Newbie 982 - Shadows of Death, Game Over!

[2003041]

@AV: To be honest, I cannot say for sure. It was your vote and if you think it was justified, that's your opinion. I'll say that it was a bit unwarranted because I really hadn't said much to warrant a vote, maybe an FoS, but thats all I can rally say looking back on it.

@GB: 1) I'm not saying they're scum just because they voted. I've been asking questions to AV and felt he was scum, and shortly after I voted AV, zauper came in and voted for me. His only reason at the time was...

I have to admit that I'm persuaded by AurorusVox.

That is why I feel the two are together. zauper just came in and voted by

persuasuion

? The only person who could really persuade someone this easily is a scum-buddy in my opinion.
2) If you re-read his reasons for having his suspicions against me, they're all based on early posts (83, 84, 89). They're all based off of posts that were well before his vote of mein post 50.

[2003041]

EBWOP: @Bazz: I saw your post after entering mine, but submitted it before reading yours. coincidentally, I think I answered your question, but I can re-answer if need be.

[ooBAZZoo]

You did partially. But it appears to me that your posts are always defensive, rather than presenting arguments. I reckon this could be for one of three reasons a) you are scum and trying to worm your way out of this position, b) you are afraid of being lynched because of the increasing number of votes, regardless of your role, or c) this is merely the way you write [again i'm in danger of attacking somebody's 'style', and as I've seen, this doesn't really get me any closer to identifying sucm].

Because of the possibility of option a) I am suspicious of you (although not enough to vote you yet). x

[AurorusVox]

You too have admitted to posting a lot, and this issue surrounding writing styles could be applied to you [more of a speculation than an accusation].

Yup, it could, but the reason I picked you up on it was because you made an accusation based on it. My question of your own writing style was simply holding you to your own standards. In contrast, I said that I felt it was a pretty weak reason to base suspicions on. I was more interested in how you responded than your actual writing style

In response to your inquiries regarding me concealing information/not being active, I hope my previous post has somewhat alleviated this.

Again, yes, and the big thing for me is that in recent posts, you haven't just "observed," but asked questions. Again, the "concealing of intentions" (as I like to call it) isn't what concerned me; I wanted to see how you

thought

about these things, and compare that to what you actually did. (You'll notice I did this with 2k3 as well, contrasting his speech with his actions)

[when I have said ‘concealing information’, what’s more applicable is saying ‘concealing my interpretation of the information we all see’.]

As a fellow English Lit student, I dance happily at the mention of "interpretation." With regards to concealing interpretations, i.e. reads on players in this context; reads are powerful, and I don't believe they should always be shared outright. Imagine if everybody outed all their town reads, how much easier it would be for scum to pick a night kill! I'd say I'm still satisfied after these additional questions have been answered.


@2k3; although votes are much more powerful symbols than FoSes, for me, if someone is worthy of a FoS, then they're worthy of a vote, and this is because of the added pressure of a vote, and the fact that you can always change it (though I would say that this isn't the case if you're at a L-1 or hammer vote). If you think your actions warranted a finger of

suspicion

, why do you find it scummy for me to lay a vote down on my top suspect at the time?

[ooBAZZoo]

for me, if someone is worthy of a FoS, then they're worthy of a vote

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I don't necessarily agree. I believe somebody should have the opportunity to respond to a player before they are voted for. Hence, why I have FoSed Zauper and not voted for him. (admitedly, you and 2k3 have already had considerable dialogue, so it would be ok to vote him now, but I disagree as a general rule)

P.s.

As a fellow English Lit student

don't you mean 'as a fellow English Lit graduate?

P.p.s I'm off to bed now and will likely be inactive tomorrow.

[AurorusVox]

2) If you re-read his reasons for having his suspicions against me, they're all based on early posts (83, 84, 89). They're all based off of posts that were well before his vote of mein post 50.

Just to clarify. Is your concern that I voted for you based on posts "well" before my vote (the "well before" suggests that you take issue with the length of time that passed between posts and votes)? Or is your concern that I continued to use those posts as a reason to maintain my vote?

Because I also mentioned your

continuing

lack of scumhunting, in those very posts of mine that you quoted (I assume you mean 83, 89, 95, because 84 is your own post <3). I don't think you scumhunted up until you started questioning zauper, because those posts looked like they were trying to get an idea of zauper's alignment. And, because I believed that you were starting to scumhunt with your questions, I removed my vote.

---

Akira; in your last post, you seemed to suggest that either 2k3

or

I was scum. What has changed since your ISO6, in which you thought we were scum buddies?

Valk; do you still think Michel was trying to incriminate you based on his most recent posts? Another question I have: you mentioned earlier (in your ISO9) than you thought it was "too early" to place a vote - is this based on the time that has passed (we do have three weeks, after all) or based on the amount of information that you have gathered?

Loaka; are you lurking?

---

@ ooBAZZoo;

Well, I believe that a player can respond just as well with a vote on them as they can with a FoS aimed at them. Of course, votes aren't to be thrown around willy-nilly, but on D1, if you're the first or second person to post a vote, it's very unlikely that the person in question will get hammered on before they've had a chance to respond.

(Also, I'm not a graduate until Friday! D:< )

[2003041]

You did say in 53 that

...but I prefer voting to FoSing.

, but in that early stage of the day you went right ahead in 50 and voted me. My opinion: An FoS is of suspicion, while a vote is of thinking you know who's what and having something to back it up. At that point, your only back-up was "He wanted an RVS and then didn't start one" [paraphrased], which, in my opinion, doesn't support a vote very well. Something like that does, however, support an FoS better, which I feel is why it was unwarranted, especially because in 33 I stated my reasons for not wanting an RVS. Plus, you can always remove an FoS from someone.
EBWOP: I included my own post in my list because I wanted to show the whole argument at that point.

[Guybrush]

"He wanted an RVS and then didn't start one" [paraphrased]

For the 10th time -

nobody is blaming you for not starting RVS.

You were blamed for this:
1) You seemed eager to vote
2) You didn't scumhunt

When you show your desire (1), but don't do things needed to make it a reality (2), then your intentions should be questioned.
You need to scumhunt to be able to get to a vote.
At the time of post #50, you did not scumhunt.
So he voted for you.

And it's a bit ungrateful to hold (83, 84, 89) against him. He was talking about your previous posts because you obviously did not understand why you received a vote, so he was explaining it to you. You claimed you scumhunted and that you didn't say you want to vote. He proved you wrong in both cases.

[AurorusVox]

You did say in 53 that

...but I prefer voting to FoSing.

, but in that early stage of the day you went right ahead in 50 and voted me. My opinion: An FoS is of suspicion, while a vote is of thinking you know who's what and having something to back it up.

Not necessarily. A vote can also be for pressuring other players. A vote doesn't say "I know you are guilty", it says; "I suspect you of being guilty." If you take umbrage with voting early, what about Michel's early vote on me? He's said that he votes with weak reasons to start building a case. But you haven't mentioned that at all.

At that point, your only back-up was "He wanted an RVS and then didn't start one" [paraphrased], which, in my opinion, doesn't support a vote very well.

>< 2k3, you still don't understand why I voted for you...

My reason was that you wanted to

non-randomly vote

for somebody but then you

didn't try to find anything suspicious

about anyone to allow you to non-randomly vote.

Frustratingly, your entire case on me is built on the fact that you find my reasons for voting for you suspicious - but you still haven't grasped the reason for my vote.

Plus, you can always remove an FoS from someone.

You can always remove a vote too. Votes have a punch that FoSes don't, but they're not set in stone.

---

EBWOP: I included my own post in my list because I wanted to show the whole argument at that point.

My mistake, I thought you had typo'd. Apologies ^^"

[AurorusVox]

This will be my last post for a while, so before I go, I'm going to go ahead and

Vote: LoakaMossi

in case s/he's lurking. Kick that lurker up the bum! It seems a safe place to store my vote until I come back. Hopefully I'll be able to check in on Thursday!

[2003041]

@mods: Vote Totals and any prods, please.

Arigato

[AurorusVox]

Actually, one more thing before I go:

I made this voting record spreadsheet because I'm a geek for charts (I saw a player called Sauron do it once, and it was really helpful). The numbers in the left hand column are the post numbers at which votes/unvotes occurred. It doesn't track FoSes. I'll try to keep on top of updating it, but I have made it so that anyone can view and edit it if they want. So, please don't change anything that's already there, just add more stuff if I fall behind :p

Feel free to ignore it, but I find this is a convenient way to keep track of voting patterns

[AurorusVox]

EBWOP: Would help if I attached the link ><

Here

[Akira]

Akira; in your last post, you seemed to suggest that either 2k3

or

I was scum. What has changed since your ISO6, in which you thought we were scum buddies?

Well, the idea of you two being scum buddies didn't last much, simply because the discussion which followed between you two was way too, let's say, "realistic". Two scums could never have faked that argument.

I know all 4 can't be scum, so I think the 2 who are most likely scum are both you and zauper. I think zauper's vote gave it away more than anything else. Why else would someone just BW like zauper did, especially when we're still questioning each other? My guess is he was trying to protect his scum-buddy, AV.

@2k3: Now, I'm not defending or anything but I'd like to point this out.
You believe zauper and Aurorus are scum buddies. But I'd like to draw your attention to my post and to zauper's response to it.

Now, the most popular scenario at the moment is that 2k3 is a scum.
But I'm still considering the fact that Aurorus is the real scum.

After all, what is his suspicion of 2k3 based on? A good part is based on the fact that 2k3, who hadn't made accusations, suddenly had a breakdown with Aurorus' vote and voted him.
But what about Aurorus? He did post a couple of things at the beginning, but he did not accuse anyone. But after Michel's vote, he had his own breakdown and started to (intensely) suspect 2k3.

Aurorus' behavior is, in fact, very similar to 2k3's. The only difference was that Aurorus

sounded

more convincing. He isn't necessarily right, he just

sounds

right.

@Akira: That's a valid point. I'm not sure how to address it, honestly.

My post can be considered to be against Aurorus, since I considered the possibility of him being the actual scum. Yet zauper agreed with it. Would he really have agreed if he was Aurorus' scum buddy?
Or is this, as someone suggested, a mere attempt to defend himself against valid accusations?

[MichelSableheart]

@Michel: I never said that inactivity OR lurking was a scum-tell, so I don't know what forced you to say that.

If the question about my activity wasn't intended to find out if I was intentionally avoiding posting, what was it's point? And why would you want to find out if someone is intentionally avoiding posting, except because you believe scum is more likely to avoid posting then town is? And isn't that last part the exact definition of a scumtell?

2003 is playing far too defensively for my liking, Her votes seem far too closely related to the players who vote her, without taking their likely intentions into account. She is definately among my top suspects at the moment.

Loaka didn't post at all in the past couple of days. I believe it's far more likely he is simply inactive rather then that he's lurking.

Mod: Prod Loaka please

Finally, I have a request to make, although I'm guilty of breaking this request myself quite often. Is it possible for everyone to keep their posts concise? Even if a post isn't a wall of text, it can still be a bit too much information to take in for other players.

[Haylen]

Vote Count

The only logical conclusion is...you're all Mastin alts. ALL OF YOU!

2K3: Zauper, Guybrush
Zauper: 2k3

Not Voting: LoakaMossi; Akira; Valkyrie_Hrist; ooBAZZoo; Michel; AVox

Deadline is Sunday 1st August 9pm GMT+1. With 9 alive, it's 5 to lynch.

[Haylen]

LoakaMossi got prodded, they have 3 days in which to respond or they will face auto-replacement. Vampire_H is due a prod tomorrow.

[zauper]

I believe that Zauper is guilty of backtracking and trying to appear pro-town by agreeing with others.
I use the following example:
Quote 1

I bet Guybrush is scum. He's all pirate-y

Quote 2

Random voting (you'll note I didn't vote) doesn't get anywhere anyway.

Although in quote 2 he clarified that quote 1 wasn’t

technically

a random vote, it was clearly said in the style of the ‘random voting stage’ i.e. he still made a statement that was meant to be accusative but in a pointless and funny way, which is surely advocating the start of a RVS. When he therefore stated in quote 2 that RVS “doesn’t get anywhere anyway” he was going back on the initial intentions of quote 1. This backtracking came after others said how much they were against RVS, and I believe this contradiction indicates an eagerness to appear aligned with other players because he knows that he is infact against them (i.e. trying to appear aligned with town because he is not).
(to clarify: I’m not bringing up the value [or lack of value] in an RVS again, only using this as an example of his backtracking)

This is my first game here, and looking through the threads, they all start in that manner (which is why I posted like that). TBQH, I don't find it to be an instance of backtracking.

From this, I had the suspicion that he is trying too hard to align himself with others, and after re-reading his posts, found that much of what he says (including BWing 2k3) shows this same desire to align with town players.

I do agree that all liars are lynched.

I suppose that's reasonable.

After reading through the arguments, I have to admit that I'm persuaded by AurorusVox [... ] Vote: 2003041 (2k3)

@Akira: That's a valid point.

So reading and looking at what other people say, particularly in the context of discussions I'm engaged in, and responding to it is somehow unreasonable? Interesting.

The first quote was after 3 pages (and several walls of text) that I had missed due to the weekend, and I had thought that that was part of a set of general questions that folks had been asked. I'm not sure on the context of the 2nd quote. I'm pretty sure it has the same context as the third -- after a series of back and forth with Aurorus. I don't see why being convinced by another person's arguments is a 'scum' thing.

This recurring desire to show that he supports others views, I believe, is a scum-tell; he is worried about alienating himself and wants to look as if he supports the majority.

FoS: Zauper

(I will wait for his response before deciding whether to vote)

I think this answers most of the questions that I've been posed.

I still don't see what the justification that 2k3 posted for voting for me was; other than that I had been convinced by Aurorus. (I still don't particularly see 2k3's actions to dates as being scumhunting; rather they appear to me to be the attempt of a scum to throw off suspicion on themselves).

[LoakaMossi]

I'm sorry for not posting, this is the first time I've played any mafia game and I have no idea what I'm doing. I'm not intetionally lurking, although it does look like that I suppose. I don't know what to make of the arguements here, other than it looks like AurorusVox was using me as a distraction.

[Guybrush]

I'm sorry for not posting, this is the first time I've played any mafia game and I have no idea what I'm doing. I'm not intetionally lurking, although it does look like that I suppose. I don't know what to make of the arguements here, other than it looks like AurorusVox was using me as a distraction.

So, you believe that AurorusVox is scum? (I suppose only scum would use someone as a distraction.)
If so, please explain why you believe that. Point out the things you find scummy about him.
Also, when was he using you as a distraction? (With giving you his vote in his post #134 or was it something else?)
Who else do you find suspicious and why?

[Guybrush]

Finally, I have a request to make, although I'm guilty of breaking this request myself quite often. Is it possible for everyone to keep their posts concise? Even if a post isn't a wall of text, it can still be a bit too much information to take in for other players.

I can only promise to continue trying.
I have that problem since I joined, and many people complained that I need to be more concise.
(Especially when the replacements come in.)
But almost every post I posted here had a longer, more painful original version that I had to cut down.
So, I'm trying - but even when I do my best, it still ends up too long.

[AurorusVox]

I've snatched five minutes to read today's posts and make a quick reply!

Glad to see LoakaMossi is still around, though I find it incredible that he is actually lurking rather than just being inactive.

@LM
You say you don't know what to make of the arguments; could you explain exactly what it is that is causing difficulties for you? Perhaps if you tell us why you're feeling unable to contribute, we could try better to accommodate you into the discussion.

@Michel, long posts are just as natural to short ones for me, depending on the posts that I'm responding to but I'll try my hardest to keep what I say more concise since I know that if there's a wall-o-text, sometimes people just skim over it. I guess, ironically, a shorter post might be more effective at conveying information than a longer one >_<

[Valkyrie_Hrist]

Hey, sorry I wasn't here yesterday guys, but I was at the beach all day and then got all sunburnt and was in too much pain to check on here when I got home. I'll check what I missed and then reply, but the amount of posts are a bit daunting so it might take some time.

[2003041]

[quote="MichelSableheart]If the question about my activity wasn't intended to find out if I was intentionally avoiding posting, what was it's point? And why would you want to find out if someone is intentionally avoiding posting, except because you believe scum is more likely to avoid posting then town is? And isn't that last part the exact definition of a scumtell?

2003 is playing far too defensively for my liking, Her votes seem far too closely related to the players who vote her, without taking their likely intentions into account. She is definately among my top suspects at the moment.[/quote]
First off, I'm guy. Don't worry, I did get a nice laugh out of reading this though. The quesiton WAS to see if you were avoiding posting or not and I'd rather know why someone isn't posting because it could reflect on their playing style. This type of game is harder to judge because it is a newb game and most of us are trying to get out bearings down. And how is pointing out a forced statement a scum-tell on me exactly? I pointed this out only because it was strange that you forced out that last statement.

[2003041]

@Akira: To be honest I was trying out something that would give me a tell as to who is scum. As of now, I feel that zauper is scum and AV has a bit of a possibility, but not as much as I previously thought. I still can't decide who the other real scum is or could even be, but it's still early in the game.