Mafia 103 - Ktown Mafia (Game Over)

[Kdub]

Rhinox replaces Mr. Squirrel. Thanks Rhinox!

[CrueKnight]

CrueKnight - My earlier case.

Which was:
-I defended myself
-I told someone that I am pressuring them

How does this make sense?

[Wickedestjr]

CrueKnight - My earlier case.

Which was:
-I defended myself
-I told someone that I am pressuring them

How does this make sense?

That was not my whole case. Please respond to the below:

He said my reason was bull, avoiding my demand to explain why he misquoted... or falsely claimed something.
I repeated, I wanted him to explain. After seeing his previous response, it sounded if he thought I was going to lynch him or something. At least that's how I looked at it since he said his vote on me remains.

Which post seemed he thought you were going to lynch him? What made you draw that conclusion from that post?

Also, what is wrong with him thinking you want him lynched?

But my ONE AND ONLY PURPOSE out of this whole thing was to get him to explain some stuff and not just call it a bullshit argument.

Then why did you say it was just a pressure vote?

Damn I hate being in the spotlight in the beginning all the time.

One person FoSes him, and he feels like he's "in the spotlight." I see no reason for a person to hate being in the spotlight anyway.

I still think he should explain why he misquoted.

Where did he misquote?

[Scott Brosius]

I'm gonna read thread/respond later, but right now I'm gonna withdraw my vote on crueknight. I wasn't feeling too sure about that in the first place, so

unvote

.

So why did you vote then?

[Wickedestjr]

Also, I forgot to

Unvote Vote: VistaSoldier

. I still find him more suspicious than Furry or Katniss.

[Rhinox]

Hello everyone. Just read the whole thread up to this point. Lot to take in all at once, so its kinda just stewing in my head right now and I haven't formed any concrete opinions yet. That'll change as I move along in real time with the thread.

Some things did stick out... one thing that stuck out to me but never received any comments or follow up was the following:

Ok. I'll bite and answer these questions,

hopefully to prove I am not mafia.

There is something wrong with this, but I can't figure out what it is.

I don't like this comment by wiked. It basically translates too, "I feel like this comment can later be used to help mislynch Katniss, so I want there to be something wrong with it, but I can't think of anything good right now so I'll be extremely vague about it and keep it as an option for later on".

Wiked, what I'm wondering is, why make this comment and not pursue what makes you feel there is something wrong with it?

Similarly, I don't think your issues with squirrel were ever resolved either, and somehow he fell from being voted by you to "unsure, but have minor suspicions" and I don't recall anything squirell said that would justify the relative drop in squirrels (well, I guess that is me now) suspicion level. Care to clarify?

unvote

if I have any carryover votes from squirrel

*sniff sniff*

something wiked fouls the air...

vote: wiked

[Wickedestjr]

Ok. I'll bite and answer these questions,

hopefully to prove I am not mafia.

There is something wrong with this, but I can't figure out what it is.

I don't like this comment by wiked. It basically translates too, "I feel like this comment can later be used to help mislynch Katniss, so I want there to be something wrong with it, but I can't think of anything good right now so I'll be extremely vague about it and keep it as an option for later on".

If I wanted to use it later, why would I have said anything about it at all?
How do you know that a Katniss lynch would be a mislynch?
I was having trouble explaining why the comment from Katniss bothered me. Scott ended up saying something similar to what I was thinking. Speaking of which, why don't you have any problems with Scott's comment regarding it?
Also, do you actually think I would have gotten away with getting Katniss lynched for that comment?

Wiked, what I'm wondering is, why make this comment and not pursue what makes you feel there is something wrong with it?

I wasn't exactly sure how to explain my problem with it. Thanks for reminding about it though, because I had completely forgotten about it. Don't you see a problem with Katniss having a motivation to not look like mafia?

Similarly, I don't think your issues with squirrel were ever resolved either, and somehow he fell from being voted by you to "unsure, but have minor suspicions" and I don't recall anything squirell said that would justify the relative drop in squirrels (well, I guess that is me now) suspicion level. Care to clarify?

First of all, it was very early in the game, so I didn't see any better alternatives at the time. The person I had previously been voting wasn't
posting. Also, my vote for him was mainly for pressure and to get a better read on him. I did think his actions were suspicious, but I wasn't exactly sure he was scum. That is why I voted him. I have had previous experiences with players making terrible cases against me and flipping town. It has made me more careful. However, not only did I believe my case on CrueKnight was better, but regardless of my read on Mr. Squirrel, I would have switched my vote. That is because it served no purpose when he wasn't even there to respond or defend himself.

vote: wiked

Interesting. So Rhinox comes and makes a case against me for;

-Having problems with a quote, but being unable to explain why.
-Changing my read on Mr. Squirrel to having minor suspicions, when I had been previously voting him.


So, Rhinox comes and makes a post that is only directed at me, and involves voting me for just two minor/bad reasons. I'm going to move Rhinox/Mr. Squirrel to the "People That May be Good Lynch Choices" category. I have learned to be careful when players make bad cases against me, but both a player and their replacement doing it makes me rethink things.

Still like my vote for VistaSoldier much more.

[Furry]

You dont pressure vote people you dont want lynched. You never vote people you dont want lynched. Pressure votes are more for medium suspects who you wouldnt be against a lynch of, but you like other lynches more.

Furry, this also looks wrong.

You don't pressure vote people you don't want lynched?
Then why pressure vote at all?

What is the point of pressure votes?

To pressure people who you have a slight read on in order to get the necessary reactions. What part of "You never vote people you think are town under any* circumstances" do you not really get here? Pressure slight scum reads, pressure and lynch scum reads, defend town reads.

*After about five minutes I came up with a scenario of high complexity where this can be ok. I can guarentee you this is not such a scenario

[Rhinox]

If I wanted to use it later, why would I have said anything about it at all?

Its not really my place to speculate and WIFOM reasons why scum do what they do, but since you asked, possibly to show that you had a problem with the comment when it was made, and not having to go back to it later saying "I had a problem with this comment before but I didn't say anything until now".

How do you know that a Katniss lynch would be a mislynch?

I don't. I figured it was obvious that I was considering the 'you as hypo scum' scenario. Or is this going to be one of those games where every post has to have a disclaimer to avoid being sidetracked by technicalities?

I was having trouble explaining why the comment from Katniss bothered me. Scott ended up saying something similar to what I was thinking. Speaking of which, why don't you have any problems with Scott's comment regarding it?

Actually, scott provided reasons for why he didn't like the comment, and went on to vote Katniss, so no, I do not have a problem with scotts comments. This all happened in post 225. Your post didn't occur until after scotts post in post 242. Since you posted after scott, and you are now saying that what scott said is basically what you were feeling, why did you say in post 242 that you could not figure out why you didn't like katniss' post? There is a big glaring inconsistency here.

IMO, this really looks like you were gently feeling out the prospect of a Katniss lynch by your comment in 242. When discussion moved on and nothing really came of it, you didn't feel any need to follow up.

Also, do you actually think I would have gotten away with getting Katniss lynched for that comment?

Not for that comment alone, no. But scott presented a case that had other points besides that comment, and had a bandwagon formed, it seems like you were in good position to use that comment for jumping on the wagon.

I wasn't exactly sure how to explain my problem with it. Thanks for reminding about it though, because I had completely forgotten about it. Don't you see a problem with Katniss having a motivation to not look like mafia?

Your exact words were that you "couldn't figure out what was wrong" with katniss' comment, not that you couldn't explain it. I point that out because I see you changed the wording and I believe there is a clear distinction between the two... 1 is saying you think there is something wrong, you just don't know what, and the other is saying you know there is something wrong, you just can't put it into words. Regardless, see above for why it doesn't make sense, whether you didn't know or couldn't explain, based on the fact that scott posted his comments before you and you say scott basically said what you were feeling.

Regarding Katniss' comment itself, I like how you word "Don't you see a problem..." like there is a problem there I would be foolish not to see. There is no problem. Mafia have a motivation to not look like mafia. Town have a motivation to not look like mafia. It is not helpful to anyones win condition (except for a jester) to look like mafia. That being said, its not very tactful to announce that you're only doing something to try to prove your not mafia. But then again, what motivation does a mafia player have to announce that they're only doing something to not look like mafia? So its a null tell. I'm much more interested in those that think the comment is scummy.

First of all, it was very early in the game, so I didn't see any better alternatives at the time. The person I had previously been voting wasn't
posting. Also, my vote for him was mainly for pressure and to get a better read on him. I did think his actions were suspicious, but I wasn't exactly sure he was scum. That is why I voted him. I have had previous experiences with players making terrible cases against me and flipping town. It has made me more careful. However, not only did I believe my case on CrueKnight was better, but regardless of my read on Mr. Squirrel, I would have switched my vote. That is because it served no purpose when he wasn't even there to respond or defend himself.

This makes a lot of sense.

Interesting. So Rhinox comes and makes a case against me for;

-Having problems with a quote, but being unable to explain why.
-Changing my read on Mr. Squirrel to having minor suspicions, when I had been previously voting him.


So, Rhinox comes and makes a post that is only directed at me, and involves voting me for just two minor/bad reasons. I'm going to move Rhinox/Mr. Squirrel to the "People That May be Good Lynch Choices" category. I have learned to be careful when players make bad cases against me, but both a player and their replacement doing it makes me rethink things.

There we go with that "expain" word thrown in there again... Its moot though because you already said scotts post was pretty much what you were feeling, so in reality you did both know and could explain what you felt was wrong with katniss' post.

Also, why does me voting you make me more lynchable, other than the typical OMGUS reaction? A crappy case is a crappy case, but I haven't yet seen any good reasons to show me I'm off the mark here just yet.

And if you think about it, it makes perfect sense for my first course of action in the game to be following up on squirrel's suspicions... I have the added knowledge of knowing squirrel's allignment and that his comments were genuine.

[Furry]

Timeout... im noticing we are slipping into semantics instead of trying to argue a point here.

For semantics - Give me a scenario where you think pressure voting someone you think is town is a good thing to do. For bonus points, make it a mountainous (10-2 all vanilla) game day one.

For the point - Cruelty, removing everything regarding lurking/fluff, what do you think of Haylen?

[cruelty]

I don't have a read due to lack of content, hence the vote.

[Furry]

I don't have a read due to lack of content, hence the vote.

Ok now we are starting to get somewhere. So Haylen is a neutral read given lack of content. Why her over other neutral reads?

@wicked - What case of SJs? As far as I can tell its all misunderstanding/misrep over views on pressure votes.

Horribly happy with my vote on SJ, may be even moreso pending a response

[DeathNote]

I don't have a read due to so much wording. I am so lost...

[CrueKnight]

CrueKnight - My earlier case.

Which was:
-I defended myself
-I told someone that I am pressuring them

How does this make sense?

That was not my whole case. Please respond to the below:

He said my reason was bull, avoiding my demand to explain why he misquoted... or falsely claimed something.
I repeated, I wanted him to explain. After seeing his previous response, it sounded if he thought I was going to lynch him or something. At least that's how I looked at it since he said his vote on me remains.

Which post seemed he thought you were going to lynch him? What made you draw that conclusion from that post?

Also, what is wrong with him thinking you want him lynched?

But my ONE AND ONLY PURPOSE out of this whole thing was to get him to explain some stuff and not just call it a bullshit argument.

Then why did you say it was just a pressure vote?

Damn I hate being in the spotlight in the beginning all the time.

One person FoSes him, and he feels like he's "in the spotlight." I see no reason for a person to hate being in the spotlight anyway.

I still think he should explain why he misquoted.

Where did he misquote?

Note that these points I have also covered.
The argument isn't on SolemnJ anymore. It isn't about me accusing him. It's about the results. I don't want to go back and point out the details but by this time, I have forgotten what SolemnJ said that got me suspicious.

As for me being in the spotlight, there were 2 if not 3 guys Fingering at me while we were in the Joker Mode.

[Kdub]

Vote Count

CrueKnight (2)

- VistaSoldier, Torqez

Furry (2)

- ~Vigilante~, SolemnJ

cruelty (1)

- Haylen

WarWound (0)

-

Scott Brosius (0)

-

Rhinox (0)

-

Wickedestjr (1)

- Rhinox

malpascp (0)

-

~Vigilante~ (0)

-

SolemnJ (1)

- Furry

DeathNote (0)

-

Torqez (0)

-

VistaSoldier (2)

- DeathNote, Wickedestjr

Katniss (1)

- Scott Brosius

Haylen (1)

- cruelty

No Lynch (0)

-

Not Voting (4)

- WarWound, Katniss, malpascp, CrueKnight

15 players alive, 8 votes needed to lynch.

Katniss has informed me that he will be V/LA for a few days due to computer problems.

[cruelty]

Ok now we are starting to get somewhere. So Haylen is a neutral read given lack of content. Why her over other neutral reads?

Because I only have one vote, and the others with a lack of content don't have 30+ posts. She has had the opportunity to contribute, but hasn't. Thus, she's #1 on the list.


And I said I don't necessarily want her lynched - if she suddenly came alive and was pro-town, scumhunting all over the place then I'd have no issue with her. I don't think this is going to miraculously happen though, so in that case then I'm happy to see her strung up. All I'm trying to do is push her into getting into the game. I'm not going to let her coast by on a path of smilies and facepalms.

[SolemnJ]

Timeout... im noticing we are slipping into semantics instead of trying to argue a point here.

For semantics - Give me a scenario where you think pressure voting someone you think is town is a good thing to do. For bonus points, make it a mountainous (10-2 all vanilla) game day one.

For the point - Cruelty, removing everything regarding lurking/fluff, what do you think of Haylen?

Furry, it isnt pressure voting someone who is town.
Its pressure voting someone who's alliance you don't have a definite opinion on.

[SolemnJ]

CrueKnight - My earlier case.

Which was:
-I defended myself
-I told someone that I am pressuring them

How does this make sense?

That was not my whole case. Please respond to the below:

He said my reason was bull, avoiding my demand to explain why he misquoted... or falsely claimed something.
I repeated, I wanted him to explain. After seeing his previous response, it sounded if he thought I was going to lynch him or something. At least that's how I looked at it since he said his vote on me remains.

Which post seemed he thought you were going to lynch him? What made you draw that conclusion from that post?

Also, what is wrong with him thinking you want him lynched?

But my ONE AND ONLY PURPOSE out of this whole thing was to get him to explain some stuff and not just call it a bullshit argument.

Then why did you say it was just a pressure vote?

Damn I hate being in the spotlight in the beginning all the time.

One person FoSes him, and he feels like he's "in the spotlight." I see no reason for a person to hate being in the spotlight anyway.

I still think he should explain why he misquoted.

Where did he misquote?

Note that these points I have also covered.
The argument isn't on SolemnJ anymore. It isn't about me accusing him. It's about the results. I don't want to go back and point out the details but by this time, I have forgotten what SolemnJ said that got me suspicious.

As for me being in the spotlight, there were 2 if not 3 guys Fingering at me while we were in the Joker Mode.

you're avoiding it, CrueKnight.
You wouldnt have made that vote without at least a slight reason.
You can't just forget why you do things. You need to take responsibility.
Where did I apparently misquote?

[Rhinox]

Haylen:

Lies.

I had a discussion with Wicked about the RVS, which counts as game relevent, and then I did a bit of ridiculous scumhunting too. I'm also right in the middle of a discussion with you about my ''non-participation''. Stop trying to go for an easy lynch >=(

Why do you consider yourself an easy lynch? Why should a lynch not be pursued if it were easy? Example: suppose a mod confirmed sane cop reported a guilty on someone, I would call that an easy lynch... are you saying we should ignore the easy lynch and try to find scum elsewhere?

CrueKnight:

Why did you unvote someone midway through the RVS and vote yourself? Why do you hate being in the spotlight at the beginning?

cruelty:

I find you questionable WJ, I'd vote you but I'm uneasy about pushing a wagon this early. So you just get FoSed. Also your enormous posts with heaps of empty space are very irritating to scroll through for very little content. More conciseness please.

Why were you uneasy about pushing the WJ wagon so early? Do you believe an FOS has any utility at all?

You say you don't want Haylen to coast by on smiles and facepalms... do you think that is better or worse than coasting by with nothing at all? Do you think it would be in hypo-scum Haylens best interest to active lurk (which clearly catches your attention) as opposed to full on lurking, which you seem to view as less scummy?

Furry: nothing sticks out after an iso-read. Carry on.

WarWound: You wanted in the game so bad you signed up as a replacement right away. Why are you lurking instead of playing?

Scott: content seems good and productive, but it would be nice if we got more than 1 or 2 of those posts every 3 days.

Malp: looking forward to some good content tomorrow when you return.

~Vigalante~: no posts yet? thoughts on the game?

SolemnJ:

Also, I still don't see what CrueKnight's voting habits were as a valid scumtell. But its worth a finger of suspicion.

If CK's voting habits weren't a valid scumtell IYO, why is it FOS worthy?

On last thursday, you said you would post a case on furry later when you had more time. The next day, you go on to attack and vote Haylen... what happen to your furry case? Did haylen become the more convenient attack? Then on tuesday you switch your vote to furry using new information as justification... what happened to your previous case you had planned to roll out against furry?

Also, your reason for voting furry is crap. Its clear to me that what furry is saying is that if you vote for someone, you better be prepared to take responsibity (or credit, depending) if that player is lynched while you're voting for them, whether you initially voted them because you were unsure about them and wanted to pressure for reactions, or whether you thought they were scum. Voting to lynch and voting for pressure are not mutually exclusive. All votes are to lynch.

DeathNote: You say you are lost... Anything in particular you would like explained in a more concise way?

Torqez: moar input needed.

VistaSoldier: ditto.

Katniss: Nothing I've read jumps out at me.

Wiked: just awaiting a response to my previous post.

don't think I missed anyone...


Just my thoughts on the game so far, some questions I'd like answered. I'm pretty much all caught up and up to speed now with whats going on.

[Kdub]

WarWound has been prodded.

[Haylen]

K. I'm going make a post, any post after this one I'm going to consider a simulpost.

[Rhinox]

K. I'm going make a post, any post after this one I'm going to consider a simulpost.

2.5 hours later... this is going to be one hell of a long post!

[SolemnJ]

I guess it was more convenient to attack Haylen.

I expected my old Furry attack to fail.
Also, Rhinox, I disagree with what you said about my new attack on furry; if he turns out to be town, I'll get myself an avatar.

The reason that I thought CK only deserved an FoS at the time was because it was possible CrueKnight had just made a towniemistake.

[Wickedestjr]

If I wanted to use it later, why would I have said anything about it at all?

Its not really my place to speculate and WIFOM reasons why scum do what they do, but since you asked, possibly to show that you had a problem with the comment when it was made, and not having to go back to it later saying "I had a problem with this comment before but I didn't say anything until now".

Whatever. I really don't know how to defend myself here. All I can say is that it is wrong.

How do you know that a Katniss lynch would be a mislynch?

I don't. I figured it was obvious that I was considering the 'you as hypo scum' scenario. Or is this going to be one of those games where every post has to have a disclaimer to avoid being sidetracked by technicalities?

Okay.

I was having trouble explaining why the comment from Katniss bothered me. Scott ended up saying something similar to what I was thinking. Speaking of which, why don't you have any problems with Scott's comment regarding it?

Actually, scott provided reasons for why he didn't like the comment, and went on to vote Katniss, so no, I do not have a problem with scotts comments. This all happened in post 225. Your post didn't occur until after scotts post in post 242. Since you posted after scott, and you are now saying that what scott said is basically what you were feeling, why did you say in post 242 that you could not figure out why you didn't like katniss' post? There is a big glaring inconsistency here.

I read the post from Katniss before I saw Scott's comment.

IMO, this really looks like you were gently feeling out the prospect of a Katniss lynch by your comment in 242. When discussion moved on and nothing really came of it, you didn't feel any need to follow up.

If I was waiting to see what others thought before casting my vote, then why wouldn't I have voted Katniss also? Also, if I was afraid to start accusations, then why would I have been the first the make the points I made against CrueKnight, and why would I have been the first one to vote for VistaSoldier?

Also, do you actually think I would have gotten away with getting Katniss lynched for that comment?

Not for that comment alone, no. But scott presented a case that had other points besides that comment, and had a bandwagon formed, it seems like you were in good position to use that comment for jumping on the wagon.

Scott was the only one that voted Katniss I believe. There was no bandwagon. And anyway, there is more than one point on Katniss anyway. So there would still be good reasons for lynch Katniss. Also, I think it is scummy that he is worried about appearing like mafia to us. So that point I couldn't explain is a good one anyway.

I wasn't exactly sure how to explain my problem with it. Thanks for reminding about it though, because I had completely forgotten about it. Don't you see a problem with Katniss having a motivation to not look like mafia?

Your exact words were that you "couldn't figure out what was wrong" with katniss' comment, not that you couldn't explain it. I point that out because I see you changed the wording and I believe there is a clear distinction between the two... 1 is saying you think there is something wrong, you just don't know what, and the other is saying you know there is something wrong, you just can't put it into words. Regardless, see above for why it doesn't make sense, whether you didn't know or couldn't explain, based on the fact that scott posted his comments before you and you say scott basically said what you were feeling.

When I first responded to the comment I had meant to say I couldn't really explain what I had problems with. I wasn't too careful with the wording because both meant that I disliked the comment, but couldn't say why.

Regarding Katniss' comment itself, I like how you word "Don't you see a problem..." like there is a problem there I would be foolish not to see. There is no problem. Mafia have a motivation to not look like mafia. Town have a motivation to not look like mafia. It is not helpful to anyones win condition (except for a jester) to look like mafia.

Townies have one goal in this game. Catch scum. That doesn't mean to act as pro-town as you can. It means to catch scum. Sure you should defend yourself and explain your actions, but you shouldn't devote your time trying to look pro-town, while you could be doing more productive things. Like scumhunting.

That being said, its not very tactful to announce that you're only doing something to try to prove your not mafia. But then again, what motivation does a mafia player have to announce that they're only doing something to not look like mafia? So its a null tell.

Townies would have no reason to say that. Townies don't have the motivation to appear pro-town. Scum do. Nobody would have any motivation for saying that, however, scum are the only ones that would have motivation to appear pro-town, so they would be more likely to make that comment.

I'm much more interested in those that think the comment is scummy.

Then why have you completely ignored Scott?

There we go with that "expain" word thrown in there again... Its moot though because you already said scotts post was pretty much what you were feeling, so in reality you did both know and could explain what you felt was wrong with katniss' post.

Also, why does me voting you make me more lynchable, other than the typical OMGUS reaction? A crappy case is a crappy case, but I haven't yet seen any good reasons to show me I'm off the mark here just yet.

And if you think about it, it makes perfect sense for my first course of action in the game to be following up on squirrel's suspicions... I have the added knowledge of knowing squirrel's allignment and that his comments were genuine.

The case on me was bad. That, combined with Squirrel's bad case made me move you up into a higher category.

[Scott Brosius]

I read the post from Katniss before I saw Scott's comment.

Well this is impossible to prove and a lame excuse.