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

[xRECKONERx]

FoS for sure, but I'm still not fully convinced about placing a vote on him. Am I missing anything?

Why don't you figure that out for yourself?

[ChannelDelibird]

However, something just caught my eye:
Wicked says lobster's responses satisfied him so he unvotes after nobody bites on the lobster case. I still think lobster is scum. CDB calls my case... what was it... oh yeah, "utter bullshit" (go jump off a bridge, by the way). Anyway, what was really scummy was how lobster was under fire from Wicked for so long, then he just randomly has a change of heart and says "his defense satisfied me". I still think lobster is scum, but I think Wicked has played much, much scummier.

Vote: Wicked

See: my previous case on Wicked for more support. I'll provide a further case if requested, but I think anyone should be able to see why.

I went through your case point-by-point in my big catch-up post, explaining why it's bullshit. Please tell me why I'm wrong, rather than telling me to jump off a bridge.

[PsychoSniper]

Vote Count:

Wickedestjr – 5 (ChannelDelibird, DeathRowKitty, xRECKONERx, CoCo, ryan2754)
CoCo – 1 (nohandtyper)
nohandtyper – 1 (qwints)
canadianbovine – 1 (Wickedestjr)


Not voting:

Conspicuous_other, My Milked Eek, canadianbovine, lobstermania

[PsychoSniper]

*sighs*

Conspicuous_other picked up his prod, but failed to respond to it.

I will start looking for a replacement now.

[stuntkeyboardist]

NHT - Mentioning insane cop? In a mini? And you are using it as a possible reason to still be voting CoCo? REALLY? What of Coco's didn't makes sense? Your post where you vote Coco is WAY too vague to be construed as anything of a logical argument. Why do you find Qax scummy again?
What are you trying to prove from Wicked's meta thing? That he is playing to his meta? What was his role in the other games?

Is there no such thing as insane cop in a mini? I honestly dont know. This is only my third game on this site, and if insane cops dont exist in a mini, then I feel like an ass.

CoCo's argument didnt make sense to me because in my mind, it appeared as if he took arguments from people across the board, restated them, claimed them as his own, and called them a part of "plan" that he had all along but was never able to explain for 20 pages. Just the fact that you could see other peoples' arguments within it and him calling them his own was enough for me.

Let me set this straight. The post with all of my thoughts in it was not meant to be an argument on anybody. It showed where I stood on people, but I wasnt trying to use it for "concrete" examples. And yes, I was impulsive with that vote. I had no intentions of revoting CoCo when I started that post, but once I said I thought his post was crap, I thought 'Why not?'

I dont remember why I find qax scummy other than his convenient disappearance during his questioning.

I wasnt trying to prove anything. I said I noticed it, but wasnt going to use it. Do you know why? That's because I didnt know what good it could do. Maybe someone else could use it. I still gave my thoughts on it though.

[Wickedestjr]

CB - Probably town. Making a case against him based on RVS and post count is stupid. Find me something he's done that really looks scummy and I might change my opinion. However, CB is not a player I feel safe in aligning myself with in terms of scumhunting on the off chance I'm proven wrong.

So you don't think it is wierd that CB started posting more when we were suspecting him? He has shown us that he has the potential to post frequently, and it is obvious that he chooses not to do so, thus, he is lurking.

[Wickedestjr]

I'm not making scumlists on D1.

However, something just caught my eye:
Wicked says lobster's responses satisfied him so he unvotes after nobody bites on the lobster case. I still think lobster is scum. CDB calls my case... what was it... oh yeah, "utter bullshit" (go jump off a bridge, by the way). Anyway, what was really scummy was how lobster was under fire from Wicked for so long, then he just randomly has a change of heart and says "his defense satisfied me". I still think lobster is scum, but I think Wicked has played much, much scummier.

Vote: Wicked

See: my previous case on Wicked for more support. I'll provide a further case if requested, but I think anyone should be able to see why.

When I said that lobster's defense satisfied me, I meant that it had satisfied me for the time being, and that he had satisfied me enough more than CB had. So, I voted CB.

[Wickedestjr]

Considering I probably won't live past day 1, all I can do now is be as honest as possible and call people I view as scum on their lies and contradictions.

Shouldn't you be doing this anyway?

[DeathRowKitty]

I do think you have a good point about DRK's not finding your posts scummy, then finding them scummy, only 27 posts later.

Can you give post numbers for that? I've been looking for the past 5 minutes and I can't find which posts you're referring to.

what is really off is that he says he didn't contradict himself.

I still feel I didn't. The quote CoCo used was in response to his saying his posts about CB made me unvote. My response was that his posts didn't have enough content to do that and figured I mentioned that that was why I initially recalled him being scummy (in Post 222). There was no statement in that quote that said I still found him scummy.

Quick to accuse people? How so? Can I see some examples?

(from Post 563)

"Ooooh, the bandwagon got going. My turn to hop aboard."

In your next post, you made a similar accusation:

Oh, there it is!
"Welp, the wagon is still going, I might as well join in."

Later in the same post you said this:

Just because they are on both wagons doesn't make it a scum tell.

At this point in the game, I find the two who have claimed as suspicious (xRx, CoCo)...still, to some degree.

You spent a good deal of time discussing why you find Recknoer and CoCo scummy/suspicious and even said you think at least one of them is lying. Seems to me more like a discussion for Day 2, especially considering this quote from post 563:

Believe Reckoner’s claim. The indepth flavor rings truth moreso than lying bad guy.

You say he's desparate, but even admit that we're grasping at straws? Contradiction? However, you explain it much more thoroughly in 207, and it makes sense.

If his explanation made sense, why accuse him of contradicting himself after the fact?

I guess I can't accuse you of going after Wicked now, since I've since seen why people consider him scummy, but I was also referring to that at the time.

[Wickedestjr]

"@xRx - Do you plan on killing anybody tonight?" ~ wicked (364).
Fishing. Period.


Okay I admit, that was fishing, but I did not realize it at the time. I think I later asked CDB what the problem with that question was.

.

how do you not realize you are not role fishing??

I did not realize that knowing whether a vig is going to kill somebody or not would be considered fishing. I forgot about their being a roleblocker.

CB wrote:
I havent posted a lot because i was V/LA and since then the game is kind of wishy washy in content. we're almost at page 30.


When did your vacation begin and end?

considering the fact that:

1) its in my signature

2) i said i was going and asked if i should get a replacement

also guys im going to be V/LA from the 21st - 26th. I apologize for the inconvenience, and am wondering if i should replace? Unsure if ill have access to a computer.

3) in your second "pbpa" where you arent even analyzing my posts, you noted that from the 21st-26th, i didnt post at all.

I thought everyone knew.

Also if you're going to pull the PBPA i'd rather you actually analyzed my posts, not just demean me for how far apart they were.

I'm sorry I didn't notice your sig. I am pretty sure I have analyzed some.

Point three for lobster is way different from point 1 for you. In point three for lobster, he didn't post a lot. Point one for you was not because you weren't posting much, it is because you were posting a lot, and then once we were moving on to other suspicions, you posted less.

Lobsters activity level has also fluctuated.

Maybe, but your change in activity has been much more dramatic.

I hurts me to know that my hard work i did to try to show you why your reasons are wrong were written off as "crap"

Sorry, I was getting really frustrated the day I said that.

surely you can do better analysis.

It may have not been the best evidence in some people's opinions, but I have provided more than you.

You gave better reasons to voting lobster then to voting me, the way i saw it.

Well, I don't see it that way.

Nope not really, it only made me more suspicious of you to tell you the truth.

tell me the truth? what? you've been lying this whole game?

unless you mean me telling the truth? I've been honest and have nothing to hide.

No, I have not been lying. Every single thing I've said has either been the truth or a mistake.

apart from a few pieces? can you tell us those pieces. please i would love to know. I dont like how you put this whole case up about lobster to suddenly change your mind and vote for me.

If I hadn't put up the case against lobster, then I would have never been suspicious of you. Then I decided to switch my vote over to you because you had done more suspicious things and you would be more likely scum. I haven't changed my mind about lobster. I intended on keeping my vote on lobster if he had said something really strange, and he didn't, which is another reason why I said I was satisfied.

top 5

suspicions? I'm assuming you mean people? cause suspicions can be like "i'm suspicious that cb started posting me"

lobster, wicked, and kitty. no particular order. i'm almost sure that at least one of you is scum.

lobster, NHT and CB are scumbuddies and votes lobster to now voting for CB

where did NHT come in?

Did you see my lobster case?

Okay, I would finish the PBPA, but there is a lot of useless information to include so instead I'll do another chart that will be more revealing.

Okay really? that hurts. your going to negate everything i've posted?

I did not mean that your posts were useless, but notice that in your PBPA a bunch of the posts resulted in "okay" or "whatever". Most of the following posts would have resulted in the same, because I would not comment on them. And the only thing I wanted to show in the restof the PBPA would be how your activity dropped. Which is why I didn't continue the PBPA.

[Wickedestjr]

Wicked, these are from your big PBPA of lobster and case thereon.

NHT is also one of the people that was on the three bandwagons I think. So lobster and NHT could be scumbuddies to.

Overall, I have a feeling that lobster is scum and his scumbuddies are NHT and CB. I think this because lobster hesitated to vote for CB and gave an FoS to NHT when he wasn't voting anybody else. Lobster and NHT were also on three of the bandwagons. I think we should lynch lobster because it will tell us about CB and NHT more than a CB or NHT lynch would.

Vote: lobster

If you thought the argument wasn't a valid one, why do you present it as part of your lobster case?

Shortly after presenting the case I started becoming less suspicious of NHT. I was more sure about Lobster and CB being buddies then I was all three of them being buddies. I was then considering a CB lynch. It seemed better because CB had already been acting suspiciously. I think the argument about CB and Lobster was a valid one, but I included NHT because I thought he was linked to Lobster and I didn't want to ignore it.

I have a question for you, how suspicious of NHT are you?

[CoCo]

- I really don't see how DRK got the answer to your question from another player - I don't even see where you asked him a question, and subsequently don't see where he answered a question. I just see a discussion /dialogue on CB's responses.

I wasn't behind the CB bandwagon. His explanations were satisfactory to me. I made a post saying that, and wanted to know why others didn't feel the same way. You are correct in saying there was no stated question. But I had assumed the context meant I was looking for a response.
Later, DRK uses a quote from CB and asks me if I was satisfied with that explanation. Again, this comes down to context. I thought DRK was using CB's post in lieu of giving an answer himself.

-

Coco, why do you find his 3 FoS post to be "interesting?"

I am intrigued by the answer: I played in a game and made a huge post over a few pages of content on a Day 1, and FoS'd 3 people in the same post, and got called scummy for it. Do you think FoSing 3 people is scummy? Why? I've done it before, and I don't think it is scummy, but again, this seems to come down to personal game-theory as well. Like lobster sees an FoS as (last chance before a vote), I use an FOS like an open suspicion - it merely shows to the other players in open and easy to understand writing that I find that person suspicious. I am intrigued to your answer though.

It has nothing to do with the FOS'ing. This is the post in which DRK began the power role discussion...
It still seems scummy to me as well.
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 77#1723677

- Definitely don't like DRK's role speculation.

Me neither.

- I do think you have a good point about DRK's not finding your posts scummy, then finding them scummy, only 27 posts later. He does respond, but it seems CoCo was away, and didn't really have time to respond, and the topic changed subjects. I find this to be much better evidence of scummy behavior than the whole pressure situation, which I have already discussed, however, you seem to be going back to the pressure thing more. Any reason why?

Not so much anymore. Sure, that made me suspicious in the first place, but so many other things happened regarding the DRK situation, the pressure argument is small peas. There are still plenty of other reasons to view him as scum. However, at this point, he's tied with Lobster at the bottom of my list.

-

Coco, why did his response make you feel uneasy about Qax?

I'm always uneasy when someone puts a player at L-1 on Day 1. I know it happens, but I often take some time to go through the posts of the player who did so. Personally, I think its a good habit to have.

As an aside, Coco, you seem to make a lot of statements "weird, suspicious, interesting" without really explaining why.

Ha ha, yeah I do. No idea why. I'll see something suspicious, mention it, and then go through posts to see if there's more to it. I should probably break that habit.

-

Coco, can you please respond to the whole plan thing with regards to how Wicked fit in there? Did you really find him scummy or was he just a smokescreen? I don't really see what you meant by your "plan."

If Wicked was just a smokescreen, I would not be currently voting for him, nor would I be saying he's the best candidate for a lynch (in my opinion). My plan was basically to demonstrate DRK's contradictions by highlighting Wicked's.

What do you mean by recent developments?

NHT's recent odd behavior. I just don't feel as though his case against e has any merit. I'll admit, my badgering of him over the weekend was uncalled for, but I was so convinced he'd tripped himself up. Nothing personal, its just a game. I don't want him or anyone else to think its a personal grudge.

Wicked is a not so recent development, but considering I view him and NHT as the scummiest players, I feel I can give DRK some slack.

[CoCo]

That last quote was in the past tense. I no longer believe you to be hiding behind your cop claim. I considered it a good possibility at the time and I said so. I don't really think I've given NHT an easy out and if I did, it was because I felt I should respond to accusations of being anti-town. IMO, NHT's already explained himself sufficiently.

Yes DRK was right that you're hiding behind your claim. He wasnt the only one to notice that, and by the huge increase in your posting, I'm sure that others have easily noted that too.

Who else posted I was hiding behind my claim? Cite post numbers please.

I said DRK posted that you were hiding behind your claim. If you're referring to the fact that I said that I'm sure the others have noticed too, well, that just implies that they havent made it known yet.

Anyone that thinks I'm hiding behind my claim, feel free to speak up.

Haven't heard a peep. NHT, why do you think people wouldn't admit to something like that? Surely, if people think I'm hiding behind my claim, they'd have pounced all over it.

[CoCo]

So you don't think it is wierd that CB started posting more when we were suspecting him? He has shown us that he has the potential to post frequently, and it is obvious that he chooses not to do so, thus, he is lurking.

I don't think its weird at all. I think you've built a poor case against CB, and until a stronger case is made, I still don't see him being suspicious.

[stuntkeyboardist]

Haven't heard a peep. NHT, why do you think people wouldn't admit to something like that? Surely, if people think I'm hiding behind my claim, they'd have pounced all over it.

That's fine. I guess others dont feel that way. Doesn't change how I feel though.

[lobstermania]

- His so called "plan" and use of FOS he says is different than most peoples. However, as a point in the case against him? Not so much. See this as more game-theory.
- Group consensus on certain terms is unnecessary, and would seize game day discussion. Anti-town in nature.

These two points are related, though. After the early discussions regarding FoS's and voting patterns (what you have eloquently called "game theory"), I figured it might be helpful for everyone to get on the same footing regarding how we would use certain terms in this thread. In one of the mini's I played in the town had a lot of discussion about what an FoS should mean and how it should be used within that thread. I found it to be very helpful.

- Of all the things, I find his vote of Coco to be the most suspicious thing, for reasons XrX stated.

I believe I was the first person to vote CoCo. It was my intention to apply some pressure for him to shape up. From there he just kept digging himself deeper and deeper into his hole, giving me very little reason to change or remove my vote. I didn't realize people found it to be scummy, which is why I haven't addressed it before.

Sure, lobster defends himself against the points I find as weak in XrX's arguments, but is extremely lacking in his responses to the solid points in XrX's case. He doesn't even really defend himself half the time, and instead tries to strawman some of the points.

I am still very suspicious of xRECKx. I will not vote for him today, due to his claim, but I am

very

interested to see how Day 2 unfolds.

Regarding Wickedestjr:

You say XrX's defense is no good, but never even FOS him.

Interesting point. I hadn't noticed his lack of FoS/vote on xRECKx. In fact, he omgus's C_o during the xRECKx "trap" debacle.
I think I'm ready to

vote: Wickedestjr

. His play has been all over the place. He's been fumbling for a while and his case on CB seems to be out of desperation to save his own tail.

[CoCo]

Mod, can we have a vote count?

[canadianbovine]

i think he is at L-1, for there was just 5 votes, and that makes 6.

NOTE: this is not an official votecount, but my interpretation and a quick read of the vote count.

[CoCo]

I think you're right, CB. I just thought it would be a good idea to get an official count.

[qwints]

I don't like the fact that Wicked seems to have become the inevitable option. I'm honestly not seeing him as particularly scummy.

[My Milked Eek]

I say we lynch MME to find out why he hasn't been voted yet. (Disclaimer: jk...)

I see a bandwagon being pushed there! (disclaimer: jk...)

(Cont. from last time)

I only have 30 minutes sooooo:
Also a semi-announcement of semi-v/la: due to work this week I'm only home for about 10 hours of which I need 7 to sleep and some time to eat/relax/shower. This is only for this week though. And Friday will be less. Still, I'm catching up and being interested in this game: I like this game. So, unless a few people disagree, I'd be catching up in smaller posts for the next two days.

I said I was new to THIS forum. Not forums in general. I've made several posts about it before the one you mention, as well as after. In fact, I've gotten better.

I brought that up because I thought it was odd someone who was experienced with forums didn't know how to quote.

Reckoner said he wasn't going to kill unless he was sure and NHT told him he should kill no matter what. Math is my strongpoint, so I figured I'd do a statistical analysis to see what the math said. Initially I agreed with Reckoner, but the math and comments from other players have since convinced me NHT was right.

A simple "he should kill, it's true" would have sufficed. Using maths to fill content is meh and doesn't help the readthrough.

Since it's pointless now anyway, that post also doubled as a potential trap.

Did you not learn from this game that traps are NOT the way to go?

Here's what it comes down to to me: are you willing to risk lynching someone who's claimed cop D1 based on current evidence? How sure do you have to be and how sure would you say you are (and of course why)?

I knew coco claimed cop, but I said "at this point" indicating that where I was with my read through, I felt those two were my mains.

MEE, you sure are behind. Glad you're catching up though.

I'm getting there. After a day of work reading English and comprehending it fully to fully enjoy this game, well... It's harder than on a lazy Sunday. Bear with me. Or not. :p

I'll start.

And again: if something has been answered already don't answer it, I'll see it.

>> cocop

I cannot say the wagon on you was inane or empty, because you were acting very scummy. In fact, if I were around I would have voted for you.

A thing I noticed is reckoner's unvote - threat to hammer.
I wasn't the only one to notice this, but it is weird and questionable to see someone unvoting scared of a hammer and then threaten to hammer yourself without the suspected person having said anything in between those posts.

As someone else said, and I agree, the only thing you have going for you, reckoner, is the vig claim.

reckoner checks votecounts;
Subjectiveness and hurt feelings aside: do you

honestly

believe either bandwagon wasn't justified? If so, they were acting protown and what's bad with that?



Too tired. I'm at 572. Continued tomorrow.

[Wickedestjr]

Still, Wicked's vote feels a lot like an OMGUS.

It was not that. I did not like c_o's reason for his vote either. I also wanted to get him to start talking.

Wicked's post about Reckoner wasn't in question form and gave no indication of wanting a response so I don't like the excuse that he was "just wondering what was wrong with withholding information."

I don't know what you mean when you say this.

Reckoner's post said he withheld information knowing it would make people vote for him, so this question was essentially useless.

I was just making sure.

He spends the rest of his post discussing other people, with Reckoner more of a sidenote.

I was more focused on others. I was suspicious of reckoner but I wasn't sure if I wanted to lynch him.

His other targets included wolfram, me, C_o, and CDB.

So???

[ChannelDelibird]

Wicked, these are from your big PBPA of lobster and case thereon.

NHT is also one of the people that was on the three bandwagons I think. So lobster and NHT could be scumbuddies to.

Overall, I have a feeling that lobster is scum and his scumbuddies are NHT and CB. I think this because lobster hesitated to vote for CB and gave an FoS to NHT when he wasn't voting anybody else. Lobster and NHT were also on three of the bandwagons. I think we should lynch lobster because it will tell us about CB and NHT more than a CB or NHT lynch would.

Vote: lobster

If you thought the argument wasn't a valid one, why do you present it as part of your lobster case?

Shortly after presenting the case I started becoming less suspicious of NHT. I was more sure about Lobster and CB being buddies then I was all three of them being buddies. I was then considering a CB lynch. It seemed better because CB had already been acting suspiciously. I think the argument about CB and Lobster was a valid one, but I included NHT because I thought he was linked to Lobster and I didn't want to ignore it.

...so you didn't agree with the argument that because all three of them were on the bandwagons they were scummy, but because the argument even existed, you thought that made them linked anyway and so included it in your case? Makes no sense - you've been caught pushing a crap case.

I have a question for you, how suspicious of NHT are you?

My views on NHT haven't changed since the last time I stated them, a couple of pages ago.

Wicked, claim.

[Wickedestjr]

Wicked, Post 338

That was Wicked's first post on this game since post 246, (the one I mentioned in my last post), which he made over three days earlier. At the time of his post, he was 2 or 3 pages behind, as he stated in his first sentence. Also note that the page he claimed to be up to was the page on which he made his last post, so he couldn't have read much new posting.

Post #246 was on page ten. I was pointing out things that were on page eleven. I clearly stated it. I read one page before post 338. What were you getting at?

Why did he then feel the urge to post that? Reckoner had already claimed and given flavor, neither of which Wicked had seen. The unvoting had already begun, something Wicked also had not seen. If Wicked was behind 3 days worth of new developments, why did he post that Reckoner's defense was no good, especially when he never gave Reckoner so much as an FoS (Reckoner noted the lack of a vote/FoS in post 330).

I was behind. I posted that, because I had not seen everything that had happened after what I had read. Before reckoner claimed, he kept basically repeating the same thing over in over again, and I thought it was pointless. If somebody isn't convinced when you tell them something, then repeating yourself isn't going to convince them any more than it did before. And if you noticed that I was behind then why are you posting this? I don't give FoS's to people that often. I have only given three, and they were all in the same post. Most of the time, I simply point out my suspicions.

Good answer. I agree with this for the most part, but I find C_O a bit more suspicious then CDB at the moment.

Did you say this just based on my vote for you or are their other things involved?

Well before I voted you, you were not contributing at all.

Ironic that Wicked should use this as an argument, given that he hadn't even looked at this game in 3 days (he had still been posting on his other games). Between this post and the last one, I get the feeling it was largely based on C_o's vote.

At least I am contributing in my posts. Just because I go three days without posting doesn't mean I'm a hypocrite.

Overall, it seems like Wicked was doing his best to seem like he was interested in the Reckoner situation, while actually distancing himself from it.

I admit, there were things that I was interested more in. If you want to think that I was distancing myself from reckoner than go ahead.

He made those two posts (246 and 338) on the fringes of the Reckoner situation and disappeared in between.

Yeah that's why I disappeared./sarcasm

I hate lurkers. I don't see any point in winning if you are just going to watch other people play your game. I am telling you that I post the same amount regardless of my role, but if you don't want to believe me than that is your fault.

[Wickedestjr]

Wicked, Post 347

Wicked's next post. Wicked's finally seen Reckoner's claim and believes it. Of course, logically, this is Wicked's first post dedicated mainly to Reckoner...

My posts don't have any similar structure to them. Some of my posts may be dedicated to one person, some posts may be dedicated to a post, and some posts may be dedicated to a whole page. I don't think it matters how I structure my posts.

In retrospect, not much. At the time, I thought it had caused you to jump the gun. I should have held out a bit longer and seen who else jumped on the bandwagon, but I was too impulsive.

You were considering withholding information longer?

This is the second question Wicked's asked that basically requested a reiteration of what he quoted (the first is quoted in one of my recent posts).

Sometimes I misunderstand people's posts. And sometimes when I do, people complain and think I am purposely twisting people's words. Like CDB for example. I also ask people to clarify something so I can get a better opinion about something.

In Wicked's next post (Post 364), Wicked asks if Reckoner plans on making a kill. Then we get the infamous CB unvote/revote contradiction, after which he disappeared for a few more days.

Why would I disappear when suspicion is thrown upon me? It doesn't seem right. I have explained why I contradicted myself, and nobody has pointed out any flaws in it. I can't be active at all the right times. Sorry.


I have to go to sleep. I am still about a page behind. Will catch up soon.