Newbie 848 - The Bunny Mafia Family - over finally!

[Nachomamma8]

I think that was just a huge, confusing, jumbled mess of things. So, before I continue, I'd like to hear input from the others on these interactions.

[Incognito]

Vote Count #6 of Day 1

Sposh (3) <-~ MichelSableheart, Nachomamma8, Tehstefan
TheBeanBurrito (1) <-~ Haylen
Jase (1) <-~ broncofaninmd
Nachomamma8 (1) <-~ Jase
broncofaninmd (1) <-~ Sposh

Not voting (2) <-~ TheBeanBurrito, foilist13

With 9 alive, 5 will do it.

Tuesday, October 20th at 6 P.M. EDT.

[Jase]

I think that was just a huge, confusing, jumbled mess of things. So, before I continue, I'd like to hear input from the others on these interactions.

Seconded. I'd like to hear from everyone before we proceed.

[foilist13]

Ok, we need to get this game moving. Lurking is bad for town, but no activity at all is bad for everyone. This is a game people, lets play it.

I think Bronco is scum. You were pretty adamant about him lying, and if you were that sure you would have pointed out what he was lying about, and further more, you would have at least read your post before you posted it and realized your mistake unless you weren't paying attention to the actual content. I would have accepted your excuse of having read it wrong, but you accused him of lying not once, but TWICE.

He lied

Its a lie, and the...

This does not look like uncertainty or a misunderstanding. People call each other scummy for all kinds of things, but to flat out call someone a liar is more than that. Am I the only one who sees this as a scum move?

Later in the same post, you list "uneasiness" as one of your reasons for suspecting Jase as scum. Again, this does not look like someone playing from a point of view of suspicion. Accusing someone of being uneasy is like accusing them of being careful. OF COURSE he's uneasy, wouldn't you be if you were TOWN??

I agree. I think it's the most logical thing for town to do. We can say "scum will do this and not do that" but not all scum play the same. Nothing is 100%. You can look back and see how people respond. That is why posting is so important.

Ok this is scummy. Of course nothing is 100%, thats why we have a game. If we knew who the mafia were we wouldn't bother playing. There is no reason for you to have said this, since it's in the back of everyone's heads whose playing the game trying to catch mafia. But if you're scum there is no uncertainty. You know who the town are and you are 100% sure about everything. The only reason you would have said this was to set yourself up for a defense later if someone accused you as scum. Now by your logic nothing is 100% and I can't be sure you're scum, but you know right now I'm at about 70.

Vote:Bronco

[foilist13]

This is not to exclude the players everyone just asked to hear from, but I want to see the game at least moving in a direction other than "lets hear what everyone thinks."

This is what i think, I would appreciate some analysis rather than opinions.

[Nachomamma8]

I agree with most of your bronco points, but I'm not following your last point. Sure, it's a Captain Obvious comment, but I don't know why that's scummy. Doesn't really seem like a scum-defense to me, not an effective one, anyway.

I still think Sposh is scummy.

The first thing that stands out to me is his attempt to extend the RVS as much as possible, as in his post 45, where he states "is it really possible to have a case this early in the game with two pages of information?". This sounds to me like he's suggesting that scumhunting is impossible that early in the game. And I'd like to clarify: while I find shortening the RVS scummy, attempting to extend it is just as scummy. In a nutshell, I just disapprove of people trying to manipulate it...

Second thing is his piggybacking, as demonstrated on page 5. Tehstefan votes bronco, and, one non-mod post later, Sposh votes for bronco, simply what Teh just said. He then says he doesn't need to add anything new because "there's nothing left to add". This is definitely anti-town in my book, for it discourages more scumhunting on bronco, and sets up for others to vote bronco while following the "there's nothing more to add" reasoning.

I wouldn't have a problem with the second quote of foil's analysis of him, had he tried to explain said "personal reasoning". I told him that he was regurgitated information; he said he didn't, although he himself inferred that he didn't add anything new by saying "adding on new reasons doesn't matter".

[Tehstefan]

Bronco to me isn't quite as scummy as the rest of them. While he did make a few bad choices about who to vote for, I take it more as tunnel-vision rather than flat out scum-hood.

Sposh however, panicked. He got very accusatory, and tried to turn it around on whoever votes for him. He didn't try to refute the claim, so much as yelling "I did something bad, but so did you!" It doesn't change the fact you did it, and since you have no defense of it, it looks all the scummier. At least in my mind.

[Haylen]

Hi guys, im currently really ill right now. Sorry bout that, i'm posting this in all my games so dont be surprised if I dont make a coherant post until I'm better. IF i end up in hospital, I will get one of the 3 scummers I know irl to PM the mod...

In the meantime

unvote

[Nachomamma8]

Sorry to hear that, Haylen. Hope you feel better soon!

[foilist13]

Sposh's panic is scummy, but to me its not as strong a scum tell as what I pointed out against Bronco. My only reason for saying this is that I have seen people say something stupid, panic, and lash out at everyone and end up being the cop. I don't like it any more than you do, but it could easily be he's just not that good of a player, or at least not yet, which is to be expected in newbie games.

Still keep an eye on him, but I'm not inclined to think he's scum over just that.

[Sposh]

I agree with most of your bronco points, but I'm not following your last point. Sure, it's a Captain Obvious comment, but I don't know why that's scummy. Doesn't really seem like a scum-defense to me, not an effective one, anyway.

I think he's arguing that subconsciously, someone who isn't used to being scum would feel it necessary to point that out as a sort of defense mechanism. Or, I could just be completely wrong!

I still think Sposh is scummy.

The first thing that stands out to me is his attempt to extend the RVS as much as possible, as in his post 45, where he states "is it really possible to have a case this early in the game with two pages of information?". This sounds to me like he's suggesting that scumhunting is impossible that early in the game. And I'd like to clarify: while I find shortening the RVS scummy, attempting to extend it is just as scummy. In a nutshell, I just disapprove of people trying to manipulate it...

You are taking my quote out of context! That's mean.
The

full

quote is:
"Also, I saw that someone said Bronco "made a case" against Sable... is it even really possible to have a case this early in the game with only two pages of information??"
Which means I was just asking if anything said at that point could qualify as an actual, strong case on someone because we had very little information. I do not understand how you turned that quote into me suggesting that scumhunting is impossible.

Second thing is his piggybacking, as demonstrated on page 5. Tehstefan votes bronco, and, one non-mod post later, Sposh votes for bronco, simply what Teh just said. He then says he doesn't need to add anything new because "there's nothing left to add". This is definitely anti-town in my book, for it discourages more scumhunting on bronco, and sets up for others to vote bronco while following the "there's nothing more to add" reasoning.

Me saying that there is nothing left to add doesn't mean that there won't ever be anything else to add to a case on him, I simply meant that at that moment I saw nothing more worth adding, so I just repeated the parts that I agreed with and placed my vote. Also, to say I added NOTHING new is a bit harsh... I actually pointed to a specific post with a question. It's not like I just slapped on a vote for bronco and that was it. I was adding to the pressure on him!

I wouldn't have a problem with the second quote of foil's analysis of him, had he tried to explain said "personal reasoning". I told him that he was regurgitated information; he said he didn't, although he himself inferred that he didn't add anything new by saying "adding on new reasons doesn't matter".

Once again, I can't believe how out of context you're taking what I said!
The WHOLE thing said:
"You agreed with the poster before you and voted the same person...

adding on more reasons to it doesn't matter

, because when I tried to explain my own personal reasoning, you said I wasn't actually scumhunting, I was just regurgitating information! Does it matter if it's been said before if I agree with it and find it accurate?"
I was stating that there was no point in explaining my "personal reasoning" because even when I put my suspicions into my own words and pointed out a post which I thought raised questions, you said I was just regurgitating information! So it would not matter if I had added on more reasons, because you still would have called it regurgitating information instead of scumhunting!

[Nachomamma8]

I agree with most of your bronco points, but I'm not following your last point. Sure, it's a Captain Obvious comment, but I don't know why that's scummy. Doesn't really seem like a scum-defense to me, not an effective one, anyway.

I think he's arguing that subconsciously, someone who isn't used to being scum would feel it necessary to point that out as a sort of defense mechanism. Or, I could just be completely wrong!

I still think Sposh is scummy.

The first thing that stands out to me is his attempt to extend the RVS as much as possible, as in his post 45, where he states "is it really possible to have a case this early in the game with two pages of information?". This sounds to me like he's suggesting that scumhunting is impossible that early in the game. And I'd like to clarify: while I find shortening the RVS scummy, attempting to extend it is just as scummy. In a nutshell, I just disapprove of people trying to manipulate it...

You are taking my quote out of context! That's mean.
The

full

quote is:
"Also, I saw that someone said Bronco "made a case" against Sable... is it even really possible to have a case this early in the game with only two pages of information??"
Which means I was just asking if anything said at that point could qualify as an actual, strong case on someone because we had very little information. I do not understand how you turned that quote into me suggesting that scumhunting is impossible.

Yet, in page one discussion, I do believe me and Michel's exchange already went over that. I see it as suggesting that scumhunting is impossible because you completely underminded the case by the second part of the quote. Still unsure what the first part changes, however.

Second thing is his piggybacking, as demonstrated on page 5. Tehstefan votes bronco, and, one non-mod post later, Sposh votes for bronco, simply what Teh just said. He then says he doesn't need to add anything new because "there's nothing left to add". This is definitely anti-town in my book, for it discourages more scumhunting on bronco, and sets up for others to vote bronco while following the "there's nothing more to add" reasoning.

Me saying that there is nothing left to add doesn't mean that there won't ever be anything else to add to a case on him, I simply meant that at that moment I saw nothing more worth adding, so I just repeated the parts that I agreed with and placed my vote. Also, to say I added NOTHING new is a bit harsh... I actually pointed to a specific post with a question. It's not like I just slapped on a vote for bronco and that was it. I was adding to the pressure on him!

You could've made that tons clearer by saying "I agree with Teh's main points, especially... In the way you wrote it, it seemed you were trying to pass it off for your own words. And what was the new point you brought up?

I wouldn't have a problem with the second quote of foil's analysis of him, had he tried to explain said "personal reasoning". I told him that he was regurgitated information; he said he didn't, although he himself inferred that he didn't add anything new by saying "adding on new reasons doesn't matter".

Once again, I can't believe how out of context you're taking what I said!
The WHOLE thing said:
"You agreed with the poster before you and voted the same person...

adding on more reasons to it doesn't matter

, because when I tried to explain my own personal reasoning, you said I wasn't actually scumhunting, I was just regurgitating information! Does it matter if it's been said before if I agree with it and find it accurate?"
I was stating that there was no point in explaining my "personal reasoning" because even when I put my suspicions into my own words and pointed out a post which I thought raised questions, you said I was just regurgitating information! So it would not matter if I had added on more reasons, because you still would have called it regurgitating information instead of scumhunting!

It seemed to me that you were just regurgitating information because I didn't see anything new in your post. Had you added on new points, you would've been able to counter my entire case by saying "I added on new things because Teh didn't notice point 1, point 2, or point 3."

Bolded is mine.

In other news, where is Michel?

[Sposh]

But... based on what I saw, there was nothing more

to

add on, so attacking me because I didn't counter your case with points that weren't there is a completely ridiculous maneuver!

[Jase]

Sposh: I looked back for the post you supposedly pointed to, as a defense to the accusations that you didn't add anything new. It's true, you did point out a post bronco made, but, BUT, the post you pointed out (post 100) is only an example of what bronco was already accused of. While this isn't exactly a lie it IS a deception. I'll give you a chance to defend yourself before I decide weather or not I will place my vote on you. Additionally Nacho never says that what you were doing wasn't actually scum hunting.

Nacho: You did quote him out of context when he said that "adding more reasons didn't matter" it's true that what he said isn't much better because he seems to try to pass of "giving his own personal reasoning" as scumhunting, but when you miss-quote him it sounds much worse. This brings to mind the idea that you may have been attempting to drive nails into the coffin by quoting only a portion of what he said to make him sound scummier.

[Nachomamma8]

What do you mean, misquote? I quoted the scummiest part of what he said because that's what I wanted everyone to focus on; I wasn't trying to misconstrue what he was saying in the first place.

[Jase]

Regardless, it sounds much worse than what he actually said.

[Nachomamma8]

Well, isn't that just part of the game? You emphasize certain points of what people say in order to clarify them and put them to light. The point of saying ANYTHING is to make it sound worse than the first read, because the worse it sounds, the closer you look at it because you become surprised you missed it.

[Sposh]

Jase, I wasn't lying or misconstruing anything. That post just seemed rather useless to me, in particular, and I wanted to see what he had to say about. And if you're going to say that the post I pointed out was just another example of what was already being talked about, then how can you ignore Teh blatantly reusing Nacho's reasoning against me... especially when it was just a blanket statement!

[Jase]

Well, isn't that just part of the game? You emphasize certain points of what people say in order to clarify them and put them to light. The point of saying ANYTHING is to make it sound worse than the first read, because the worse it sounds, the closer you look at it because you become surprised you missed it.

I suppose it IS part of the game, but it's a part of the game I'd expect scum to take part in far more than others. The second sentence is more or less true. The third sets of some alarms though, and I'm not happy with the way you word it. In most cases making someone sound worse than what they said WILL cause people to go back and look at it, but then they see that it wasn't as bad as it was made out to seem and that makes YOU look bad. Plus it's a form of deception, and deception is the goal of scum. Not only that, but the way you word it makes it seem like you want this sort of behavior to be ignored as "just part of the game". I'm of the belief that pro-town players should generally behave in an honest way.

I can see quoting somebody in a way that makes them look worse than if you had quoted them exactly being acceptable if you're trying to bring attention to a case that you have strong convictions towards, but is being mostly ignored, but even this is iffy.

[Jase]

Jase, I wasn't lying or misconstruing anything. That post just seemed rather useless to me, in particular, and I wanted to see what he had to say about. And if you're going to say that the post I pointed out was just another example of what was already being talked about, then how can you ignore Teh blatantly reusing Nacho's reasoning against me... especially when it was just a blanket statement!

I'm going to respond sentence by sentence here.

First sentence. You weren't lying, but you did use your mentioning of that post as a defense against accusations that you added nothing to the case against bronco when the post you point to doesn't add anything new to the case which, as I said, is deceptive.

Second. Then why didn't you ask bronco a question based on that post?

Third. You'll have to explain what you mean by "blanket statement", but again, saying that somebody else did the same is not a defense. This sentence also bushes off an accusation for saying "he did the same thing". Though you're right up until now I have completely ignored the accusations of the same against teh(?) for parotting nacho(?) in his vote for you (or is it the reverse...?) I'll take a look soon, if not immediately.

Also, on the subject of a topic not present in your post, you still have failed to answer at least one question directed at you, and have ignored accusations of not answering questions.

[foilist13]

Well, isn't that just part of the game? You emphasize certain points of what people say in order to clarify them and put them to light. The point of saying ANYTHING is to make it sound worse than the first read, because the worse it sounds, the closer you look at it because you become surprised you missed it.

No. Let me rephrase, HELL NO. Manipulation of context, meaning, or emphasis is directly in the scum's best interest. Town have to be looking for scum, but they have to be equally warry of lynching other town. Emphasizing a part of a post is fine, but changing their emphasis isn't. By doing that you prevent us from getting an accurate read on the other players and cloud the waters. Maybe this leads us to scum and maybe it doesn't. It's a shot in the dark. I'm willing to look over it this time, but don't do it again.

[Nachomamma8]

On a ungame related note: Sposh, any reason why you put exclamation marks after everything?

In most cases making someone sound worse than what they said WILL cause people to go back and look at it, but then they see that it wasn't as bad as it was made out to seem and that makes YOU look bad.

Which is the difference between town and scum. Town aim to make things sound as bad as they are, scum aim to make things sound worse than they are. I might be sticking my head out here, but mafia is not a very honest game to play; it's mostly about manipulation. As a townie, you don't want to be too honest or else you set yourself up to be NKed the first day; you always want that iffy aspect around you. On the other hand, you don't want to lie enough to get yourself lynched. As a townie, it's all about finding that balance.

[Jase]

On a ungame related note: Sposh, any reason why you put exclamation marks after everything?

In most cases making someone sound worse than what they said WILL cause people to go back and look at it, but then they see that it wasn't as bad as it was made out to seem and that makes YOU look bad.

Which is the difference between town and scum. Town aim to make things sound as bad as they are, scum aim to make things sound worse than they are. I might be sticking my head out here, but mafia is not a very honest game to play; it's mostly about manipulation. As a townie, you don't want to be too honest or else you set yourself up to be NKed the first day; you always want that iffy aspect around you. On the other hand, you don't want to lie enough to get yourself lynched. As a townie, it's all about finding that balance.

You telling the truth is more helpful to the town than you staying alive and being deceptive in order to keep yourself alive is anti town. The only time it might be ok to adopt this policy is if you're some sort of mafia scum god, and you being alive is important to the towns success.

[Nachomamma8]

Unless you have a suspicion on a certain person, and you believe the night's actions might clarify something. Or if you're a power role. Or if you enjoy the game of mafia and don't want to die on the first night.

[Sposh]

I put exclamation points after everything? Haha, I hadn't noticed. I'll take more careful note of that, though I usually just type how I'm thinking.

I didn't ask Bronco a question because I thought he would just respond to my linking of post 100. I guess I should have asked.

And I'm not saying that it's a defense to say he's doing the same thing I am: I'm saying it's hypocritical. Which, it is.

What question haven't I answered?