Mini 962 - Mafia In Murrieta - Over!

[cruelty]

/confirm

[cruelty]

agm we meet again

[cruelty]

vote agm

bandwagon

[cruelty]

1: gmt+12 (new zealand)
2: i guess i've played about 10 games on here, haven't really kept track. i think i'm about 1:1 in terms of success, though.
3: my partipation varies, sometimes i'm very active, sometimes the game bores me and i fade away for a couple days. never replaced out, though.

[cruelty]

whilst i acknowledge the need for weak early-game arguments this is one that i'm really not feeling at all. i'll think about it a bit and see if anything falls out, but not i'm hugely compelled by anything that's currently being said.

[cruelty]

i'm here, i just don't think there's much relevant being said at the moment. it seems like there's a whole bunch of busy-talk that's not really getting us anywhere.

i agree that there's no reak need to unvote jack at L3, but honestly i've played the cautious card in the past so i can't really attack him for that. i do think it's a little odd that he'd unvote and then note that he's a little bit intrigued by jack's comment. like "yeah L3 is dodgy, but he's still a shady character". rings hollow for me.

[cruelty]

working, be back later tonight.

i just don't think there's anything inherently worthy of scrutiny thus far. that's not to say i haven't read the thread, i just don't think anything important has been said.

i'll re-read tonight when i have more than 2 minutes, see if i can find something to get up in arms about.

[cruelty]

FoS: Cruelty

You also need to get some opinions.

i do have an opinion. that there's nothing of particular importance being discussed right now. i've read the thread, re-read (well, re-skimmed) the last couple pages and i'm not convinced there's anything that's worth commenting on, let alone building a case against.

that said, there seems to be a hue and cry for meaninful input, so here's a couple of thoughts.

I'm going to go ahead and unvote, vote Scott. Two posts now where he's subtly undermined someone's vote. First it was after Gecko voted Ice for making long posts. Then it was to Kerrigan when he unvoted Jack to vote Gecko.

@charter (and AGM, who agreed with him)


1: do you think that questioning an L3 unvote is really undermining SK's vote on gecko? for that matter, do you think that the cautiousness is warranted on SK's part?

2: does your disagreement with scott's undermining of gecko's vote mean that you see gecko's vote (which cited chattiness leading to over-aggressiveness leading to the DARK SIDE!!~!) as reasonable?


i mean, i'm not sure why you cite gecko's vote as evidence that scott is undermining votes when you earlier in the post specifically state that you (also) dislike gecko's vote. just seems like you're looking for a reason to attack someone.

i should probably quote scott so we're clear on what charter is calling 'undermining'.

Ice tends to have long posts, at least he did in the last game I played with him.

Seems like a bit of a stretch to unvote someone just because they are at L-3 on D1.

i'm at all sure what the fuss is about here. the first is just an observation based on meta (which i guess is 50/50 in terms of usefulness [ie: do you consider meta a valuable tool or not] but not really undermining), the second is a valid point.

so ya, not particularly thrilled with the line of attack charter has taken (and especially unimpressed with agm piggybacking onto it).

imo that's less about undermining and more about pointing out that ice regularly posts like that (i have no idea if that's true or not).

note: this has nothing to do with scott, i have a null read on him atm.

[cruelty]

What is a valid point? The idea that Scott's quote was an example of undermining, or that my L-3 stance is scummy? If the latter, please explain why you think that is scummy.

i don't think he was saying it was scummy. i think it's valid to question the need to unvote at L3. (i don't think it's scummy either, as i said earlier i've played the cautious card before, but it's worth looking at).

I presume you've already read my explanations for the Jack unvote, so I won't repeat them again. But I find it odd that, out of everything that's out there, the one thing you talk about is something that didn't have enough suspicion behind it to garner votes. Why did you single this topic out specifically?

because i was trying to instigate another angle. i don't think anything being said right now is important, so as people have requested i'm trying to stir the pot a little and see what kinda potion i can brew.

I think you misread that. Charter said that SCOTT was undermining Kerrigan's unvote, not that Kerrigan's unvote was undermining anything.

the hell are you talking about?

i didn't misread anything, what i'm saying is that a) i don't think scott was getting wildly worked up about it (the unvote), b) i don't think that he thought it (the unvote) was especially scummy, and c) that i think it's valid to address the unvote because i agree that it's overly cautious.

Ergo, ambiguous, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE GETTING ON HIM FOR.

i don't really see how he's being ambiguous, it's fairly clear to me what he means.

that said, i feel i'm bordering on defending him now which isn't my intention, i'm just not particularly convinced that the attack on him is genuine.

[cruelty]

@ Cruelty: It's valid to question the unvote, but not to get as riled up about it as we are now. It's a simple random vote-unvote.

I'm pretty sure it's clear to all of us what he means. However, the way he said it makes it so that he could easily switch around the meaning if we bring it upon him as some sort of evidence, and say "Wait, no, I meant THIS instead of THAT!"

if it's clear what he means, and if questioning the unvote is valid, then where is the problem?

i'm not concerned about scott's 'undermining' at all. the issue for me, as stated, is that the attack on him (from charter) seems to be disingenuous.

[cruelty]

i think this whole ambiguous argument is a stretch. it's fairly clear (to me, at least) what scott meant, and given that he hasn't even attempted to present his statements as meaning anything other than what it looks like they mean (convoluted but there you go) i'm not sure there's a case to be made at all.

[cruelty]

But what Scott said, I have no idea if he agrees with or disagrees with Gecko's vote, since he didn't comment on it. Just Ice's posting habits, which says nothing about anything except that Ice posts a lot.

right. so let me get this straight.

gecko posts saying that he thinks ice is being vocal, possibly as a way to justify his bullying later in the game. most people agree that this is a ridiculous reason for a vote.

scott says that ice is generally vocal.



it's fairly clear that the conclusion we can draw from that is that ice is normally vocal and therefore voting for him based on his 'chattiness' is redundant. i don't know why the f everything needs to be in black and white for you, but his stance is obvious.

Cruelty, you mention me and Alamaster, what is your opinion of Jack?

dunno. i'm essentially null, but i can see an over-eager townie or newb scum. i do think he's reaching for reasons to vote, but he's certainly not alone there.


also missed this earlier.

i think it's valid to question the need to unvote at L3.

So, do you disagree with my responses to people regarding the L-3 issue? If so, please explain why.

i'm not really sure why you're asking this, it's not relevant at all.

you unvoted at L3, this is worthy of scrutiny. it's that simple, and this is all i'm saying.

(to answer the question though, i don't really care about your responses, they're reasonable).

Scott really doesn't seem scummy for the reasons Jack says. HOWEVER, the fact that Scott has made such minimal responses to the attacks against him, instead letting others do all the commenting for him, definitely worries me.

this. dude's only posted 6 times in the game yet he's at the centre of the current controversy. need more posts from him.

[cruelty]

unvote, vote sk

you're completely and persistently misrepresenting me. this is scummy.

i agree that there's no reak need to unvote jack at L3, but honestly i've played the cautious card in the past so i can't really attack him for that.

my issue isn't with your unvote, it's with charter taking exception to scott's comment. this is pretty fucking clear.

i haven't been talking about

my

desire to scrutinize your unvote, i'm talking about it

not being scummy for scott to look at it in a negative light

. i don't really have an issue with the unvote on a personal level, i have an issue with a valid response to it by a 3rd party (scott) being unfairly attacked by a 4th party (charter). at this point, it's really nothing to do with you.

in fact, i even said something to this effect (in the same post that you quoted from):

(to answer the question though, i don't really care about your responses, they're reasonable).

You brought it up in order to "instigate another angle" and "stir up the pot,

yep. seems to have worked.

[cruelty]

seriously?

red: i think you're being unnecessarily cautious.

orange: i think the unvote followed by the comment that implies lingering suspicion of jack is odd (hollow) but not really worth following up (as evidenced by my lack of, well, following up). i may have looked at it a bit harder had you not assuaged my doubts with your subsequent explanations.


moving on from that post, i haven't directed the inquisition your way at all. as stated, my problem isn't (

wasn't

) you, your unvote or really anything to do with you, it's the way that what you said was a) interpreted by scott and b) how (a) was interpreted by charter.

now, of course, i think you're deliberately misrepping me. this i don't like.

[cruelty]

Cruelty's been out of here awhile, too. There's at least one outstanding question to him, so more Cruelty would be nice.

ya sorry for inactivity, had some serious real life issues come up which required attention.

can you direct me to the question you mention? quick skim didn't reveal anything and i don't currently have time to review in-depth.

I'm reading. i just don't feel the need to comment.

this is.. well, the word(s) anti-town come to mind. i feel like you've been in the shadows the whole game (it's telling that i can't actually remember anything you've said).


apologies for the lack of content, i'm not really in a great state of mind right now, i'll be back tomorrow and try to contribute in a more meaningful way.

[cruelty]

I'm not defending Espeonage, I think he might be a good place to start tomorrow. Unless Kerrigan pulls out a miracle post showing us why someone is a better lynch than him, or another player has a mountain of a case on them, my vote will stay as is for the time being.

this.

You claimed that I was misrepresenting you. I asked you to show me how you felt I was misrepresenting you.

my intention wasn't to dissect your unvote personally, my intention was to discredit the attack on scott for questioning your unvote (because i thought it was ludicrous + quite possibly scumfuelled). the impression i got was that you were attempting to make me look scummy for not doing something which was quite clearly never my intention (given that from the first mention of this debacle i said i didn't have a particular personal issue with said unvote).

[cruelty]

I think JackALope is town. The last few posts it seems like he genuinely believes his cases on SK and havingfitz.

ice already addressed this, but somehow SAMP has slipped under my radar, so i decided to check out his iso and stumbled across this (which is probably his most standout moment).

the obvious problem is twofold.

first; "it seems like". a good scum player will be trying to get you to believe in his pure motivations. it concerns me that you said this, i'd think (hope) you'd be looking a bit deeper into these posts rather than blindly accepting what's being said on the face of things.

second; "genuinely believes his cases". this is as the above, but genuinely believing in a case isn't a) town (there could be a third party in play) and b) relevant criteria for judging the merits of someone as town.

[cruelty]

unvote, vote SAMP

this is less of an outright scumread and more of the fact that i can't honestly remember anything dude has said (except the post i quoted yesterday), even having read through his iso recently. he's so anonymous that it's impossible to have any sort of read on him.

i will get back on the SK wagon if my vote is needed, i -hate- self-votes, i think that it's generally something that scum resort to early on in order to attempt to derail their own lynch. having said that, i'm happy with pressuring elsewhere in the meantime; i think that today has become bogged down with SK's emo campaign against the world and i'm interested in hearing more from SAMP (and AGM) before I shift back.


ps: hoopla you just can't stay away huh.

[cruelty]

oh touche, ninja'd.

[cruelty]

wait a second, not ninja'd, i just didn't read page 13. fk.

unvote

And since I'm viewed as highly scummy (even if I think the suspicions are misguided), it's now actually in scum's best interests to not have me lynched right away, but to try and get someone else lynched so I can be mislynched at a more critical juncture.

hmm this is a good point.

the problem with lynching you (as town) is obviously the loss of an innocent (undesirable), but not lynching you leaves you as a distraction. (he says, restating the obvious).

i'm not entirely sure what the correct play is, i can see the merits of lynching you (and yeah, i hate your play, i think it's scummy but i'm assuming for the purposes of the post that you're town) but i'm not entirely happy with knowingly lynching someone that the majority are fairly convinced is innocent.

i can't recall any serious self-votes like this in my previous games (i've only seen self-votes around the l1, l2 mark and couple self hammers, think it was about 50/50 scum/town) so whilst i think it's scummy, if i'm perfectly honest i guess the circumstances are a little different here so i'm flying a bit blind (and having read through the responses i think i may have leaped to a flawed conclusion). gonna re-evaluate this a little.


having said that, irl issues are pressing at the moment so i'll cut this off here and try to be back within the next day or two.

[cruelty]

If you really did think Kerrigan was town, then it was playing against town win condition to hammer

hmm i'm not sure how true this statement is.

whilst yeah, lynching town is generally not pro-town, in this case i think there's reasonable justification for it. i don't like you attacking someone for what was ultimately a necessary/inevitable/reasonable hammer.

my biggest issue with espeonage is the lack of commitment to a particular issue - he's acknowledged he's been deliberately fencesitting which leads essentially to active lurking.

vote espeonage

. this goes back to your play yesterday. i'm happy enough to remove it if you can (through awesome scumhunting) redeem yourself.

[cruelty]

Wow, OMGUS much? The fact is SK was scummy as hell and I don't blame anyone for lynching him over his gambit crap. The fact that you magically thought to defend him is absurdly sketch.

And I'm totally down for Scott wagon. Let's roll.

Vote: Scott

mm yeah, as scott said, attack player X and vote player Y. requires an explanation at the

very

least. i'm gonna get 3 competing wagons going here, so

unvote, vote agm

.


i should clarify at this point that i'm happy to get back onto the espeonage wagon, but i feel like (yeah, hypocritical) that AGM has been fairly anonymous this game, and i'm a little concerned he's deliberately lurking given that in other games i've played with him he's generally been pretty active. this vote is less about out and out suspicion and more about me wanting him to get back into the game so i (and presumably others) can get a better read on him.

[cruelty]

i'm currently holding fire until agm comes back, i'm hesitant to go after him whilst he's inactive. if he doesn't post tomorrow as promised then it's on.

[cruelty]

Care to explain what you mean by this? You already voted for him 403. In what way are you holding your fire?

i could vote either way between him and espeonage at the moment. my vote is on agm for two reasons; because i want competing wagons (should stimulate more discussion) and because i want him to actually contribute.

by holding fire, i mean i'm not really pushing for his lynch right now. whether i do or not is dependent on how he makes his comeback.


to clarify, i would be reasonably happy with an agm lynch right this second, but a significant portion of the disagreement i have with him is the fact that he's been basically non-existant the entire game. he has an opportunity to change my mind.

[cruelty]

I'm contemplating putting Espeonage at L-1, just so we can get on with this game. Town thoughts on Espeonage claiming now? He has to do it at some point.

no.

wait until agm is back. once he's back then no problem.



i'm concerned that we have this guy who has active lurked through the first day phase and a significant portion of the second and we're letting him away with it. i find espeonage scummy, but the dude is here and active, we can hold fire for a little bit and force agm to play or replace out.

[cruelty]

the games i've played with AGM (i think he was twice town, once third party lyncher), he was very active. this is a departure. dislike.

[cruelty]

shrug, that's wifom. you're obviously a scumchum of his, enabling his lurking. also, why does nobody say scumchum? it's far superior to scumbuddy.



i guess it doesn't matter WHY he's inactive as long as he STOPS being inactive.

[cruelty]

i think SAMP is ok, fairly null. i don't have any outstanding issues with him. i think his stance on kerrigan was fairly reasonable. not 100% sure about his agm vote, but i think everything re: agm is TBA.


charter, wasn't really happy with him day 1 but in all honesty he hasn't really figured in my thoughts at all today. i shall rectify this and will come back to the question later.

[cruelty]

huh, interesting claim.


the problem with getting him to hide behind playerX is that the mafia knows who he's hiding behind and can get a two-for-one special (if the claim is legit).


it actually occurs to me that given the thought iceninja has put into his previous posts that it's odd that this wouldn't occur to him. obviously not suspicious to the point where i'm willing to force him along the plank at swordpoint, but definitely worth considering.

[cruelty]

christ this is daunting, lots of epic posts.

not gonna bother right now, i'll look at it over the weekend.



whilst i'm here though, a quick skim shows still no content from agm. can we run up a quick wagon (l1 or l2 should do for now) so he's at least under pressure to post/replace?

[cruelty]

agm you're back. good. skimmed through your posts and no immediate dramas popped out at me.

doorbell just rang so gotta boost, i'll be back with actual content in a few hours.

[cruelty]

True, but if we hide him behind someone scummy then the mafia kill basically becomes a Vig shot, seeing as they are taking out people we want dead anyway.

how is this a good thing?

mafia take out (2) scummy players and we're left with what..?

i'm not really arguing against the plan, it makes (sorta) sense, but to suggest that using the hider to force mafia to take out scummy town players rings somewhat false. You said this in response to my comment about espeonage, but it's somewhat related:

First, I’m not seeing the justification as to how lynching town can be protown.

giving mafia a free two-for isn't particularly pro-town either imo. i find the attitude shift questionable - it's not ok to lynch scummy town (given that they're unquestionably going to be a liability later on), but it's ok to let the mafia potentially kill 2 scummy town?

dislike.



this next bit confuses me, i've tried to lay out my thought process but i'm not sure how much sense it'll make.

But look at it. He talks about a scumhunting procedure, that is very rigid and deterministic, but then gives an out to Jack anyway. He wouldn't do that if he didn't have other information that trumped this logic in his mind.

a) he

knows

jack is town (much like he

knew

SK was town).
b) his claim is legit.

to clarify that, a could = 1 or 2
1: espeonage is scum and knows for a fact that jack is town.
2: espeonage is town and doesn't know how to adequately express in word form a gut feeling.

The standard scumhunting procedure for analysis of votecounts is that the scummiest positions on the wagon are the L-2, L-1 and Hammer votes. Those positions belong to Scott, Jack and Me. I am obviously not going to be voting for me and Jack is alot more town that scott is.

does not read to me like someone in possession of new, enlightening information. he's either faking town and expressing a fake read, or he is town and is expressing a read based on in-thread info. either way, i'd dispute the claim.

[cruelty]

bleh, i'm having real trouble opening this site with my ipod.

ice can you concisely summarise your hoopla case please?

i'm finding it difficult to parse through giant, quote laden posts and having to refer back to previous pages on my ipod.




with regards to magna's 4 points (in post 512):

1: can you link to that post (lynch esp to advance the game), i can't find it in her iso.
2: believable, her 390 actually does make sense as a basis for some swapsies.
3: n/a
4: agree with the point he's making. would like to elaborate, but can't (ongoing game). i think that the question is valid and needs to be answered.


i guess there's more to comment on re: hoopla, but i can't get other pages to load now, i'll try again tomorrow.



moving on;

charter, SAMP still has you in his top 3. i think it's misrepresentative to claim that he's entirely dropped you as a suspect. also to be honest, i can't really fault him for some good old AGM suspicion (we've all been there, right?). also, from memory (can't open isos right now), i think - could be wrong - that his suspicion on you was based on the motivations of a single vote.

i'm actually still a little leery of you from day 1; your attack on scott i thought was pretty dubious and i'm not sure your motivations here are pure either. i'm trying not to defend SAMP here, i'd prefer him to fight his own battles, but i get the impression you're misrepping him somewhat, which added to a lingering suspicion of you from day 1 and a possible case of buddying earlier today/end of yesterday (cruelty = town from how he handled the sk fiasco??) =

unvote, vote charter

[cruelty]

GOD that was so frustrating.

have never been scum before, i assumed the GF sent the kill in (and esp actually said he would if i didn't) so i didn't send anything in. urgh.


i thought i was sitting just far enough under the radar to ride through another day or two, so pretty disappointed with being nked (what'd i do to draw that btw?) and tracked all at once. ;/


hoopla one of these days i will best you.

[cruelty]

yeah don't care about the qt being posted.