Newbie #851 (Game Over!)

[SemanticError]

vote: Spinach

I think he brought it upon himself. Seriously, someone named "Spinach" calling into question a food-based username? And meat > plants. Always.

Jeez.

[SemanticError]

o, yes, before I forget: it would be appreciated if you didn't claim too early, unless you are mafia Townie claims are usually not helping the town, but are helping the mafia.

I guess I should hold off on the vanilla townie claim then, eh?

[SemanticError]

@Spinach: No direct hate for spinach, I swear! I do enjoy the stuff. Great way to top off a turkey panini, I even put some in a quiche just last night. But the turkey is the key ingredient. Even the quiche had ham. Spinach is addition, not a focus. That's what meat is for. Mkay?

I think your priorities are a little mixed up... Maybe not just in terms of food. I'm watching you.

@Pierre: Vanilla townie is not really a role claim. These games start with a bunch of townies living their lives, until people start dying. Everyone is innocent until we have a reason to think otherwise. Circles I'm used to, that's the base assumption. I meant it sarcastically, but to be clearer I'll use more smilies next time.

[SemanticError]

@Pierre: I swear, I didn't steal it! I've been using it for... at least longer than Twitter has been around. Magic the Gathering mafia forums. I have proof. Think I could sue?

@SdF: A second plant lover?! Our second mafia member, I say! A sort of vegan yakuza. Sickening.

And I completely support the use of acronyms.

[SemanticError]

Everyone is innocent until we have a reason to think otherwise.

Nope.

Unvote. Vote: AntiSemantic

Seriously, taking a quote out of context and semi-bandwagoning with a single word? I hate making retaliation votes, but this kinda calls for it.

Unvote
Vote:PorkchopExpress

On the topic of make vanilla townie "claim", it wasn't really such. Since plain townie is the baseline role -- statistically, even if you don't agree with my storyline/philosophical explanations -- and given how little information we have ONE post into the game, I meant it to be interpreted as a facetious statement along the lines of "I'm innocent and uninteresting", which is what everyone is, IMO, implicitly claiming in the initial portion of a basic game.

You can interpret and over-analyze it as you will. I can't stop you, that's what mafia is about. But I did not intend it as a formal claim, and it shouldn't be taken as such.

[SemanticError]

Need more people talking. Lurkers, join in!

1) Misrepresentation. How exactly did I take you out of context? How is the rest of the post even relevant to what is being discussed?

My quote was about mafia's storyline. Broken down a bit more it had the structure of:

1) We're all just townsfolk, living in a town.
2) People start dying.
3) Someone must be killing them.
4) Now we have to start looking for clues as to who did it.

This is where we start the game. Storyline-wise, no one has taken any actions since the mob has started hunting. We weren't exactly taking notes beforehand. Therefore, when the game starts we have no evidence collected and thus no reason to point the finger at anyone until they act. Since the not-really-a-claim post was the second one in, I still acted under these assumptions. It was role playing, not intended as a thesis for making decisions,

which is sounds like when you pull it away from the rest of the post.

So yes, it was out of context.

2) Being against "Semi-bandwagoning" while "Semi-bandwagoning" himself.

IMO, the difference between band-wagoning and voting the same way as others lies in whether or not you provide convincing, at least somewhat unique justification for your decision. Which you failed to.

3) The preemptive defence against an OMGUS claim.

If I have any reservations about making a vote, I like to be transparent about them. Just my style.

I'm getting some mild sensations in my scumdar here, AS hasn't responded well to pressure.

I'm not convinced that justifying my actions counts as not "[responding] well to pressure".

And I am entirely aware of the irony of me arguing semantics for the majority of this post.

[SemanticError]

Quick question. I'm unfamiliar with the acronym "RvS". What's it mean?

[SemanticError]

In my opinion: Looking at it either way (Innocent until proven guilty, Guilty until proven innocent) are basically the same thing.
With Guilty until proven innocent, you're thinking everyone is scummy as hell until you see a town tell or a scum tell that makes them even more scummier. So basically, well, say we have a number line, with each number indicating varying levels of suspicion. So, say, 1 would be baseline suspicion, with 2 being being complete scum, and 0 being complete town.
With innocent until proven guilty, you're thinking everyone is town until something proves you otherwise. So baseline would be 0, ultimate suspicion 1, and ultimate town -1.
But in reality, you don't think of anyone with higher or less suspicion either method you use, you're still 1 'number' off for scum/town in both of the situations, you still use the same tells/suspicions etc.

The baseline in which you start at is irrelevant to suspicion,

I say we use something less confusing, such as neutral until proven guilty/innocent.
(I really hope that wasn't too confusing. >_>)

Long-ish, but not too confusing. It's true, the problem with the word innocent is that it can, in the context of mafia, be opposite either guilty or suspicious. Neutral is a pretty good alternative, or just explicitly saying not suspicious.

That being said, I'm not going to touch the number ideas. The math geek at me would go full out, and come at you with graphs and charts and proofs, oh my.

[SemanticError]

Sorry for the absence. Thanksgiving + midterms = lack of free computer time.

Will post content this evening, after exam.

[SemanticError]

Once again, sorry for the absence. But I'm back now. And hopefully I won't feel the need to defend my sense of humor TOO much more in this game...

So to sum it up...I wasn't saying they were scummy...just that it is something I dislike.

Things I don't like (AKA find scummy):

1) AntiSemantic's "vanilla town claim" joke in p14.
2) PorkchopExpress's vote without reason (even a joking one) in p22

3) Silly arguing between PCE and AS all over the place.

4) stands2reasons's unvote after an explanation of L-1 and an unvote from Spinach in p38

Things I do like:

How silly you all are arguing over food tastes.

So let me get this straight:
You say that the PCE/AS 'silly' arguing it's not scummy, just something you dislike, but you've clearly stated that you found it scummy.
You find 'silly' arguing between PCE and AS bad, yet you say silly arguing over foods isn't.

FoS: Einlanzers

I think I spot a contradiction.

@Spinach: Are we really so desperate that we have to nitpick the smallest of word choices? Words can have multiple meanings, and while Ein does use the same words, he is clearly making different points, and communicating them well. Each statement involving the words you question presents a reasonable idea within it's own context.

Jumping on insignificant things like this is pretty useless.

@swimmer: Glad to have you in the game. Even if this is your first round, you've done some research, and know what works.

[SemanticError]

@swimmer: I've been looking over Pierre's posts prior to directly responding to your suggestion, and I'm getting more of an aggressive, very inexperienced vibe from him, rather than scummy. I'm not saying he's un-scummy; I really can't come to a conclusion either way on that one. What he is doing is kicking up dust and muddying the waters. His style draws a lot of attention, and can often be a good cover for scum. However, if not better prospects come up, I'm generally prone to lynching his type, if only to make things easier to sort through.

That being said, I've never run across someone with those same sentiments. Is there something tangibly wrong with that mindset that I'm missing?

@Einlanzers: /agree on the day one lynch. We've gotta have an information-less lynch at some point, might as well get it out of the way ASAP.

@Porkchop: Still waiting on that in-depth post.

[SemanticError]

@Pierre: You vote for him, call him scummy, then list a whole bunch of reasons why he might not be? Kinda suspicious in that you could be covering yourself for when/if he turns up town, and not very convincing argumentation.

[SemanticError]

@PorkchopExpress: Rebuttals ahead!

1) The Alleged Context Stripping

I looked back, and actually haven't been able to find anyone else who has stated that they took the misrepresented statement in the wrong way in context. The only responses it got as an ideological statement were in response to your presentation of it. Could I have been more clear? Probably. Has anyone else complained about it? No, so don't claim to be speaking for a crowd.

Also, roleplay in the context of RVS joking is, IMO, entirely appropriate.

2) Bandwaggoning

If by in due time you mean after you were prodded to by multiple people, yes.

3) Preemptive Defending

In the context of the instance you took offense to, it was to differentiate between an OMGUS move and a response to a legitimately scummy post. Maybe if I presented it a bit differently --more explicitly, perhaps -- you wouldn't have been so attracted to it.

Overal

l: Maybe I just needed to be more clear for the entirety of early D1?

And RE: Pierre, he was being transparent. Transparently irrational.

@Everyone: Holding off until we get a little more of a response from him, but I'm starting to feel the Pierre needs to go vibe more and more. His posts haven't been helpful... he's been all over the map. Scum or just inconsistent? Can't tell.

[SemanticError]

Also,

Unvote

, because it's seeming more and more like Porkchop vs. me is primarily miscommunication and some minor disagreements.

For now...

[SemanticError]

Everyone is innocent until we have a reason to think otherwise.

Nope.

Unvote. Vote: AntiSemantic

Seriously, taking a quote out of context and semi-bandwagoning with a single word? I hate making retaliation votes, but this kinda calls for it.

Unvote
Vote:PorkchopExpress

I think this is the post he's referring to.

If not, I'm going to have to review my statements. >.>

[SemanticError]

I want to be posting more than I am, I swear. It's just exam season. Give me a few days with slower posting to get through the initial stress/cramming.

@Pierre:

I WAS suspecting AS, but then some other people had some stronger scummy motives. But that's my two cents, I'm mainly posting to show my presence

It's great that you're here and all, but people are talking about you a lot. Do you not have any opinions? Care to clarify your stance on the mis-lynch debate?

On the Pierre issue:

I'm still having a hard time getting off this fence. He's hard to read. Either:

Scenario 1) He could be scum, in which sense the alleged deflections, slightly jumpy voting and choosing not to respond to some allegations is perfectly reasonable.

Scenario 2) He's just acting newbie-like, which makes him a little inconsistent and less strategically sound.

Both interpretations make sense. The more he ignores, the more I lean towards Scenario 1, but it's only D1, so I still don't know if I have enough to feel reasonable in a lynch.

I hate day one.

On me vs. Porkchop:

I could respond directly to a few of the points PE made at the top of p5 and will if people feel it's necessary. However, the more we argue the less game relevant it seems to get, and the more it feels like we're just digging trenches and going nowhere. I made a poorly communicated joke and (arguably >.>) subsequent defense, arguing ensued.

[SemanticError]

EBWOP: To AS, that was one piece of defense

I always thought defense was something, so that people would mistake you for scum. Guess I can guess again on that now.

Just because being hyper-defensive or defending yourself poorly are scum tells, doesn't mean that not acknowledging the fact that you are a suspect is the right, townie thing to do. Questions have been raised. Answer them. A townie would have nothing to hide.

(Well, maybe a power role. BUT YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN.)

[SemanticError]

Well, that's right actually. My mistake, though I'm learning everyday.

Anyway, we really can't get anyone really for a scumlynch, seeing as no one has shown any major tells as of yet. I guess I should

Unvote

for stands hasn't had any huge traits. I think we need to hang back until we have someone, but we have to try as much as possible to avoid a mislynch. In the next week, I'm sure someone's gonna crack. But if that's not the case, we need another idea.

This isn't a defense at all. Your unwillingness to defend yourself makes me think you ARE scummy. That is a major tell.

As others have said, defending yourself is not scummy. In fact, it is the expected response to being accused or sought after.

And your "always thought" comment in your EBWOP implies to me you aren't exactly new to this.

Throw this in with mykonian's statements, and we've got a wee bit of hypocrisy in our midst.

[SemanticError]

EBWOP: I just realized, your actually in suspicion of me for actually UNVOTING you. I actually regret removing my vote now, seeing as you just keep on trying to point me out. Trying to look like a thorough scum hunter, after having my suspicions on you, then trying to pointlessly take pokes at me even further by not suspecting you? Looks like your trying to get me out early, don't it?

But I must admit I haven't looked at many other people, so I'm trying to be decent. Right now, I'm suspecting

Pierre, he's criticizing you for what everyone else is: jumping around with votes and distraction tactics. Which you've just done again, with an OMGUS statement. Not as strong as vote, I'll admit, but it feels like once again you're deflecting.

Instead of jumping at whoever looks at you, why don't address some of the questions that have been raised? For example:

-Just how inexperienced are you?
-Your thoughts on mykonian's defense of you?
-And one question I'd like to ask:

But I must admit I haven't looked at many other people, so I'm trying to be decent. Right now, I'm suspecting

How do you propose to play this game without analyzing people's moves?

[SemanticError]

mykonian seems to have been the bigger talker of late, so most of my post is dealing with him and his theories. Experimenting with dividers for points, so let me know if you like it.

++++++++++++++++++++

one thing I want to say before I let others react: I see a lot of notes, and little analysis. Further, he is quite singleminded, going only after Pierre, and me. TBH, I don't see a towny here, more scum who goes after the people that are most in the spotlights. A bit opportunistic.

I have to say I disagree with this analysis. Pierre was in the spotlight for good reasons. Maybe not guaranteed scummy reasons, but ones worth looking into, and even pressuring. And aiming 100% at him is a good way to pressure, especially considering Pierre hasn't, IMO, sufficiently defended himself.

However, I do find it quite hypocritical that you criticize him for this and then go on to make a series of posts cumulating in:

Now, can we have a S2R lynch please?

++++++++++++++++++++

P103 I never say anyone is trying to look the cop, like S2R claims I did. Since I could accidentaly be outing the cop that way, it is a forbidden subject. I don't want to help scum of course. So again, a misrepresentation fo S2R. And yes, I liked Pierre's analysis in post 88, and yes, I called AS on his semiclaim, since it doesn't help town.

I agree with you here. Him taking that big of a leap in terms of tone interpretation is reaching.

++++++++++++++++++++

Let's look at S2R's post:

p15 Pierre jumps on AS for joke pseudo-roleclaim. p21, myk does the same.

compared to mykonian's re-evaluation:

P15 Pierre dislikes AS's claim. P21 I explain as IC why not to claim, since AS asked that. S2R tries to show here we act as a team, while this isn't happening. Again, he doesn't say he tries, he just implies I and pierre are working together.

Here I feel that mykonian is reaching in his interpretation. Merely noting which people brought into question that post isn't insinuating anything. He actually doesn't really imply it until later. Not disagreeing that the entire post has that theme, just saying that he's jumping at the wrong things.

++++++++++++++++++++

[IC]here, you see why you should be wary of such PbP analysis, like S2R posted. They seem to show activity, but are actually quite easy for scum to make (I know from experience), and since you summarize, you can leave out the points that don't really work for you, and make points that support your case stronger. These analysis's are also not often checked, easily accepted, and thereby twisting words can actually be accepted by the town sometimes. Be very careful with them, and even as town, don't use them too often: they provide little analysis, and are not that easy to read, and thereby don't help the town that well. A series of arguments with quotes is preferable: you make your point, and prove you are right by showing the quote.[/i]

Now, can we have a S2R lynch please?

This I REALLY don't like. At all. You post a paragraph about good play from the position of and Inexperience-Challenged player, but in the context of supporting your own post. Yes, guidance is appreciated in newbie games, but this feels like you're attempting to coerce support.

++++++++++++++++++++

Overall @mykonian: You've brought up some good points, but you're also falling for some of the faults you're criticizing, namely getting a bit too zealous and tunnel visioned. I'm still getting a town reading from you, maybe because I love people who defend WIFOM. But it makes your points more hostile when you use IC status to endorse your own posts and say things like:

don't run scared for your Pierre lynch, scum. You can't defend yourself against my case, so I don't mind you don't try.

It could use some toning down.

[SemanticError]

On who to lynch:

I see three options right now:

1) Pierre: I don't think I need to elaborate on this any more, but he hasn't improved since I last commented. He's still pointing fingers at whoever looks his way, as of his last post.

2) stands2reason: He has been making unsubstantiated claims which look pretty damn skummy. However, his entire anti-mykonian campaign seems, IMO, to come from a POV that sees Pierre as scum from the get-go. It's too early to pass that solid of judgement, but that is a fairly common newbie mistake. But still more suspicious than not.

3) Spinach: Still don't like the name.

Personally, on the skumdar scale the serious options are pretty equivalent. S2R has done bigger things, but Pierre has been doing it for longer. In terms of what information we'd get out of a lynch, there are four scenarios:

I- Pierre is town: Really, nothing comes out of this.

II- Pierre is mafia: Casts suspicion on mykonian. Takes it off of S2R.

III- S2R is town: Casts suspicion on mykonian.

IV- S2R is mafia: Takes suspicion from mykonian, Pierre.

This is only really considering the more recent debates. Almost all of it is just suspicion, easily shrugged off until more data arrives. (That being said, S2R would probably be pretty happy is Pierre turned up skum.)

Just information I like to consider when picking a target.

*DISCLAIMER*:

The only reason this really comes into play is because I personally am undecided on which of them I like more for the lynch. Individual skumminess should always come before circumstantial information.

[SemanticError]

In defence, can I just say that stands2reason has just been on my case the whole time. It's now less of him actually scum hunting and more of him pointing single people out. I still hold my vote, seeing as that would just be a drastic OMGUS.

@Pierre: You know I'm fairly certain that we were criticizing you of this exact behaviour earlier in the game...

++++++++++++++++++++

Maybe I am being too single-minded, but Pierre seems quite scummy. And Myk's comments are ridiculous in the extreme. And when you look at their behavior, scumminess seems apparent.

@S2R: Just saying "Vote for THIS guy!" is not a way to make us not suspect you. You have to first explain why you're not scummy, and THEN give us other options. In that order. In that priority. Again, redirecting attention is something we've been going at your pet lynchee, Pierre, for.

And this is a pretty big OMGUS.

+++++++++++++++++++

Combined with Einlanzers' (awesome) post summary on S2R, he could be either scum or just really inexperienced, but I'm more and more coming to terms with the fact that that option is always going to haunting choices for the better part of this game. Between the two of them, I'd rather be rid of S2R, if not because of the scum behaviour (which seems to keep piling up as he's in the spotlight) then for the simple reason that he's contributing little more than being a talking point.

Vote: stands2reason

[SemanticError]

how is Pierre contributing more than S2R, AS?

Actually I don't think Pierre has scum hunted at all this entire day. I don't even know who he suspects

You're right, they're pretty similar on the hasn't-contributed-scale. I weighted that final sentence poorly. They both sometimes tend to fail to engage debate about them. Pierre more so than S2R, thinking back. But that may be working for him, as it means he's not giving off any major tells, compared to what S2R has. I'm not quite at the point where Pierre's unresponsiveness forces me to vote for him, but it is approaching.