Mini 911 - Mike's Pizzeria Mafia (Game Over)

[Lastsurvivor]

/confirm

[Lastsurvivor]

Vote: Parama

[Lastsurvivor]

Yeah, but I like the cover of Dark Side better.

[Lastsurvivor]

Unvote: Parama

Vote: Idiotking

OMGUS

[Lastsurvivor]

I'm getting the feeling that Idiotking doesn't like the RVS.

[Lastsurvivor]

I'm getting the feeling that Idiotking doesn't like the RVS.

I don't like RVS either so...

vote: Lastsurvivor

Saying that you don't like the RVS, then voting someone without justification is just as bad as any RVS vote.

So what is your justification?

@Parama:

1. What's your personal opinion of RVS? Love it or hate it? And why? (I realize a few people have already given their opinion but for the sake of this questionnaire if you wouldn't mind restating it please.)

I think the RVS is more of an ice breaker than anything. In most games, you can usually find at least one thing to go off of and start a bit of a discussion.

2. If you had to call someone out as scum right this instant, who would you say is most likely to be scum? I understand that there's very little to go on and assume this will be mostly gut reads.

Cue's vote on me without justification is weird, especially since he expressed a dislike for the RVS. I'm thinking it's just an odd reaction test, but he's the best I have atm.

@ Lastsurvivor: Is there anything wrong with people disliking RVS?

Not at all. Just pointing it out.

[Lastsurvivor]

I'm getting the feeling that Idiotking doesn't like the RVS.

I don't like RVS either so...

vote: Lastsurvivor

Saying that you don't like the RVS, then voting someone without justification is just as bad as any RVS vote.

So what is your justification?

@Parama:

1. What's your personal opinion of RVS? Love it or hate it? And why? (I realize a few people have already given their opinion but for the sake of this questionnaire if you wouldn't mind restating it please.)

I think the RVS is more of an ice breaker than anything. In most games, you can usually find at least one thing to go off of and start a bit of a discussion.

2. If you had to call someone out as scum right this instant, who would you say is most likely to be scum? I understand that there's very little to go on and assume this will be mostly gut reads.

Cue's vote on me without justification is weird, especially since he expressed a dislike for the RVS. I'm thinking it's just an odd reaction test, but he's the best I have atm.

@ Lastsurvivor: Is there anything wrong with people disliking RVS?

Not at all. Just pointing it out.

[Lastsurvivor]

DRK, Seer, why are you two bickering about something so pointless? Unless you two are playing some elaborate joke, getting so angry about this looks strange.

[Lastsurvivor]

I personally wouldn't be surprised if the two of you were just trying to bus/distance yourselves. Seer, you're saying that you aren't concerned about his vote, or am I just misinterpreting things?

[Lastsurvivor]

I'm getting the feeling that Idiotking doesn't like the RVS.

I don't like RVS either so...

vote: Lastsurvivor

Saying that you don't like the RVS, then voting someone without justification is just as bad as any RVS vote.

So what is your justification?

Just because I don't like RVS doesn't mean I shouldn't be involved in it. The way I see it, RVS is like washing dishes. No one likes doing it, but it is extremely necessary.

I do think RVS is important. Scum may slip during RVS and though we may not notice it right now, we may notice it in the endgame when the field is narrowed. In my last game, I was scum and I pretty much deceived the town the whole game. But on the last day, when it was 3 town and me LYLO, they reviewed the whole game and noticed my Day 1 scum slips. So, based on that single example, I do think RVS is important even though I dislike it.

unvote

btw...I do have answers to Parama's questions, though it will have to wait until tomorrow because I am sleepy.

also...I hope evil gets replaced because he was hella lurky in my last game to the detriment to the town. Lurking isn't necessarily scummy, but it is absolutely anti-town.

Ah, I see what you mean now. Just a misunderstanding on my part.

Flare, we meet again.

@Seer: Answer my question, thanks.

[Lastsurvivor]

I personally wouldn't be surprised if the two of you were just trying to bus/distance yourselves. Seer, you're saying that you aren't concerned about his vote, or am I just misinterpreting things?

If you've already answered this question, Seer, I apologize.

[Lastsurvivor]

Ahh, nevermind, I see.

I said "If I were concerned about his vote, why would I continue to put myself out there over this after he changed votes?" in 86. And then you asked in 90 if you were correct in assuming that this meant I was not concerned over the vote, which is correct.

Alright, just making sure you weren't talking about something else before I say that your reaction didn't scream "not concerned" to me.

Personally, I find that you'd be more likely to put yourself out there over this after he changed votes if you were concerned, unless I'm missing something here (and I very well could be).

[Lastsurvivor]

Dana, how hard can it be for scum to submit a random vote? Not one mafia would be afraid of doing the RVS gig. Also, how is aggressiveness bad?

Your bad argument is scummy to me.

@Seer: I see what you're saying now. When I was talking about my unsureness, I wasn't being sarcastic, I was actually unsure. The overreaction is still odd though.

[Lastsurvivor]

Whoops, forgot to add this to my post. I'm doing midterms atm, and I'll be a bit busy, so sort of

LA

. I'll try to get at least one post in a day though.

[Lastsurvivor]

Your bad argument is scummy to me.

How so? Does a perceived inability to back up my statements necessarily make me scum any more than being aggressive makes Idiotking scum?

I agree with Thor when he says aggressiveness is a null tell.

Also, thanks for answering my questions.

[Lastsurvivor]

Dana, how hard can it be for scum to submit a random vote? Not one mafia would be afraid of doing the RVS gig. Also, how is aggressiveness bad?

First of all, sorry for taking so long to answer. I was trying to deal with Idiotking's attacks first.
I'm not sure I understand the first question, but my answer would be that it's not any harder than it is for anyone else. That being said, if someone wants to skip the RVS, that seems to indicate that they have information on which to vote already. That can only mean they are scum.

Unless I'm mishearing, you're saying that "It's not that hard for a mafia to do the RVS, but the fact that he knows he'll vote for a townie means that he'll want to skip it?" Because that makes no sense whatsoever.

This kind of aggressiveness is bad because it indicates an overreaction to a single vote against Idiotking. He seems to need to vent his frustration instead of actually giving a defense, indicating that whatever defense he has is weak. Aggressiveness also makes the game not as fun by making a show of insults rather than using logic.

Your case was weak. He defended himself fine. He did not insult you.

And, I'll say this again. I find your weak case scummy, and the fact that you still find it justifiable is even more strange.

[Lastsurvivor]

It's best to lynch someone who claimed vanilla to avoid outing any power roles. We should lynch Seven.

Unvote, vote Parama

Which is why you're lynching Parama...?

[Lastsurvivor]

Which is why you're

voting to lynch

Parama...?

Fixed.

Fixed again. None of these fixes satisfy my confused thought process that the question mark in my original post implied.

[Lastsurvivor]

What exactly are you confused about?

You say "We should lynch seven." and then you vote to lynch Parama. Unless I'm missing something (I've been out of sync all week, to be honest), this makes little to no sense to me.

@Seven: I said a bit earlier this week that I thought Seer's overreaction was strange, and that's still what I generally take from it. If I had to vote someone, I'd vote dana for his illogical and weak case against Idiotking, which he still managed to stick by. I've been out of touch, so my reevaluation might change things.

[Lastsurvivor]

I was busy today guys, sorrrryyyy.

A thread reread will be done tomorrow, for sure.

[Lastsurvivor]

K, did a reread. Nothing I really picked up on that wasn't said before. I wouldn't really say that Seven is the best lynch right now, since he can actually respond to people and is at least trying to be protown. I kind of get fishy stuff from what Seven says (nothing that hasn't been pointed out before), but at least there's effort.

I get vibes that DC's trying to blend in atm, but he's only been in for like a week. I still stand by my opinion on Dana, also.

School has officially started, so I'm hoping that I'll be more active from now on.

[Lastsurvivor]

That's not necessarily true either. I could be waiting for my own future developments as well.

Sorry for butting in here, but elaborate. I think I get what you say, but I'm not quite sure.

[Lastsurvivor]

I'm waiting for future developments. That includes what I say and how other people's reactions. Waiting to vote =/= Uninvolvement.

Gotchaaa.

@Thor: Because Seven is contributing. I would agree with you if Seven was totally useless, but that's not the case.

[Lastsurvivor]

@Thor: I generally dislike policy lynches in general. I'd go for it I felt he was suspicious, but I generally don't.

----

Anyway, we have until Saturday for a lynch, and I'm willing to wait as long as possible until we come to a conclusion. I will post more thoughts tomorrow.

[Lastsurvivor]

@Thor: I generally dislike policy lynches in general.

I'd go for it I felt he was suspicious, but I generally don't.

----

Anyway, we have until Saturday for a lynch, and

I'm willing to wait as long as possible until we come to a conclusion. I will post more thoughts tomorrow.

LS, who are you suspicious of?

Dana's still my top suspicion atm. I definitely think the player by player analysis is weird. Seems like the thought process was "Hmm, Seven did this and they backed off on him. Maybe I can do it, too."

On my slight suspicion list would be Panzer, just because of that contradiction of logic pointed out by someone, and the fact that I'm not too crazy about who he replaced. I generally don't like my read on DRK, since he just seems to reflect some points that are brought up against him under the rug with a joke (along with other things that have been brought up).

Oh, and where has DC been? Can we get a

@Mod: Prod

on him (unless it was done already and I just missed it. )

Yeah, I prodded DC and also Seven recently. I guess I'll start announcing prods again... I thought that leaving that stuff behind the scenes cleaned up the flow of the game a bit, but if it's helpful to have them in, that's cool too.

[Lastsurvivor]

@Cuet: To be fair, I have offered my opinion on Seven. I don't think that he was very suspicious, to be honest. The only thing that stuck out to me was the playing of the newbie card, and his odd backing of SP.

What problems do you guys have with my logic on a Seven lynch?

and

How would a Seven lynch be bad for the town?

and

If there is a better lynch than Seven, convince me why I should support that lynch.

General response to the first two: I don't like policy lynches, really. Maybe when it's a useless townie, but Seven wasn't while he was active, at least. Your logic is alright, I suppose, but I just don't think that a Seven lynch is the best way to go. I just did an iso on him, and most of the arguments that were against him seemed to be sloppy. Your's and Thor's are noticeable exceptions (even though I still don't exactly agree). A lynch wouldn't be bad for the town, since he's been the center of attention for a while, but I don't like lynching a useful member of the game.

For the third: I'm still really digging a dana lynch. There's the case against IK, which I still think had absolutely no backing. One thing I did notice that he asks for a defense from Seven in ISO Post 1, even though he gives absolutely nothing for Seven to defend against. He even defends Seven in ISO Post 2, even though he asks for a defense again in Iso Post 3.

I've already offered an opinion on the PbP analysis he did, but I noticed that it seemed to lack the detail that Seven did. I definitely stand by what I said earlier now. He was trying to copy Seven because he thought that it would 'lax the suspicion on him, but he wasn't able to provide the content that Seven did. Dana even added some irrelevant content to kind of stretch out his posts (ISO Post 20, 21). Seven also actually directed questions to players. I also don't really like his justification for it either (saying that Seven didn't make up the player by player analysis, so he is copying, also), because it's two different kinds of copying. Seven is doing the PbP analysis because he wants to scumhunt, while Dana's just doing it to lower the suspicion on himself.

Sooo, two questions for Dana:

1) Why did you want Seven to defend himself when you defended him yourself?

2) Were you doing the player by player analysis to actually scum hunt? If so, why didn't you direct any questions to anyone (to be fair, you asked one question, but it seemed more like a question you were asking yourself)?

Vote: danakillsu

My vote's staying here for now.

I also did an iso on Panzer, and I'm really not liking him either. In ISO Post 3 (where he votes for Dana), the way he words his post kind of seems like he's just posted this big ol' case on Dana, when, in all reality, his case was generally weak. Panzer, are you just keeping some of your facts to yourself, or do you feel that the information you showed us is enough to advocate a lynch on Dana?

[Lastsurvivor]

@Parama: Dana isn't really on on the weekends. Says so in his siggy

[Lastsurvivor]

Hello all. Doing a reread right now. If I don't get my thoughts down tonight, I'll hopefully have them tomorrow. I don't exactly like Deathsauce's recent vote on Seven. I don't see how Seven exactly made a wide net of suspicions, I just saw it as commenting on what he missed. Not making a "strong stand" isn't exactly scummy either.

So, yeah, another post should come later/tonight/tomorrow hopefully.

[Lastsurvivor]

Mmm, rereads. Can't believe I actually finished that.

@Panzer's post a really really while back (sorry I didn't reply to this):

Your posts with your case on Dana are here and here.

All you say is "he does things to try to be townish. Here are some examples to try to make my case look bigger!" You also didn't even address the main point of my post. You went from giving two sentences about why you think he's scum to "I don't even want a claim." You acted like something heightened your reasons of why you think he's scum, but didn't exactly acknowledge it either.

----

I'm not liking Deathsauce much, at the moment. I know I said this before, but my reread found some more stuff.

387: I'd like to see an elaboration on why Seven's PbP analysis wasn't a real analysis. He didn't post whole posts of fluff about people, and he also directed questions at people. Also, "a vote on seven or dana would provide useful data." What made you choose dana out of those two options? Can you show us what data we have now that we voted dana?

405: What deathsauce needs to realize here is that he is his predecessor's role. The questions he then asks DRK seemed to be attempting to deflect suspicion off of himself.

And of course, I already commented on post 466.

So, Deathsauce and Panzer would have to be my top suspicions at the moment. Another backing of my reasons are there predecessors. DC (replaced by Deathsauce) seemed to fit the "mafia trying to fly under radar" junk. He posted, and posted content, and made posts with stuff in them, but he didn't bring anything new to the table.

Chamber (replaced by Panzer) literally brought nothing to the table. He just commented on metas, or agreed with stuff. It's kind of null, but my gut isn't giving me a good feeling about it. If I had to choose a third, it would be SP/RH. SP kind of began to look bad on my reread, mainly because of things that were already brought up, and RH did the whole flying under the radar thing again.

[Lastsurvivor]

@DKR + IK: How does you two arguing about the definition of "reactionary" help push the town forward at all? It's just useless mud slinging.

[Lastsurvivor]

@DRK: Nice not so subtle way of taking the suspicion off of you.

[Lastsurvivor]

What do you think of him, other than his OMGUSyness and his predecessor?

[Lastsurvivor]

@DRK: Well, I was able to say a good amount on him.

@Parama: I surely hope that the quote you posted wasn't referring to me not commenting on deathsauce. Oh, and DS isn't exactly playing better than his predecessor, either.

I dunno if this is just me, but I'm sensing a bit of panic from DS. I mainly think this from posts 540 - 542.

540 (not gonna bother linking because it's a couple posts up): He's actin all cool and stuff (I'm actually not sure if he's quoting a post and accidentally clicked enter or something, because of that stray [/quote]).

541: Starts a new post roughly two minutes later, and then starts yelling at DRK. It's not exactly related to the previous post as far as I can tell.

542: Starts a new post roughly four minutes later. I really don't like the wording, saying that DRK has a "little scheme" and that it's being discovered by "more and more participants." Kind of reminds me of that guy you see in a small bookstore who's like "THEIR ARE ALIENS OUT THERE, MAN, AND THE GOVERNMENT'S HIDIN EM!!! BUT WE'LL FIND OUT!!!" Just a bit paranoid.

Now, the reason why I bring this up is because, as far as I can tell, the entire town isn't about to wagon onto DS. So why the multiple posts that are minutes apart of random, unconnected thoughts?

[Lastsurvivor]

@Shiverer: I'm sorry, but I don't follow. Why did you ask for a case to be brought up against me?

[Lastsurvivor]

Just going to say this before I start: I don't like to vote. I can make statements without having to vote someone, since a vote doesn't have any real significance unless you're hammering/putting someone at L-somesmallnumber. This is why my vote stays generally unchanged.

Anywho.

@Shiverer:

- DRK/Seer argument was something I found weird at the time, but I just lost interest in it eventually. It didn't seem totally significant after a bit.

@iso12: I wasn't active lurking, I really thought his lack of a case was scummy. Would it have been better if I was screaming at him?

@iso15: If I was lacking confidence, I would have said "Your case is a bit contentless, but I'm not too sure if it's something to worry about." What should I say other than strange, also?

@iso20: Dunno if you ignore parenthesis, but there was the phrase "nothing that hasn't been said before." in between them. Why bring up something that's already been brought up?

@iso24: How does it baffle you?

"Nervous scum" can easily be confused with "Nonaggressive townie", which makes the entire point WIFOM and null, too.

-----

@Parama:

Of course it's possible, but I don't think that's the case. DRK went on SP a lot more than I think a mafia bussing his partner would go. Shiv is a lot more pro-town than his predecessors were, so bussing isn't the case.

@Response to shiv's response to iso 12 (wordyness D: ): I'm not following the popular target, I'm following who I think is scum. I didn't follow the Seven wagon, because I didn't think that Seven was scum, and I didn't like most of the points being brought up against him, for example.

@Response to shiv's response to iso 15: You're doing a bit of over analysis here, because I wasn't trying to appeal to Dana. That's why I said his weak case was scummy.

@Response to iso 24: When I have a 'slight' suspicion, it means that that person is acting scummy, but I'm not totally sure if they're scum. Also, how can I be appeasing to both sides if I'm FoSing the both of them? I can see where you're getting it with Dana and IK (since I'm actually defending IK, and I do speak passively a bit), but not sure where you're getting it here.

-----

Unrelated question, can I ask what's wrong with walls of texts? o.O

[Lastsurvivor]

Oooohh, Shiver, so you're saying that I'm scum lacking confidence, and you can't prove that I am nor can I prove that I'm not? That's what we call a bad argument.

I also didn't go into specifics because I only thought that it was fishy. If I thought that it was scummy, then I would have.

@Thor: I haven't finished a game yet.

[Lastsurvivor]

Just going to say this before I start: I don't like to vote. I can make statements without having to vote someone, since a vote doesn't have any real significance unless you're hammering/putting someone at L-somesmallnumber. This is why my vote stays generally unchanged.

Everything you just said about voting is wrong. If I have to explain why, you should find a different game to play.

I don't see how. Me saying "Phil is scum because of this this and this" doesn't make my statement any different from "Phil is scum because of this this and this vote: Phil". Feel free to explain, and if I have a sudden epiphany, I will change games.

@Shiverer: I'd love to hop on the wagon, but I don't really see much of a decent case against him.

[Lastsurvivor]

Edit: You should probably flip those examples around for it to make more sense.

[Lastsurvivor]

I don't see how. Me saying "Phil is scum because of this this and this" doesn't make my statement any different from "Phil is scum because of this this and this vote: Phil". Feel free to explain, and if I have a sudden epiphany, I will change games.

I don't mean this game in particular, I mean the entire game of Mafia.

I know, I meant the entire game of mafia too.

There are 50 reasons why voting is important, but here's some easy ones: If you say "Phil is scummy", but you don't vote for Phil, I think "LS is distancing".

You're right, and I am aware of that, so I might have not phrased it right. Maybe I should say "I don't vote unless I'm very sure that someone is scum." and I don't toss out votes as much as most people do.

Alternatively, you say you don't see the point in voting unless it's to hammer or place someone close to lynch. When I see that kind of pattern, I think "LS is opportunistic".

Well, I was speaking in general. Like I said, I should probably retract what I said before.

Voting is the only consistent power town has, it's the only way to win. Voting changes behavior patterns and helps find scum.

In summary, voting is important.

True, but I don't think I have to throw my vote out everytime I place a simple FoS on someone.

Anywaaay, I'm going to do an ISO on a couple people, and see what I come up with.

[Lastsurvivor]

Gaah, messed up on quote tags.

Better? -DF

[Lastsurvivor]

At the moment, Jack isn't bringing any redemption to the chamber slot. Iso's and stuff tomorrow, probably.

[Lastsurvivor]

Can I know what the case against ES is, other than some wording?

---

Ehh, doing a reread on Jack, there aren't a lot of scumtells tied to him. I guess it's more (as he would say it) "gut". A lot of his posts are him talking about his gut feels (which I'd like to see some elaboration on) or how much he hates walls of text. I still wanna know why walls of texts are bad, by the way. Anyway, the ISO posts promised in ISO 1 would be nice on whoever Jack's top suspicion is.

@Parama: Mind elaborating?

@DS: If you read long posts, then why have you repeatedly said that you don't read long posts?