Mini 807 - Save the Mafia! (Game Over!)

[stuntkeyboardist]

NHT - if I was desperate for a lynch, I'd be voting CB right now. Thanks for playing.

But I think we all know that no one else was going to vote for him anyway, which could be a reason to jump ship.

[DeathRowKitty]

CB is more or less off the chopping block and you claimed you were going to vote for him, thinking he was at L-2, once you were sure you wouldn't be hammering him.

[ChannelDelibird]

CB is more or less off the chopping block and you claimed you were going to vote for him, thinking he was at L-2, once you were sure you wouldn't be hammering him.

Based on a misunderstanding. I was corrected, I withdrew that particular accusation, and, concordantly, the promise of a vote.

What do you think of my case on wolframnhart?

[ChannelDelibird]

"Jump ship"? I was never

on

the ship.

[My Milked Eek]

Quite a few posts eh?

I don't know quite what to think of the lobstermania issue yet—gut feeling? Gun to my head, I'd say with only this evidence

only one of them can be town

, but it's far too early to run with that without more evidence.

Quite the daring statement with "only this evidence".

Also, post more.

I think you're missing lobstermania's point here. NHT knows lobster has been around for as long as he has (it's coming up on a year now, the 'fairly new' tag has, IMO, worn off, and this is what lobster seems to be alluding to).

The game is here, but remember this is (I believe) both of their first games. It may not be that helpful meta-wise. Contains lobsterscum and NHTown.

I had missed his point, lol. *plays the 'I was tired due to finals'-card*
Thanks.

Perhaps it would be useful for us to come to a group consensus on definitions for what it means to "apply pressure," "FoS," "be at L-2" ect.

Only if you like us wasting time on theory discussion. The wiki is there for this very reason. I think everyone knows what they mean, but the reactions to the situations and connotations to those words (like the L-5 pressure or L-2 fear) vary and that is what tells us a few things.

I think applying pressure is sometimes more of a scumtell than a town tell. If you lay a case against someone or ask them a question and they dodge it, THEN maybe you can vote to "apply pressure". Otherwise I think it's a wishy-washy reason to place a vote.

Being a bit hypocritical by addressing this:
Applying pressure is a playstyle. The context of that playstyle should give you an insight whether it's a scumtell or a towntell. (imo)

NHT - if I was desperate for a lynch, I'd be voting CB right now. Thanks for playing.

Actually, no. The wagon on CB, as can I see, is losing its momentum and seems to be disappearing. An observing scum could take advantage of this and try to start a new one. Don't you agree?

As kitty and nht just posted before me. Stupid need to review a post >=(

As to what I think of this situation: I, too, think wolfie was implying a lurker reference and I wonder why he just doesn't admit to it. But I also feel cdb is overlooking into things here. But to say cdb is "desperate" is kind of over the top as well.

[stuntkeyboardist]

"Jump ship"? I was never

on

the ship.

If you feed the fire, you're on the ship.

Too many idioms here. I need to calm that down. But you know what I mean.

[ChannelDelibird]

"Jump ship"? I was never

on

the ship.

If you feed the fire, you're on the ship.

Too many idioms here. I need to calm that down. But you know what I mean.

I'd like you to elaborate on how you see my relationship to the CB wagon.

From where I'm sitting, the wagon started as a result of my initial questions to CB but after I'd made it clear I'd gotten a sufficient answer and dropped the inquiries, and since then my only 'feeding the fire' as you put it was my promising a vote, conditional on the Vote Count, based on a misunderstanding that was corrected, and then I retracted that nearly-vote. I'm not really sure how this makes me scummy, but please tell me why you think it does.

[stuntkeyboardist]

Actually, looking back on it, you started

all

of the fires, then continued to feed them. I'm not going to say nobody else helped feed, but you were the primary attacker.

EX. post 52/54

post 96 - accusing/voting lobster. Sure wolfram first thought the line was a bit odd, but nobody else thought anything of it until you accused/voted him for it.

post 101 - accusing me of putting words in people's mouths when i basically stated my

interpretation

of lobsters post

post 177 - voting wolfram because it was brought up that CB never stated that lobster was lurking. you only voted wolfram because of this

Since this last one, you've just been attacking him for mix up of words. When I said CB never accused lobster of lurking, I wasn't trying to push wolfram under the bus. I was merely trying to say that it snowballed into what it is now.

Is this now clear that you have jumped on/started every bandwaggon in the game thus far? Now do you see why you're appearing desperate to have someone offed?

[ChannelDelibird]

EX. post 52/54

This isn't really the elaboration about my relationship to the CB wagon I was hoping for.

post 96 - accusing/voting lobster. Sure wolfram first thought the line was a bit odd, but nobody else thought anything of it until you accused/voted him for it.

Do you think it was a baseless vote? I didn't - remember this was page 4 of day 1. For that timeframe, considering the only other discussion we'd had so far was CB, who I was relatively satisfied with, I think it was a fair vote.

post 101 - accusing me of putting words in people's mouths when i basically stated my

interpretation

of lobsters post

I wasn't starting a bandwagon on you here, I was just trying to avoid lobster being given an answer. Your interpretation of his post was one he could read before he answered my question and used himself rather than give his own opinion, which might have been useful. I wasn't accusing you of being scum and the fact that I didn't vote or even FoS you was something I thought made that clear.

In short, I don't think post 101 belongs in the same discussion as 96 and 177.

post 177 - voting wolfram because it was brought up that CB never stated that lobster was lurking. you only voted wolfram because of this

CB's post prompted me to take a closer look at the is-lobster-lurking discussion that I had previously skimmed over (I think) while catching up on posts. I admit that I missed wolfram's post first time round. My mistake, I should have been on his tail immediately.

Since this last one, you've just been attacking him for mix up of words. When I said CB never accused lobster of lurking, I wasn't trying to push wolfram under the bus. I was merely trying to say that it snowballed into what it is now.

I never suggested you were trying to bus wolfram. Why are you intimating that I did? It just pointed me in the direction of wolfram, who I don't believe mixed up his words so much as got caught stirring the pot.

Is this now clear that you have jumped on/started every bandwaggon in the game thus far? Now do you see why you're appearing desperate to have someone offed?

I don't think I've made a baseless vote at all (assuming you don't count my random one). I agree that I've made

more

votes but that's mostly because people have been too caught up on the CB wagon.

[stuntkeyboardist]

CDB, you misinterpreted what I was saying. I have to go to work now, but I'll be back later to expand on this.

[ChannelDelibird]

I'm pretty sure I get your point - that I started every bandwagon in the game - and I'm pretty sure you misinterpreted that I was saying: it's not scummy unless I didn't have good reasons for making the votes that I made. If you want a case on me you need to tell me why you think my votes were baseless.

(And I'd like to repeat that you can't claim I started the CB wagon if I didn't actually

vote

for the guy)

[canadianbovine]

wow i wake up and a whole other page!

I don't understand the fuss about CDB. Reminds me of my first game, when somebody used the argument "he's so town, he must be scum."

vote: wolframnhart

I dont like how your activity suddenly picked up when CDB accused you. You were easy sailing until someone placed a vote on you.

[ChannelDelibird]

wow i wake up and a whole other page!

I don't understand the fuss about CDB. Reminds me of my first game, when somebody used the argument "he's so town, he must be scum."

Loath as I am to back up my attackers, but they're definitely not using the Too Townie argument on me.

vote: wolframnhart

I dont like how your activity suddenly picked up when CDB accused you. You were easy sailing until someone placed a vote on you.

What do you think of my case on wolfram, CB?

[canadianbovine]

wow i wake up and a whole other page!

I don't understand the fuss about CDB. Reminds me of my first game, when somebody used the argument "he's so town, he must be scum."

Loath as I am to back up my attackers, but they're definitely not using the Too Townie argument on me.

vote: wolframnhart

I dont like how your activity suddenly picked up when CDB accused you. You were easy sailing until someone placed a vote on you.

What do you think of my case on wolfram, CB?

i didnt say they were using the too townie argument. To me your pretty town, keeping good questioning on everyone, staying with the town.

I had noticed the contradiction as well.

To me wolf's play has seemed like he's been trying to go by unnoticed, posting every once in a while to not be a lurker, all of his posts were kind of reviewing the game. He finally said something trivial, and someone (you) called him out. And now he's trying to deny he said anything about lobster lurking, when it seemed rather implied, otherwise he wouldnt of posted it.

[xRECKONERx]

I don't like wolf's play.

Vote: Wolframnhart

I have my reasons.

[ChannelDelibird]

I don't like wolf's play.

Vote: Wolframnhart

I have my reasons.

I know I'm voting wolfram, but that's an incredibly scummy post.

FoS: Reckoner

[Wickedestjr]

I am finally caught up.

Unvote: CB

I am doing this, because there are three people who I find equally scummy, so I am just going to give fingers of suspiciouns to all of them.

FoS: Canadianbovine
FoS: Wolframnhart
FoS: ChannelDelibird

I also find wolf's suspicion of lobster to be quite suspicious. He finds him suspicious for being quiet, and then defends him which totally defeats the purpose of mentioning it in the first place. I found the suspicion to be kind of stupid due to it being lobster's normal playstyle, but I found it even more useless when he defended lobster. I agree with the defense, but not the suspicion. You can't vote for a person for not posting for a day. I haven't posted for a while and you don't find that suspicious. I think there may be people who have posted less than me, and you don't find them suspicious.

However, that's when CDB comes and votes him. It really seems to me that he is eager to get a bandwagon going. I also agree that he knew people were unvoting CB, so he would have to get a more suspicious person that was more bandwagon worthy.

But just because these two seem suspicious doesn't mean I'm no longer suspicious of CB. Now that only one person is voting him, he seems to be deflecting all the attention from him and pulling thin straws hoping to find one he can use.

So I am not going to vote for any of them at the moment. But give them fingers of suspicions.

So it appears that lobster is typically a quiet player.
@lobster - Who do you find the scummiest in this game right now? Who do you find the most pro-town?

@Conspicuous_other - What do you think about wolf's strange vote? Do you think that CDB seems eager? What do you think about my suspicion of CB?

[Wickedestjr]

I don't like wolf's play.

Vote: Wolframnhart

I have my reasons.

I know I'm voting wolfram, but that's an incredibly scummy post.

FoS: Reckoner

How so?

Do you find something wrong about people withholding their reasoning?

You don't like wolf's play either, so does that make your posts scummy?

[My Milked Eek]

There's a difference.

I don't like that post either. I'd like to hear his reasons to vote for wolf, but I'm willing to bet they don't differ that much (if any) from cdb's.

1) if they're different there is no reason to withhold that information from the town
2) if they're the same, there is nothing wrong with agreeing with cdb and saying so

It feels a lot like trying to dogpile onto wolf, like I said before: observing scum might want to steer a new bandwagon at this moment. And a vote like that, without reasons (well, public reasons), does just that.

Vote: reckoner

Let's hear them reasons.

[Wickedestjr]

I think that if reckoner thought it would be better for the town to withhold his information, then he should.

[ChannelDelibird]

I think that if reckoner thought it would be better for the town to withhold his information, then he should.

By that reasoning, scum can choose not to give evidence and just say 'they have their reasons' and avoid having to explain themselves to the town. Scum explaining their logic to the town is how the town catches scum, so scum don't explain if they don't have to. Town shouldn't need to hide away from that.

[stuntkeyboardist]

I don't think I've made a baseless vote at all (assuming you don't count my random one). I agree that I've made

more

votes but that's mostly because people have been too caught up on the CB wagon.

Aside from the other misinterpretations in this post, I will say that I stand by the fact that you have not only accused most of the targets so far, but bandwaggoned when you didnt. Your vote keeps jumping to the next person in line. As far as your reasoning, like I said before, I thought a lot of it based on someone wording something wrong which contradicted something (lobster), or based on things what were blown out of proportion (wolfram).

(And I'd like to repeat that you can't claim I started the CB wagon if I didn't actually

vote

for the guy)

You were both the first to accuse the guy, and to provide the evidence. Whether you voted or not doesnt matter. Because of your accusation, 5 of us did vote for him. I wont try to deny why I did either, you had a good point... until I reread. See post 196 for my reasoning for unvoting though.

I don't understand the fuss about CDB. Reminds me of my first game, when somebody used the argument "he's so town, he must be scum."

Not even close to my argument. Try looking at the posts above.

I don't like wolf's play.

Vote: Wolframnhart

I have my reasons.

I know I'm voting wolfram, but that's an incredibly scummy post.

FoS: Reckoner

I completely agree with CDB here. Too broad, no posts in a while then BAM, plus, if you have reasons, please share. It might be helpful to the rest of us... plus it doesnt make you look as suspicious.

I think that if reckoner thought it would be better for the town to withhold his information, then he should.

By that reasoning, scum can choose not to give evidence and just say 'they have their reasons' and avoid having to explain themselves to the town. Scum explaining their logic to the town is how the town catches scum, so scum don't explain if they don't have to. Town shouldn't need to hide away from that.

Again, very well put. Since I'm not the type of person to hold a grudge, I will

unvote

and apologize. As of now, there is a lot going on in these past few hours. I want to see reactions before I vote again. I will say, however, that you, CDB, have a way with words. While I still do not like your constant accusations, some of the past few posts have been dead on to my reactions (which is why I unvoted you).

If anybody has any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. I had a lot in my mind and I know I didnt get it all out in this one post. I will post more as I remember.

[DeathRowKitty]

I typed most of this a few hours ago, so some of it might be outdated (especially since I just skimmed the new posts), but here's my thoughts on the situation:

What do you think of my case on wolframnhart?

I do agree with the implied statement about lobster lurking, but this looks eerily like the case against CB. I count 34 posts between the lobster's post and the "implied lurking post" and losing track of time in that mess doesn't surprise me any more than thinking 5 were needed for a lynch. If anything, I'm more suspicious of the fact that he seems to be following lobster's posts so closely (the lurking post wasn't his first attack against lobster). I'll just go ahead and ask: why were you following lobster so closely? Personally, I thought your case against CB was better, especially considering lobster's first post following the accusation:

canadianbovine wrote:
at the risk of sounding like a hypocrite - lobster is appeasing the spotlight by voting after everyone gets on his case about it.
You are being a hypocrite. canadianbovine wrote:
I revoted him to invoke discussion and keep pressure on him.
Your second vote on nohands was just a reiteration of your random vote without justification.wolframnhart wrote:
Lobster votes Canadian in post 107, then when canadian mentions that lobster is voting agaisnt him to appease the crowd, lobster has been quiet since.
I had a feeling canadianbovine would accuse me for voting after being called out on not voting by ChannelDelibird. I FoS'd canadianbovine and unvoted, then summarized my case against him (yet I am still called a hypocrite?) and voted. In the middle of it I was questioned about my lack of a vote and my use of FoS. I feel like I addressed both of those issues in my post 107.
My vote on canadianbovine remains.

That sounds as much to me like an attack as it does a defense. Having read two of lobster's games, I'm hesitant to make anything of it, but he did seem to succumb rather easily to pressure earlier in the game and with little more justification than reiteration of what others have said.

Is this now clear that you have jumped on/started every bandwaggon in the game thus far? Now do you see why you're appearing desperate to have someone offed?

If you ignore the random voting stage, this is a brief recap of what your (CDB's) posts have been about:

1) You created the case against CB. You asked him a whole series of questions and never said you were satisfied with his replies. When others started to pick up on your investigation, you faded off, never having voted or FoS'ed CB.
2) You created the case against lobstermania, based on the fact that he didn't cast a vote. In your own words:

I disagree here. The vote is the most important tool of the town. Its use is pressure, something a FoS really doesn't do on any real level, and not using the vote, especially early on when there's a bigger margin before a lynch, means you're not pressuring any possible scum.

You were clearly suspicious of CB early in the game. Why didn't you use your vote then? Especially given your very strong opinions on the matter:

Sure, I've held off voting before, but only later in the game. On Day 1, with so many votes needed to lynch, there's no need to be as cautious as that. You should pretty much be voting at all times on Day 1.

3) You more or less renounced your entire argument against CB.

I do agree that canadian taking credit for his random vote starting all this discussion seems weird, but I am not sure if he has any more reason to do that as scum than town (and of course, that's the key question). If none of us had questioned the validity of his statement, the most he could hope for would be that we would think he was the guy that got us out of the random voting stage. My question to all of the people voting canadian right now is:

What would canadianscum gain if we thought he was somehow responsible for the end of the random voting stage?

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

canadian, I am flattered that your definition of "everyone" appears to be "ChannelDelibird", but I think that's a slight exaggeration.

Personally I wouldn't normally see this as particularly scummy. What I do find odd is that when you finally got a response:

ChannelDelibird wrote:
My question to all of the people voting canadian right now is:

What would canadianscum gain if we thought he was somehow responsible for the end of the random voting stage?


It gives him a somewhat legitimate answer as to why he revoted NHT.

you disappeared again.
4) You reiterated a request for CoCo to explain one of his posts and disappeared again.
5) You distanced yourself from the lobstermania case and jumped back on the CB wagon

I'm having a hard time deciding what to do with canadian. I can buy the un-unvote shtick as bad town play (his responses about that seem genuine enough to me) but what I do find scummy is his quick pointing to lobstermania as something of a lurker after just one day. Suggests desperate scum using weak reasoning to try and push another case, as obviously I at least already have my vote on lobster.

In the light of that particular move, I'm going to unvote: lobstermania as his explanation is understandable (but certainly misguided, IMO) and will probably vote for canadian

Not to say you didn't have a reason, but this wasn't the first time you'd gotten off someone's case as soon as it got support.
6) You created the case against wolframnhart (the third person you started a case against).
7) You defended yourself against the recent accusations.

I also have suspicions about xRECKONERx and CoCo, xRECKONERx for obvious reasons and CoCo for reasons I'll spell out when I have more time, but for now, I have to go.

I have a lot of people I want to FoS/vote for now, but since clearly not all of them can be scum, I'll save that for after I look through everything a little better later.

[ChannelDelibird]

DRK:

I do agree with the implied statement about lobster lurking, but this looks eerily like the case against CB.

I'd like you to clarify exactly how they are similar...I don't see this.

I count 34 posts between the lobster's post and the "implied lurking post" and losing track of time in that mess doesn't surprise me any more than thinking 5 were needed for a lynch.

In the post in question wolfram acknowledges how fast the game is moving, so he's clearly aware that not much time has actually passed:

Love how fast this game is moving along

If anything, I'm more suspicious of the fact that he seems to be following lobster's posts so closely (the lurking post wasn't his first attack against lobster). I'll just go ahead and ask: why were you following lobster so closely?

Is this directed to me or wolfram? No offence, but your paragraphing could be clearer, it's kind of hard to tell.

The lobster post you quoted was part of the reason I eventually dropped my vote on him, as it came across to me as someone who genuinely felt that was the right way to play, rather than scum lying about it. Hence my post 171 describing his explanation as 'understandable but misguided'. I still believe he was wrong not to vote, but I no longer think it was for the wrong reasons.

1) You created the case against CB. You asked him a whole series of questions and never said you were satisfied with his replies. When others started to pick up on your investigation, you faded off, never having voted or FoS'ed CB.

2) You created the case against lobstermania, based on the fact that he didn't cast a vote.

You were clearly suspicious of CB early in the game. Why didn't you use your vote then? Especially given your very strong opinions on the matter

The lack of vote or FoS pn CB makes it pretty clear that I wasn't suspicious of him. I asked questions, he gave me answers - if I wasn't satisfied by them, I would have voted for him. I vote for players I find scummy (certainly, the argument brought against me is that I make full use of my vote) so the fact that I didn't hear speaks pretty clearly IMO.

Personally I wouldn't normally see this as particularly scummy. What I do find odd is that when you finally got a response [...] you disappeared again.

Now this is actually a fair point, I can't argue that I failed to respond to C_O's post. For as much as it's worth I'll do so now: I don't really see what CBscum would have gained from needing a legitimate reason to revote NHT at that point. At the time of the vote we were pretty much still in the random vote stage, and it wasn't like he was pushing for a claim or lynch. IIRC this has been discussed by those who have been dropping off the CB wagon recently.

4) You reiterated a request for CoCo to explain one of his posts and disappeared again.

I read his response - it was a classic newbie null tell (all discussion is good, right? but I'm not yet experienced enough to know which posts are of use and which aren't - that was the gist of it, I believe) so I let it pass and looked elsewhere.

5) You distanced yourself from the lobstermania case and jumped back on the CB wagon. [...] Not to say you didn't have a reason, but this wasn't the first time you'd gotten off someone's case as soon as it got support.

I feel I've already explained my lobster unvote and CB position above...

[DeathRowKitty]

[quote="CDB]
DRK wrote:
I do agree with the implied statement about lobster lurking, but this looks eerily like the case against CB.


I'd like you to clarify exactly how they are similar...I don't see this.
[/quote]

The CB case started when CB miscounted votes. We (you initially, others later) got on his case about it, he mixed up his words, and it became a big thing. The wolframnhart situation so far: he misrepresented how long lobster had ben away, you (and then others) have gotten on his case about it, and now he's mixing up his words.

Is this directed to me or wolfram? No offence, but your paragraphing could be clearer, it's kind of hard to tell.

It was directed at wolfram.

The lack of vote or FoS pn CB makes it pretty clear that I wasn't suspicious of him. I asked questions, he gave me answers - if I wasn't satisfied by them, I would have voted for him. I vote for players I find scummy (certainly, the argument brought against me is that I make full use of my vote) so the fact that I didn't hear speaks pretty clearly IMO.

You had

no

doubts at that point? I find that a bit odd, unless you had no doubts to begin with, in which case you sure asked a lot of questions of someone you were sure was an innocent townie.