Mini 942: Gonzo Mafia - Game Over!

[Zachrulez]

That would be a good point if I hadn't questioned you or called you out in this game when I have. We agree on flinter/Jack but I think that's about it. I don't know your opinion on hohum for example, or Percy.

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 15#2175115
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 83#2175383
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 37#2186937
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 01#2193901

You're just paranoid that I am always scum

Keep in mind that Locke asked and that post was in response to his inquiry.

[VP Baltar]

"Well, Andrew,"

I said to him in a high-pitched mournful voice.

"I hate to be the one to tell you this...I don't want to hurt you, but--"

"No!"

he shouted.

"Please don't kill me!"

I seized him quickly by the hair and jerked him off balance. His eyes rolled back in his head and then he went limp.

"Stop whining!"

I snapped.

"I just want to tell you about a

legal

axiom."

"Bullshit,"

he croaked.

"You're a goddamn vicious maniac!"

---

Vote Count 1-15

:

Jack ~ L-4 (Zachrulez, Sotty7, ortolan)

xRECKONERx ~ L-4 (Debonair Danny DiPietro, hohum, Locke Lamora)
hohum ~ L-4 (Percy, Jack, ekiM)
Sotty7 ~ L-6 (xRECKONERx)
ortolan ~ L-6 (Vi)

Not Voting: Jahudo

With

12

alive, it takes

7

to lynch. Deadline is March 31 at roughly 3 p.m. (GMT -4).

Prodding hohum today.

[Zachrulez]

I can't say I have much of an opinion on Percy. I feel pretty neutral about everything he's said and done.

Hohum's been way too quiet lately and would be my 3rd lynch preference at this point.

[Vi]

and also in Phate's game...Deathnote, when you were scum.

lol, who's your alt
ortolan wasn't in Death Note Mafia.

I was third party trying to lynch you as scum in Election Mafia. You even admitted you were playing to be scummy in that game; how can you blame me~

History aside, this is still the most dubious tell I think I've ever seen.

It also makes sense with your really dodgily timed vote on me so close to deadline, so you can avoid taking responsibility for membership of a viable wagon.

Sotty, get over here and tell me how many times I've avoided taking credit for a wagon I've been on.

[Vi]

Hohum's been way too quiet lately and would be my 3rd lynch preference at this point.

Knowing hohum he probably flaked off the site (again).

[ekiM]

I'm reading hohum as town.

That makes me happy with my vote.

[ekiM]

Scum are hohum, Locke, and one other. DDD? Sotty? Hrm.

[Percy]

@Zach

: Do you want to lynch hohum because he's gone quiet, or do you think there's a case against him?

I'm feeling the need for more focus on ortolan tomorrow.

I'm annoyed that Sotty hasn't responded to a question that has been asked twice by me and once by ortolan, yet she's happy to dig up quotes to defend herself from zach and takes the time to defend hohum.

I have a neutral-leaing-town read on Zach. Lots of focus on flinter/Jack throughout the game, not much else, and I don't agree with his read on that slot, but what's there is townie-seeming.

Still think hohum is the best lynch.

[Vi]

Scum are hohum, Locke, and one other. DDD? Sotty? Hrm.

You're missing ortolan entirely. Why?

[ekiM]

No reason ort can't be scum, but it's less likely to be with hohum when he named his two lynch preferences for today as Jack/flint and hohum. I'm pretty sold on hohum being scum.

Locke and sotty both have this fun "ohh, I happen to have a town read on hohum, let's try the other viable wagons" thing going on, and DDD and hohum have no interaction whatsoever today.

[Locke Lamora]

In the hohum case, you said you found it scummy when he cared about Reckoner replacing out but not flinter. I assume you think this is scummy because you don't think hohum treated Reckoner and flinter in the same way?

[Sotty7]

I'm not ignoring you Percy just had a few other games to post in before coming back here. I probably should have mentioned I was coming back.

= = = = = =

Percy, you say you agree with Vi's reads in post 360 but then go onto say that you are undecided on him. Why?

The reason I gave my opinion on the hohum case was because ekiM asked me for it. Simple. The reason I went back to re-read it all was because of your question and I realized I wasn't 100% sure about what you were talking about. I needed to give it some fresh eyes. I was apparently too wrapped up in flinter.

Basically I don't believe your difference between hohum and Ort. I would have thought that was clear when I went back and talked about your case. Ort has proven his selective reading by asking me something I had already given an opinion on. If he wanted something more in depth like you are asking then why didn't he follow up on it?

The way Ort fell into his Hohum vote and then abandoned it is scummy to me, were as your case on hohum seems to come a more genuine place even if I don't agree. That is the difference between you and flinter, she felt fake to me, you didn't.

Here I'll clarify each of the points I raised.
1.

Over

defensiveness - You note that defensiveness isn't a scumtell, but being overdefensive

is

a scumtell. I concede that this isn't one of my strongest points (in that it verges on playstyle criticism), but he not only lashes out at anyone who attacks him, he's also accused

every person who has ever voted for him of being scum

.

This isn't true because I voted for hohum and I don't remember him accusing me. Can you explain why overdefensiveness is a scum tell and simple defensiveness isn't?

2. Misrepresentations - Firstly, it was his branding me a lurker, and implying I was lying about my modding commitments. That jab was a misrepresentation of my play so far; it felt like he saw my "sorry I'll be on tomorrow" post and did whatever he could to twist that into an attack on me; it's the kind of non-discriminatory knee-jerk case building that screams scum to me. Secondly, his characterization of the post restriction exchange as me "going on the offensive" was really the backbone of his case against me, even though I was posting only to clarify my position, and even stated that it was a very weak tell, if anything at all. This links back to 1.

I'll give you the lurker thing. Your presence in the thread wasn't strong at the time and still really isn't, but you weren't lurking. The modding thing is his opinion a stretch to call it a misrep same with the deal about the PR stuff. Misrep is such a buzz word and I just don't agree with you here.

4. Active lurking - Again you accuse me of personal dislike, which is not the case. I'll answer this with another question: If xRx is lynched flips town, how will you feel about hohum's play today? I'm happy to concede that scum-xRx safely rules out hohum-scum-with-xRx, but looking at him in ISO and I think the active lurking label is apt. Also links back to 3 - if you think 3 is good, why not 4?
Finally, he hasn't posted since Saturday, and then only to defend himself (without actually answering any of the questions put to him), and there's less than 48 hours until deadline. He locked on his vote and hasn't come back.

If xRx flips town I will be taking a second look at hohum but I have already agreed the locking in and timing of the vote is weak and I don't get it. He needs to answer it.

Not commenting on all the players isn't quite the same as active lurking. Active lurking implies you are posting without providing any content, you can't claim that hohum hasn't generated content.

OK, those are two very different things; I'm not voting hohum because I "dislike" him, but I am voting him based on how he's approaching the game, because I think he's approaching this game in a scummy fashion. Why is that a bad thing?

I think he pissed you off talking about the modding and then you have made things fit the case, like the use of misrepresentation. I don't see it. I agree there are points that hold water, but not everything you have thrown at him sticks. If you had just pushed the legit scummy stuff there wouldn't be a problem but I think you are trying to beef your case up when it doesn't need it.

= = = = =

It also makes sense with your really dodgily timed vote on me so close to deadline, so you can avoid taking responsibility for membership of a viable wagon.

Sotty, get over here and tell me how many times I've avoided taking credit for a wagon I've been on.

Yup, this is how Vi plays, slapping that vote were ever her current suspicions lie. I don't remember her shirking any wagon blame, which is a pretty mean feat considering she starts a lot.

Wagons I would support today

Jack
Reck
Ort
Locke

[ekiM]

@locke: Yes. xRx

threatening

to replace out under pressure was enough for hohum to vote for him. flinter then

actually

replaces out under pressure and hohum's next comment is to say his vote for xRx is final. No mention of flinter. Supposedly he suspected her before too, but no comment on her replacing out.

I don't believe a townie sees one of his suspects doing something he obviously considers scummy, ignores it, and finalizes his vote on a different suspect who did a less egregious version of the same thing.

[Zachrulez]

In the hohum case, you said you found it scummy when he cared about Reckoner replacing out but not flinter. I assume you think this is scummy because you don't think hohum treated Reckoner and flinter in the same way?

Yeah, I notice now that Hohum didn't react to that at all, while pushing it as a major point about Reck.

Also, I'm not getting a very proactive feel from Hohum. (He's also been attacking lurkers while pushing that territory himself and what he has posted seems to be pretty quiet/designed to not really be noticed.)

Does that answer your question Percy?

[Jahudo]

I'll get my hohum read out next, followed by a search of reck ongoing games. I've only skimmed through the last page or so since I'm focused on iso's now.
---------------------

xRECKONERx: either scummy or neutral (see below for details)
* His Zach vote is based on a meta argument, which I see as weak reasoning but not scummy to investigate. I read it as a small point, which happens early in the day. Its not a tell for me. The timing of his unvote doesn't tell me anything other than several people were suspicious of his case, and he had no defense for it. I'd only call that scummy if he had kept up the case on that point for longer than Zach could possibly defend against it, but I don't see that.

* In Post 129 shows he might be reading the thread selectively. He asked Vi a question she already answered in post 35. That's a little suspicious.

* I don't like his post 199. He calls Sotty's post 190 fluff without saying why. It only makes sense to call something fluff without further explaination when its obvious why its fluffy. (ie: the post is about something non-game related, like what the player ate for breakfast.) This is also a little suspicious for me because his vote was on Sotty for fence-sitting, but he never asked Sotty questions.

This after he questioned Zach for a weaker tell. Usually if you call someone out for fence-sitting, you try and get them off that fence by questioning them on their tells and lack of stances. So Reck looks like he's just sitting on an easy vote.

But, he's used V/LA and busyness as a reason for not being invested in the game. And it explains these tells for me. So he's either lying about being busy or none of this is a reliable tell for me. I gotta check his other active games; if its the former I'll support the wagon, but if its the latter than I don't think its better than random odds because he'd just be a regular lurker.

[VP Baltar]

hohum has informed me that he had an unfortunate accident recently and will likely be V/LA through deadline while he recovers over the next few days.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

First I'd really love for someone to explain this whole tunneling=scum thing to me because I swear not only is it inaccurate, I just don't see the logic behind it.

I don't do questions (or at least I don't think I do). I read, I analyze, I vote, I borrow other people's arguments and sometimes I even occasionally write up actual cases, but I really don't think I do questions.

That second paragraph does sum up your play in this game, and if that's how you find scum then that's how you find scum. But I think that, and tunneling like you have, is a good way to play as scum.

I've seen plenty to dislike from reck and nothing that really looks pro-town to me. I've brought up the things I found interesting from his forced case on Zach to his threat to replace out and I quoted Vi in regards to his shifting meta reads and using his commitments as a smokescreen.

You've said that reck's case on Zach was ridiculous and bad, which sounds like an easy way to stay vague so that if a specific tell about reck making his cases is later dropped, your unexplained reasonings can stay in-tact.

A) Yes, it's a good scum strategy and so is straight lurking if you can pull it off and so is looking like the most pro-town player in the game. There are any number of good scum strategies what I'm suggesting you've failed to do is go beyond that and show why you believe me to be scum.

B) I believe I made specific points about it being a contrivance e.g. that is was inauthentic. I think that's a rather specific criticism rather than ridiculous and bad.

[Jahudo]

Hohum: town
* I don't have a problem with hohum post 85 acknowledging that Vi may have a post restriction. It doesn't necessarily help anybody right away, but sometimes it ends up being pro-town to out post restrictions early (see: SWN II). And there has been an obvious pattern of gimmickry in Vi's post so its like pointing out the elephant in the room. Everybody is aware of it. What a scoop!

And subsequent Percy-hohum fight doesn't make hohum look like scum to me. He had only asked Vi the question, but Percy projected that he was going to focus on it more than he did. (reminder: small suspicion on Percy)

* In post 180 he vaguely attacks reck's play but he does elaborate in post 181. Which actually makes 180 okay for me, because he does take a stand on specific elements of reck's play. Lurking excuses is a valid tell but one I'm not sure I agree on yet (see my reck read). The shitposting is still vague and easy to sit on if he were scum, but the reactionary stance is more specific and open to counter-opinions. This looks like a read coming from town-hohum because the tell is still there for him around 209.

* His general lurker pressuring makes sense for this game, with its shortened deadline. If you have to be prodded once you're missing almost 1/4 of the day (or just over 1/5, take your pick). So I don't think this is a tell against him.

[Jahudo]

A) Yes, it's a good scum strategy and so is straight lurking if you can pull it off and so is looking like the most pro-town player in the game. There are any number of good scum strategies what I'm suggesting you've failed to do is go beyond that and show why you believe me to be scum.

B) I believe I made specific points about it being a contrivance e.g. that is was inauthentic. I think that's a rather specific criticism rather than ridiculous and bad.

I said that someone who makes a vague case is able to stay on it longer than someone who gives specific points that could later be disproved or unpopular by the town. It looked to me like your vote had the intention of sitting put without needing more information, because you didn't question him. To me it looked like you were ready to lynch him in the first few pages. And I don't see that coming from town.

Contrivance means unnecessary and inauthentic. You didn't explain the unnecessary part, when to me that's not a strong tell for someone early in the game that's trying to get reads by going off small points. Which is what I read reckoner as doing.

The inauthentic part is something you can slap onto any quote from any post. Like someone is saying something as scum because they don't really mean it. But you didn't explain why they didn't mean it, and its not obvious in reck's posts until he later says his own case was poor.

So it was bad, but that could still come from town genuinely trying to get a good read based off a small point, rather than a scum pushing a case he knows is going to be bad.

[ekiM]

Get well soon, hohum.

---

Here's an update on that list. I took off the people with no support.

7
Hohum - ekiM, Jack, ortolan, Percy, Vi, xRx, Zach(3rd choice)

4
Jack(flinter) - Jahudo, ortolan, Sotty, zach
xRECKONERx - DDD, hohum, Percy, Sotty, Locke

3
Debonair Danny DiPietro - ekiM, Jahudo, zach
Ortolan - ekiM, Jack, Vi, Sotty
Sotty7 - Locke(?), Vi, xRx
Vi - Jack(?), Locke, ortolan
Locke Lamora - Jahudo, ekiM, Vi, Sotty

I'm assuming hohum won't be moving his vote in the next 24 hours. Again, please correct any mistakes.

[Vi]

7
Hohum - ekiM, Jack, ortolan, Percy, Vi, xRx, Zach(3rd choice)

5
xRECKONERx - DDD,

hohum,

Percy, Sotty, Locke

4
Jack(flinter) - Jahudo, ortolan, Sotty, zach
Locke Lamora - Jahudo, ekiM, Vi, Sotty

3
Debonair Danny DiPietro - ekiM, Jahudo, zach
Ortolan - ekiM, Jack, Vi, Sotty
Sotty7 - Locke(?), Vi, xRx
Vi - Jack(?), Locke, ortolan

hohum's vote really is locked onto xRx

[Vi]

Also, that was a fixed version of the ekiM's chart.

[ekiM]

The hohum case, I think:

Early obsession with Percy to the exclusion of the rest of the game.

Saying his vote on xRx was final.

Taking an hour to make that final vote, "he posted a couple times after xreck had his "K. lynch me" post and only later voted him, and his vote then makes it sound like he's ok with auto-lynching people who do what xreck did, and yet he didn't mention it earlier. They way he included a link is scummy."

Caring about xRx threatining to replace, but ignoring flinter replacing out when he said he suspected her.

I don't know why you say the case is "he's abrasive". Only people defending him have tried to make it about that, as far as I can see. The problem is him sticking it to xRx, and the way he went about it.

I will agree hohum hasn't been as forthcoming as most players and that is an issue. I already stated that I agreed with Jack's point against hohum RE:the final vote. But Percy's vote seemed a lot to do with his actual dislike of hohum and how he approached the game.

Huh? Did I say the problem is "he hasn't been forthcoming"? No, I didn't. Just like I didn't say the problem was he's abrasive. Again, you try to pretend the hohum case is about something that it isn't, something weaker...

Your wild speculation that Percy is voting out of pique is so irrelevant. Why do you focus on that early exchange so much.

You agree with Jack's point about the final vote and it taking long. What do you think about him ignoring flinter, his suspect, replacing out? Why do you ignore that point.

I can't understand your line of thinking. You agree with or ignore the strongest points against hohum, yet you won't consider lynching him today. Hrm.

Hohum: town

* I don't have a problem with hohum post 85 acknowledging that Vi may have a post restriction. It doesn't necessarily help anybody right away, but sometimes it ends up being pro-town to out post restrictions early (see: SWN II). And there has been an obvious pattern of gimmickry in Vi's post so its like pointing out the elephant in the room. Everybody is aware of it. What a scoop!

And subsequent Percy-hohum fight doesn't make hohum look like scum to me. He had only asked Vi the question, but Percy projected that he was going to focus on it more than he did. (reminder: small suspicion on Percy)

* In post 180 he vaguely attacks reck's play but he does elaborate in post 181. Which actually makes 180 okay for me, because he does take a stand on specific elements of reck's play. Lurking excuses is a valid tell but one I'm not sure I agree on yet (see my reck read). The shitposting is still vague and easy to sit on if he were scum, but the reactionary stance is more specific and open to counter-opinions. This looks like a read coming from town-hohum because the tell is still there for him around 209.

* His general lurker pressuring makes sense for this game, with its shortened deadline. If you have to be prodded once you're missing almost 1/4 of the day (or just over 1/5, take your pick). So I don't think this is a tell against him.

OK... and what about the strongest points against him? The way he declared his xRx vote final for threatening to replace out, what do you think about that. The way he didn't make that final vote for an hour and felt the need to provide a link to back it up. The way he completely ignored his other suspect flinter replacing out, while throwing the book at Rec for threatening it.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Jahudo, I can see the argument for exaggerating your points or say pressuring harder than a single point warrants and I do that plenty. But I don't see the argument for tossing rationality and common sense out the window as Reck did. He tried to turn it into a meta argument and when it was shown not to be out of meta bounds he immediatly twisted it to Zach playing against meta. If he were simply trying to pressure Zach for a read then it was unneccesary to string it out that far as he would have new useful information at that point. Instead he decided to bend it into scummy behavior no matter what facts were presented both unneccesary to pressuring him and inauthentic, thus a contriavance under your definition.

~~~

Mike, you've got four people listed as possibly supporting a Ortolan lynch, not three.

[Zachrulez]

And we can pretty much expect no more posts from either him or Reckoner for the rest of the day.

I find that rather infuriating. (Also that half the game seems to be lurking with 24 hours to the dl)