Mini 809 ~ Mafia ViPod (Game Over!)

[Pesco47]

confirm

Vote Moriarty147

[Pesco47]

I would have waited until tomorrow before suggesting that hasd is actively baiting a nightkill, something useful might happen if the scum try to reach for the lowest hanging fruit.

Explain.

Second this.

To that end,

Unvote, Vote hasdgfas

Claimed he could not find the thread initially and then he implied that he has a night action.

Sure it's rather crappy for a serious vote reason, but look where it's come to now. You're still voting cow for lack of a better target, I expect you should find one pretty soon.

And how does that imply I have a night action? Seriously, it's clarifying the rules.

So you were just worried about somebody who may potentially have a night action and were just trying to be helpful?

This is a strawman misrep, right?

No one said that he should be lynched for it. I think it did deserve clarification, however because I don't assume anyone to be an idiot, and I wouldn't expect someone with a powerrole to be foolishly asking questions like that in the thread. I could however see scum trying to buy town points subtly.

I believe votes have always been indicative of lynching intent. When you said this, you did want cow to hang because that's what your actions had shown.

On the other hand, e_K's questions all feel like loaded ones that goad VPB into particular responses.

Unvote
Vote VPB
FoS e_k

[Pesco47]

There's no good reason for me not to suspect the both of you.

[Pesco47]

If I don't have 2 votes to throw around, I make do with a FoS. In my mind, I've already lined them up as my lynch preferences.

The questions I don't like the sound of:

How could asking that question in thread be

harmful to the town?

Why would cow implying he has a night action be

harmful to the town?

Packing the gotcha's there. On a psycholinguistics level I notice the repetition which is underlined. E_k has been trying to paint cow's move as 'harmful to town' by asking the questions like this.

If you think I am asking loaded questions, why would you agree with me and vote VP? To the point of putting him L-1?

You're calling my attack scummy AND agreeing with my conclusion at the same time. That does not make sense.

It seems like a very dangerous thing to do, to put a guy at L-1 when you are suspicious of his main attacker. If you think I'm scum, then you should doubt the case on VP. But you're sure enough to put him L-1 on page 5?

I am free to suspect a person with or without agreeing to your opinions. When I voted, I knew it was not a lynch and made no further consideration for L- however much it was.

I'd like to know now, why did you not post more concise reasoning when you voted me? All of this you could have easily said with the vote post, but you've waited until after some other people have voted and voiced their views. Why?

[Pesco47]

Are you really a psycholinguist? Because your read is basically the opposite of what I actually thought, and I'm pretty sure it's obvious from what I wrote.

Still studying but I know enough to make the observation. The point of reference in your questions is the phrase 'harmful to town'. It asks things from a negative perspective. If the respondent isn't careful, you've baited them into a slip.

Your one-liner reason for voting me can hardly be called sufficient for telling everyone what your thought process was. And why should it take a long time for you to post was is clearly obvious to your thinking? If you see something so glaringly wrong, you surely can't be so slow as to require more than a minute to point it out and say so. Posts take time when you want to put heavy thoughts into choosing your words and framing your questions. I see your point of view on me and I don't feel it could have been such an intensive exercise to say what you felt right there and then.

[Pesco47]

@Pesco: Do you think it likely that elvis and VP Baltar are scum together? Or merely that at least one of them is scum? Why do you find VP Baltar more likely scum than elvis?

I see a small chance of them both being scum, very likely for one to be at least. VPB's approach has been textbook-scummy (flinging whatever sticks to cow and rolefish), while e_k's been a more intuitive one to me.

[Pesco47]

I would like you to explain, Pesco, how I am "flinging whatever sticks to cow"? Does it seem to you like I would back his lynch?

Also, how certain are you that either EK or I are scum? If one of us was lynched and flipped down would that make you more assured the other was scum? Why or why not?

Your stance has changed since then, the consensus is to not lynch cow and you'd obviously look bad if you pressed it. It doesn't remove the fact that you did want to lynch him in the beginning.

I'm as certain as you are about your suspects. If one of you flip town, there are no assurances since anything can happen at night. My assumptions are subject to change once we've seen more info.

I notice Pesco did not respond to my post 138.

I didn't see a question worth responding to.

Actually, I sort of agree with this, although I find it unlikely for EK to be scum without VP Baltar. But with your conclusion, why do you want to lynch one and then the other? Isn't there a much better chance that they are scum with others?

Two players alone wouldn't make a scumteam if we were to go by standard distributions. But these two players are where we're going to find links.

[Pesco47]

Pesco, please respond to this.

Are you suspicious of anyone else?

I think there's a misunderstanding by what was meant by 'small chance'. You guys have read it as 'unlikely to be scum', I thought I conveyed the meaning of 'unlikely to be scum together' because that was what the question asked.

PP is definitely a prime suspect now. The only thing I can probably add is that he's made very little association to VPB/e_k discussion (not much commenting or taking a stance).

1)I pointed out that VP originated the phrase "harmful to town" about cow. I repeated it in an effort to be precise. Does that change your view of my use of the phrase? Do you still think I was trying to brainwash the other players by repeating the phrase?

2)How can I be trying to make people think cow is harmful to town, if my questions are attacking the accuracy of the statement?

3)Can you link me to some outside material about this psycholinguist phenomenon you are describing?

1) I didn't see it as trying to be precise, but I'll concede that may have been your intention. But here, I'll ask why do you insist on calling my observation of you as 'brainwashing'?

2) 'IF', I didn't see that as your intention.

3) Link. These are the lecture notes I got for the semester. How you interpret them is up to you. I am not explaining psycholinguistics to you.

The only link we have right now is that they were fighting at the start of the game. It's almost as if you have locked in on EK and VP and are refusing to look else where. What do you think about the rest of the players?

That's not the only link, and you've mentioned one yourself in that post. The interaction of others to them. I mentioned above that PP had steered clear of this for pretty much the entire game.

Also, I think image (and X) are being super harsh to moriarty for keeping a vote on pesco just because moriarty is not SURE pesco is the MOST scummy anymore. OBV moriarty still thinks pesco is scummy.

A slight waver in confidence doesn't seem like such a big deal.

Not a big deal when the person is voting with you, but it's a big deal with me? The only difference is that Moriarty hadn't named secondary targets.

You're very UTR. Plus, getting everyone to talk about everyone can only help in the long run. Actually, was that not in that post?

I'd say Juls is more UTR, in an unreadable kind of way. There's no dirt on her, but we wouldn't want her to start slacking just because nobody is noticing.

I would prefer a lynch of
1)Pesco
2)image
3)X

Pesco's outs someone at L-1 on page 4, and the psycholinguistics stuff is nonsense, and he refused the address my questions once and then disappeared. The VLA may be totally innocent, but the refusal to answer my questions and continue the convo still stands. Plus tried to set up that one or both of me and VP Baltar must be scum. Which is getting close to setting up lynches.

---------

Anyway, I see a possible connection between image and X, and also a connection between pesco and juls. Also FL possible connection to pesco/juls, for similar reasons as I see juls with pesco. This is sort of unimportant until one of these people pops up scum. I don't present it as evidence against any of them, but just for later use if it becomes pertinent.

Since when was page number any indication of game state? If Obvscum was found 20 posts into the game, then a hammer by post 30 is perfectly reasonable. You didn't wait for me to respond before discrediting my observation. The psycholinguistics point is a rationalisation of my instinct read on you. You get people that claim gut and don't back it up, I've claimed gut and explained why I think so.

You claimed I'm guilty of setting up lynches, you've just done the same yourself. I made no effort to hide that I had a lineup already nor am I going to deny it. Your connection of players covers just about everyone in the game, where is there any focus in such a blanket suspicion?

I somewhat dislike e_k defending me so strongly in post 204, but the points *are* valid so ultimately no complains there.

Which points?

---Pesco47 has been prodded with a sledgehammer.

I told you saturday OR sunday.

Summary/conclusions

VPB/cow on UTR: Juls is more UTR than Sotty, why no mention of her as I believe both names should have come up in cow's sieve. I am less suspect of VPB as of this exchange.
PP says nothing on VPB/e_k, and likewise, VPB and e_k seemed to have ignored PP.
Double standard in e_k's 204 and 185

Unvote

I am quite willing to L-1 or hammer PP if nobody else likes my

Vote e_k