Mini 896 - Jekyll Mafia - Game Over

[Nachomamma8]

Unvote, Vote: Gerhard Krause

Every time you post, I get a worse feeling about you. You are bouncing from wagon to wagon, leaving your old one as soon as it starts to let off steam. You're not posting consistently, and I haven't been satisfied with any of the scumhunting you've done alone.

[kikuchiyo]

I do find it odd that someone who is trying to avoid the random voting aspect of the game places a slightly less random vote based on a poor response to non-game related questions. Since it isn't (as far as I can tell) any kind of scumtell to not answer your questions, it's similar to voting for someone who chooses not to partake in random voting.

Not sure what you are getting at here. Perhaps you could clarify. Who exactly was "trying to avoid the random voting aspect of the game"? Seeing as how I didn't push a Nacho wagon very hard, or agree with any of the other crap reasons people were voting for him, I am not sure why you are choosing to attack said vote. It almost seems like you are implying some sort of hypocrisy on my part, but I fail to see it. What is wrong with voting someone who chooses not to partake in random voting? As far as I can tell, that happens all the time.

OK, so you've basically admitted that Gerhard's reasoning also applies to 5cvm. You unvoted 5vcm to vote for Mr. Suave, so what exactly tipped the scales towards Mr. Suave?

Nothing "tipped the scales". I noticed the wagon on 5cvm growing quick. Its page 8. Competing bandwagons are good for town. Hypothetically speaking, if one of the lynches goes through and flips town, and lets say the other player gets vigged and flips scum, then we can focus on the players who jumped from the scum wagon to the town wagon. Its kind of "Scumhunting 101", not sure why that's not obvious. Neither case is all that good, however, both seem to be better than anything else. So why rush to lynch one when we can put heat on both and force all of the lurker non-voters to make a choice for possible future use in scumhunting?

The two most recent posts actually give me a little more concern. Post 190 is just a defence of 5cvm and a request for him not to claim. This last one is yet again an attempt at pushing off of the 5cvm wagon, while admitting that his case on Mr. Suave is pretty weak.

I didn't make a case on Suave, and I am a "her/she". Both cases are weak. Both players happen to be responding poorly, which in my experience means that either they are caught scum, or "deer in the headlights" townies who suck(no offense). My "defense" is more about the claim than about protecting 5cvm. 5cvm needs to show up and represent himself. However, it is not in town's best interest to get multiple claims out in the open on day 1 as this only benefits scum. Therefore, town needs to be absolutely certain on who they are going to lynch before they call for a claim so as not to risk exposing power roles.

I'd also like to know why she didn't vote for Raider for using the false dilemma she called out.

The "false dilemma" fallacy is used just as often by townies as it is by scum. In fact, its one of the easiest fallacies to point out which makes it a horrible tool for scum. The only reason I've considered voting for Raider is because he did say that he was experienced in the game of mafia, and that does not coincide with embracing such an obvious false dilemma. In any case, its not something he pushed strongly imo and I see no reason to vote there.

I don't see a 5cvm lynch as a policy lynch - or at least no one has said as much for their reasoning.

No. Noone has said that as their reasoning, but if you actually look at the reasoning, it seems as though the case is built around his poor playstyle and his weak ass gambit. Granted, he seemed to be convinced that I was scum, but he has been unable to present any coherent reasoning for anything he's done. It certainly feels like its a policy lynch to me.

I would like to see phantom actually do something except for reminding 5cvm that he has unanswered questions. We've got more than one scum, so it never hurts to look under a few more rocks.

So I take it that you are convinced that 5cvm is mafia aligned?

Gerhard: Post 197 contains no questions for me to answer. If you are confused about something I have done or reasoning I have applied, please ask. All you've done here is piggyback Hackerhuck's post with a vote.

[Nachomamma8]

I'm looking at Kiku's posts, and I can't imagine that reasoning coming

from town

, but it makes perfect sense

as scum

.

Kiku, how do you feel about how Gerhard worded that?

[kikuchiyo]

I'm looking at Kiku's posts, and I can't imagine that reasoning coming

from town

, but it makes perfect sense

as scum

.

Kiku, how do you feel about how Gerhard worded that?

Not sure what to think about it. I would like to know what "that reasoning" is.

[raider8169]

Im sorry I havnet been posting. I will be more active in the next couple of days. Things have been hectic here.

[HackerHuck]

Not sure what you are getting at here. Perhaps you could clarify. Who exactly was "trying to avoid the random voting aspect of the game"? Seeing as how I didn't push a Nacho wagon very hard, or agree with any of the other crap reasons people were voting for him, I am not sure why you are choosing to attack said vote. It almost seems like you are implying some sort of hypocrisy on my part, but I fail to see it. What is wrong with voting someone who chooses not to partake in random voting? As far as I can tell, that happens all the time.

That one's my mistake. I thought you posed your list of questions as an alternative to random voting, but I see that it was done as an attempt to keep conversation moving.

Nothing "tipped the scales". I noticed the wagon on 5cvm growing quick. Its page 8. Competing bandwagons are good for town. Hypothetically speaking, if one of the lynches goes through and flips town, and lets say the other player gets vigged and flips scum, then we can focus on the players who jumped from the scum wagon to the town wagon. Its kind of "Scumhunting 101", not sure why that's not obvious. Neither case is all that good, however, both seem to be better than anything else. So why rush to lynch one when we can put heat on both and force all of the lurker non-voters to make a choice for possible future use in scumhunting?

Following your logic, you are setting yourself up as scum if 5cvm is scum, and Mr. Suave is town. That would imply that either you don't mind throwing unwarranted suspicion on yourself (anti-town) or that you actually think Mr. Suave is scummier - which you said wasn't the case.

I don't see a 5cvm lynch as a policy lynch - or at least no one has said as much for their reasoning.

No. Noone has said that as their reasoning, but if you actually look at the reasoning, it seems as though the case is built around his poor playstyle and his weak ass gambit. Granted, he seemed to be convinced that I was scum, but he has been unable to present any coherent reasoning for anything he's done. It certainly feels like its a policy lynch to me.

I guess you could consider it "policy" to always vote for someone who looks scummy.

I would like to see phantom actually do something except for reminding 5cvm that he has unanswered questions. We've got more than one scum, so it never hurts to look under a few more rocks.

So I take it that you are convinced that 5cvm is mafia aligned?

I'm pretty sure this is my quote. My whole point is that Phantom shouldn't just sit on his hands waiting for 5cvm to reply. When we have more than one scum left, it's not good scumhunting to just do nothing while waiting for someone to answer a question that they may never get around to answering. That is just the appearance of scumhunting and is itself scummy. And yes, I believe 5cvm is scum, which should be pretty apparent from my vote and justification for my vote.

[kikuchiyo]

Following your logic, you are setting yourself up as scum if 5cvm is scum, and Mr. Suave is town. That would imply that either you don't mind throwing unwarranted suspicion on yourself (anti-town) or that you actually think Mr. Suave is scummier - which you said wasn't the case.

This is a bit fuzzy. I have already stated that if 5cvm were to flip mafia that I would be willing to deal with the heat tomorrow. Competing wagons are good for town and if I have to put myself out there to make it happen then so be it. Suave flipping town wouldn't necessarily make me scum. My scumminess in this situation seems to be more less dependent on 5cvm flipping mafia. If both players are town, then there is little scum motivation for me to move from one wagon to the other. Regardless, I am not afraid to be scrutinized if it helps us lynch scum in the long run.

I guess you could consider it "policy" to always vote for someone who looks scummy.

Yes. Its basically lynching someone on a meta case on day 1 based on their playstyle. No different to me than lynching the player with the least posts. i.e. you have a set of expectations(in this case, "stop acting like you always do!") and if said player refuses to live up to those expectations, you lynch them. However, 5cvm's absence and avoidance

is going to be

admissable as evidence. No reason to speed ourselves to a lynch regardless.

I'm pretty sure this is my quote. My whole point is that Phantom shouldn't just sit on his hands waiting for 5cvm to reply. When we have more than one scum left, it's not good scumhunting to just do nothing while waiting for someone to answer a question that they may never get around to answering. That is just the appearance of scumhunting and is itself scummy. And yes, I believe 5cvm is scum, which should be pretty apparent from my vote and justification for my vote.

Okay.

I am actually leaning towards scum on Gerhard at this time. He needs to flesh out his reason for voting me as from what I can tell, it is fundamentally flawed. However, my train of suspicion of him includes 5cvm being mafia aligned, so if Gerhards response is what I think it will be, I would most likely move back to the 5cvm wagon.

Unvote

, for now.

[Gerhard Krause]

Ok, obviously I failed to get my point across, so let me make myself clear.

Kiku is not playing from a town mindset, and her reasoning is fabricated, or so I believe.

This is why.

Kiku has been playing around with the two competing wagons, without committing to either of them, setting her up to pick one reasonable later based on what puts her in the best position. Yes this can be explained from a town perspective, but I feel it less likely.

This is not a new pattern though. Earlier she voted Nachomamma8 for not answering her questions. Later she changed that to because he refused, but again, this feels strongly of fabricated reasoning.

She doesn't seem clear about the reasons for the two larger wagons, and is flip flopping between them with little or no reasoning of her own.

The issue is that she is not establishing a position, while she is writing enough, and well enough to appear as though she is.

It is beneficial to scum to behave this way. Not to town.

[kikuchiyo]

Kiku has been playing around with the two competing wagons, without committing to either of them, setting her up to pick one reasonable later based on what puts her in the best position. Yes this can be explained from a town perspective, but I feel it less likely.

The 5cvm wagon was already reached by consensus. 5cvm was asked to claim. What benefit do I have as mafia to halting that wagon and promoting discussion?

This is not a new pattern though. Earlier she voted Nachomamma8 for not answering her questions. Later she changed that to because he refused, but again, this feels strongly of fabricated reasoning.

The reasoning was not "changed". You are now arguing semantics. Seriously, what is the big difference between "his decision to not answer" and "his refusal to answer"?

She doesn't seem clear about the reasons for the two larger wagons, and is flip flopping between them with little or no reasoning of her own.

Have I not made it clear how I feel?

I think you're missing the point that 5cvm might just be an asshole.

Your attempts to twist what I am saying into anything other than questions is noted. Your inability to clarify your stance is noted. Your skirting of questions is noted. Explain yourself.

This is interesting.

The biggest scum tell I see here is Mr. Suave not knowing if it was L-1, and staying on the wagon anyway even though he explicitly stated he didn't want the lynch to go through any time soon.

Essentially, 5cvm did the same thing

.

I dont want to lose because Im too willing to lynch stupid.

Words of wisdom. I get the feeling there might be quite a bit of "stupid" floating around this thread.

Reading through and 5cvm is at L-2, not L-1. I don't see a need to claim right now. I would like both of 5cvm and Mr. Suave to post some more thoughts. Both cases are not terribly strong it seems and we are only 8 pages in. There are some among us who seem not to be contributing much at all and that should change.

Saying, "Both look like good lynch candidates." does not conflict with not wanting to quicklynch and wanting more participation from other players. I stated how I felt the cases were similar. After further review and seeing how the wagons built, I found it beneficial to even the wagons and promote more discussion.

All you have done is point your finger and say "Her behavior is scummy." You have failed to say how. Please explain the

scum motivation

for my behavior and why said behavior seems scummy to you.

The issue is that she is not establishing a position, while she is writing enough, and well enough to appear as though she is.

It is beneficial to scum to behave this way. Not to town.

This makes little sense. How is it not beneficial to town to ask questions of suspects, ask for lurkers to contribute, hold back a lynch wagon, and prolong the day? Is it more protown to "policy lynch" a player with a weak case without even cracking ten pages on day 1?

[Gerhard Krause]

You have just illustrated my point in your last line.

I never even alluded to a policy lynch, I showed exactly what I perceived as a scum tell and acted on it.

Yes, you are showing your positions very well, but those are no positions at all.

1) You get to stay off the mislynch wagon, and get townie points for prolonging discussion, while actually doing next to nothing to derail the wagon.

2) The difference is that one is passive, the other is active. It makes a world of difference regarding your actual vote. In one case there are several viable candidates for your vote. In the other there is one. First you chose the first one, then the second. Yes, it is semantics, but it is still a discrepancy.

3) No you haven't

AT ALL.

"He might be scum, but he's probably just an asshole, but wait he could be scum, but no he's just an asshole, but maybe he's scum..."

You have no position on the actual players, only a policy of "don't quicklynch, more conversation." What more dry useless thing to say could you possibly come up with? You are clearly scum trying to look town.

You aren't scum hunting. You are protecting yourself from having to commit to opinions by having "town policy" reasons for being on wagons, not actual scum hunting.

This is beneficial to scum because it puts you in a position of not needing to commit your vote to a mislynch wagon, safe in the knowledge one will go through. If you can't work out why that's a good position for scum to be in, then you clearly have never had a scum role on this site.

It is not beneficial to town because you are not putting any effort into finding the scum, and your policy votes (because that is all they are), and allows scum players to slip by, by acting "pro-town" like you.

[kikuchiyo]

Half of your post doesn't even make sense to me, and the other half seems to have ignored anserwing the question I asked. I never said you "alluded" to a policy lynch. Not sure where you get that. You accuse me of being scummy becuase I have taken the stand of "don't quicklynch, more conversation." So I asked you:

How is it not beneficial to town to ask questions of suspects, ask for lurkers to contribute, hold back a lynch wagon, and prolong the day? Is it more protown to "policy lynch" a player with a weak case without even cracking ten pages on day 1?

To rephrase the question I can put it in multiple choice format:

Please select which of the following situations you find to be more protown than the other:

A) Asking lurkers to contribute, holding back a lynch wagon, and prolonging the day.

or

B) "policy lynching" a player with a weak case without even cracking ten pages on day 1.

Hint: the answer is A. Yet for some reason, when I fell into the category of situation B, you viewed me as more protown. Now that I have enacted situation A, I am scum. It doesn't make sense. Especially since you are pushing the idea that both 5cvm

and

Mr. Suave are town. They both pulled the "oh he's at L-1, oh no!" bullshit and neither unvoted. Yet for some reason, you avoided voting for 5cvm.

1) You get to stay off the mislynch wagon, and get townie points for prolonging discussion, while actually doing next to nothing to derail the wagon.

^^ Here you base my scumminess off of the assumption that both 5cvm and Mr. Suave are town. If they both are town, then I am actually doing town a favor. How am I "doing next to nothing to derail the wagon"? And why would I completely "derail" the wagon when neither player has put forth any pro town posting yet whatsoever?

2) The difference is that one is passive, the other is active. It makes a world of difference regarding your actual vote. In one case there are several viable candidates for your vote. In the other there is one. First you chose the first one, then the second. Yes, it is semantics, but it is still a discrepancy.

This makes no sense. The question put to you was: "Seriously, what is the big difference between "his decision to not answer" and "his refusal to answer"?" There is no discrepancy in my vote on Nacho. It was what it was.

3) No you haven't AT ALL. "He might be scum, but he's probably just an asshole, but wait he could be scum, but no he's just an asshole, but maybe he's scum..."

This is a bit of misrep. How am I supposed to know his alignment? He might be scum. He might be an "asshole". What he needs to do is show up and scumhunt. I can't do that for him.

Your case is based wholly on the assumption that 5cvm and Mr. Suave are town and that I am going out of my way to look town on day 1 when I simply could have let either one of them be lynched without much fuss in under ten pages. Its very far fetched scum motivation.

[kikuchiyo]

Ebwop: To amend my stance here, your logic is not "faulty" as I thought. I just disagree with your conclusion and think its a reach at best. I'm off to New Year's Eve festivities and plan on finishing my isos when things calm back down.

[Gerhard Krause]

I'm not sure you grasped my point. I don't have an issue with you're "more conversation, no quicklynch" policy, my issue is with you doing that rather than scumhunting.

I'm not sure if your second post is acknowledging that or something else.

[Gerhard Krause]

@Nachomamma8 - Your vote on me is completely baseless. You have less reason to vote me than I did on either of the people I voted for. You said I've been leaving bandwagons, I left one when I saw something better.

There is no reason for you to be voting me, especially not based on the reasons you presented.

[Nachomamma8]

@Nachomamma8 - Your vote on me is

completely baseless

. You have less reason to vote me than I did on either of the people I voted for. You said I've been leaving bandwagons, I left one when I saw something better.

There is

no

reason for you to be voting me,

especially not based on the reasons you presented

.

Baseless? Nah. I just find it a little too convinient that you voted 5cvm when he was the bandwagon being discussed, then you switched to Suave when he was the bandwagon being discussed, and now you switch to Kikuchiyo now that's she's being discussed. And as for the bolded... That's a little extreme, don't you think so?

[PHANTOM]

I apologize for not being that active, but I'll have an analysis up asap.

Also, happy new year/decade!

[Gerhard Krause]

You don't have your facts right. I never voted 5cvm once during this thread. I said I could be convinced to switch over, but I was still happy with my Mr.Suave vote.

This is the first time I have changed my vote since I voted Mr.Suave in the first place. I was never on the 5cvm wagon, nor did I ever advocate it. You sir are either lying or mistaken, and your vote is still baseless.

[Nachomamma8]

You don't have your facts right. I never voted 5cvm once during this thread. I said I could be convinced to switch over, but I was still happy with my Mr.Suave vote.

Unvote

Then I'm sorry. I was mistaken.

[Gerhard Krause]

Thank you. Your lack of inclination to check facts has been noted.

[Nachomamma8]

Thank you. Your lack of inclination to check facts has been noted.

Be sure to note the time as well.

[Gerhard Krause]

When you voted me? It was 9:27.

[HackerHuck]

I'm not much of a morning person either

I'll make the same point as I made earlier. If you don't want people to think you're scum, don't act scummy. If you're town, that's even more important because you're just taking away attention from the true scum.

I see Gerhard's point on Kiku, but I'm not ready to place her above 5cvm or Mr. Suave right now. I'd like to get some more peoples' opinions on the two main wagons right now.

[Nachomamma8]

When you voted me? It was 9:27.

When I explained my vote? It was 1:00 AM. Pointless bickering doesn't really get us far... >.>

[Gerhard Krause]

When you explained it is irrelevant. When you actually made the vote was when the reasons were in your head. That was when you thought I had voted 5cvm and chose to act on it.

This isn't really pointless actually. You're digging yourself into a hole here. First you vote me based on false assertions. Then you retract that vote based on false excuses. Then you dismiss the argument as pointless, when, though not hugely important, it is at least relevant.

Now what you have just shown is a scum slip if I ever saw one. You posted a vote, but only

later

did you come up with reasons to explain it. You're basing your excuse off of when you

explained

your vote, not when you

placed

it.

You could pass off the time issue as forgetting who you were voting for, or why you were voting them, but when you placed the vote, you

knew

what your reasons were. If the time was the issue, you wouldn't have retracted your vote, you would have explained the real reasons behind it, as you were clearly lucid when you made it.

You just admitted that you came up with the reasons for the vote

after

you made it. It can't be explained by you simply forgetting what the reasons were when you explained it, since you did not present new reasons when I called you on it. That my friend is a clear scum tell.

unvote, Vote: Nachomamma8

[wolframnhart]

I'd like to get some more peoples' opinions on the two main wagons right now.

I am still fine with my vote on 5cvm at this time, but it is hard to really peg down a person when they aren't posting.

MrSuave is really starting to catch my eye a little more though. He STILL has his vote from the RV stage on Nacho, has not tried to build any sort of case or scum hunt at all, and after the mass prod all he had to say was he was against policy lynches or "shinanigans" as he put it. Very much anti-town at this time.

I can get Gerhard's vote against Nacho, but at this time I think it was all a big misunderstanding.

Gerhard, you say Nacho voted, but then later came up with reasons to explain it, I thought he did explain why he was the first time:

Unvote, Vote: Gerhard Krause

Every time you post, I get a worse feeling about you. You are bouncing from wagon to wagon, leaving your old one as soon as it starts to let off steam. You're not posting consistently, and I haven't been satisfied with any of the scumhunting you've done alone.

If I am wrong on this please explain it a little more in detail.