Mini 898: The Game (you just lost it)-OVER

[Diamondilium]

/confirm

[Diamondilium]

Vote: rewq455

because I don't find your signature very witty.

And you're a dimwit, so there.
Almaster-1-Peabody
rewq455-1-Diamondilium

[Diamondilium]

Unvote, Vote: AlmasterGM

[Diamondilium]

I don't want things getting messy so

Unvote

.
MrSuave, why did you vote AlmasterGM and were you aware that you were putting Almaster at L-2?

Impressive. If there isn't at least 1 scum on this wagon right now I'd be shocked.

Who do you think that scum is? Aimlessly throwing around an accusation isn't helping. In fact, it seems odd to me that in response to the growing wagon on you was an accusation without a target.

Also, my vote wasn't random. [/b]

[Diamondilium]

EBWOP:
... to the growing wagon on you, was

you throwing

around an accusation...

[Diamondilium]

Haha, this seems to be getting out of hand.


I'm suspicious of Diamondilium as of now. His unvote of Almaster looked a bit hasty AND his logic is a bit wack. The real reason I'm suspicious of Diamond is this quote:

Aimlessly throwing around an accusation isn't helping. In fact, it seems odd to me that in response to the growing wagon on you was an accusation without a target.

I understand that no one has anything to go off of at this point, but don't you think this accusation is a bit stretching it out of proportion?

unvote; Vote Diamondilium

Ok my unvote on Almaster was because I didn't want things messy, or in other words a quicklynch. He was already at L-2, so I felt necessary precautions were to be taken.

Also, I fail to see how I used bad logic anywhere, please point out where.

On my quote, I wasn't exactly yelling "look how scummy Almaster is". I pointed out something that I felt was odd. The point itself was weak and I see where you're coming from when calling it stretching it out of proportions, but I didn't market it as something more than weak or odd. I have a question for you. Suffer made a similar comment about the exact same quote from Almaster but you only called my point suspicious. Why not his?

Also, Vote: Diamondilium because he was the first one to vote without giving any sort of reasoning whatsoever, which is a bit of a pet peeve.

However, I did have a reason and I mentioned that I did here:

Also, my vote wasn't random.

I suppose I'll go ahead and explain why I voted now since I've seen what I wanted to see. My reason for voting was based on post #29 of Almaster's when he posted a slew of questions for a vote that was seemingly random. It came off as paranoid so I voted him to give added pressure hoping that he was scum who would crumble under it. See, if I had mentioned this reason with my original vote it would mean Almaster would know how I expected scum to react and wouldn't necessarily react naturally thus skewing my reads.

Now on to my read of Almaster. Although I felt that his initial reaction to the wagon was odd, his stance and mindset (in particular) in his arguments against suffer leave me with a townie impression. First to note is his emotional self righteous indignation. He's appears to believe that arguments against him are without merit and its overwhelmingly frustrating for him. This behavior is townie. Another important note is vote on Suffer. Despite being annoyed and what some might call OMGUSing the focus of his vote was still dependent on alignment which indicates true scumhunting. So combining all my reads and notes on Almaster, I'm gonna put him in the leaning town category.

Suffer, why did you originally vote Almaster?

[Diamondilium]

Ok my unvote on Almaster was because I didn't want things messy, or in other words a quicklynch. He was already at L-2, so I felt necessary precautions were to be taken.

Or you're scum trying to look townie by unvoting. This seems especially likely given that you said your vote wasn't random.

Regardless of whether I had a reason or not, it would be terrible move to leave you in quick lynch range so early in the game. Clearly my goal wasn't to get you lynched but rather to read your reactions.

[Diamondilium]

How wasn't it random?

I posted the answer to that earlier.

My reason for voting was based on post #29 of Almaster's when he posted a slew of questions for a vote that was seemingly random. It came off as paranoid so I voted him to give added pressure hoping that he was scum who would crumble under it. See, if I had mentioned this reason with my original vote it would mean Almaster would know how I expected scum to react and wouldn't necessarily react naturally thus skewing my reads.

[Diamondilium]

Ok my unvote on Almaster was because I didn't want things messy, or in other words a quicklynch. He was already at L-2, so I felt necessary precautions were to be taken.

I doubt that there are any mafia members stupid enough to hammer though. If they did, they would be lynched and we win

Sigh, I've read too many games where both mafia and town have been too quick to hammer. It's not always necessarily that they people intend to quicklynch but also that they haven't been paying attention. I'm rather disappointed with the people rallying around me based on such a weak notion that only stupid scum quick lynch. In fact, I've even quicklynched some one as town: http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost ... count=1337. I am dattebayo on that site.

Also, I'm not sure what sort of scum would 'crumble' under being given a vote at a point in the game where most of the votes were being tossed around at random.

I've seen it happen before, do you need links? Scum, especially newb scum, tend to behave incredibly poorly under pressure. This includes backtracking, making up unreasonable conclusions, not acting naturally etc.

[Diamondilium]

Except this isn't a newbie game, and I'm sure theres a tonne of experience here.

We've already had 1 person say they this is his/her first mini and a lot of players on mafiascum aren't exactly known for their quality of play. Furthermore, you can't be sure there's a ton of experience.

Ok my unvote on Almaster was because I didn't want things messy, or in other words a quicklynch. He was already at L-2, so I felt necessary precautions were to be taken.

This doesn't sit well with me. It's RVS, sooner or later someoen would have switched votes for another random reason.

Also, you have such an elaborate reason to be voting for Almaster at such an early stage, no?

Unvote. Vote: Diamondilium

Are you reading the thread, I'm not currently even suspicious of Almaster. Perhaps my explanation was long and elaborate but my reasoning was fairly simple: he seemed to be paranoid so I voted him to put pressure on him hoping he would break under pressure. Anyways, how is having an "elaborate" reason even scummy?

Quick lynching isn't uncommon. Even if you ( a collective you) think it is, that doesn't mean my unvoting could not have been me genuinely attempting to avoid a quick lynch. I've explained where I've got my cautious behavior in regards to quick lynching, so why exactly is it so hard to believe I was genuinely attempting to avoid to mislynch?

[Diamondilium]

Suffer, why did you originally vote Almaster?

For reactions, and I hate the RVS. A bandwagon accomplishes both, so I contributed to it.

I have a neutral read on AlmasterGM right now, and scummy vibes from Diamondilium and MrSuave. The former for unvoting from the wagon, making it seem like he was being townie even though AlmasterGM wasn't in any real danger, and the latter for this:

I was just randomly picking somone for a random reason

And the random person you picked happened to be at L-3? I find it hard to believe that the choice was random. It just seems like you're trying to absolve yourself of fault for putting him at L-2.

Can you explain why unvoting was scummy?

[Diamondilium]

Peabody I didn't see you're answer to my question:

Suffer made a similar comment about the exact same quote from Almaster but you only called my point suspicious. Why not his?

This was in post 54 if you need to read the context.

This is the link to the page of the game where the doctor was quicklynched because people weren't paying attention to the votes on him as you requested, Peabody.

That's a good catch qax about Suffer's contradiction. He's lying somewhere.

Vote: Suffer

[Diamondilium]

That sounds like a thought-out justification to me

That depends what you take justification to mean. If you take it to mean having a reason, then yes, my vote was justified. But by that definition, everyone's vote is justified, because everyone has a reason when they vote, whether it's how their name looked or what came up when they rolled the dice.

When I said justified, I meant well-grounded. I wasn't voting AlmasterGM because I thought him to be scum, but rather to continue a bandwagon.

Fair enough.

Also, Suffer, you still haven't responded to this from llamaeatataco:

Also, your accusation, and the assumption that putting someone at l-2 is a bad thing, is strange. Also, the contradiction between 'even though almastergm wasn't in any real danger' and 'absolve yourself of fault for putting him at l-2' is weird...-er.

Looking back at it, it's more than just "strange" - it fits the scum mindset well. He displayed suspicion on multiple people, which normally wouldn't bother me, but the fact that his reasons for those suspicions contradict indicates that his suspicion weren't genuine in the first place. Instead, it seems like he was grabbing whatever reasons he could (regardless of whether they were contradicting or logical) and using them to keep his foot in all doors.

[Diamondilium]

Ah, I did miss that.

Also, your accusation, and the assumption that putting someone at l-2 is a bad thing, is strange. Also, the contradiction between 'even though almastergm wasn't in any real danger' and 'absolve yourself of fault for putting him at l-2' is weird...-er.

Those two points came from two separate mindsets. I said he wasn't in any real danger because, well, he wasn't. Two scum could have quickhammered him, but that would be remarkably bad play on their part. The "absolve yourself of fault" was said by me as a suggestion for MrSuave's actions. I was thinking that MrSuave said that his L-2 vote was random because in his mind, putting someone there could be seen as suspicious, and he was trying to give himself an excuse.

I find this explanation hard to believe since nothing MrSuave had done up to that point made it seem as if he believed putting Almaster at L-2 was bad. My vote stands.

Waiting on rewq's response to Peabody's question.

[Diamondilium]

I don't think AK47X2 is scummy. His earlier lurking and many other players' are understandable. The fact that he has more time to post now also makes sense considering the holiday season is in essence over. His inability to find something to post is a null tell for me. I recall feeling the same way as both town and scum.

I, however, think Llama's approach on AK47X2 is scummy. He's clearly having some internal conflict over putting suspicion on AK47X2. While some conflict of gut and reason is not unheard of in mafia, the way llama's manifests is unsettling. He doesn't say something along the lines of "he seems townie, but he's not acting that way -- so I'll fos him". He instead says something along the lines of "he's going to flip townie and I feel stupid (not that he actually is) for being suspicious of him":

And as soon as I call him on it, the time constraints go away. Cue the self-loathing when he is telling the truth and flips town...

and

First things first... I was too lazy to post last night. Get over it. Now I'm back, and caught up. And I get to semi-rant about things I think are annoying. First of all, lurking. AK claims to not be posting because of time restraints. This is annoying, because we can't immediately call him scum, he's supposedly just unable to post... Interesting though, that he has enough time to post something like the above post, and apparently keep up completely with the game, and stay on top of things so completely that he can tell who is scummy, and to what degree.

I'm going to feel like a douche when I'm wrong, but FOS: AK

because, even though it's a lame thing to do, I find his claim of being too busy to post very fake. Imo, he just copied what other people said to make it look like he has kept up on things (that would be lying, and he'd be lame for not actually playing the game) , or, the more likely case, that he has had time and been keeping up, but he just powerlurked.

[Diamondilium]

Diamond, It's just because I'm usually wrong. In my opinion, I think his excuse was bs. That's the way it seems to me, but I'm still paranoid about being wrong.

Now, I don't mean to OMGUS here, but your accusation doesn't exactly make sense. You seem to jump to the conclusions that I both know he is town, that I know that now,

and that I'm not actually being stupid. These are all wrong. My instinct is that he is faking it, but I know myself well enough to believe that it is entirely possible for me to be wrong. My post is not saying what you're saying it's saying, it's saying (say that three times fast) that I think he is scum, but I also think I am wrong. If you can manage to understand what I just said, then I both applaud you and know that now you know what I know I'm (what's with these tongue twisters?) probably wrong, but that I never the less think he is faking it. I'm not going to go into how his claim of no time is weird for irl reasons, but I WILL recap what I already said about it for game reasons. First of all, he has had time to read the thread, AND post that he doesn't have time to post. I also know that for me, reading the thread is 90% of the time I spend on the game.

Basically, It was me saying that I both think he is faking it, and I think that I'm probably wrong... I'm just predicting my own failure, because if I do, it's a win-win. Either I'm right, or I'm right. It's my way of saying that I know that I don't know what I know I know. (that time was on purpose)

Bolded (Mine): This is exactly what I'm accusing you of. And I don't think it's fair to say that I'm jumping to conclusions. My accusation has a premise, you were stating AK47X2's alignment matter- o - factly as if you knew his alignment.
Now, as for the rest of your explanation, I was following along well because you were explaining your mindset and it appeared to be an townie internal struggle. However, the fact that you had stated AK47's alignment as if you had inside info, shifts the mindset to match that of scum.

My opinion on Almaster has not changed.

I don't think the attack on Torqez has any merit, but I'll wait for Torqez to respond first.

The two scummiest people in the game to me are Suffer, and llamaeatataco.

[Diamondilium]

Hahahahaha! Diamond, that was some very good BS. I WAS stating something matter - o - factly. However, as I was trying to say in my post, you are wrong about

what

I was saying as a matter of course. I was not saying I knew his alignment, I was saying that I knew that I was most likely wrong. As I have already explained, I am wrong about these things a lot. Interesting that you call me the second most scummy person in the game, based on a single bit of faulty reasoning. It's most likely because it's only page 6, so I don't find it worthy of suspicion, but you should think about taking a few seconds more to consider what you believe.

There are two equally logical conclusions to be made from my post: Either I was saying I knew his alignment, or I was saying that I knew that my opinion was most likely wrong.

Bolded (mine): I don't see why these are mutually exclusive: in fact, both are probably true given the circumstances. I mean, you did state that you thought you were wrong

and

AK47X2's alignment matter-of-factly.
I even believed your explanation about thinking you were wrong. The explanation doesn't, however, change the fact that you spoke as if you knew AK47X2's alignment it only explains the remarks about believing yourself to be wrong.
For clarification, claiming that you only stated your degree of correctness matter-of-factly doesn't change the fact that you also stated AK47's alignment matter-of-factly.
You're explanation covers this:

First things first... I was too lazy to post last night. Get over it. Now I'm back, and caught up. And I get to semi-rant about things I think are annoying. First of all, lurking. AK claims to not be posting because of time restraints. This is annoying, because we can't immediately call him scum, he's supposedly just unable to post... Interesting though, that he has enough time to post something like the above post, and apparently keep up completely with the game, and stay on top of things so completely that he can tell who is scummy, and to what degree.

I'm going to feel like a douche when I'm wrong, but FOS: AK

because, even though it's a lame thing to do, I find his claim of being too busy to post very fake. Imo, he just copied what other people said to make it look like he has kept up on things (that would be lying, and he'd be lame for not actually playing the game) , or, the more likely case, that he has had time and been keeping up, but he just powerlurked.

But not this:

And as soon as I call him on it, the time constraints go away. Cue the self-loathing when he is telling the truth and flips town...

And yes, you are the second scummiest person to me, but it is still early in the game.

There are two equally logical conclusions to be made from my post: Either I was saying I knew his alignment, or I was saying that I knew that my opinion was most likely wrong.

If one of the logical conclusions to be drawn from your post is that you know my alignment, that's where something's gone wrong. At best it's bad wording. At worst it's practically a confession to being scum.

QFT. And, I've ruled out bad wording at this point.

[Diamondilium]

diamond wrote:

Bolded (mine): I don't see why these are mutually exclusive: in fact, both are probably true given the circumstances. I mean, you did state that you thought you were wrong and AK47X2's alignment matter-of-factly.
I even believed your explanation about thinking you were wrong. The explanation doesn't, however, change the fact that you spoke as if you knew AK47X2's alignment it only explains the remarks about believing yourself to be wrong.
For clarification, claiming that you only stated your degree of correctness matter-of-factly doesn't change the fact that you also stated AK47's alignment matter-of-factly.

See, this is pretty much the exact point where it crosses the line for me. You see, all the points where you claim that I am claiming to know his alignment are really just me saying I'm probably wrong. On a side note, now that I think about it, me the conclusions are not at all equally logical. Me predicting my own failure is infinitely more likely than blatantly claiming scum.

I don't see why it's a matter of which is more likely because they are not mutually exclusive and they both have already occurred.

Diamond:

I've ruled out bad wording at this point.

Read as: I am no longer accepting a logical explanation and will be assuming you just claimed scum. That's essentially what you are saying. You are saying that there is no possibility that it was just a strange way to say "this is what I think, but I think I'm wrong about what I think" and that is most definitely in your mind me claiming scum. The real interesting thing is that (note: this is directed at diamond, I just realized I was using second person now and I'm too lazy to edit, so just replace all the you's with diamond if it's confusing you.) you and AK are together on this. When you look at it, it's ridiculous. The only shred of logic in there was that I didn't explain this line:

This is blatant misinterpretation. I've already stated that I believe your explanation for most of your post except one exception. It seems like you're trying to make it seem as if I disregarded your entire defense.

llama:

And as soon as I call him on it, the time constraints go away. Cue the self-loathing when he is telling the truth and flips town...

1. This is not me claiming to know his alignment, it is predicting me being wrong.
2. This is not meant to be taken literally. You see, I am a pessimist for a reason. Either something good happens or I at least get to be right.

Whether or not you were attempting to address your own failures does not change my opinion here. I don't think you understand the main discrepancy here: the difference between "if he flips town" and "when he flips town". Given your explanation and your lack of acknowledgment of the bad wording, I've come to the conclusion that bad wording wasn't the problem here.

The explanation for this wording unless you know two things about me. (ignore this if you are one of those paranoid types that thinks everything is an appeal to emotion. This is put here merely to explain the statement, and I believe it does.) First, I really fail at this game. I normally play on a different site, and there I am usually wrong. This is the seed for the pessimism about my suspicions. Second, I doubt myself a lot. This serves to amplify the Negative light that I view my reading of people in.

Bolding mine.

Now that that's out of the way, There is one last thing that I need to say here. Potential Diamond/Ak scum team? The buddying is pretty hardcore.

Diamond first tries (succeeds really) to divert attention away from Ak's very convenient sudden increase in free time, (If you think this is a really stupid scumtell, I'll explain why I think it's suspicious, but I don't want to waste time) and then proceeds to attack me for something extremely far out.

AK backs him up. If they aren't scum together, then this behavior doesn't really make sense. They both did things of a buddying nature, even when it was not necessary. Diamond first deflects attention, AK then comes up with some quick bs and Diamond backs him on this. Now that I have (hopefully) explained why this is a stupid thing to attack someone on, I will ask you... Why are you teaming? More importantly, why are you teaming on something so silly?

Bolded (mine): This is incredibly inaccurate. Considering that 4 people posted from post 140 (which is what I'm assuming you're referring too since it's the first post since the suspicion on AK built up) it is a blatant lie that I have attempted to divert attention let alone succeed in it. Just take a look at the people who have posted since then: the mod, me, AK47X2, the replacement who hasn't read yet and AK47X2. You clearly haven't lost focus of AK47X2 and no one else who has been posting has been focused on him.
The whole buddying accussation is based on a horrible double standard. I borrowed you're point when attacking Suffer, llama and then you later pointed out that it was good. Suffered attacked Almaster on the same line that I had just pointed out the post before his. The recent case on AK47X2 was Peabody following Almaster's point.
You scrapped together a completely inaccurate and fallacious OMGUS that was clearly not like your other cases and points. Because of this, your OMGUS seemed more like an attempt to discredit your attackers (or rather who you perceived to be attacking you) more than it did legitimate scumhunting.
Therefore

Unvote, Vote: llamaeatataco

.

Max has escaped.
Suffer-2- Torqez, MrSuave
AK47x2-2-Peabody, AlmasterGM
AlmasterGM-2-SolemnJ, Llamaeatataco
Torqez-2-Suffer, Peabody
Llamaeatataco-1-Diamondilium

[Diamondilium]

Ok this is starting to get out of hand, I imagine for the readers. Instead of going and responding through with only quotes as I have done before, I'm gonna sum up my points and concisely answer everything I possibly can. Lemme know if I missed anything.

I'll start with llama's OMGUS case

THAT Is why I should not post at 2 AM. From what I can understand, here's what I was trying to say, and the order of events as far as I can tell:

1. I accuse AK of lurking
2. He pops back up super fast
3. Diamond starts attacking my post based on wording.
4. AK also goes on this line of attack.
5. They continue together.

Now, that's the impression I got. This may or may not be correct. As explained below, AK's post is a little like mine, in that you can either think he is accusing me of being scum, or that he is just pointing out bad wording. I don't quite remember why I chose the first option... But anyway, As it stands, the more I think about it the more I find myself believing his explanation.

First of all, the entirety of his case was based on an impression which he didn't even bother verifying. Second, my attack started before AK was even being accused of lurking. Third, the fact that two people find you suspicious for the same thing doesn't necessarily mean that they're buddying. It is much more likely to mean that you are actually being scummy. I've also pointed out multiple instances in which others could be considered buddying that llama did not point out. Seems like a double standard to me.

Moving on, saying that I have "ignored" your responses is a lie. A pretty blatant lie considering that there used to be more to the original case that I dropped because I believed part of your explanation.

As for my original point. I ruled out bad wording after you failed to explain it on bad wording and instead tried attributing it wholly to predicting your own failure.

I haven't refused to answer that it could possibly be prediction stated as fact. The prediction part is irrelevant because you're still explaining and acting as if you knew his alignment.

Also, I am not detracting from the suspicion on AK by attacking you because A) I attacked you before people pointed out AK's lurking and B) the only person who cared about his reappearance was you and you clearly haven't forgetten it and C) the other people most likely to care about his reappearance (Peabody and Almaster who attacked him earlier for lurking) haven't even posted since I attacked you.

If anyone reads the thread, even if they don't agree with my original point would have to agree that your counterattack has been very scummy. Also, I note how you vote me right after I vote you, yet you didn't add any new points.

[Diamondilium]

Ugh, I'm not gonna type up a large response to llama. But for clarification,
1) When I said you didn't add anything new I was referring to the point about not adding new points or arguments against me -- not really about whether you were refuting the arguments against you. Because of this, I felt like your vote on me was unwarranted and ingenuous and just you voting in response to me voting you.
2) My accusation isn't so much about you overtly claiming your scum so much as it is a slip -- a slip that is a scum tell regardless of whether you were predicting something or not.
3) My apologies. For some reason, I thought that my original point came before the pressure on AK47X2. Regardless your notion of detracting from the pressure is still weak because if we look back at the original argument -- it was fairly small. The fact that it grew so large and something you felt was distracting was uncalled for. Calling my attempts at diversion successful is still incorrect because we haven't seen any evidence of lost interest in AK47X2 mainly because Peabody and Almaster haven't posted recently.
4) On buddying, just because you claim to believe that the accusation is ridiculous doesn't make it ridiculous. And, given AK47's approach which was the opposite of aggressive, I don't see how you got the idea that we are working together to attack you. Now that Raskol has sort of "attacked" you, do you think he's buddying with us?
5) You still were blatantly lying about me ignoring your posts.
6) "I am explaining and acting as if I know I am probably wrong." Probably doesn't belong there. You stated it matter-of-factly about his alignment.

There's really no point in arguing anymore, we'd just be beating a dead horse. It's time other players took the time to post.

[Diamondilium]

First, I admit that the accusation of buddying was a little tenuous. I mainly just threw that in there to see what you'd say. I find that reaction testing works better if you sneak it in there with something legitimate.

*Raises Eyebrow*

Fair enough, I guess. In the meantime, how about making yourself useful and voting for MrSuave?

Why are you supportive of a MrSuave wagon?

[Diamondilium]

Why are you supportive of a MrSuave wagon?

Because he's lurking, and from having read two games he was in, I don't think he'll stop it unless his only other alternative is death.

So, he typically lurks when he's scum?

[Diamondilium]

Here's the game where he's scum:

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... c&&start=0

Here's a game where he lurks as town but is convinced to help the town out more by people threatening to lynch him:

http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 94&start=0

Those are the only two I've read so far, but they're enough to convince me that a wagon on Mrsuave will help remind him that he needs to be productive. Otherwise he'll just continue playing RVS until endgame.

Wait you said that he lurks as scum, but you've only read two of his games in one of which he was town. Why did you answer my question with yes?

[Diamondilium]

I already told you before you even asked the question that I'd only read two games. If you weren't willing to take that sample size seriously, fair enough, but then, why would you even ask the question?

It's no good to ask me the question knowing I've only read two games, and

then

get miffed with my

answer

because it's only based on two games.

Yeah you're right about the sample size, but what about saying that he lurks as scum when you've seen him lurk as both scum and town?

[Diamondilium]

Because he does lurk as scum, and if he's town then a wagon will motivate him to start posting. And if it doesn't motivate him to start posting, then he's better off dead because he'll be a useless, unreadable question mark of dead weight for the rest of the game.

In my last three or four games we were plagued by lurkers and didn't take care of them early. In the end it's always come back to bite us in the ass.

Hmm, I thought your answer was misleading.
Lurkers are a problem, but we shouldn't let them take away from legitimate scumhunting. It's better to get the mod to prod and if necessary replace them. A lurker, from my perspective, isn't as good a candidate as some others.

[Diamondilium]

Is MrSuave still here?

[Diamondilium]

D=