Mini #1007 (Game Over)

[gonnano]

I would also like to see more content or more posts or really more of anything from G&H, and KKN to a lesser extent.
I'll really be watching out for lurking in the case of G&H, because a scum that can't lie wouldn't have all that many options besides lurking.

[gonnano]

@ConfidAnon - You know that vote you put down on page three? The one with no reason? Just wanted to check to make sure that you still have no reason for it.

[Espeonage]

VOTECOUNT

3 -

AlmasterGM

- Agar, redtail896, Vel-Rahn Koon (L-4)
2 -

Elleran

- Hoopla, gonnano (L-5)
1 -

AGar

- drmyshottyizsik (L-6)
1 -

gonanno

- ConfidAnon (L-6)
1 -

Zachrulez

- AlmasterGM (L-6)
1 -

myshottyizsik

- Zachrulez (L-6)

Not Voting - Good and Honest, Kid Know Nothing, Elleran

With 12 alive it takes 7 to lynch.

Countdown Timer:
http://www.timeanddate.com/counters/cus ... c=0&p0=240

[drmyshottyizsik]

UNVOTE:
VOTE: AlMaster

[gonnano]

I didn't even know it was possible for one person to be that scummy... are you doing it on purpose or does it just happen?

[drmyshottyizsik]

Ok I have the flu and I am getting no enjoyment out of this game. Almaster is who I think is scum, but I don't have the energy to type out my whole case.

[gonnano]

Hoopla's wagon took 19 posts to get up to 4 votes.
Almaster's wagon took 5 posts to get up to three votes.
Other attempts to start wagons have stayed at or below two votes.

AGar and Vel have been on both of the bigger, faster wagons, and now Shotty has completed his collection of fast,scummy wagons.

So... I like the Elleran wagon, because it seems so hard to get going. AGar and Vel are my next two suspects, and I'm standing by my statement that if Shotty is still around after a Night or two we should lynch him.

[redtail896]

He's claimed scum. He's lied at least once. (And I think more than once.) He didn't seem too concerned about being lynched when he claimed scum, which is very inconsistent with the goals of the role of doctor. His play just says scummy to me in capital letters.

Why isn't just as likely that frustrated and sick of the game, and has decided to screw it. If he was scum, why would he claim doctor like that? And if you want to play LynchAllLiars, then go after Hoopla as well. You seem way too convinced that shotty is scum, simply because he's playing poorly.

@Elleran. Regarding the first point: I agree with Hoopla that the however implies more than just a simple typo. I'm certainly aware that you could've just been on the wrong train of thought while writing the whole thing, but it's a mighty convenient way to retcon. However, I'd like to address point 2 (the one about liars) again.

@Hoopla: Since Hoopla rather have me explain myself, I unvoted because I weighed the following two in my mind. 1. Your claim reek of fake claim as a scum's protective measure. Perhaps because I play more commonly with PGO in real life and that is why only I seem to have more suspicion and cynic about this. 2. Your claim has indeed caused a great degree of discussion. This fiery discussion is infinitely better than any RVS. To do this, you have accepted a huge risk; an action that scums would avoid from.

This is your reason for unvoting Hoopla. The thing that most bugs me about this is that you seem surprised that Hoopla's claim has generated a great deal of discussion, yet you claim to have seen this tactic a number of times IRL. Does it not generate discussion there? Does it not also allow bypassing of RVS? And why are you now willing to "risk having a suspicious character in any LyLo situation"? And even after you unvoted, you still find Hoopla the most dangerous/suspicious character in the game? Then why not vote for her?

UNVOTE: AlmasterGM
VOTE: Elleran

[Kid Know Nothing]

I'm on vacation in FL and have limited access. I should be able to get on once a day. From a quick skim from my post yesterday, Elleran's 157 seems the most worrisome. Why are you worried about how much attention you're getting? G&H is actively lurking and isn't doing much scum hunting. I think shotty just needs to be ignored like all the other VIs on the site. KKN's lack of a vote and unwillingness to place one is suboptimal play, but not necessarily scummy.

[url=http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... &start=137]Post 137[/link], I stand by that. Why are you trying to force me to vote again?

More at like 10-11 pm Eastern. Have to run off to work.

[Hoopla]

I think we need to work out this dilemma of what to do with Shotty. Firstly, I will ask Shotty, can you definitely confirm, that you're either a town doctor or scum? Because I have a good plan to sort this out, but I need to know you're not a complete idiot claiming doctor as a townie, or something else. Answer as soon as you can, please.

[AGar]

So much that needs to be addressed towards gonnano, it isn't funny.

- First of all, my sole case isn't latching. I started with latching and vigging. I dropped vigging after I realized it was essentially a difference in theories, but at the same time, I found more backtracking from Almaster, which I even pointed out (in other words, read the entire fucking post or don't read it at all). This is now the second time someone has found Almaster backtracking (the first being him saying he believed the claim to make sense then Hoopla's play was illogical).

- Second, your case. 1) Tell me now, how can you confirm a PGO claim other than a flip? Anyone who targets the PGO, even if they say they did, can just as easily be killed by mafia. Simple. Without knowing the setup, that can't be confirmed. So yes, it was a similar situation, as I pointed out. 2) Mmm. I already stated why I went after you. Not going to repeat myself. 3) You can't read. I don't say at all in ISO #13 that I think Hoopla is still scummy. I said I don't like keeping admitted liars around, regardless of alignment, and I said that I didn't feel that the claim was able to garner full reaction. 4) I'm scummy for pushing cases and scumhunting now? When did that meta shift happen? And where am I backing off of it?

- Why you freaking out about CA's vote?

---

KKN is non-committal to the max. Just thought I'd bring everyone's attention to that.

Elleran's explanation, which I apparently missed, is bogus.

[gonnano]

In response to AGar:

If a cop or doctor targets a claimed PGO and lives, the claim is disproved -- confirmed to them. All they have to do is convince the town to lynch the claimed PGO, which shouldn't be too hard considering the circumstances. The idea here would be that the cop/doc would target the claimed PGO without letting the mafia know (possibly breadcrumbing the day before), then if they are still alive they can go from there.
A miller claim could only be tested at all by a cop, and the cop still basically has no idea what to believe even after the investigation. See how much more elegant that is than a PGO claim?

The point that I was trying to make about your ISO 13 is that you don't retract any of your reasons for voting Hoopla in the first place, but you still unvote. To me this seemed like responding to pressure by unvoting while still leaving an opening for you to jump back on the Hoopla wagon if you saw a chance.

My intention is not to freak out about ConfidAnon's vote -- I'm not concerned about his vote being on me, I'm concerned about his vote not being on someone that he actually finds scummy. We've had enough content in this game for him to put down a meaningful vote.

[Elleran]

This is your reason for unvoting Hoopla. The thing that most bugs me about this is that you seem surprised that Hoopla's claim has generated a great deal of discussion, yet you claim to have seen this tactic a number of times IRL. Does it not generate discussion there? Does it not also allow bypassing of RVS? And why are you now willing to "risk having a suspicious character in any LyLo situation"? And even after you unvoted, you still find Hoopla the most dangerous/suspicious character in the game? Then why not vote for her?

I wasn't surprised that it caused discussion. It always causes discussion in my experience. I was just surprised by the claim itself because it was the very post that was posted. I didn't expect such a claim so early.

Although I find Hoopla still dangerous and suspicious, my suspicion of her isn't solid. I am willing to single her out as an outstanding player within the group, but I am not confident enough to place a vote. I'm satisfied with watching for now.

[AGar]

The point that I was trying to make about your ISO 13 is that you don't retract any of your reasons for voting Hoopla in the first place, but you still unvote. To me this seemed like responding to pressure by unvoting while still leaving an opening for you to jump back on the Hoopla wagon if you saw a chance.

Apparently an unclaim with a breadcrumb and logistical explanation (whether I like it or not) is no reason to unvote someone. Keep the misreps up buddy.

[gonnano]

will do, buddy

[gonnano]

Here's the meat of your case against Hoopla, as I see it:

I also find this slightly scummy, because I've seen you pull this stunt before, back in 909, where you claimed miller off the bat, and then turned out to be a goon.

Every point you have made is something that we can't confirm, because it's all you saying one thing that is supposedly in your head. There is no proof that you remembered, you could easily be bluffing every post you make to fit in with "I remember you being in that game." The only point you bring up that's confirmable is, yes, I did talk to Amished about that game. But, again, nothing in that post shows that I read more than the OP, so how are you to know from that post alone that I know that you claimed miller falsely.

Here's the post where you unvote Hoopla, but don't retract the above arguments -- implying that you still consider them valid.

As for Hoopla's gambit... I'm finding it really hard to not suggest Lynch All Liars. And before gonnano gets all excited thinking "OMG HE DID THIS LAST GAME TOO!!!!!1!1!1!!111ONEONEELEVENTYONE!!!!!", it's in my meta to push policy lynches when the opportunity arises regardless of alignment. Look at Mini 909, Newbie 863 and Newbie 965. Off of the top of my head, I pushed a policy lynch on Quagmire D1 for not reading his role PM in 909, I pushed a LALiars against Panacea in 863, and again, LALiars against DavidParker in 965. I do believe I was town in all three of those games.

The thing I don't like about Hoopla's gambit is that I don't feel Hoopla got as much reaction as she could have because of my attack on the meta. The breadcrumb makes sense, mainly because of the K sentence. Hoopla's smart enough to know that you won't attract a cop and a doctor with the same playstyle in most cases. But I feel like it was a misguided attempt, especially if she knew I was going to meet the claim head-on, as basically all discussion that followed revolved around whether this was a gambit as has been executed in the past or not.

This is what your new summary of why you unvoted says:

Apparently an unclaim with a breadcrumb and logistical explanation (whether I like it or not) is no reason to unvote someone.

... but you've already said that you think lying is a scumtell, it's already been pointed out that the breadcrumb could have been planted regardless of alignment, and logical explanations of Hoopla's claim have been around since the beginning of the game.

[drmyshottyizsik]

unvote

vote: Espeonage

[Kid Know Nothing]

So much that needs to be addressed towards gonnano, it isn't funny.

- First of all, my sole case isn't latching. I started with latching and vigging. I dropped vigging after I realized it was essentially a difference in theories, but at the same time, I found more backtracking from Almaster, which I even pointed out (in other words, read the entire fucking post or don't read it at all). This is now the second time someone has found Almaster backtracking (the first being him saying he believed the claim to make sense then Hoopla's play was illogical).

- Second, your case. 1) Tell me now, how can you confirm a PGO claim other than a flip? Anyone who targets the PGO, even if they say they did, can just as easily be killed by mafia. Simple. Without knowing the setup, that can't be confirmed. So yes, it was a similar situation, as I pointed out. 2) Mmm. I already stated why I went after you. Not going to repeat myself. 3) You can't read. I don't say at all in ISO #13 that I think Hoopla is still scummy. I said I don't like keeping admitted liars around, regardless of alignment, and I said that I didn't feel that the claim was able to garner full reaction. 4) I'm scummy for pushing cases and scumhunting now? When did that meta shift happen? And where am I backing off of it?

- Why you freaking out about CA's vote?

---

KKN is non-committal to the max. Just thought I'd bring everyone's attention to that.

Elleran's explanation, which I apparently missed, is bogus.

Not so non-committal, just a little busy. Today's my day off, so it's time to re-read the entire thread. (8 whole pages, oh no!)

I still feel iffy about ConfidAnon, not only has the few posts he's mad struck me as off, such as the "I'm adding another name into discussion while there is a perfectly legit discussion already going on" excuse for voting for someone with incredibly weak reasoning. It seemed like he was trying to get a vote under the radar to make it seem like he was participating while completely ignoring/avoiding the PGO claim, so it looked like he was independently hunting from the rest of us. Would anyone care to comment on this?
-----
Hoopla's gambit, if you want to call that, saved the town some time I think. Straight out of the bat, we get reactions, we get discussion, we get to avoid that incredibly annoying RVS stage. I agree that her defense at the beginning was iffy but I think that the town motivation to claim PGO as soon as the day started outweighs the scum motivation. That being, claiming PGO as the first thing of this game would bring a lot of attention to scum, something they wouldn't want. Unless someone with meta on Hoopla can tell me otherwise.

AGar latched right onto the claim, attacking it. +town

I don't write down my thoughts on every post, you know. So I can't tell you if I read Amished's post in full. It's quite possible that I didn't, I do that quite often. I don't know.

In defense against Hoopla bringing up a post that would have shown that AGar would know she had pulled this gambit before. (#33 for those who want to read back) This just feels like a weak excuse. The context of the post is pretty clear, especially for someone who played in that game. That almost feels like a weak recant of attacking Hoopla for using similar gambits as scum.

Definitely an interesting start to the game... I agree with redtail that we shouldn't lynch based on just this claim. Hoopla's play does make sense as a town move.

Here's something else to consider -- AGar and I just got out of a game where he was scum. He and his partner managed to win by convincing a townie that my claim was a gambit. He could be trying to pull the same trick again. Gambits do exist, of course, but the reason that they work is because a straight play is much more likely.

The soft defense here of Hoopla strikes me as interesting. He doesn't take a solid ground on the claim and at the same time, attempts to discredit AGar's points. But it's just the lack of actual content while bringing up these points that strike me as odd.

The early PGO claim seems odd. I've personally played with PGO before in real life games,

and in most of those games, the PGO, even after a no-cc, early claim, ends up getting shot or killing a doctor or cop accidentally

. The reason why PRs target the potential PGO is because Hoopla could be a VT (or even cop) just claiming PGO for safety. In my past life games, I have learned that early claims of PGO is a pro-town move. However, seeing AGar's argument that Hoopla has fake claimed before, I can't trust her so easily. I'm not persuaded to vote yet, but FoS Hoopla.

The real flaw I see with the arguments that Elleran makes, besides the constant inconsistencies, is the idea that you can compare Real Life Mafia to forum mafia. There's a pretty big difference between the two. And honestly, "seeing that Hoopla has fake claimed before..." is weaker than weak. Everyone who has been scum has at some point, fake claimed. Does that mean that they are more or less likely to fake claim? It's essential to surviving as scum, so I think it's a pretty moot point. It's just the circumstances that were being discussed.

Zackrulez #49: Completely ignores the rest of discussion to vote Shotty for his late and odd post. Granted, the vote was well... off, not commenting on anything that has been discussed so far seems worse. An attempt to seem like he was participating while flying under the radar.

Like I've said, I've player plenty of games in real life where the scum has fake-claimed PGO.

It's one of the easiest role to fake claim since other players will be too scared to shoot or detect/investigate the fake-claimed

More inconsistencies! Check the bolded Elleran quote above to see. It seems like you like to relate real life mafia to forum mafia a lot, but the story changes each time. Before it was that often, docs or cops will accidentally die. Now you're talking about them being to scared, so you can fit your case into your experience?

#64 Zach again only comments on Shotty.

# 65 ConfedAnon changes his vote from Shotty to Gonnano for no reasoning while saying that he believes that Shotty is lying to begin with.

#66 Vel's main point was "You should have anticipated that AGar was going to come after you with this line of thought and as such, should have cut him off!"

... What? I'm sorry, how would that make someone more town? At all? "Okay, I know that I claimed I was miller in such and such game, but today I'm PGO, I swear!" Either way, it would have been brought into discussion, regardless of who brought it up. And why would Hoopla have wanted to effectively cut off questions as town? If she is town, she has nothing to hide.\

#67 ConfedAnon still strikes me as odd for this post. I've already commented on it though.

# 75 Gonnano votes AGar, saying he buys the gambit. Again, soft defending Hoopla while attacking AGar for hunting and being part of discussion.

#88 Elleran... Something about this post seems off. If Hoopla were scum and unclaiming would attract PRs, wouldn't that be a good thing for us? The tone he has seems otherwise.

#93 Again, Zach drops a vote with almost no content, piggybacking off of someone else's case.

Gonnano, can you explain #96?

#99 Elleran begins to hint that he suspects AGar and Hoopla of being scum buddies. What doesn't make sense is that he says 'without discussion with each other' (in a nut shell.) That seems. Weird? If they were scum, they would have had time to talk about the play.

-----
Stopping here for now, to avoid the wall o' text this is starting to become.

Another post on the way in a few hours.

.... PREVIEW EDIT: Really. Really, Shotty?

[gonnano]

RE: Post #96 -- As town, I'm looking out for scum. That means being aware of the possibility that I am completely and utterly wrong about any given case. If I have a gut feeling or a vague theory, I might post it just to get feedback and further the discussion. However, I won't state it as if it is a certainty and I won't try to pretend that it is based on pure logic. If it sounds like I am leaving myself room to change my position, it's because that's exactly what I'm doing. Projecting a false sense of confidence will only make me look foolish in the long run.

KKN -- my "soft defenses" of Hoopla came from an unwillingness to buy into her wagon wholesale. As a result of playing and reading other games, I get suspicious when a Day 1 wagon seems to be moving too fast.

[drmyshottyizsik]

unvote

[gonnano]

hey Shotty... care to explain the voting/unvoting?
Also, a confirmation that you are not a townie pretending to be a doc would be nice.

[AGar]

Apparently an unclaim with a breadcrumb and logistical explanation (whether I like it or not) is no reason to unvote someone.

...

but you've already said that you think lying is a scumtell

, it's already been pointed out that the breadcrumb could have been planted regardless of alignment, and logical explanations of Hoopla's claim have been around since the beginning of the game.

Where?

I've said lying is detrimental to the town, and I've said lying causes confusion to the town, I've even said that a lying townie is a worthy mislynch if a player isn't acting scummier. But I've never said that lying is a scumtell, at least not that I recall in this game.

Mmm. Logical explanations by people not named Hoopla, and none focused around why a falseclaim with a breadcrumb. Hoopla could be lying, sure thing. But I suspect that if she is, her play will show that later on, no?

gonnano, your tunneling is impressive. Mostly null, but definitely not in the town's best interests. Stop. Start actually doing something rather than carrying a grudge because my team was able to blow your gambit apart last game, because that's all I'm getting anymore. I disprove something, you come back with a re-iteration and a slightly different angle. You're operating on confirmation bias now. Scumhunt.

KKN, I'm anticipating a vote with the next post. You've read the thread, things have been discussed up, down, forwards, backwards and sideways. There's no reason not to cast a vote at this point, it'll hold some weight.

[Kid Know Nothing]

Apparently an unclaim with a breadcrumb and logistical explanation (whether I like it or not) is no reason to unvote someone.

...

but you've already said that you think lying is a scumtell

, it's already been pointed out that the breadcrumb could have been planted regardless of alignment, and logical explanations of Hoopla's claim have been around since the beginning of the game.

Where?

I've said lying is detrimental to the town, and I've said lying causes confusion to the town, I've even said that a lying townie is a worthy mislynch if a player isn't acting scummier. But I've never said that lying is a scumtell, at least not that I recall in this game.

Mmm. Logical explanations by people not named Hoopla, and none focused around why a falseclaim with a breadcrumb. Hoopla could be lying, sure thing. But I suspect that if she is, her play will show that later on, no?

gonnano, your tunneling is impressive. Mostly null, but definitely not in the town's best interests. Stop. Start actually doing something rather than carrying a grudge because my team was able to blow your gambit apart last game, because that's all I'm getting anymore. I disprove something, you come back with a re-iteration and a slightly different angle. You're operating on confirmation bias now. Scumhunt.

KKN, I'm anticipating a vote with the next post. You've read the thread, things have been discussed up, down, forwards, backwards and sideways. There's no reason not to cast a vote at this point, it'll hold some weight.

I have more to read to really solidify my suspicions, the only problem is that I keep reading into people who tend to post minimally.

Such as ConfidAnon. That is where my vote would be right now. But I want to finish my read through of the thread before I vote, in case I missed something that really sparks my interest.

@ Gonnano, were those D1 wagons in anyway similar to this situation? If not, I don't really see how this applies.

[drmyshottyizsik]

I'm sick and bored so I voted for the Mod,,,, but thats a nono. Also I am the Doctor

[gonnano]

in response to AGar:

The great thing about logic is that no matter who it comes from, it's still logic.

I was mistaken about the scumtell thing, I should have said "you've already said that you think liars should be lynched"

I'm not trying to tunnel -- I can't help it if you do lots of scummy things.

And scummy character defamation aside, I hope that you don't actually think I'm holding a grudge. That was a great play by you and your partner that pulled you out of a tough situation, and I respect the fact that it was all part of the game.

in response to KKN:
any D1 quick wagon is enough to earn my suspicion now, regardless of the why, because there's never enough information to just go ahead and lynch someone a few pages into the game.