do you judge hypocrisy on a person's actions, if the motives are potential extremely different for a non-obvious reason?

Hypocrisy is if someone attacks someone else for an action that they themselves are also guilty of. In this case, I think Andy is being hypocritical for attacking Ortolan over continuing the "silly discussion phase" when Andy took part in the "silliness" himself.

It was just a question. I'm not sure which way we should be going as I have never played with any of you before. I don't know how you play when you are scum or when you are townie, and the same for everyone else.

Ok, but why specifically did you suggest Empking? Why didn't you instead say "shouldn't we be looking at Goat? or "shouldn't we be looking at KMD?" What made you pull Empking out of the pack?

[ortolan]

Andycya has yet to account for his scummy behaviour, this is frankly unnaceptable.

===[]

Mod: please prod Andycya

[Andycyca]

Sorry, been away all weekend. Will answer tomorrow (I'd appreciate any specific quesitons you may have besides the points already in the table)

[Starbuck]

Ok, but why specifically did you suggest Empking? Why didn't you instead say "shouldn't we be looking at Goat? or "shouldn't we be looking at KMD?" What made you pull Empking out of the pack?

Because Emp was the other person recently being discussed.

[Starbuck]

Recently as in when I posted.

[ortolan]

59 is filled with reasons

Long story short 24 looks very much

not

like a joke post but you later claimed it was (in 33), you then tried to hurry through an unreasoned bandwagon in 57. You haven't posted anything of content since.

[Empking]

KMD: Why are you voting Andy?

[TonyMontana]

Long story short 24 looks very much

not

like a joke post but you later claimed it was (in 33), you then tried to hurry through an unreasoned bandwagon in 57. You haven't posted anything of content since.

This.

[Mixologist]

Tony would you respond to Goat's request for evidence of why being scum is a town-tell. I am confused over the thought process.

[TonyMontana]

Nothing in that discussion was serious. Not Ortolan, and I assume goat was playing along as well.

[Kmd4390]

KMD: Why are you voting Andy?

The way he went after Goat and then called it sarcasm.

[xofelf]

unvote

sorry about the lack of posting but i'm staying with some friends that don't have good internet access so i have to go to the library to do so.... so V/LA for a while :/

[Sudo_Nym]

While wonderful in the sense of theory, I'm not sure it really works out that clean.

Nah, it doesn't always work out clean. I've seen townies be hypocritical before, most often in the case of a lurker attacking someone else for lurking. I've been in that position before, and sometimes you just have to suck up the hypocrisy and push the envelop anyway, if you legitimately feel the other player is scum.

Townies try to act in a manner that benefits the town, but there's not really a consensus on what consitutes a townie action, so what seems like a good townie move to the player making it could easily look scummy to another.

Right, but that's not hypocrisy. That's two different people with differing viewpoints. Hypocrisy would be more like me being aggressive early on, and then later attacking someone else for aggressive behavior, suggesting that it's scummy to be aggressive.

So how do you judge hypocrisy on a person's actions, if the motives are potential extremely different for a non-obvious reason?

Hypocrisy is if someone attacks someone else for an action that they themselves are also guilty of. In this case, I think Andy is being hypocritical for attacking Ortolan over continuing the "silly discussion phase" when Andy took part in the "silliness" himself.

I know what hypocrisy is. My point, and perhaps I didn't make it so well, was that different situations can look different. A player can look hypocritical for attacking silliness while himself being silly, even though the two contexts are different. There's frequently more than one aggressive player in a game, but they don't draw the same level of heat for that aggressiveness, purely because one of them is doing it differently (possibly better) than the other.

[Goatrevolt]

Nothing in that discussion was serious. Not Ortolan, and I assume goat was playing along as well.

Actually, my vote on you was somewhat serious, but you're right that I was just playing along with the scum being town-tell deal.

I know what hypocrisy is. My point, and perhaps I didn't make it so well, was that different situations can look different. A player can look hypocritical for attacking silliness while himself being silly, even though the two contexts are different. There's frequently more than one aggressive player in a game, but they don't draw the same level of heat for that aggressiveness, purely because one of them is doing it differently (possibly better) than the other.

Gotcha. And I agree. It depends a lot on the context.

Andy: Joke or no, could you answer my questions in 25?

[Kmd4390]

Nothing in that discussion was serious. Not Ortolan, and I assume goat was playing along as well.

Actually, my vote on you was somewhat serious, but you're right that I was just playing along with the scum being town-tell deal.

If it was "somewhat" serious, why make it look like a joke?

[Goatrevolt]

Nothing in that discussion was serious. Not Ortolan, and I assume goat was playing along as well.

Actually, my vote on you was somewhat serious, but you're right that I was just playing along with the scum being town-tell deal.

If it was "somewhat" serious, why make it look like a joke?

I didn't make it look like a joke. I voted him completely separately than the discussion over "scum being town tell" stuff. That came later.

[Kmd4390]

Nothing in that discussion was serious. Not Ortolan, and I assume goat was playing along as well.

Actually, my vote on you was somewhat serious, but you're right that I was just playing along with the scum being town-tell deal.

If it was "somewhat" serious, why make it look like a joke?

I didn't make it look like a joke. I voted him completely separately than the discussion over "scum being town tell" stuff. That came later.

You said you voted him "For great justice!"

That looks like a joke to me. If there was seriousness to it, you should have been pointing it out. Otherwise, your vote means nothing more than a jokevote.

I also don't like the "somewhat". Either it was a joke or it was serious.

[Goatrevolt]

You said you voted him "For great justice!"

That looks like a joke to me.

Why would I randomly joke vote someone in the middle of real discussion without any reason? Besides, why would I point out now that my vote was serious, long after the fact, when nobody even asked me about it? Am I lying for no discernible reason about something that isn't even that important?

If there was seriousness to it, you should have been pointing it out.

I like to let people react first, sometimes. In this case, nobody did. I moved on to Andy who was much scummier.

I also don't like the "somewhat". Either it was a joke or it was serious.

It was serious. Somewhat reflects the relative quality of the vote. My vote was based on very flimsy evidence (the only thing I had really seen thus far), and thus wasn't too far off from a joke vote.

[Kmd4390]

You should have made a serious point if it was a serious vote. Not after you were asked, but when you voted.

So what was your point on TM? Do you still see him as scummy?

[Andycyca]

Oh I see now. Here's what I meant: I didn't know whether your post was serious or not, but I assumed not, since we were already discussing meatier events. However, You were making a very weird statement (vouching for his towniness). Since we were already discussing non-jokes I read it as stalling other discussions. However, seems like my own vote originated much more discussion topics.

Hypocrisy? No sir, my actions up to 33 were joke (I even asked ortolan whether he had forgiven me) and when someone vouches for someone else's innocence on D1 looks fishy to me.

@goat: answered in 33. You merely put the second vote on me and then switched it quickly. I tried (and failed) joking about being opportunistic that early in the game. Is it clear now?

-----------

Starbuck struck me as odd when bringing up Emp apparently out of nowhere. In 70 she says "just because" and in 80 she says "because he was being discussed". Why two different answers?

I didn't like the discussion on hypocrisy, mostly because it's theory, but OK might be useful.

Tony: do you have any real reason to vote me?

Mod: could we have some prods for orangepenguin, xofelf and Shadow?

[Andycyca]

EBWOP: That should say: Do you have any reason of yours to vote me?

[Kmd4390]

Anyone else think Andy and Goat are part of the scum team?

[Goatrevolt]

You should have made a serious point if it was a serious vote. Not after you were asked, but when you voted.

I see no reason why this must be so.

So what was your point on TM? Do you still see him as scummy?

I thought his original vote on Andy was a stretching somewhat. He didn't even bother to learn whether or not Andy was joking or serious, just kind of jumped aboard.

I'm moderately suspicious of him, because he's basically just sat on his early Andy vote and hasn't really done much since.

@goat: answered in 33. You merely put the second vote

on me

and then switched it quickly. I tried (and failed) joking about being opportunistic that early in the game. Is it clear now?

I was wondering if you would mention that. I originally thought you were talking about my Sudo_Nym vote, but I ended up realizing that you probably actually meant my vote on you. I wanted to see whether you just went with the assumption everyone had that you jumped on my Sudo vote, or would give the honest answer.

Anyone else think Andy and Goat are part of the scum team?

Nope, can't say I do. I'm really curious why you jumped to this conclusion though. Are we playing some elaborate distancing game?

Also, you avoided my questions at the top of post 94. I'm pretty interested in your answers to those (basically, I don't see why my actions here are so scummy to you, and I'd like to see your thought process).