Mafia 1013 - Prozacs Basic Theme - Game has ENDED

[StrangerCoug]

ITT Jack continues to vote with practically no basis.

[Flameaxe]

I don't think you're arrogant at all. And yes, I did read it. I personally find more consolidated summary posts more effective at conveying scumminess. My problem about pbpa, especially in cases of players already in the spotlight, is that it is a lot of typing when a summary would do just the same. Even adding in that "x number of posts were useless or had nothing to comment on" to convey that the person in question isn't really contributing.

I would agree, but given the case, I found it worthwhile. I was going to have to go through each post and write my own notes down, so why not give them to all to see. I would generally agree about the "players in the spotlight", but I don't know if it applies as I was (self-proclaimed) the one who put out the case that moved the spotlight towards him. I gave a general summary at the end of my post as well to accompany the base from the isolated posts. When I point out a point of non-contributing, I don't see an easier approach than a pbpa. He made a claim that he was scumhunting, I decided to show post by post that he generally wasn't contributing to the effect that he claimed, it just seemed like an efficient way of putting it out there for a pbpa.

In other news, Anon's 444. The "I have to live with it comment" seems off in my book, but the rest of the post is just fine in my book. Can't wait for the second half here.

In other other news, Mallow's V/LA sucks. Discuss.

[Blackberry]

XVART

- I'm going to list off all the things you misrepresented, and I want you to tell me how you came to those inaccurate conclusions. I feel like you're trying to expand on something you thought was an argument because people said they "liked it." But I think you're showing you really don't have any argument and your logic behind your accusations is inaccurate.

Vote 2

, 84 - votes Budja for secret, more reliable than most scumtells, tell; later retracted because he discovered the Budja committed this tell as both town and scum, and possibly only as town; also admits he himself has committed this reliable tell as town (if that makes any sense at all)

Where

have I said I've done it as town? The tell is something I don't do period because I point-blank don't believe in it.

Vote 5

, 395 - Votes Raivaan and joins the popular bandwagon for revealing that he is scum in post 387, for saying there was a scum QT (I think this was what was considered to be revealing scum).

No where in my post do I say it is because of the QT thing. In fact, that QT thing is mentioned last and is a small detail I had a question about. Nothing about why I voted for Raivaan.

Also questions Raivaan's intentions behind commenting on his asking for Jack to be forced replaced.

I wasn't asking intentions, I was asking for explanation of logical thinking.

Out of all of those votes, the only one that can be argued as legitimate is the last one, and that, in my opinion is highly debatable. It looks to me as more of a way to get on the Raivaan wagon than anything.

So you thinking voting people for reactions isn't legitimate? Also, if you read back, I had been questioning Raivaan before.

The reason I'm harping on the secret tell thing so much is because it looks to be obvious backpeddling. A tell that is more reliable than most scum tells suddenly becomes something the target does as town

(and might only do as town)

, and also

the accuser of guilty of doing as town

, is hardly a more accurate tell than most scumtells. If this is not backpeddling, I don't know what is.

Underline #1: I never said he

only

did it as town. I only said I saw him do it as town, which is reason enough to know it probably isn't realiable in this instance.
Underline #2: I never said I did it before - as I don't do it period.

[xvart]

Where

have I said I've done it as town? The tell is something I don't do period because I point-blank don't believe in it.

You are right. I am unable to locate where I got this, but by my recollection and link reference I must have misread your 368 once and didn't double check it. Misrep noted. And since you mention it, what kind of tell is it that you don't even believe in it? Regardless of the fact that you never said it, the point remains that you backpeddled on your accurate scumtell once questioned about its legitimacy. Also, tells are generally something people do not do regardless. The fact that you say you don't do it because it you don't believe in it doesn't make sense.

No where in my post do I say it is because of the QT thing. In fact, that QT thing is mentioned last and is a small detail I had a question about. Nothing about why I voted for Raivaan.

Well, pardon me for not understanding; but you indicated that there was something in Raivaan's post that revealed him to be scum, meaning a serious scumslip or having knowledge of something only scum would know. The only thing that resembles a scum outting himself is knowledge of a scum QT. Your other reasonings include Raivaan not understanding why you were asking for Jack to be force replaced and your accusation that Raivaan didn't even read your post. But to be clear and to give you the benefit of the doubt, what in Raivaan's post outted him as scum?

So you thinking voting people for reactions isn't legitimate? Also, if you read back, I had been questioning Raivaan before.

If you read back, I clearly said your Raivaan vote could be debated as being legitimate.

Underline #1: I never said he

only

did it as town. I only said I saw him do it as town, which is reason enough to know it probably isn't realiable in this instance.
Underline #2: I never said I did it before - as I don't do it period.

1. Actually, you said he

may

have only done it as town (see quote below).

Reading Budja, I saw him do my secret scumtell as both town and mafia (

or it may have been just town, I don't recall 100%

) - just that I realized he had done it before as town.

So yes, you have a sound beef about misrepresentation in your first comment. Other than that, I fail to see how I am reaching on my case and am a little disappointed because from your opening box I was expecting a blasting rebuttal. I also like have you didn't answer my question (GASP!) about your Anon vote and only really picked out a few minor things about something I said could be debated to claim were blatant misrepresentations or me trying to build a case because my ego had been brushed.

To be even more clear about the bulk of my case and the most important aspects:
Explain your sudden jump to Anon and lack of following up as you said you would; and why you never explained why he wasn't worthy of a vote afterall.
-Tell everyone what your unreliable alleged reliable "tell" is on Budja. It obviously isn't as accurate as you claimed it was so there should be no reason to withhold this information any more, especially since the accuracy and authenticity is questionable since it is apparently done frequently by town.
-Budja had five extremely short posts thus far in the game and I can't for the life of me find even the most questionable of scumtells or anything remotely resembling a scumtell in any of them. Of course, I can understand your hesitation in revealing this if it never existed in the first place and the content of Budja's posts have little with which to fabricate even a slight scumtell.

xvart.

[Porochaz]

Raivann - 5 - Flameaxe, Llama, Budja, Blackberry, Strangercoug
Llama - 2 - Raivann, Fishy
Jack - 1 - Mallowgeno
Blackberry - 1 - xvart
Flameaxe - 1 - Anon,
mallow - 1 - mitsuru
Budja - 1 - Jack

With 12 alive, it takes 7 to lynch.

Deadline August the 17th

[Budja]

I've never seen any problem with the "secret scumtell". He never pushed my lynch and I took it as a pressure vote anyway.
But I am also interested to know why you thought Raivann was scum. Looking at that post, I read the quicktopic point as a major influence as well.

Anon's reads (save Flameaxe) mirror my own and I like him as town.

[Porochaz]

Mitsuru will be prodded.

[Fishythefish]

Fishythefish: Ok, Im probably biased by OMGUS but I dont like Fishy. The Raivann vote and unvote seems like an ellegant backtrack for a reason that doesnt add up. Im neutral about Raivann (see below for more details) but claiming vanilla is not the towntell Fishy is trying to paint. Im not sure if I buy the " I thought harder about Raivann, and realised that I hadn't seen anything which actually made me think "yeah, scum would do that"." And I still mantain that is really unnatural for a player to spread the suspicion between his top suspect and one of his heavy attackers but guess this could be me.

Clearly, I've backtracked on Raivann, although I'm not sure what was 'elegant' about it. I've changed my mind about him. Claiming vanilla isn't a major reason for my change, but I think it is certainly a towntell - scum claim vanilla far less than the average proportion of vanillas in a game, in my experience. Is there anything you'd like me to explain further about my stance, if you don't buy it? I think I've been fairly clear - I realised that I was voting someone because I they didn't look like a town player, but that that's pretty null if they don't look like scum either.

The last point I've talked about before - it amounts to saying that if I'm attacking someone, I have to agree with what anyone says about them, which is just silly.

[Blackberry]

((I have to write this really quick because I have to leave on Vacation))

Where

have I said I've done it as town? The tell is something I don't do period because I point-blank don't believe in it.

You are right. I am unable to locate where I got this, but by my recollection and link reference I must have misread your 368 once and didn't double check it. Misrep noted. And since you mention it, what kind of tell is it that you don't even believe in it? Regardless of the fact that you never said it, the point remains that you backpeddled on your accurate scumtell once questioned about its legitimacy. Also, tells are generally something people do not do regardless. The fact that you say you don't do it because it you don't believe in it doesn't make sense.

The tell is using the term "WIFOM." Especially in an unnecessary/exxagerated scenario. For example, I think Budja's use of WIFOM was not called for.

I don't believe in it because for the most part I think using WIFOM is silly and is just a way for people to try to confuse you. Most things are pretty black-and-white and can be observed with a keen eye.

Well, pardon me for not understanding; but you indicated that there was something in Raivaan's post that revealed him to be scum, meaning a serious scumslip or having knowledge of something only scum would know. The only thing that resembles a scum outting himself is knowledge of a scum QT. Your other reasonings include Raivaan not understanding why you were asking for Jack to be force replaced and your accusation that Raivaan didn't even read your post. But to be clear and to give you the benefit of the doubt, what in Raivaan's post outted him as scum?

I said:

I think you just revealed you are scum O_o.

Do you even know WHY I was asking for Jack's replacement? It was because he wasn't answering a question. You saying maybe I was mad with his answer suggests you didn't even read my post. If you genuiney though I was scum- don't you think you'd read my posts and analyze my reasons and what I say?

This is what I was referring to when I said he revealed himself as scum, by making accusations that are inaccurate had he read my posts.

So you thinking voting people for reactions isn't legitimate? Also, if you read back, I had been questioning Raivaan before.

If you read back, I clearly said your Raivaan vote could be debated as being legitimate.

This was not referring to my Raivaan vote. This was referring to my mallow, Jack, and even Budja vote (to a lesser extent).

Explain your sudden jump to Anon and lack of following up as you said you would; and why you never explained why he wasn't worthy of a vote afterall.

Why I changed my vote off Jack to someone else: I didn't really suspect Jack as scum for mentioned reasons previously, plus the purpose of the vote wa sout of frustration. At that time, I wanted it elsewhere.
Why I changed my vote off of Anon: I liked the Raivaan wagon. He wasn't acting like town. His accusations weren't logical deductions for town to make.

Why I voted Anon: He was someone that struck me as possible scum. I can reread and explain why later. I do not have the time at this moment as I am about to leave. I should have limited access either tonight or possibly tomorrow night ((if I have neither, I apologize)).

Worst case scenario I am

V/LA till Monday night Moderator

[Mitsuru Kirijo]

I really don't think using the term WIFOM is scummy at all. I've seen it used and used it as scum and town alike, and I really don't think it's a reason to vote someone. And even if Raivann was acting scummy, it just seems like Blackberry is jumping on a bandwagon for the sake of it. I don't like it.

[xvart]

The tell is using the term "WIFOM." Especially in an unnecessary/exxagerated scenario. For example, I think Budja's use of WIFOM was not called for.

I don't believe in it because for the most part I think using WIFOM is silly and is just a way for people to try to confuse you. Most things are pretty black-and-white and can be observed with a keen eye.

Hardly a secret scumtell; in fact the the MafiaWiki says that WIFOM "is often a scum tactic to distract the town." And, in the context, from what I can tell, Budja wasn't even "using" WIFOM but asking someone about WIFOM.

This is what I was referring to when I said he revealed himself as scum, by making accusations that are inaccurate had he read my posts.

Then apparently I misread your post, reading "revealed himself as scum" as actually "revealing scum" instead of "displaying scummy behavior." (Heavy dose of sarcasm).

This was not referring to my Raivaan vote. This was referring to my mallow, Jack, and even Budja vote (to a lesser extent).

Again, I saw the quote about Raivaan and the explanation about questioning Raivaan to indicate that you were talking about your Raivaan vote. Reaction votes are fine, but now apparently three out of your five votes have been reaction votes: mallow (wasn't actually to get a reaction, it was to get an answer to a question); Budja (announced that it was a reaction vote, which undermines the honest reaction that might come about); and Jack (also not a reaction vote, but a vote to get a question answered).

I can reread and explain why later.

Please do. Also, explaining why you unvoted Anon would be appreciated. Enjoy your vacation.

xvart.

[xvart]

EBWOP (forgot to copy from another tab):

I've never seen any problem with the "secret scumtell". He never pushed my lynch and I took it as a pressure vote anyway.
But I am also interested to know why you thought Raivann was scum. Looking at that post, I read the quicktopic point as a major influence as well.

My point is that if something is a more accurate than most scumtells, it should be something you push on, which he didn't. He also undermined the super secret scumtell by preempting it with "I want to see how you react." It's either a reaction vote or a legitimate scum tell, but not both.

xvart.

[Blackberry]

A) I had no idea the wiki said thing, it was something I thought of myself that scum are probably more likely to use it to confuse town

B) Budja was not asking someone about WIFOM. He was saying to someone that, regarding me, "speculating on whether it is personality" is WIFOM. Like I said, using it in that context suggests he is trying to put doubt that it is a personaltiy thing. Which is something I would consider scum to do.

C) All votes are used for the purpose of examining the reaction of the person you are voting, even if it is a secondary motive. So I consider all my vote reaction votes. Also, you completely undermine my calling those specific votes reaction votes by saying "it's not a reaction vote because you didn't say so" and then saying "it's not a reaction vote because you stated it was and thus defeated the purpose." And for the record, my opinion is stating you are doing something (such as telling someone you are strongly looking at how they react to something) only invokes intimidation into those that are scum and invokes more honesty from those that are town and is not at all a bad thing.

D) I already explained why I unvoted Anon - I found Raivaan more attractive.

** Now I'll reread about Anon to tell you why I thought he was a good vote.

[Blackberry]

About Anon:

To be honest, I just remember thinking Anon was someone looking scummy. If you look back at my posts - you can clearly see he is probably one of the top people I question and address before my vote.

[StrangerCoug]

xvart vs. Blackberry is starting to come off as town vs. town. Still like my suspects (Raivann, mallowgeno, llamaeatataco, and Jack in roughly that order now).

Also, I've lost track of how many times I've wanted to type LlamaFluff instead of llamaeatataco.

[Budja]

I was saying "it could be a personality thing, but I'm going to assume it isn't ATM rather than WIFOM over it" i.e rejecting WIFOM and choosing a side. (Not that I believe saying WIFOM is solely a scum tactic anyway. Context always matters)

[quote=Mitsuru]And even if Raivann was acting scummy, it just seems like Blackberry is jumping on a bandwagon for the sake of it. I don't like it.[/quote]
What did you think of Coug's vote then?

[Mitsuru Kirijo]

I don't like it much, but I think he's acted more town throughout. He might not be posting huge text walls, but I have a more scummy read on Blackberry. Despite his explanations, his vote hopping is scummy. However, I realize a BB lynch probably won't happen today, so I'll be keeping a close eye on he and Mallow.

[Budja]

You get consistency points .

^ Missed it before but Coug's 474 is good posting.

[StrangerCoug]

I suppose you mean post 464, as post 474 does not yet exist

[Budja]

Maybe .

[llamaeatataco]

Also, I've lost track of how many times I've wanted to type LlamaFluff instead of llamaeatataco.

I'm now wondering whether this is a good thing or not... Is it?

As for Raivann, he might have been scummy at first, and I thought so too, but now he's asking questions, responding to accusations and trying to scumhunt. So what if he doesn't post huge walls of text? He was scummy at first, but isn't now. He shouldn't be lynched.

No. This is not an explanation. What 'scumhunting' has he done other than ask a couple of half assed questions, chainsaw everyone that has attacked him and... Actually, that's all he's really done.

Oh wait, he's also completely misrepresented the facts a bit.

Well, 26 in iso was good. It was, admittedly a completely obvious conclusion, but should you really be considering his points against you as 'good scumhunting'?

He's had a lot of fake scumhunting in there, I mean, every other post he uses some random quote to claim someone is scum (hyperbole ftw) and on the other ones he makes obvious inferences, a good portion of which have already been made. But, I ask you, specifically which posts do you think are examples of his 'good scumhunting'? You don't have to quote, just post iso numbers. I'm not giving up until I have specifics. You don't have them, so I'm going to be waiting a while.


About the Xvart/BB thing: Town points for Xvart. Scum points for BB. He's not past Raivann yet (He'd have to claim scum to get past Raivann in my eyes) but I'm liking him less as town.

Anyway, we're still pretty much in the same boat as we were when I left. Lynch choices still the same for me: Raivann and Anon, possibly Mitsuru. But Nobody is liking Mitsuru as a lynch option. I might move that pbpa up if I get bored, but don't count on it.

[Mitsuru Kirijo]

Here is Blackberry somewhat appeasing an attacker. To call me an open minded townsperson like that pinged my scumdar. But it wasn't until his stunt where asked for Jack to be replaced for not answering questions that really got me thinking scum.

Even though BB disproved this theory later, it's an attempt to look at BB's playstyle. I liked this post. It's from ISO 26.

ISO 36 states:

Here is where flameaxe starts and decides to go after me.
He decides he is gonna make an example of this brash noob. How dare I call him and llama scumbuddies!

Though some may not see scumhunting in here, I think Raivann has made a good point. Flameaxe's reply was weird. I don't see how Raivann was keeping his opinions from the rest of us. I thought his reply, though slightly exaggerated, was a town one.

Quote tags fixed - mod

[Flameaxe]

Though some may not see scumhunting in here, I think Raivann has made a good point. Flameaxe's reply was weird. I don't see how Raivann was keeping his opinions from the rest of us. I thought his reply, though slightly exaggerated, was a town one.

Generally, when one goes out of their way to call someone scum (indirectly, but the point was still there), but didn't say a damn thing regarding said player up until that point, they aren't sharing everything with the class. It's pretty obvious now he had (and still has) nothing to show I'm scum besides the point that I voted him.

[llamaeatataco]

Mitsuru, are you implying that scum never contributes anything at all? That they never try to appear to be scumhunting?

I will say that 26 is a good post. I agree for the most part with what he said.

about 36... Do you habitually use any experience altering chemical combination? How about just trying it out for the first time?

No, it was directed at Llama, your scumbuddy. In regards to his flailing.

Baseless accusations = contributing now? When did this happen?
How was he keeping his opinion from the rest of us? How was he sharing? He was repeating (for the nth time) his assertion that I was flailing, but he wasn't contributing anything to the game at all, with the question or his explanation of it. Also, I don't recall him ever explaining exactly why I was 'flailing,' but he could easily steal your 'tells' if he needs to, just to give the semblance of a real argument.

So Raivann, did you ever actually explain your flailing assertion? I might have missed it, my catch-up read was kind of rushed, so I won't start hatin' on you until you've confirmed the non-existence of such a post by completely ignoring me. Again. Just like 95% of all points against you.

I thought his reply, though slightly exaggerated, was a town one.

O RLY? This has been answered, but we can go over it again.

1. Raivann is repeating an assertion that has never been backed up with anything, along with making a new one.
2. FA calls him on not explaining his.
3. Raivann then enters rage/sarcasm mode, where he proceeds to exaggerate a statement that was completely called for, and then misattribute the exaggerated sequence of events to motivations that seem to be made up on the spot.
4. You call this behavior townish.

Do you know what Raivann is? He's a wannabe demagogue. How is this town in any way at all?

Also, you gave the wrong ISO number. Just sayin'. (It's 38)

[Mitsuru Kirijo]

I just get a gut town read from his posts. For now, I see slightly sarcastic, scummy town, but not scum. That could all change, but his posts give me a gut read of town.