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

[Seven]

Btw peeps, Seven isn't looking very scummy,

however, DRK is. He is, in fact, the only person in this game that looks to be pushing suspicion on anyone, and I agree with him on that one fact, pushing unwarranted on someone is pretty freaking scummy.

Can you cite where DRK pushed suspicion on people please?

...

DRK post 1:

Vote: SeerPenguin

You and Cuetlachtli confirmed too close together (and were 10th and 11th). You must be scum. Discuss.

Also, you get my vote for not explaining your joke

DRK post 4:

Not only did he simul-confirm with Cuet, he also gave a joke without explanation. Withholding information is scummy.

I srongly suspect from this post that I'm going to find you scummy no matter what you do. I recently encountered someone with a similar tone to his posts and played the entire game (okay, so it only lasted two days...) thinking he was scum. Do you think it's scummy that I just gave myself an excuse to suspect you whenever I want?

DRK post 9:

Scummy. SP seemed intent on putting unwarranted suspicion on Flare. SP was implicitly affirming his statement from his previous post that Flare was a "detriment to the town," even though his reason, that Flare hadn't read the game, wasn't true.

DRK post 10:

SP seemed more like he was trying to push suspicion onto Flare, whereas Parama just wanted a policy lynch. Wanting a policy lynch is a null tell (well, I think so anyway). Pushing for suspicion on someone, especially while saying he didn't want a lynch for it, just looks like scum trying to make a townie look bad.

[Cuetlachtli]

Btw peeps, Seven isn't looking very scummy,

however, DRK is. He is, in fact, the only person in this game that looks to be pushing suspicion on anyone, and I agree with him on that one fact, pushing unwarranted on someone is pretty freaking scummy.

Can you cite where DRK pushed suspicion on people please?

...

DRK post 1:

Vote: SeerPenguin

You and Cuetlachtli confirmed too close together (and were 10th and 11th). You must be scum. Discuss.

Also, you get my vote for not explaining your joke

DRK post 4:

Not only did he simul-confirm with Cuet, he also gave a joke without explanation. Withholding information is scummy.

I srongly suspect from this post that I'm going to find you scummy no matter what you do. I recently encountered someone with a similar tone to his posts and played the entire game (okay, so it only lasted two days...) thinking he was scum. Do you think it's scummy that I just gave myself an excuse to suspect you whenever I want?

DRK post 9:

Scummy. SP seemed intent on putting unwarranted suspicion on Flare. SP was implicitly affirming his statement from his previous post that Flare was a "detriment to the town," even though his reason, that Flare hadn't read the game, wasn't true.

DRK post 10:

SP seemed more like he was trying to push suspicion onto Flare, whereas Parama just wanted a policy lynch. Wanting a policy lynch is a null tell (well, I think so anyway). Pushing for suspicion on someone, especially while saying he didn't want a lynch for it, just looks like scum trying to make a townie look bad.

Wow dude, why wouldn't you let SP answer the question himself?

[Seven]

Also, Seven advised you and DRK to quit arguing earlier. I think arguing is good for the town because it adds to the discussion. He is scummy for trying to diffuse you guys' argument.

Their argument was bringing us nowhere. It was about something ridiculous, and it was distracting us from focusing on anything else. Maybe you like only having to analyze two people at a time, but I like to get a feel off everyone, and with more to go on than "it was a joke" and "no it wasn't" going back and forth.

So from my calculations, you and Seven have tried to defend each other three times already in this very short game. Really the only people who would have incentive to defend someone are scum because they don't have strength in numbers like the town does. You and Seven defending each other makes me very suspicious of the both of you.

Point out where I explicitly defend SP?

And, just to correct you, I think everyone has the incentive to defend anyone who they honestly think are not scum (so far, anyway). Correct me if I'm wrong here, but the point is to prevent town from being lynched... amiright?


FoS on you for tunneling, and trying to set up a lynch chain this early in the day.

[Seven]

Wow dude, why wouldn't you let SP answer the question himself?

Why? I'm here, I know the answer. Or am I supposed to be afraid of answering questions not addressed to me now? I'm trying to push the game forward. Sorry if that's inconvenient for ya.

[DeathRowKitty]

Comments on other happenings coming in a minute, but first,

unvote, vote Seven

. He's turned into obvious, flailing scum. I think that's L-2.

Just look at his last few posts:
In this post, first of all he answers for SP, which is rarely good. Better yet, of the 5 posts of mine he quoted to show I was putting suspicion on people, two of them were directly from my random vote and the other 3 were about SP. That post was just to get suspicion on someone besides himself.

He then comes out with this post, which looks more like an excuse to make Cuet look bad than it does to answer any questions. His next post...surprise! More trying to make Cuet look bad!

Obv-flailing scum.

[DeathRowKitty]

DRK: I never asserted that he did not read the game, I simply stated that it was bad form to not read the certain game that Parama pointed out

Yes, he did read the thread. That's the point. You said you were "still going to hold what Parama pointed out against [him]." If he had already read this game, why would you hold it against him in this game that he didn't read the thread in another game he replaced into?

[Thor665]

@Thor665:

I'm capable of understanding this, but I'd like you to go into more detail so I can respond, because I feel like I've said everything I could about the RVS thing. Which part of it is scummy? And, more specifically, why am I being targeted? Others expressed not liking RVS as well. I'm probably misinterpreting your reasoning so I'll need some clarification.

As I stated - I felt (and still vaguely feel - though the bungee replace in was interesting) that the game was moving a bit too slow vis'a'vi conversation amongst the players.

I proscribe to a belief that during a period of lack of conversation one potential solution is to get a nice good bandwagon rolling to see how people react to it.

You and lastsurvivor were the two players with the most votes on them and the most activity around them. As I mentioned when I voted - choosing between the two of you I found you to be the one I vaguely felt was more scummy. I initially expressed my issues with your FoS/anti-RVS attitudes and do generally believe that your answers, though perhaps truthful, show a general lack of logic to my eyes. I really don't see the difference between an FoS vs. an RVS and you seemed to be trying to take a certain moral high ground by going with an FoS. Since, as I explained, I saw no real difference my conclusion was that either;

a) You had poor logic in deciding somehow your FoS is superior to an RVS (and bad logic doesn't aid town).
or
b) You were trying to paint yourself into a pseudo-moral high ground which seems like something scum would want to establish early.

Either way it was a better angle in my mind then voting for lastsurvivor of whom I had no particular read on in either a townish or scummy way. Plus, to a certain extent I'm still waiting for whoever is replacing werdna to show up so my vote certainly wasn't helping things where it was.

[SeerPenguin]

Cuet, personally I think (DRK's ISO) 3-7 and 11 are all pushing unwarranted suspicion (Granted the first 2 of those are RVS), and 11 is a pretty obvious deflection even though Seven is not voting you. Also, I agree completely with Seven's 127.

As for my "reaction", I'm pointing out bad logic. If you think seven is scum because I am scum, don't vote him VOTE ME. That's an invitation. I also continue to agree that Seven is not very scummy, he simply doesn't like the RVS, but taking an un-orthodox approach to game-start is not inherently scummy.

This: "Wow, Parama tries to be the voice of RVS-reason... " From my ISO 6 is not a "jab at Parama", I was genuinely intrigued that Parama of all people would start such a discussion, but I find it VERY townie (Granted question #2 had the WIFOM aspect).

I understand exactly where seven comes from when trying to stop tunnel-visioned arguments (However, I find it very easy to write walls of text and not tunnel, but some of these arguments discourage others from posting.) because it can lead to people lurking and town arguing with themselves. The argument seemed to be going nowhere (Although I'm pretty sure I've found DRK-scum.) and he wanted to let the town have normal conversation. The argument, truly, was not adding to discussion.

And like in Seven's 127, town defending hypo-town is the only real way to stop mislynches, so scum are surely not the only ones to try and defend other people.

Cuet, simply put, IGMEOY.

DRK, as for your 130... I stated I was holding Parama's points against him, yes, I guess I could be more clear. He had already stated that he had read the thread at that point, but what I meant was that Parama's points on piggy-backing and lack of content were very much still valid based on his mafia work-load of 6 games. If he can play in 6 games (4 were replacements), he sure should be able to read the thread, no matter how long (Hey, he did sign up to replace for the game), and contribute, so his excuse of "That was 35 pages" just proves to me that he was going to lack content and be a detriment to the town. The one thing I do agree with Cuet on is... CONTENT IS GOOD. (However, I argument was NOT content that was going to become inherently helpful, especially if both of us are town.)

[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).

[SeerPenguin]

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).

Alright, so let me get this straight.

As a timeline of events go... (According to you.)

DRK votes me. I become concerned about the vote and argue it. Argument continues. DRK changes his vote. Argument continues, most hostly contested by me. I am still concerned over his vote, and therefore continue to argue, even though he is no longer voting me.

See why that doesn't make sense?

[Dragonfly13]

Votecount #5

L-2

Seven (5) - chamber, HomerSimpson, Cuetlachtli, Thor665, DeathRowKitty
Idiotking (1) - Lastsurvivor
(s)he who replaces Flareonage, who replaced werdna (1) - Parama
Thor665 (1) - Idiotking
DeathRowKitty (1) - SeerPenguin
Parama (1) - (s)he who replaces Flareonage, who replaced werdna

Not Voting (2) - DiamondCrash, Seven


With 12 alive, it takes 7 to lynch.

Deadline: 11:00PM U.S. Central Time, Wednesday, January 28, 2010

chamber has been prodded.

[Seven]

More responding...

DRK:

First off, bandwagon much?

Just look at his last few posts:
In this post [my 125], first of all he answers for SP, which is rarely good. Better yet, of the 5 posts of mine he quoted to show I was putting suspicion on people, two of them were directly from my random vote and the other 3 were about SP.

That post was just to get suspicion on someone besides himself.

[bold added]

Yes, I answered for SP. I don't know when he'll be on next, Cue asked a question so I assume he needs the information to continue discussion. If I have the answer, why should I wait for SP to put it up? I will do this no matter who asks the question to who, if only for the fact that if we have two different answers, then we have two different opinions, and that's two things to go on instead of one. Not sure whats anti-town about that.

And I bolded that last bit because I'm not sure if the "himself" refers to me or to SP?

He then comes out with this post [my 127], which looks more like an excuse to make Cuet look bad than it does to answer any questions.

Cue didn't ASK any questions. And how am I just trying to make him look bad? He posted things I disagree with, I express my personal opinion... What's wrong with that?

I'm really not getting what it is that I'm doing wrong. So far you've mostly accused me of arguing things that I don't agree with... We're supposed to be debating, here. That's how we're going to seek out scum. If you disagree with the things I'm saying, that's one thing... but if you disagree with me for saying them? Hmm...

His next post [my 128]...surprise! More trying to make Cuet look bad!

I don't need to make him look bad, mate. He's doing that all on his own. I think my arguments against him are pretty solid. Maybe you should address those instead of pointing out that I'm trying to keep up discussion here.

...Sorry did that make you look bad?

Thor:

I proscribe to a belief that during a period of lack of conversation one potential solution is to get a nice good bandwagon rolling to see how people react to it.

I did read this but didn't realize that was one of the reasons for voting for me. Understand now.

I really don't see the difference between an FoS vs. an RVS and you seemed to be trying to take a certain moral high ground by going with an FoS. Since, as I explained, I saw no real difference my conclusion was that either;

a) You had poor logic in deciding somehow your FoS is superior to an RVS (and bad logic doesn't aid town).
or
b) You were trying to paint yourself into a pseudo-moral high ground which seems like something scum would want to establish early.

I agree that there isn't much difference between voting or FoSing in RVS, which I've said before. Neither of them hold much weight. I don't think not voting is a "moral high ground", as you put it. It's just my personal policy to not vote until I'm confident someone is scum. If it's bad logic, well... I don't know, I'm still pretty new at this so it could be... but I think most of my arguments have been sound enough so far that I'm not a threat to the town at this point, and I don't think whether or not I participate in RVS should matter... I'm expressing thoughts on players and presenting arguments, that's really what's important IMO.

[Thor665]

I will do this no matter who asks the question to who, if only for the fact that if we have two different answers, then we have two different opinions, and that's two things to go on instead of one. Not sure whats anti-town about that.

The common counter to this is that, by answering for someone else, you allow the other person to say "what he said" as opposed to expressing their own opinions. To a certain extent this might be helpful to scum by allowing them to shield themselves behind other people's answers without having to work too hard at coming up with their own concepts.

For the record, I don't have an issue with you answering that specific question, but I could see in the future, depending on the question, I could get more of a scum read off of it if you were to answer for someone else.

I agree that there isn't much difference between voting or FoSing in RVS, which I've said before. Neither of them hold much weight. I don't think not voting is a "moral high ground", as you put it. It's just my personal policy to not vote until I'm confident someone is scum. If it's bad logic, well... I don't know, I'm still pretty new at this so it could be...

And for the record I don't feel your attitudes towards RVS equate to OMGZ! U R teh scummorxxx!1! I do think the equate to a possible bit of occlusion that suggests you are more likely scum then lastsurvivor.

If you don't vote till you're confident someone is scum I'm surprised you ever vote as uncertainty is a bit of a byword of the game.

but I think most of my arguments have been sound enough so far that I'm not a threat to the town at this point

Are you leaving open the possibility that you'll become a threat to town later? Any warning signs I should be aware of?

[Seven]

Thor:

The common counter to this is that, by answering for someone else, you allow the other person to say "what he said" as opposed to expressing their own opinions. To a certain extent this might be helpful to scum by allowing them to shield themselves behind other people's answers without having to work too hard at coming up with their own concepts.

That's a pretty good point. :/

If you don't vote till you're confident someone is scum I'm surprised you ever vote as uncertainty is a bit of a byword of the game.

Well, as confident as I can be, really. I just meant the person I most believe to be scum by the end of the day, or the most anti-town player up to that point. I do understand that it's one of our weapons and it won't do much good if I don't use it.

Are you leaving open the possibility that you'll become a threat to town later? Any warning signs I should be aware of?

Ha, no. I was referring to what you were saying about lack of logic being a threat to town (which I fully agree with). I was trying to say that besides my views on RVS (which you said could be lack of logic), I think I've showed sound logic. I'm also new, though, so if any of my arguments seem illogical feel free to deconstruct... Everything is open to debate.

[DiamondCrash]

Quick post just to say I've read over everything, but I'll be back later this evening with my votes etc. and whatnot.

[Idiotking]

Seven, you seem pretty hellbent on making sure everyone knows you're new at this. Why is that? Do you think that people will not critique you as hard if you say that? If not, then what could you possibly gain from telling everyone that you're new?

[Idiotking]

Because thusfar you've either referenced or blatantly stated your new-ness in at least four separate posts. Not to mention all the hedging in your posts. For someone trying to feign confidence, you don't seem to be doing so well at it.

[Parama]

Oh boy, scum-group speculation this early?

Cuet, do you understand why saying Seven is scum because he was defending hypo-scum me doesn't make any sense, considering I have not yet been revealed (As scum or otherwise), and that argument would not work unless I was revealed as scum. Therefore, your vote on Seven is based on me being scum, so why say you that I am scum?

What's wrong with scum-group speculation? If we connect potential scum-links ASAP then there's less confusion on the following days based on previous lynches and NKs.
And Cuet's vote here is pretty weird... if he's assuming you're scum then he should be advocating your lynch with Seven being a potential candidate for lynch the next day depending on what you would flip. So Cuet's vote being on Seven bothers me... logically, it doesn't follow from his post.

Sure, but I'm still going to hold what Parama pointed out against you.

Scummy. SP seemed intent on putting unwarranted suspicion on Flare. SP was implicitly affirming his statement from his previous post that Flare was a "detriment to the town," even though his reason, that Flare hadn't read the game, wasn't true.

I spy a misrep. SP was going to hold Flare's playing style against him, not on suspicion of scum, but just because of how anti-town it was. And it wasn't the one specific reason, more the multiple reasons I pointed out based on a previous game with Flare in it.

SP seemed more like he was trying to push suspicion onto Flare, whereas Parama just wanted a policy lynch. Wanting a policy lynch is a null tell (well, I think so anyway). Pushing for suspicion on someone, especially while saying he didn't want a lynch for it, just looks like scum trying to make a townie look bad.

Not seeing this, I'm just seeing a policy lynch mindset from him as well.

Btw peeps, Seven isn't looking very scummy, however, DRK is. He is, in fact, the only person in this game that looks to be pushing suspicion on anyone, and I agree with him on that one fact, pushing unwarranted on someone is pretty freaking scummy.

And again, this makes me think there's a Seven-SP scumteam here. DRK is acting a little jumpy with his suspicions but he seems to just be trying to scumhunt to me, though some of his points seem a little forced. Meh.
And then Seven's 125 is another thing... the scum would be able to answer for their buddies on most questions I'd think.
127-128 Seven is being too defensive. Townies wouldn't care as much if they got lynched - there's a lot more of them and you don't have to be alive to win as town. These are not townie responses to suspicions.

Also, I agree completely with Seven's 127.

No comment.

As for my "reaction", I'm pointing out bad logic. If you think seven is scum because I am scum, don't vote him VOTE ME. That's an invitation. I also continue to agree that Seven is not very scummy, he simply doesn't like the RVS, but taking an un-orthodox approach to game-start is not inherently scummy.

I'm not going to hold anything against him for not liking the RVS but his reactions to other's suspicions and his eagerness to defend are both pretty scummy moves IMO.

More coming in next post, sorry for lack of content recently :/

[Parama]

All right, I need to break this specific post down.

More responding...

And yet a lack of scumhunting, I'd assume?

DRK:

first off, bandwagon much?

DRK provided pretty good reasons for you being scum. His posts don't come off as bandwagoning. Your particular statement here comes off as deflecting.

Yes, I answered for SP. I don't know when he'll be on next, Cue asked a question so I assume he needs the information to continue discussion. If I have the answer, why should I wait for SP to put it up? I will do this no matter who asks the question to who, if only for the fact that if we have two different answers, then we have two different opinions, and that's two things to go on instead of one. Not sure whats anti-town about that.

Do you understand why this is scummy? Answering for another player makes it seem like you're trying to cover that other player's actions and defend them. Plus, scum could easily answer for each other because they have the same goal and likely the same target.

I'm really not getting what it is that I'm doing wrong. So far you've mostly accused me of arguing things that I don't agree with... We're supposed to be debating, here. That's how we're going to seek out scum. If you disagree with the things I'm saying, that's one thing... but if you disagree with me for saying them? Hmm...

Oh geez. If you want what you're doing wrong, see this post as well as my previous post.

I don't need to make him look bad, mate. He's doing that all on his own. I think my arguments against him are pretty solid. Maybe you should address those instead of pointing out that I'm trying to keep up discussion here.

...Sorry did that make you look bad?

Hmm, yes, Cuet's posts are a little... odd... but you're really only making yourself look bad at this point.

I proscribe to a belief that during a period of lack of conversation one potential solution is to get a nice good bandwagon rolling to see how people react to it.

I did read this but didn't realize that was one of the reasons for voting for me. Understand now.

Yeah, wagons are helpful, nobody can claim that we're in RVS anymore. However, the way you're reacting to it is scummy. BTW, that's really not the main reason people are voting you anymore. It may have started like that, but... :/

I agree that there isn't much difference between voting or FoSing in RVS, which I've said before. Neither of them hold much weight. I don't think not voting is a "moral high ground", as you put it. It's just my personal policy to not vote until I'm confident someone is scum. If it's bad logic, well... I don't know, I'm still pretty new at this so it could be... but I think most of my arguments have been sound enough so far that I'm not a threat to the town at this point, and I don't think whether or not I participate in RVS should matter... I'm expressing thoughts on players and presenting arguments, that's really what's important IMO.

Eek, don't like this at all...
1. It's not really a moral high ground as much as an attempt to lie low.
2. Self defense and trying to make yourself look more townie is a scum thing to do, really. Townies will look townie because they are townie and don't have to try to look townie.
3. Noobclaiming is a terrible terrible thing to do. Regardless of alignment you should never do this, it's just so... pointless.

Meh... this just turned out to be too focused on specific players didn't it. At this point a Seven lynch would be a pretty good idea. Regardless, I'm going to hold off on my vote until we get a claim.

FoS: Seven, SeerPenguin

for now, seems like a pretty likely scumteam to me.
So, Seven, I would like to hear a claim.

[Thor665]

And again, this makes me think there's a Seven-SP scumteam here. DRK is acting a little jumpy with his suspicions but he seems to just be trying to scumhunt to me, though some of his points seem a little forced. Meh.

I'm not sure I see much obvious scum team activity here. It read to me more like SeerPenguin feels his work on DRK is providing more worthwhile scum activity then the work on Seven and he wants to hopefully translate some of the plethora of Seven voters over to his wagon of choice. I've certainly poked at people's cases on others before to try to convince them to vote the way I was voting.

@SeerPenguin - RE: Post 119 what do you feel is the single strongest piece of evidence showcasing NRKscum? Why should I bounce over from Seven to vote NRK instead?

[Dragonfly13]

danakillsu replaces Flareonage!

[DiamondCrash]

Had myself a good read and all. While I understand why you are hunting Seven, I don't find wanting to skip the RVS, and not voting scummy. However, his reactions to you saying that it is scummy IS slightly scummy, combined with the protection of the Penguin tell me it's probably enough for a vote. However, my vote would make him open for a hammer; not sure I'd be happy to do that at the moment. So,

Fos: Seven

and I'll wait to see if it will become a vote.

Unless anyone feels killing him off now would be a good idea.

And indeed, claim please Seven. For the moment,

don't vote seven

till we see how/what he claims. I think that might be best.

[Idiotking]

I don't see how it possibly could be, it's Page 6. The discussion hasn't had time to simmer yet.

[Thor665]

Unless anyone feels killing him off now would be a good idea.

Do YOU think it's a good time to lynch him? If I were to say, yeah, let's lynch him, would you drop the hammer on him if you could? What are your thoughts about lynching someone at this point in the game?

Your post was overflowing with disclaimer language to an impressive degree and there was never really a point in it I thought I was reading anything that was actually your opinion.

I take it you accept Seven as the most likely scum, I agree with that assessment, but if he was unavailable for you to vote for who would you vote for and why?

[danakillsu]

/confirm
TIME TO READ!