Just over 2 days left till the deadline and we have 6 bandwagons. Don't think I've ever seen that much difference in suspicions so late in the day.
I would suggest everyone give their top two suspects and give thought to possibly moving votes a bit if a no lynch is to be avoided.
My top two suspects remain Cojin and Lawls...though Lawls has dropped a bit down my list with his recent play. In fact..I would would group Lawls and Pan fairly close to each other a bit behind Cojin.
That makes sense. But how do we marshal up a majority in such a short time frame?
In addition to your call for top two suspects, I suggest everyone provide at least an abstract of your reasons. For what little it may be worth, we could also, in a final act of desperation, just lynch Lawls, saving the mod from needing to find yet another replacement. Of course, voting for that express reason is hardly better than a No Lynch in terms of Day 2 analysis, so I would suggest not doing this unless we can come up with non-desperation reasons as well.
Now, for my two cases in chief:
I.
Panacea (for whom I am currently voting): she has been the only character to expressly state that she would not mind the town's win condition being made more difficult. See my individual post number 22 for the argument. Acosmist I know also added analysis to this in the ballpark of that post, and of course Panacea defended against the argument.
Caveats: This case presupposes that I am indeed town. It also presupposes that a rational player of mafia would not actually want his own win condition burdened. While that premise in and of itself is not too hard to swallow, I am willing to allow that MafiaScum means so much to Panacea that she would be willing to accept such burden to preserve its honor and decorum or something like that. (I would also like to take this time again to apologize for my earlier disrespect.)
II.
Nachomamma8: As has been pointed out before by others, his sudden and (at the time) unjustified vote on me had a very opportunistic flavor to it. Truth be told, I did not find his justifications to be all that great when presented, but I am by no means a disinterested party here. I personally do not find this to be a very strong case as it has very little corroborating evidence, but as of my writing this, I find him to be second in my suspicions.
I am finding Lawls less and less scummy with each passing hour. I figure there can be four things going on here. First, he may be frustrated/overwhelmed town, and simply wants out (as he is saying). Secondly, he could be a townie bluffing big time. He was at L-1 for quite some time, and managed to defuse that through his actions. This could be for the good of the town; his bluffing made us focus somewhere else more constructive. Third, he could indeed be scum, or as I would like to call it, brilliant scum, with similar analysis to the second possibility. Finally, he could be frustrated/overwhelmed scum, with analysis similar to possibility one.
As fantastic as his bluffing may have been in cases two and three, I think his official replacement request takes it too far. If he will not be around to see the fruits of his brilliant maneuvers, then there was no point. He will not get credit for the win. As for why I am leaning towards case one being more likely than case four, I do not think that someone with a scum role would be willing to replace out this close to getting away free on the first Day. That, and I may be able to relate (a little!) to the frustrated townie feelings. This all makes me think that my option one above is what is going on with him.
I am willing to listen to and consider carefully cases against any other players.
Executive summary: [part about havingfitz redacted so he doesn't argue with this] Panacea continues to apologize for not speaking well. Elementary Fermion understands me; I am disturbed. Nachomamma8 just says things, damn the consequences! Lawls...is still Lawls. Cojin is a good guy every four days or so. My hope that we could start the lynch process on Wednesday is finally getting going...on Friday.
BridgesAndBaloons wrote:
vote: nacho
MORE to come later including an explanation of my vote. Still not entirely caught up to thread, life is busy but spring break starts Friday and I will have lots of time then.
I'd like to see this explanation.
Panacea wrote:Side note: Did anyone else have to seriously fight the urge to quote Acosmist's
entire
first post..? Just to be a prat?
Maybe
I
should quote it. Just so we all remember where I'm coming from. No? All right.
As long as we're turning over new leaves, I promise to hereafter devote a lot more time to making sure the messages I'm sending can be received with no trouble.
Yes, precision in expression is helpful. I'd hate for a wall of text to come to nothing. And in the spirit of apologizing for everything, ever, here's my side of things:
Furthermore, I think text WALLS should be kept at a lower number; if only because I think our lurkers are getting by quite easily between them.
Definitely the lurkers' fault. How much of my walls addressed Lawls anyway? Very little, and a little find command on his name would have disclosed to him the questions and issues surrounding him. I quite honestly do not regard it as my fault if people get lost among the walls. The relevance of all this discussion to any one person is manageable, and there are ways to find the relevant parts that don't involve reading the entire post.
And, well, if lurkers use the walls as an excuse, we should investigate sinister motivations for that.
Meh, okay, so a little... Once my Defend-MS.net-at-All-Costs reflex faded a bit, I realized I lost my temper and was a bit harsh. Sorry, Elementary.
Good concession. Your position was untenable, so it's a natural concession, but you made it! havingfitz does not follow the same maxim.
No, not total indifference. I've mentioned before that I put a large value on enjoying the game. Why would anyone want to play if it was all serious? Ha ha, when I was scum last game, I convinced my buddy to keep a player around on the pretext of how much fun he was.
Heck, I enjoy the game too. If the expected value of continuing to play were negative, I'd get myself replaced. But I enjoy winning quite a bit, so winning and the tools used to achieve victory are pretty important to my enjoyment of the game. Same with Diplomacy...but I won't derail this further.
I'm one of those "If you can't respect what the Romans do, get yer scrawny tail out of Rome" people. Elementary's previous attitude, in my opinion, was threatening my win condition.
I don't see how, but all right.
(For the record, I'm not sold on Nacho's points. I stand by my aggravated town sentiment from earlier. I think that question was asked somewhere in the... well, in Acosmist's post. )
Nacho's points don't amount to much in my eyes.
Noted, with the understanding that I rebel at the notion of word taboo.
Clearly you do.
I fail to see his point. If I'd expressed a
desire
to see him killed before Phate caught on, maybe. But I was expressing a potential response to the situation
after the fact
, should he be modkilled. I anticipated the Mod's leniency (owing to the fact nicety to newbies seems to trump mod rights in the newbie threads). But I wouldn't take it to the list mod if he hadn't granted a pardon. *shrug*
I fail to see how that negates his point. Say someone asks me whether I like him. I insist, "Yes, of course I like you. You're a great person." And then that person follows up: "What if I fell into a well? How would you feel?" And I reply, "I just wouldn't give a damn. I hope you don't fall into a well, and I sure won't push you into one, but please do not expect me to care one bit if you do."
You think that person might doubt my insistence that I like him?
Whew. I need a break. Acosmist, please please please do not reply before I finish?
Events conspired to give you your break. I hope you enjoyed it!
Panacea wrote:No, not yet. I kind of think he may be sincerely just... erm... let's say scummy by nature? Whoa, I need to check out that finished game!
So it occurs to me when I realize I've totally forgotten about Lawls in all this (and he's not helped me remember by not being present *cough cough*) that that could very well have been the point. Hmm...
All right. I never know precisely what "anti-town" means until I have a fuller explanation. I've seen too many rationalizations for votes because "Well, his behavior hurts the town!" You're not falling into that fallacy, apparently. I'm satisfied with that issue now.
(See? Closure is possible.)
Open, my apologies: is that accurate? I need to ask him that, or if it was a scum tactic...
When deadlines approach without a consensus in the games I read, several people would assert that everyone had to vote someone, to avoid the dreaded No Lynch. I don't think I ever attempted a correlation between those opinions and alignment. So, I don't know. If that was a "truth" beaten into my head by scum, I suppose I'd really like to know and correct my error.
I think it could be something scummy as much as it could not be. Yes, he could have been matching the meta I laid out, or he could be acting on his own play patterns. I'd give you more than that, but I think it's far too delicate to judge standalone, you know?
All right...it's just good to make sure that kind of thing isn't lost in the hundreds of posts.
Have you considered the thought (ha ha, I'm so sure you have) that setting up townies to meta each other could be a decent scum tactic? For instance, let's say everyone lynches me tonight, and I flip scum. You meta'd me, with the conclusion of a more-likely-town-than-scum feel. It wouldn't be too hard to lead a mislynch on you D2 if you're town. Paranoia? Probably. This thought leads me back to Bridges, who first mentioned meta, but never applied it. Small point, but at least it's in black and white (pixels).
I think we can rely on a good-faith, but mistaken, meta as a town tell. I see the danger you're identifying, but it doesn't seem qualitatively different from all sorts of things that can go wrong. If a townie votes a townie and the second townie gets lynched, we'll be looking askance at the first townie. That a meta was done doesn't change the risk, and I think the useful discussion it produces outweighs any additional risk...which I consider negligible anyway.
havingfitz wrote:Not trying to argue with the summary again (see comment below)...but what is the remarkable proof I am wrong...and what am I wrong about? The points I am making towards Cojin? If your remarkable proof is your comments quoted in the post below...I would say your proof is anything but remarkable.
Yes, Google Fermat, as EF pointed out.
And in honor of Acosmist (and Nacho)...a summary: Acosmist and I disagree in regards to Cojin’s scumminess.
Now you're getting into the spirit!
I did not argue with the summary...I asked you to explain a comment you made within it. How is asking for clarification arguing?
It's the most futile thing you could do.
How do you derive your interpretations...assuming you use interpretation in mafia to begin with.
Well, first, I read what's posted. If I don't understand it, I try to make sense of it. If a future post makes sense of it, I read that future post. I take the words as written, and try to understand what they are meant to express. Then I expand the context. Then I hypothesize reasonable motives to make the post. Everything beyond the words themselves are things I add in interpretation. I don't lose sight of that fact. If I think, "This guy had such a scummy motivation to this post, no matter what he think he's saying," I don't collapse my interpretation into the post and make my interpretation as concrete as the post itself. You don't seem to follow this strategy. Once you've hypothesized a scummy interpretation to something, you regard your supposition as fact, and you are unable to see what's in the post itself, apart from your interpretation. And that ends up leading you astray.
We disagree.
You think that a person is prevented from ever raising a point in a one context if he failed to raise it in a superficially similar context. I prefer that we don't restrict conversation. Why do you like restricting conversation?
What? You say he did not express shock that we put anyone at L-3....but that we put Pan at L-3. What? Pan falls under the category of anyone for me. As do Lawls and EF whose placement at L-3 did not get the same response.
You don't get quantification, and you don't get bound variables. EF explained it, so I won't.
Fitz, “No he didn’t.” Acosmist, “Yes he did.” Fitz, “No he didn’t.” Acosmist, “Yes he did.” Fitz, “No he didn’t.” Acosmist, “Yes he did.”
Please stop -->
Really?
I'm going to go back to this to draw more attention to your reading comprehension failure.
Cojin wrote:Ugg im a horrible ic.
ok lets start discussion
Everybody besides her flop to another L-3 Why do you think we should lynch panacea right now?
Cojin's post on the matter.
havingfitz wrote:ISO 2 - Admits to being bad IC, urges discussion, tells others (sans Pan) to flop to a different L-3 and asks why Pan should go.
Your faulty reading of his post...which was long after he corrected the grammar with:
Cojin wrote:Grammer issue sorry
Everybody, besides her flop to another l-3
as in what other reason do we have to increase the pressure on her.
His correction of the grammar.
The first post looks like it has Cojin commanding "Everyone (except Panacea): please move to another L-3." That's what you took it to mean. What he meant, as he clarifies in the next post (still long before your criticism!) was "This is a question to everyone: besides her switching her vote from one L-3 to another L-3, what do we have against Panacea?"
Given that he corrected that grammar long before your post, you were not reading his posts carefully. You voted for Cojin because he wasn't paying attention enough to know his vote was already on Lawls. You are not paying attention enough to understand the person you're doing a post-by-post on. Should we vote you?
This dead horse is entirely your doing. You failed to read. Get over it.
Actually...your ‘decoding’ doesn’t really help his comment any and he has still avoided answering my questions from the post where he ‘explained’ (unsuccessfully IMO) his previous comments. But at least you agree it is gibberish that required an effort to decode.
The decoding hasn't helped because you're locked into a certain view of Cojin, and you don't want to admit that your mistakes have contributed a lot to misunderstanding him, and that it's not all his fault.
A massive, massive warning sign? That sounds ominous.
Misrepresentation is a scum tell, or haven't you heard?
I’ll explain again and hope it catches this time.
When I'm right and you're wrong, you're not going to have much luck getting your false views to "catch" with me. Sorry?
You felt the need to give Cojin a point for making a good comment.
I think that if someone makes a good point, it's a good point. Tautology detected! I hope you don't think that someone shouldn't get credit for making good points.
I pointed out in his next comment that he should have a point removed for making a bad comment. Totally unrelated to the good comment point you awarded. You gave him a point for good. I took a point away for bad.
And now Cojin has zero points! But, wait, he made a good point. Yet he has zero points as if he's Lawls, and hasn't said anything of substance? That can't be.
How would you know? His first mention of lawls is in the post he votes for Lawls...in which he derives his suspicions from comments I made...which he quotes within that same post. So once again...how would you know Cojin had original thoughts on Lawls? Your comment would require “reading Cojin's mind.”
Because Cojin posts. Posts are in public, havingfitz! So I don't have to read Cojin's mind to see that he said something no one had said before.
That's how that works!
There is nothing misleading about my opinion.
Yes there is. Imagine if someone spoke in an unfamiliar accent. You might have such trouble understanding him that you'd call it "gibberish." Then imagine I came along and pointed out differences in pronunciation and slang, and made some sense of that accent. And then when that person spoke in that accent again, you said "Stop talking gibberish!" That's what's going on here.
Your translation made more sense than his comments but does not remove the fact that Cojin’s posting is often gibberish, IMO.
Protip: your opinion is false. Opinions can be like that!
I’m not a fan of reading what someone says and trying to piece together what they intend to say. I don’t seem to have the same issue with the other 7 players in the game.
Everything everyone else posts is pellucid? I don't know if you know this, but two people here are trying to kill us all! I imagine what they say is not exactly what they mean.
Didn't you...like interpretations, earlier in this post? Now you're throwing a fit at having to interpret Cojin's posts!
It’s enough we have to wade through multiple screens worth of your long winded, bombastic posts without you adding a dash of smartass.
This from the guy posting the dead horse image repeatedly.
All I can say is: sorry, Internet Tough Guy, I won't stop posting game-relevant things.
havingfitz wrote:
Lawls wrote:You know what I can't play games on this site big step up from where I usually play.
Unvote Vote Lawls
I am inclined to think this self-vote is more town throwing in the towel than it is scum throwing it in.
Still happy with my Cojin vote.
Oh yeah?
havingfitz wrote:My top two suspects remain Cojin and Lawls...though Lawls has dropped a bit down my list with his recent play. In fact..I would would group Lawls and Pan fairly close to each other a bit behind Cojin.
Town throwing in the towel is your second suspect?
havingfitz wrote:Your NFL analogy doesn't work because fans of teams are just that...fans of teams and they don't feel the same way towards other teams. Other than Panacea towards Ray...I don't think anyone in here is a fan of another member (except perhaps scum for their partner). I've made my opinion known regarding Cojin's shock and it isn't going to change. As I doubt either of your is so it's not worth thrahsin out longer (though I have a feeling someone will want to).
You're fighting the analogy rather than the abstracted elements of the analogy that analogize what's going on in this discussion. It's as if EF made a football analogy, and then you said "But there are 9 people in this game and 11 people on the field for each team! So the analogy is totally false!"
There is no right or wrong here.
Sure there is. Do you want me to construct a closed semantic tableau to prove that "For all x, Px" is not a semantic consequence of "There exists an x such that Px"?
Cojin's actions are suspicious to me.
Is it gut-based? If it was gut-based, you could have said that and spared the arguing.
<shudder> Is Cojin really worth this much debate?
He's your
top suspect
. I...I figured you thought that meant he was worth the debate.
I think a single exchange between us on this matter has exclipsed his entire input to the game.
It would be nice to get Cojin posting, yep.
Do you have an objective in this debate? To clear Cojin?
My objective is to shoot to pieces any trumped-up case against anyone. Your case on Cojin is based on misrepresentation, so I'm shooting it to pieces. That's...standard mafia strategy, to force the railroaders to get their railroading thoughts on paper.
To make the horse deader? Let's agree to not agree.
I agree with Frege, Russell, Kripke, etc. I don't know who's on your side. But all right, if you want to drop this, we can drop it. I have experience with how frustrating internet arguments can be. It took me seven posts once to prove that, indeed, contraposition preserves the validity of a valid material conditional! That's not the kind of thing that should be hard to prove. The things here should not be hard to prove.
I can certainly drop this, but I'm surprised you want to. Your Cojin case is in tatters. You cool leaving your vote on him in those circumstances?
Oh...and
FoS on Panacea
for piggy-backing on the town feel some have towards Lawls self vote.
When people agree with you, you call them out. Yikes.
Panacea wrote:Partially, somewhat because this is the most decidedly unenjoyable game of which I've ever taken part (despite valiant efforts to the contrary, lest I neglect credit).
I'm having loads of fun! I can see where you're coming from - it's as if I'm eating haggis and saying "MAN THIS IS DELICIOUS" and you're gagging on the other side of the table.
Nachomamma8 wrote:If you need clarification, I can provide it.
Waiting eagerly for some Ray/B
"My pretextual vote was a scumhunting strategy!"
Yeah.
EF was angry and his post showed that. Boredom and anger are not mutually exclusive emotions.
havingfitz wrote:Why don't you try explaining what you meant to say again and not leave it up to others to make sense of it for you.
Everything he said made sense.
I don't know what to do about Lawls. This is the worst time he could possibly be replaced. I still think he's scum - top suspect.
Far below Lawls, there's Nachomamma8. Playing private games to try to fool scum runs afoul of my contract bridge comments long, long ago (in this galaxy). His case against EF was trumped-up nonsense. I'm pretty sure he threw suspicion at RayFrost and wasn't even entirely clear why he was doing that.
Third choice, close to Nacho: havingfitz. His hard-on for Cojin is making less and less sense.
Thoughts on others: I'm not as sold on Panacea as before, but she's an open book and will screw up if she's scum. I don't think she's scum. Cojin needs to post more. It's intolerable how little he's posted. He also needs to explain himself better. I said I wouldn't vote for him today, and I stand by that. When he does post, I usually find myself agreeing with it, and it's helpful stuff. EF is on fire lately. He was a bored and indifferent townie, now he's an angry, bored, posting-machine townie. Any argument that "If he's not having fun he should be replaced/modkilled" is moot, as he's definitely into the game now. If you think what he's done is scummy, all right, that's something different. I am happy to have him in the game. Where the hell is Bridges? RayFrost...he's not very active either, is he?
Never have so many said so much to accomplish so little for so few.
I am glad to have at my disposal the tools of the philosopher's trade, without deigning to practice the profession. Critical thinking is something both vastly underutilized and underappreciated.
Acosmist wrote:I don't know what to do about Lawls. This is the worst time he could possibly be replaced. I still think he's scum - top suspect.
What did you think of my delineation of four possible scenarios and their respective likelihoods? Do you see another possible explanation or just weigh the facts differently?
Nachomamma8 wrote:Waiting eagerly for some Ray/BaB responses.**
Agreed.
Acosmist wrote:
Panacea wrote:Furthermore, I think text WALLS should be kept at a lower number; if only because I think our lurkers are getting by quite easily between them.
Definitely the lurkers' fault. . . . I quite honestly do not regard it as my fault if people get lost among the walls. The relevance of all this discussion to any one person is manageable, and there are ways to find the relevant parts that don't involve reading the entire post.
And, well, if lurkers use the walls as an excuse, we should investigate sinister motivations for that.
Well, Acosmist, I am going to agree that, perhaps, your mega-posts could be broken into smaller consecutive posts. I do not think they so need be, but certainly could.
Is there a bright line difference between not really having anything of substance to say and "lurking"? As this game began, I felt as if I had nothing of consequence to offer, and was accused of lurking. Attempts at posting to discount the lurking accusation were then characterized as having nothing of substance.
Elementary Fermion wrote:Never have so many said so much to accomplish so little for so few.
Thank you, Winston.
I am glad to have at my disposal the tools of the philosopher's trade, without deigning to practice the profession. Critical thinking is something both vastly underutilized and underappreciated.
Have you seen academic hiring? I'm not sure there is a profession left. ;_;
What did you think of my delineation of four possible scenarios and their respective likelihoods? Do you see another possible explanation or just weigh the facts differently?
I regard any theory that supposes Lawls to be brilliant to be...something of a stretch. The second and third theories require more of Lawls than he seems capable. If he's a mastermind after all, I think we all owe him a beer.
The other two scenarios have him frustrated at how things have turned out. His desire to be replaced and bemoaning the high demands of play in this game are not alignment tells to me at all. Lawls is not subtle, so I think he is honestly frustrated. I think that town or scum in his shoes would be just as frustrated and react in just that way.
Because his most recent behavior does not make one alignment more likely than another, I'm still concentrating on his previous play. This day has been going on for weeks. The pressure on Lawls, even before it was a "case" against him, has been building slowly throughout that time. Lawls never came up with adequate responses to the issues that were raised. We know he's capable of typing a lot (even if not a lot of substance), because he did it - once! If Lawls skipped everything in this thread except the stuff addressed to him, came up with a coherent explanation of his actions, and contributed that way every 48 hours, he'd still not have to spend more than perhaps 15 minutes on the game...every 48 hours. The posting he did shows at least a recognition that he was under pressure, but he deflected all the time. So he read the thread...which, after all, is the hard part...but didn't take 5-10 minutes to come up with a paragraph or two of reaction?
I don't view this game as
that
overwhelming. It may have become worse, but it didn't start out badly, but Lawls has been playing that way since the beginning.
Lawls took the time to read enough to know he was under fire. He didn't follow up by offering an explanation. My theory: constructing plausible lies is more time-consuming that offering honest analysis. Where an honest person would find responding relatively easy, a deceitful person would have to take the extra, and sometimes exhausting, step of checking for consistency in his "story". Lawls didn't want to put in the effort. He did, however, check the thread at least enough to know what sort of charges were leveled at him.
That is my theory. And that is why I am still voting Lawls. And time is running out on this day without well-developed secondary cases. :/
Well, Acosmist, I am going to agree that, perhaps, your mega-posts could be broken into smaller consecutive posts. I do not think they so need be, but certainly could.
Does that make it any better, though? I am going to say what I think needs said, whether in one gigapost (I am one-upping your prefix) or in several smaller posts.
Is there a bright line difference between not really having anything of substance to say and "lurking"? As this game began, I felt as if I had nothing of consequence to offer, and was accused of lurking. Attempts at posting to discount the lurking accusation were then characterized as having nothing of substance.
Lurking is a neutral activity. It is, though, supposed to be good cover for scum. So lurkers are being profiled, even though lurking is not inherently scummy. Please do not 1983 me.
Acosmist wrote:
Playing private games to try to fool scum runs afoul of my contract bridge comments long, long ago (in this galaxy).
I have no idea what this means.
Acosmist wrote:
"My pretextual vote was a scumhunting strategy!"
Attacking something you don't understand? Not something I'd expect from a philosopher.
Acosmist wrote:
EF was angry and his post showed that. Boredom and anger are not mutually exclusive emotions.
See, here's where we disagree. I can't recall a time where I've been both angry and bored at the same time; anger puts adrenaline through the body and thus makes you... not bored. Also, I've never been bored when I've believed I've pegged scum. But then again, this really isn't a point I can convince you of, it seems. But then again, these are my experiences and feelings being transferred onto EF...
Acosmist wrote:
I'm pretty sure he threw suspicion at RayFrost and wasn't even entirely clear why he was doing that.
Actually, I looked back and saw how petty the argument was getting, so I dropped it. The case is looking good to my eyes, but there's no one here to defend it.
Acosmist wrote:
Definitely the lurkers' fault. . . . I quite honestly do not regard it as my fault if people get lost among the walls. The relevance of all this discussion to any one person is manageable, and there are ways to find the relevant parts that don't involve reading the entire post.
And, well, if lurkers use the walls as an excuse, we should investigate sinister motivations for that.
This is an extremely scummy post. It doesn't matter whose fault it is that it's being made easier to lurk; the simple fact are that walls of text promote lurking and make it a lot easier for scum to lurk and make it a lot more difficult to determine the difference between town and scum lurkers. Honestly? It'll be extremely hard to find replacements for this game because of how long your posts are, and as a townie, that isn't playing to your win condition.
Right now, my top two suspects are missing, and I can tell my EF case is not being understood, or perhaps it's just not as big of a deal to you all as it is to me. Either way, fitz is right that having a lynch is important at this stage, so
Unvote, Vote: Cojin
.
In terms of activity, Cojin is the weakest link. He also hasn't said anything that I feel has benefitted the town in any significant way.
"Playing with Nacho is like playing with a religious conservative." ~UncertainKitten
-- Fate, Vanilla Townie, was brutally stabbed by a throwing sword in endgame.
Cojin... for real..? What's all this business about meta..? Thanks for getting the avi!!
Elementary: Thank you for providing my argument to your case against me in your post. Professional, efficient, and it saves me from having to do so.
I would like to add, however, that winning isn't my primary desire when it comes to playing Mafia; it's that everyone has a good time and learns a bit while they're at it. Abiding by that sentiment lends to the following logical end: if you had been removed from the game at that point when you were
clearly
unhappy, you would have been removed from a bad time, and your negativity would have been removed from the game. We could still have gotten in our lynch Today, and have the emotional air cleansed a bit, to boot. I'm glad you seem to be having more fun now, though.
Elementary wrote: This all makes me think that my option one above is what is going on with him.
I concur with option 1, reasons stated above.
Oh, this is interesting!:
Elementary wrote: Panacea has been the only character to expressly state that she would not mind the town's win condition being made more difficult.
Elementary wrote: For what little it may be worth, we could also, in a final act of desperation, just lynch Lawls, saving the mod from needing to find yet another replacement
You said in the same post that you're leaning toward Lawls being town. Is this so different from what I said, if you think he's a townie?
Also as an aside: I pulled the "We should just lynch the non-contributor and save the mod the trouble" stunt as scum myself.
Acosmist wrote: Your position was untenable.
I strongly disagree.
That
position, however is indeed untenable.
Acosmist wrote: Say someone asks me whether I like him. I insist, "Yes, of course I like you. You're a great person." And then that person follows up: "What if I fell into a well? How would you feel?" And I reply, "I just wouldn't give a damn. I hope you don't fall into a well, and I sure won't push you into one, but please do not expect me to care one bit if you do."
The difference would be, however, that Elementary would have hopped headfirst into the hole, not fallen. And I didn't say I wouldn't help him up; I'd hope the headache taught him to avoid hole-diving.
Acosmist wrote: You think that person might doubt my insistence that I like him?
Perhaps. But isn't it a sign that I have hope for him that I expressed a hope he'd learned the lesson?
Acosmist wrote: All right...it's just good to make sure that kind of thing isn't lost in the hundreds of posts.
It won't be.
Acosmist wrote:He's your top suspect. I...I figured you thought that meant he was worth the debate.
You know what? That's a really good point. Havingfitz?
Acosmist wrote: I'm not as sold on Panacea as before, but she's an open book and will screw up if she's scum.
... Ouch..!
Acosmist wrote: EF is on fire lately. He was a bored and indifferent townie, now he's an angry, bored, posting-machine townie. Any argument that "If he's not having fun he should be replaced/modkilled" is moot, as he's definitely into the game now. If you think what he's done is scummy, all right, that's something different. I am happy to have him in the game.
I agree. I'm glad Elementary wasn't modkilled after all.
Elementary wrote:
Is there a bright line difference between not really having anything of substance to say and "lurking"?
Yes, there is. Passive lurking is what's been mentioned most in this game: it entails the process of just skating by without offering many posts. Active lurking is where a player contributes regularly to a game quantity-wise, but really doesn't offer much analysis. Simplified:
Passive lurking = some info, few posts.
Active lurking = little info, many posts.
Acosmist wrote: If everyone in this game is replaced, is it the same game?
If a tree falls in a forest and there's no one there to hear it..? It would be, because all the roles would be passing to predecessors. Lawls's replacement will be an extension of Lawls's slot.
Nacho wrote: It'll be extremely hard to find replacements for this game because of how long your posts are, and as a townie, that isn't playing to your win condition.
Nacho's 100% correct.
And I used "however" like three times in my last post, and "hope" twice in the same sentence. I'm sorry. Posting before a night out.
Nachomamma8 wrote:It'll be extremely hard to find replacements for this game because of how long your posts are, and as a townie, that isn't playing to your win condition.
Nachomamma8 wrote:This is an extremely scummy post. It doesn't matter whose fault it is that it's being made easier to lurk; the simple fact are that walls of text promote lurking and make it a lot easier for scum to lurk and make it a lot more difficult to determine the difference between town and scum lurkers. Honestly? It'll be extremely hard to find replacements for this game because of how long your posts are, and as a townie, that isn't playing to your win condition.
Following up right now because this is so pathetic (Panacea please read this and see if you still agree with him) - the biggest lurkers in this thread have been Cojin and Lawls...and they're the subject of most of the attention!
So, the walls of text definitely haven't covered for the lurkers. Your argument is bunk.
Interesting that a while back you wanted me to tone down the walls of text, and I added the summaries to facilitate easier understanding, and to guide the compartmentalization of my multifaceted posts. Why do you hate when I post?
Acosmist wrote:
Following up right now because this is so pathetic (Panacea please read this and see if you still agree with him) - the biggest lurkers in this thread have been Cojin and Lawls...and they're the subject of most of the attention!
Lawls is no longer a lurker; he's being replaced. RayFrost and BaB have also been lurking lately, but they've barely been the subject of any attention whatsoever that hasn't been supplied by me. And saying that Cojin and Lawls have been the subject of most of the attention is... laughable. Cojin's attention consists of someone who hasn't posted about him since last week and a giant wall-battle that should've been dropped a long time ago. The attention on Lawls consists of himself, a lurker, and someone whose walls generally have nothing to do with him anyways. The town is spread so thin because of walls of texts and people generally ignoring any case that isn't there own that the people under the most attention are under no pressure whatsoever.
Acosmist wrote:
Why do you hate when I post?
I don't hate when you post; you present some good points when you're more worried about who's scum as opposed to who's right. You just need to cut out some of the useless stuff and stop nitpicking over every little point; focus on major aspects of the case and present them to the public; note down tiny scumtells and keep them to thyself.
No, I still think he's right. We seem to get easily bogged down in slight issues centered on select players. During this whole "Pan's a newbie-thread daykilling vigilante" debacle, where have been Bridges, Cojin, and (sigh) Ray? And their potential buddy-interaction?
I don't think cutting down on the smaller TELLS is a good idea, Nacho. If we've got good scum (the if was cursory. No way this game doesn't), it'll probably be the minute slips that sink them. Typically with small tells this early, you'd list them for future perusals later in the game, where they'd be hammered out for days. I think we're just skipping a step and doing it early.
Executive summary: Acosmist, I'd suggest cutting back just a little on the tinier tells (by all means, bring them up!). Nacho, I think telling him to stop with the lesser tells altogether is very crippling.
Mod, can we have a 72-hour deadline extension while we look for a Lawls replacement, since he DOES have one of the largest bandwagons on him right now?
"Playing with Nacho is like playing with a religious conservative." ~UncertainKitten
-- Fate, Vanilla Townie, was brutally stabbed by a throwing sword in endgame.
Wait, wait, wait. Lawls, are you replacing out or not? Because if you're still hanging around, I don't see why you can't try and clear up a few things.
Mod, can we have a 72-hour deadline extension while we look for a Lawls replacement, since he DOES have one of the largest bandwagons on him right now?
This is reasonable. Deadline is extended to March 24.
I will fuck up your name and gender. Deal with it.
PM me to replace into Infection Mafia, a semi-open Mini Theme.
Panacea wrote:Elementary: Thank you for providing my argument to your case against me in your post. Professional, efficient, and it saves me from having to do so.
I am trying! You could still state why you think your counterargument is stronger than my argument against you.
Panacea wrote:I would like to add, however, that winning isn't my primary desire when it comes to playing Mafia; it's that everyone has a good time and learns a bit while they're at it.
Oh.
Panacea wrote:
Elementary wrote: For what little it may be worth, we could also, in a final act of desperation, just lynch Lawls, saving the mod from needing to find yet another replacement
You said in the same post that you're leaning toward Lawls being town. Is this so different from what I said, if you think he's a townie?
Also as an aside: I pulled the "We should just lynch the non-contributor and save the mod the trouble" stunt as scum myself.
Clever, actually. Yes, my position seems mildly inconsistent, though I did qualify it as much as possible with the "final act of desperation" language. According to Acosmist , there is a good chance of Lawls's being scum. If so, this would not be bad, even though I am willing to view it as a town tell at this time. In the alternative, supposing the town tell to be correct, seeing who made what arguments against Lawls at what time can still be a springboard for analysis on Day 2. I do not think it would be a complete waste, though not as useful as a legit bandwagon would be.
Acosmist wrote:
[Elementary Fermion] wrote:Well, Acosmist, I am going to agree that, perhaps, your mega-posts could be broken into smaller consecutive posts. I do not think they so need be, but certainly could.
Does that make it any better, though? I am going to say what I think needs said, whether in one gigapost (I am one-upping your prefix) or in several smaller posts.
I was referring only to the presentation, not the overall quantity. Perhaps you could break up your teraposts (ball's in your court!) using headings to coincide with your executive summaries?
more so im messaging mith, i think lawls essently avoided his lynch by going awol ill claim that you killed a usefull ally and you will find out on my death scene this game pisses me off to much now.
Just to be a prat?
Sorry, Elementary.
Professional, efficient, and it saves me from having to do so.
