Mafia 107 - Christmas Time Mafia (Game over)

[NavyCherub]

By saying inb4 X I acknowledge in advance that I know my actions are hypocritical/stupid in the eyes of others/whatever, and, as you say, invalidates any arguments made a against it

to a very small extent.

(Key part)

How does acknowledging one's own mafia-like actions make those actions any less significant? Hint: it doesn't, this is just an excuse to not improve your posts.

DizzyIzzyB13: Lurking. Only posts when asked something and doesn’t contribute much.

No, this is definitely wrong. Read his posts and try again please.

RichardGHP: I think that this calls for an ¯\(°_o)/¯

No opinion on him at all? That doesn't seem likely to me.

You don't aound like most of the other '24ths' (TL, Didd, Rich, etc)

Harsh.

[RichardGHP]

By saying inb4 X I acknowledge in advance that I know my actions are hypocritical/stupid in the eyes of others/whatever, and, as you say, invalidates any arguments made a against it

to a very small extent.

(Key part)

How does acknowledging one's own mafia-like actions make those actions any less significant? Hint: it doesn't, this is just an excuse to not improve your posts.

I'm not trying to make them any less significant; I'm just acknowledging that I know people are going to find certain things stupid/hypocritical. Sometimes I want to say certain things, even if they are hypocritical. Call the inb4s a disclaimer of sorts - by putting that there, I am telling people that I know my actions are strange for whatever reason, and if I saw it in someone else's posts I would get a "I know I'm doing this, you don't need to call me out on it" vibe, which is, in part, what I try to achieve with inb4.

[Tarballs]

13th Vote Count of Day 1

7 - sorasgoof

(DragonsofSummer, diddin, EtherealCookie, NavyCherub, pman5595, Nicodemus, RichardGHP)

2 - RichardGHP

(Parama, TheLonging)

2 - TheLonging

(Konowa, CCARaven4)

1 - pman5595

(Bogre)

1 - malpascp

(Annachie)

1 - Annachie

(DizzyIzzyB13)

6 - Not voting

(malpascp, Fugitive, InflatablePie, sorasgoof, curiouskarmadog, ready2rock)


With 20 alive, it takes 11 votes to lynch.

Deadline for this day is January 21st, 2010.

[InflatablePie]

I'm not trying to make them any less significant; I'm just acknowledging that I know people are going to find certain things stupid/hypocritical. Sometimes I want to say certain things, even if they are hypocritical. Call the inb4s a disclaimer of sorts - by putting that there, I am telling people that I know my actions are strange for whatever reason, and if I saw it in someone else's posts I would get a "I know I'm doing this, you don't need to call me out on it" vibe, which is, in part, what I try to achieve with inb4.

It still makes your actions stupid/hypocritical, which shows that instead of posting them, maybe try and reword it or find a different argument?

Acknowledging your own faults can also be seen as a very early defense for stuff that we may not even find suspicious in the first place.

Lastly, inb4 is annoying.

[RichardGHP]

I'm not trying to make them any less significant; I'm just acknowledging that I know people are going to find certain things stupid/hypocritical. Sometimes I want to say certain things, even if they are hypocritical. Call the inb4s a disclaimer of sorts - by putting that there, I am telling people that I know my actions are strange for whatever reason, and if I saw it in someone else's posts I would get a "I know I'm doing this, you don't need to call me out on it" vibe, which is, in part, what I try to achieve with inb4.

It still makes your actions stupid/hypocritical, which shows that instead of posting them, maybe try and reword it or find a different argument?

If I reworded, it would still be hypocritical/stupid, and sometimes I can't think of any other valid arguments.

Acknowledging your own faults can also be seen as a very early defense for stuff that we may not even find suspicious in the first place.

Call that more of a precaution/semi-disclaimer, I just want to make sure by clearing it up that I am aware my actions are hyopcritical/stupid.

Lastly, inb4 is annoying.

Sorry. Would you prefer "in before"?

[Nicodemus]

If I reworded, it would still be hypocritical/stupid, and sometimes I can't think of any other valid arguments.

If you can't reword your posts to make them free of stupidity and hypocrisy, then you probably aren't posting valid arguments anyway.

Call that more of a precaution/semi-disclaimer, I just want to make sure by clearing it up that I am aware my actions are hyopcritical/stupid.

If you are saying suspicious things, then no amount of disclaimers will stop people being suspicious of you. If your posts need disclaimers, then they probably aren't very good for the town anyway. Convey your thoughts intelligently and concisely, and no one will find you suspicious (unless your thoughts themselves are suspicious, but I suppose that's a different can of worms).

[InflatablePie]

Sorry. Would you prefer "in before"?

I'd prefer at least a sentence on why you acknowledge that said point is bad or flimsy. No one can stop you from being hypocritical/stupid, but at least make it less aggravating.

Or, you know, don't make the argument at all if it's Swiss cheese. I don't know why you'd knowingly make an argument that's full of holes, especially when people already suspect you as is. It's making me wonder if you're actually Scum, or just stupid. Could be both.

Question; an @everyone voting for Rich, since there's been some of those popping up:

Do you all realize you're voting for a provable? Admittedly, I made the same mistake when I voted for him earlier on, but I'm wondering why you guys would be so eager to change back your votes even after the discussion of letting Rich live for another day.

[InflatablePie]

EBWOP: Kind of ninja'd by Nico, although I addressed the one part he didn't (...odd). Shoulda refreshed.

[Nicodemus]

EBWOP: Kind of ninja'd by Nico, although I addressed the one part he didn't (...odd). Shoulda refreshed.

I didn't try to respond to that part because all I could think to write was some asinine, insulting comment that probably would have crossed a line. So I skipped it and did my point-making on the other two parts instead.

[curiouskarmadog]

@ckd: I asked you to answer those questions from 10 pages ago because you have avoided them for 10 pages and I think that most of those questions are still important now.

Also, did you read the post that it was in? I said that I have this thing now that I am involved in again called SCHOOL, meaning I am not home most of the day. I said that my content was COMING SOON and I will start working on it now.

Yeah I read it, RL is a bitch. All I wanted was to hear from you BEFORE today ends…you have a problem with that? I find it funny I asked you to provide some content and you just come back with “answer some questions”..without providing jack…well, lets get to those questions so you don’t have any more excuses.

Lets keep in mind these question were from page 18, so know that they are dated.

You keep saying that you have mentioned other people, but WHERE (outside of a post you made 10 pages ago)?

They are there buddy, you would think someone who thinks I am scum, would pour over my posts….funny you don’t.

But I will help you, Kon asked me the same question, I answered it on the 30th. After that, I felt you were scummy….which of course lead to your OMGUS vote. Later in the post, you ask if I stand behind those picks for scum…some yes some no…if you read my recent posts it is pretty fucking obvious who I think might be scum.

What arguments are suspicious? I feel that I have stated my reasoning quite clearly and have provided original content about the person I am voting for. If not, please find somewhere (outside of RVS) where I haven't.

just because some arguements are good (note: I am not saying yours are good) doesnt mean that they are not suspicious. The motivations by some arguements and votes are suspicious. But since we are talking about you....yay, your vote was suspicious...I will post my complaint again...(man, you are having an awful hard time reading me in ISO arent you...you sure you are trying to scum hunt?)

I am forced to conclude that you strove to pick out the most powerful town role you could find so that people will be reluctant to vote for you. I will not be so reluctant and I will

vote: RichardGHP

until you give a proper defense of yourself.

To other people who have been on the site longer than I have: How common is a Jack of all Trades in a normal game like this?

umm what???

JoaT, is the most powerful town role???? That is a stretch to place a vote and is simply an untrue statement. JoaT are in about 10% of the games I have played on this site. Mostly common in larger games.

I do not believe for an instance that you think his claim was worth a unvote vote.

unvote, vote ready2rock

this vote was bad, and now that I review it again looks suspicious....you are not voting richard because of whatever he did before the claim, you are voting him because of the claim...AND now, when I call you on the bullshit, you decided to vote me...which is a joke.

-in reference to the Richard question, I have been back and forth about richard’s play (at the point of when this question was asked)…that being said, currently I don’t like it…I don’t like the claim without the vig in it. He reason possible “slip” looks bad. The only reason I am not pushing for his lynch, is the possibility of an investigation.

--
OK r2r, please try to get in here and post some content.

One additional thing you can add to said content.
Would like you hear your top 3 scum picks, please don’t provide town picks (sort of an anti-town move)…and why.

[curiouskarmadog]

ahhh, r2r, has provided something....good....but still want your top 3 scum picks please.

[Tarballs]

Replacing malpascp.

[DizzyIzzyB13]

Question: diddin, DragonsofSummer, InflatablePie, NavyCherub - why so bandwagonwhorish?

@Dizzy: I feel as if I've been able to defend my points better on my recent votes for soras and Richard than my vote for TL. I actually think soras is scum and have defended my reasoning on my vote for him on a few occasions.

@DizzyIzzy: I was on a rvs wagon, 2 wagons I agreed with (one of which I still would have no problem lynching, Richard), and I started the Sora wagon.

Question: diddin, DragonsofSummer, InflatablePie, NavyCherub - why so bandwagonwhorish?

I believe I've already said why I voted and unvoted TL and Richard. As for soras, I believe I mentioned why I found him scummy - NA spec, claiming newbisheness, saying he wasn't gonna vote at all early in Day (and seemingly retracting, saying he meant Real Life day, maybe I read wrong), as well as noting it was partly for pressure in 548. He hasn't responded too well in my eyes.

If you elaborate a bit more I think I can answer your question more clearly, but my response to just this is that I haven't had the opportunity to start a decent wagon myself yet. However, I do feel like I give my opinion where it matters, so my "bandwagoning" is brought with a bit more substance.

'kay. We've had three wagons reach L-2 or L-1 - TheLonging, RichardGHP and sorasgoof. All three wagons have had significant momentum, and all three managed (somehow), to provoke claims. Only Richard claimed a role that would make a town lynch illogical - Vanilla Townie is a claim that's only testable through lynch and represents less of a loss than a power role.

The fact that there was no hammer in any of those cases suggests the possibility that they are all scum, or that a significant proportion of scum has been on those wagons, and hammering would expose too many scum to the scrutiny that would arise from an examination of a townie lynch wagon.

The four people I mentioned were on all three wagons, and thus are the most deserving of suspicion for their flip-flopping. The content of their answers are intresting. diddin and InflatablePie answered the question by referring to prior points made as to why they believe the people they voted for may be scum. These answers, to me, are indicative of a townie mindset - that is, their thought are concerned with finding and lynching scum.

The other two, DragonsofSummer and NavyCherub answered differently. Their answers were concerned solely in terms of being on bandwagons, suggesting a mindset in which the identity of the lynchee is less important that the fact that he or she must be lynched. NavyCherub in particular made a curious comment about not having the opportunity to start a wagon himself, which is puzzlingly irrelevent to the question. Navy's was also the most cautious, phrased in a way designed to give Navy an out were the answer to be "wrong". I'm inclinded to think that both DragonsofSummer and NavyCherub are more likely than not to be scum at this point, based on the thought processes that went into their answers to my question and their voting habits, Navy moreso than DoS.

unvote, vote: NavyCherub

[DizzyIzzyB13]

Also, in general, I'm getting sick of people saying that they have posted the answer to a question already. Either just answer it again or link to where you said it because obviously I either didn't see your answer or didn't think it was good enough.[/rant]

It's not anybody else's responsibility to cover for the fact that you're not reading the game properly, as demonstrated by the "analysis" you posted. If you'd actually read any of my posts, you wouldn'[t have asked an innane quetsion I've alread answeered, quite clearly, several times and you wouldn't have made the wholely unsubstantiated claims that I've a) lurked (I clearly haven't - there's only one date since the game started when I haven't posted, thanks), b) that I've only posted when pressed about it (nobody's done any pressing) or c) not contributed much (I think you'll find plenty of analysis and useful content, thanks. Quality > Quantity).

[NavyCherub]

The other two, DragonsofSummer and NavyCherub answered differently. Their answers were concerned solely in terms of being on bandwagons, suggesting a mindset in which the identity of the lynchee is less important that the fact that he or she must be lynched. NavyCherub in particular made a curious comment about not having the opportunity to start a wagon himself, which is puzzlingly irrelevent to the question. Navy's was also the most cautious, phrased in a way designed to give Navy an out were the answer to be "wrong".

Isn't being on bandwagons what the question was asking about? Like I said, a question that was a bit more specific would definitely bring about a better answer.

In response to my statement about not being able to start a wagon myself, I think you are misinterpreting it. I meant that I was on the bandwagons simply because I have not started a wagon, and if you didn't start it you joined it. I think that is relevant to the question at hand.

Finally, I did mention that I brought my opinions to the table before joining wagons, I simply didn't feel the need to repeat the reasons as if you care enough you can read my posts again yourself.

[Annachie]

Unvote MalP

due to inbound

[TheLonging]

Question; an @everyone voting for Rich, since there's been some of those popping up:

Do you all realize you're voting for a provable? Admittedly, I made the same mistake when I voted for him earlier on, but I'm wondering why you guys would be so eager to change back your votes even after the discussion of letting Rich live for another day.

Yeah, but I really don't believe his claim. If it's true, I'm going to smack my head hard, but I really honestly don't believe him, just for all the things he's done throughout the game. I voted him back because of something scummy he's done/said to sorasgoof, but I think I am willing to give him a day. If he provides something on an investigation I'm willing to believe him for sure. Again I don't believe the claim but I am willing to try.

Unvote: RichardGHP

Vote: sorasgoof

[sorasgoof]

Question; an @everyone voting for Rich, since there's been some of those popping up:

Do you all realize you're voting for a provable? Admittedly, I made the same mistake when I voted for him earlier on, but I'm wondering why you guys would be so eager to change back your votes even after the discussion of letting Rich live for another day.

Yeah, but I really don't believe his claim. If it's true, I'm going to smack my head hard, but I really honestly don't believe him, just for all the things he's done throughout the game. I voted him back because of something scummy he's done/said to sorasgoof, but I think I am willing to give him a day. If he provides something on an investigation I'm willing to believe him for sure. Again I don't believe the claim but I am willing to try.

Unvote: RichardGHP

Vote: sorasgoof

So you still believe I'm the best lynch? You'd better think wisely about this.

At this point, I think I've done just about everything I can to defend myself. If anyone else has any questions, please ask me.

I'd like to know, however, how many people really think, deep inside, that I'm scum.

[TheLonging]

I posted my reasons for thinking you're scum. I believe Richard is the best lynch if he's lying about his JoaT. I really think he's scum, but I don't want to risk a potential JoaT, so I unvoted him. I really do think you're scum, but I also think Richard is scum. However the chance that he's JoaT leads me to not lynching him for one day; if he lies he's most likely getting the ax. I also think diddin is scum, but I haven't paid much attention to him throughout the game, so I don't know how good of a lynch he is. You're the only other one left I think is scum.

[sorasgoof]

I posted my reasons for thinking you're scum. I believe Richard is the best lynch if he's lying about his JoaT. I really think he's scum, but I don't want to risk a potential JoaT, so I unvoted him. I really do think you're scum, but I also think Richard is scum. However the chance that he's JoaT leads me to not lynching him for one day; if he lies he's most likely getting the ax. I also think diddin is scum, but I haven't paid much attention to him throughout the game, so I don't know how good of a lynch he is. You're the only other one left I think is scum.

So yet another person thinks Richard and I are bussing each other? Unbelievable.

Also, that crack about diddin is a little strange. What I got from that is this: "I'm not going to bother looking at diddin's posts, because I already think sorasgoof is scum."

[TheLonging]

I didn't say you two were bussing. Point out where I said that.

What you got from that is what was different from what I typed. I didn't pay attention to him that much since the beginning of the day, though I know that his No Lynch vote and his bandwagon on me with no reasoning is bad enough. Plus he votes you and Richard with little reasoning and some bad logic. I have read his posts, and I have bothered, just not for all of them.

[sorasgoof]

I didn't say you two were bussing. Point out where I said that.

If you don't think that, then why did you post this?

I really do think you're scum, but I also think Richard is scum.

If you think we are both scum, then you must also believe we are bussing.

[TheLonging]

Ah I missed what you were saying in your first post. Yes I believe you're grabbing at each other's necks, but I do think you two are scum (just don't know if one of you really are town). I think if anything, if one of you dies, then we could prove if the other is town or scum quickly. It's getting a bit complicated honestly. Also did you read my response to your response about diddin?

[sorasgoof]

I didn't say you two were bussing

. Point out where I said that.

Yes I believe you're grabbing at each other's necks

, but I do think you two are scum (just don't know if one of you really are town)

Based on this, either you:

1. Believe we are both scum
2. Believe one of us is scum

I couldn't find the real one hidden behind your contradictory statements, sorry. Based on what you've said, you don't think we are bussing. We're grabbing at each others' necks. If we aren't bussing, one of us must be town. If so, than this:

I really do think you're scum, but I also think Richard is scum.

is what is really messing me up. Yes, it's getting very complicated.

Also, yes, I read your post about diddin. I'm just finding hard to believe that you'd vote for someone because of night role speculation over someone who votes using flawed logic, lurks, bandwagons, and votes for a No Lynch on Day 1.

[TheLonging]

Well it's more towards the 2nd statement you made. One of you must be scum but I'm not sure who. If one of you were NK'd/lynched, I'm sure it'd show that the other is clearly scum/town. It's not just night role speculation sorasgoof, I voted for you for other reasons. I'll look at diddin tomorrow, need to sleep now.