Mini 1015 (GAME OVER - inquire within for results)

[Friend]

Yeah, it sounds like your voting me more based on my timing than anything else. I think my reasoning is good enough to vote on mislynch. What do you think of jmurph?

My vote on you isn't entirely based on timing - it's that you hopped on a VI wagon and provided weak reasoning for doing so.

What do you mean by vote on mislynch?

I don't find jmurph scummy.

[esuriospiritus]

[

VOTE COUNT 3

]

[2]

drmyshottyizsik

- DemonHybrid, Uite

[2]

Uite

- eldarad, drmyshottyizsik

[2]

seth

- Friend, jmurph3

[

1

]

Nobody Special

- Snarky
[

1

]

Thor

- Nobody Special
[

1

]

Friend

- Enigma
[

1

]

jmurph3

- seth

Not Voting: willows_weep, Thor665

Day 1 will end on August 16th, 2010 at 11:30 PM EST or when someone is lynched.

With 12 alive, it takes 7 to lynch.

[seth]

No, I'm saying that you didn't address how you didn't see it for two posts. That seems rushed. That you would jump to accusations without knowing all the facts. Despite whether or not you admit it, you are finding excuses to vote me. Your original reasoning was that you thought my "reasoning" on Shotty of "I think he's mafia" was weak. That has no relation to my actual reasoning on Shotty of "I think his reasoning on Uite is weak." You're just trying to attack me in any way you can, it seems kind of desperate. If you can acknowledge that my "reasoning" on Shotty of "I think he's mafia" was a joke, how can you seriously FoS me? You're FoS'ing me for the same reason I FoS'd Shotty, but you're trying to make those reasons seem different which looks like you're trying to lynch me for no reason. Btw, I'm not providing you with anything. The only accusations that you've made by yourself are senseless and you didn't even have all the facts. Let me fix that statement for you.

*I'm not elaborating on my original reasoning, as it and my reasoning now have, in fact, little to no relations. You seem to keep providing Friend with further evidence that supports HIS original argument.

@Friend

Tell me how "I think he's mafia because his reasoning on Uite is weak" is weak. I hopped onto the wagon because I thought Shotty was mafia. I don't remember you having a problem with anyone else hopping onto the wagon. It's strange that you're singling me out. Vote on mislynch = It's not lylo, we have a mislynch. You don't find Jmurph scummy? Either you're blind or you're scum. Pretty sure it's the latter. He attacks me with half a case, doesn't have all the facts, can't prove my reasoning on Shotty was weak (neither can you), buddies up to you, piggybacks your reasoning and he's not scummy? The only reason why you wouldn't see that as scummy is if you were scum, which I think you are.

[seth]

Btw. Would it help if I said that Shotty's reasoning on Uite isn't the ONLY reason for which why I suspected him? It sounds like you two think that's the only reason why I suspected him. Let me clarify: I don't suspect Shotty SOLEY because of his reasoning on Uite.

[Friend]

seth, your case on me is purely OMGUS the way I see it.

Saying "his reasoning on Uite is weak" is weak because he's done so much more than that and he's proven himself to be somewhat of a VI. You should expect weak reasoning. It just seems like you were seeking out a reason to jump on the wagon without blatantly doing so.

And no, I don't find jmurph scummy and I'm not quite sure why you do either. Funny how your two scums are the two people voting for you, huh?

[drmyshottyizsik]

SETH OMG!! Ok all I have to say is that you are sounding dumb. You have no solid case and you voting(with no solid case) because I voted with "no solid case". Right now I think you are just playing dumb. Just because someone votes you doesn't mean you have to try to vote or produce a case on them. I don't know why you protected uite, maybe you know something we don't.

HoS

[willows_weep]

Okay, combed the threads and these are things most noticeable to me. Each section has questions for the specified person, but anyone can comment as I'd like to see your take on it.

Huge wall sectioned off in multi posts.

NS:

-Post 33, first to vote. Voted Seth for 'backpedaling' in response to random qustions shotty gave.
This is before day even begins. NS is notified by the players that the day hasn't started and regardless NS asks the mod for a votecount and NS stresses that they want to be in the voting stage regardless of the actual stage in game.

I find it odd to be so eager to vote PRE official RVS and then unvote to vote the mod (and of course unvote) when the mod said none of it counts.

It could read as scummy because: It could be easy for scum to stick out as uber town to be playfully vote happy in the beginning of a game. That way it is hard to take it seriously later on in game analysis.

-- Post 75: You changed your vote to Thor with the statement that "he knows why." Is this reason helpful to the town or...? If this isn't an inside joke...I probably missed something.

-Uhm, I don't understand post 123. What are you saying that you "can't" do?? I don't believe I've played any games with you....

[willows_weep]

Thor:

-Why were you so against Shotty from the beginning? Post 64 has you voting him for "unvoting for a weak reason" (during RVS) and a "RVS OMGUS."
Shotty had begun his vote stating it was to oppose what I read was DH's OMGUS under a personal context. In other words, they voted each other for the same reason. In the RVS stage your reasoning seems acceptable, except that when a mini wagon seems to form on Shotty, you state that you "like where this is going." (post 67)

- In post 87 you reply to Friend on your reasoning for being eager to start Shotty's wagon. You qoute something (from Shotty's post 73) you label as a statement making Shotty the "scummiest player thus far," but that qoute happened a considerable (relative) time after you started the wagon. So, it kind of ruins the intensity/intent of what you said in post 64.

The time frame and reasons for voting and starting a wagon do not add up. It doesn't match.

- You are pretty intense about nixing Shotty early in the game or at least to get the thread to follow up on him and the result is close scrutiny. Then, even though none of your reasonings for votng Shotty seem very grand, you make sure to

second

that unconfirmed players be given time to comment. Without that the wagon and nixing you started would "be full of fail" (post 102).

- Not sure if you're voting and posting your thoughts in this way to evaluate the responses of the other players (for the good of the town) or not. Could be that kind of gambit or just scummery. How I interpret it depends largely on the fact that I find the sequence of thoughts in posts 64 then 67 then 87 (as 87 references Shotty's post 73).

[willows_weep]

Shotty:

-Eh, I don't know. I figure he would have learned from the last game to try to fully explain his actions, try to rigorously defend himself, etc. However, everything about him still reads scummy. Perhaps it's just ...he doesn't seem too involved in being concerned about the ramifications of his words/actions/inactions and thus not able to rationalize them to the satisfaction of other players.

- Friend had a good question: Why pick to vote Enigma when it was your second vote that made it a mini wagon to begin with? NS and Snarky would have been fine if it were for the sake of a simple D1 wagon to generate discussion. I see you say in post 95 that the vote was a joke for RVS???? Are you saying that

your

vote was for RVS or that the bandwagon on you is full of RVS joke votes? That's the only way I can take your statement in post 95...and neither make sense considering that all of the related text/conversations are pretty serious in nature.

- Post 129: No way...That post looks like it took more energy than necessary and I can't believe it ended in a vote (as opposed to a FOS or HOS). Wow.
I don't like RVS either. One reason I don't like it because it celebrates supposed randomness, can get carried away and pro-town folks that have a hard time defending themselves against what may have been whimsy randomness get taken advantage of. In other words, I've seen way too many RVS work out perfectly for scum gambits!

Friend:

In post 115, you (sort of) defend Thor's honor and say that Thor did not want a nixing of Shotty. If you believe that is true regarding the content of Thors shotty related posts, what do you think Thor does want out of this??

- Also, why didn't you direct your question of my town/scum play to me?

- Post 134 you have an obvious misunderstanding with Seth. I read Seth's original post ( 133) as they had meant it (explanation post 135). So, to me that was obvious. However, in your confusion you immediately unvote and vote seth while asking for clarification? What's the point of asking if you're going to convict (within your singular power) before getting an answer?

-Also, OMG! I got a post edit return hug from the mod!! That is so awesome. Just for that and some other things, I'll play hard in this game!


I'll comment more on the current engagement for Uite, Friend and Seth when it's less of a quick volley.

[seth]

Eh. Friend you're ignoring Jmurph which is why I think you're scum. Don't try and pass it off as an OMGUS because it isn't. I didn't like Shotty's reasoning on Uite which is why I voted him, I don't care if you think that's me looking for an excuse to bandwagon because I wasn't and I doubt you'll change your mind. If I wanted to OMGUS you, I would've done so instantly after you didn't understand my joke. I explicitly said in post 152 why Jmurph is scum, funny how you ignored that once again huh?

I think I have a fairly solid case. Friend votes me off of a joke. I explain the joke. His vote remains for a different reason. Jmurph jumps on the wagon, provides shitty reasoning. When reasoning is disproved piggybacks onto Friend. Friend ignores Jmurph. I think its possible for Friend to be a townie but I'm fairly sure Jmurph isn't. How am I playing dumb? Explain. Your next statement is stupid. I'm not voting Friend or Jmurph simply because they voted me. If that were so, I would've OMGUS'd Friend right away instead of waiting for him to slip. Here's an example. Let's say you're town and scum decides to frame and vote you. However, both scum slip and you point this out. However, CLEARLY you are in the wrong as they accused you first and you are now simply OMGUS'ing /sarcasm Anyways, what do other people think?

[Thor665]

tl:dr

Don't want to lynch drmyshottyizatoolongname today. If I was a vig I would consider him a high possibility to shoot tonight.
Don't like Enigma, Uite, or seth because of how each chose to get on the shotty wagon. I'd
I also spend a bit of time responding to willow's questions to me - if that excites you it's separated as the third section below.

===========================================================================================================

Okay, I will first off clarify I actually thought shotty was at L-2 or L-1 when I unvoted. This was apparently not the case, but I wanted to justify the commentary I was making at the time which otherwise looks a little wimpy (I am a man!)

Overall I think that wagon got pretty big pretty quick and easy, and unless scum saw my "amazing" case on shotty and were like "OMG, our scumbuddy is busted! Bus, bus, bus!" then I think it's safe to say scum was probably helping some of that action there. As a result my personal preference is a leaning towards the people who got on the wagon in odder ways. Enigma is probably my top vote for potential scum in the mix, but I think both Uite and seth are reasonable considerations, Uite for reasons noted by Eldarad in his oddness around the Shotty wagon, and seth for going pretty nuts the instant anyone questioned him (and for getting on a wagon with 'meh' reasoning), there is an amazing amount of OMGUS being thrown around for not much in that mix. These three players represent my top scum picks at the moment. Shotty is pretty bad VI, I don't want him around in lylo, but I don't think he's worth a lynch today.

============================================

Thor:

-Why were you so against Shotty from the beginning?

Because that's how wagons are formed.

In the RVS stage your reasoning seems acceptable,

So you're questioning it because...?

except that when a mini wagon seems to form on Shotty, you state that you "like where this is going." (post 67)

You *don't* like it when a mini wagon is formed in RVS? I really do, that's how you get out of RVS - a wagon is the surest way to end the dice rolls and claims of bulletproof death millers. I dislike the RVS, I try to end it quick, I am happy to see a wagon form.

- In post 87 you reply to Friend on your reasoning for being eager to start Shotty's wagon. You qoute something (from Shotty's post 73) you label as a statement making Shotty the "scummiest player thus far," but that qoute happened a considerable (relative) time after you started the wagon. So, it kind of ruins the intensity/intent of what you said in post 64.

Recheck the post, the first part of the answer I gave was this;
"To begin conversation, of course. That's what wagons are for."
That was the answer to his question. I then went on with continued scumhunting by noting his continued scum actions with newer evidence and supported why I believed he was thus far the scummiest player.

- You are pretty intense about nixing Shotty early in the game or at least to get the thread to follow up on him and the result is close scrutiny. Then, even though none of your reasonings for votng Shotty seem very grand, you make sure to

second

that unconfirmed players be given time to comment. Without that the wagon and nixing you started would "be full of fail" (post 102).

I would think that me not supporting an early lynch before everyone had commented by using reasoning you don't believe is very grand would seem logical as opposed to contradictory. I think you answered your own question here.

- Not sure if you're voting and posting your thoughts in this way to evaluate the responses of the other players (for the good of the town) or not. Could be that kind of gambit or just scummery. How I interpret it depends largely on the fact that I find the sequence of thoughts in posts 64 then 67 then 87 (as 87 references Shotty's post 73).

I agree, you deciding whether my actions are scumhunting or fake scumminess is something you can interpret.

[Thor665]

Anyways, what do other people think?

Sort of already addressed this a bit in the post above, but here's a second scoop of Thor awesomeness for you;

Basically I agree that your initial shotty vote was weak.
They voted you for having a weak reason/not explaining your reasons deeper.
You voted them for having weak reasons to vote you.

Overall I find you the oddest of the group because I'm intrigued you believe that both of them are scum who are after you. That seems like a bit of a leap. I'd be willing to believe perhaps one was scum, but both? Meh. Also, I'm not sure why you're attempting to revive interest in the shotty wagon at this point - feels a bit like scum not liking to see the easy VI lynch slide away and is trying to keep it a contender.

[willows_weep]

oh, forgot to ask about the acronym VI.
What is that?

[drmyshottyizsik]

Village Idiot, I play that alot

[Thor665]

Yeah.

You shouldn't.

[seth]

Lets focus on lynching Jmerph

[Friend]

Eh. Friend you're ignoring Jmurph which is why I think you're scum. Don't try and pass it off as an OMGUS because it isn't. I didn't like Shotty's reasoning on Uite which is why I voted him, I don't care if you think that's me looking for an excuse to bandwagon because I wasn't and I doubt you'll change your mind. If I wanted to OMGUS you, I would've done so instantly after you didn't understand my joke. I explicitly said in post 152 why Jmurph is scum, funny how you ignored that once again huh?

I didn't ignore it. I disagree with you. There's a fairly big difference, and disagreeing with you is not a scumtell. You still haven't explained why you think I'm scum other than that I think Jmurph is town.

I think I have a fairly solid case. Friend votes me off of a joke. I explain the joke.

Still didn't get the joke, by the way, can you explain?

[jmurph3]

Lets focus on lynching Jmerph

Excuse me? Why? You are, thus far, the

only

person who has expressed interest in lynching me. I still think your argument is weak, your case on me is weaker, and thus far you're not helping yourself or town by acting the way you are.

[Uite]

Catching up. My ISP dies for a few hours, and I get twoo whole new pages to look through. And not fluff pages either, pages where there's actually stuff happening. This is my first non-newbie game, so I have to ask, is this intensity usual?

Ok first of Uite the random vote is not about the vote itself it's about pressure being put on person x. That way person x will either freak or stay calm, but say things that give players t,y,r,e,y,w,z,l,k,q and v info about player x. Some times in RVS you may even get a claim out of someone. Next you say in an RVS you should supply a whimsical reason. So you want me to make up a reason? Ok I did I said you weren't american that is a whimsy reason or that he liked pirate penguins, again whimsy. Yes the purpose is to get discussion going! duh of course, if no conversation happened the thread would look like this

Why do you feel attacked by my statements on the RVS? I was responding to Enigma, on something of a pet peeve of mine, and if anything my words were meant generally. What you're arguing is also not different from what I'm saying. A pressure vote isn't random, and if you're voting arbitrarily, supplying a reason works better to start discussion than supplying no reason, even if the reason itself doesn't mean anything. It doesn't have to be completely whimsical, but if you can't find anything better, it suffices.

Again the point of the vote is nothing, the purpose is to see how the voted responds. This is not anti-town it is Pro-Town. It aids the townies in finding out who maybe scummy. The reason I don't think you like it is because you already know who is scum and have no use for a RVS and find it anti-mafia so it makes you angry. For these reasons I find you very scummy

Of course you need a thread starter. Where did I say that was anti-town? The only thing that I called anti town is a truly random vote, such as one by dice roll or coin flip. The rest is just untrue. I don't dislike the RVS at all, because it is a useful tool to get discussion started, so the rest of that point falls apart. Also, how do you presume to know what my dream game looks like? I think you're trying too hard to misrepresent me, and that makes you scummy.

At least I didn't say "I think Shotty is mafia lol. Vote Shotty."

My interpretation: I'm mafia for looking for an excuse to vote Shotty.

I think my reasoning is good enough to vote on mislynch.

These sentences by themselves don't paint a good picture of you at all, and they're your own words. The first can be interpreted as "I don't think Shotty is mafia", in the second you claim mafia and in the third you seem to be knowingly voting for a mislynch. Are you really that obvious, or just a VI? Either way, it makes you look bad.

If I was a vig I would consider him a high possibility to shoot tonight.

Since this is my first non-newbie, I don't have experience with vigilantes. Could you tell me what the difference is between a good candidate for lynch and a good candidate for vig-kill?

Village Idiot, I play that alot

Are you suggesting you're purposely playing VI? If so, that looks like you're trying to cover for something.

[drmyshottyizsik]

No I'm not suggesting that, but I have before in the past.

[Uite]

So you're not a Village Idiot now. Interesting.

[drmyshottyizsik]

I didn't say that either

[esuriospiritus]

Reminder: With a bit of verbal creativity, you can tear apart someone's argument without insulting their intelligence (ie using words like "dumb", "stupid", etc.) No, you haven't found a loophole by saying the person "sounds" or "plays" dumb/stupid. drmyshottyizsik, I'm looking at you. >_O

(I'm not super thrilled about the rampant use of VI, either, but it's a long-standing mafia term so I'm just going to ask that you try not to abuse the term for now. If I feel that the use of the term is getting too out-of-hand I may start asking people to not use it in this game.)

It's not about the size of your words or vocabulary, it's about playing the game without resorting to tearing people down. You can attack someone's argument without making it personal. That goes for all of you.

As for the use of VI, you are responsible for your actions, but everyone else is responsible for their reaction to your actions and the quality of a person's play (or lack thereof) does not make it more or less acceptable to outright insult them. It should be enough to call a person's arguments poorly thought out without having to call them an idiot for it. Therefore, upon further consideration I've decided to ask all of you to not use the term VI/Village Idiot in this game, because I don't feel like it's fair for me to be enforcing not using "dumb"/"stupid" etc otherwise.

Upon even further consideration, I'm allowing the use of VI as long as I don't feel like it's treading into personal attack territory. Calling someone's play VI is fair game as long as I don't feel like the use of the term is meant to reflect on the individual as a whole because it's a legit mafia term referring to something that can be improved upon. I'm leaving the rest of the post up and /striked because I want my thought process up as a reference. I welcome any feedback on this ruling, but I recommend that it be taken to PMs.

I'd also still prefer that people avoid using "dumb"/"stupid" etc.

[drmyshottyizsik]

Ok i will use bigger words and try to not get people to call me a VI

[Thor665]

tl:dr Actually I'm being mostly game theory and Mod discussion in this one. I ding Shotty bit but it's not all that functional of a game post, my apologies - I'm waiting for some feedback from a couple of players.

========================================================

If I was a vig I would consider him a high possibility to shoot tonight.

Since this is my first non-newbie, I don't have experience with vigilantes. Could you tell me what the difference is between a good candidate for lynch and a good candidate for vig-kill?

A good candidate for lynch is scum, and barring that town who appears to be scum and will give useful information on their flip because of interactions with people who did and did not support the lynch.

A VI is terrible for town because it's a player whose playstyle is decidedly anti-town without being clearly scummy. Scum *love* these players since they are not only easy to mislynch but also can have such a negative reaction from town players that their lynch barely even gives any good information - despite this it's really important for town not to let VIs last until lylo - because that is a sad situation.

The Vig solves this with bullets and awesomeness.

The best Vig targets are harder to define, but it involves using gut and/or logic to kill in a way to target scum and/or aid town by striking strategically.

@drmyshottyizghettofabulous - if you were playacting VI in any way, shape, or form, then now is a pretty perfect time to stop since you've already reached the point where a VI stops being all that useful to town. Big words has nothing to do with it by the by.

@Mod

- I actually do support your desire to have less insults and foul language in the thread, which is something I police myself on in all threads as a matter of choice. I do look askance at taking issue with legitimate game terms. If someone starts using it as an insult take issue with that player - don't take issue with a valid description of a playstyle that is part of the game as we'd just end up having to call it Jellybeans instead of VI and it would mean the same thing.

...would it make it better?

@drmyshottyizghettofabulous - if you were playacting Jellybeans in any way, shape, or form, then now is a pretty perfect time to stop since you've already reached the point where Jellybeans stops being all that useful to town. Big words has nothing to do with it by the by.

::shrug:: I encourage a focus on intent more then terms.