Mini 277 - Webcomic Mafia - Game Over!

[Pie_is_good]

Yes, yes, I see my reputation preceeds me.

There are some who call me... pie.

And, hell, there are others who call me PIG. I've gotten used to it.


I'll

Random Vote: Thok

And Nemesis, I hereby challene you to a

Duel

. As a 3rd win condition for each of us, we must be closer to the middle of our respective lists (of alive/dead) at the end of the game than the other person. This gives us 4 more possible tiers of victory, by my count.

May the best man win

unless you happen to be the best man

-pie

[Pie_is_good]

Oh, sure. I'm all for random voting/bandwagoning.

UNVOTE, RANDOM BANDWAGON VOTE: BERTRAND

We have to get things moving at some point or another.

[Pie_is_good]

FOS: everyone who flipped out over my bandwagon vote.

All I was doing was randomvoting for someone, just like the rest of you. I just "random"voted for someone who already had a few votes.

You random vote people because you say that it's good for getting the game moving. Then I - the horror - use it to get the game moving!

Given that bertrand was among the flippers, vote stays.

[Pie_is_good]

Random VOTING is good to get the game going. Random BANDWAGONING is not.

au contraire

Are you denying that what I did has failed to get the game moving?

Let's review bert's post:

Why the useless bandwagon on me? Random bandwagons are only good for scum. FoS Pie

He's got enough votes.

Ignoring for now the basic scum tell of accusations without votes, I consider this to be among the category of "flipping out." "Oh my god, there's a 3-vote 'useless' bandwagon on me. The guy who bandwagonned is therefore scum, but I refuse to vote him because I don't like lynching scum."

...and if this post isn't flipping out, I don't know

what

your other post was.


Bertrand, what did I say between my randombandwagon post and my next post that turned your FoS to a vote? All I did was FoS the people who flilpped out over my post, then you vote me because I included you in the "flippers," as the term now goes.

Let's ignore a moment who's right and wrong. Just look at it this way: I made a judgement call. Regardless of alignment, I would have judged that one the same way. So, unless disagreeing with you is a scum tell, really there was

no aditional reason to change your FoS to a vote

.

My Thoughts. Besides, it should be over soon-- the bandwagon is no longer random due to strange actions resulting from a small bandwagon.

-Pie

[Pie_is_good]

It gets the game going, fine, but it isn't good.

Really? Could you then tell me what random voting does to get the game going in a "good" way? While you're at it, could you give some reasons?

I voted later, I wanted to see your reaction before voting. Then your reaction looked even more scummy, so i did.

Let's back up a minute. This was your post in question:

Why the useless bandwagon on me? Random bandwagons are only good for scum.

FoS Pie

He's got enough votes.

You said

very

clearly that the FoS was because I "had enough votes." Now you're saying the FoS was because you wanted to see my response. H'm.

Also, you said that my reaction looked even more scummy.

How?

Just calling me scummy will get you nowhere fast with a remotely competent town. You need reasons. Please don't make me ask this again.

You made a bad explanation, used CrapLogic, and misrepresented the situation. Need more?

For your viewing pleasure, the post in question is this one:

FOS: everyone who flipped out over my bandwagon vote.

All I was doing was randomvoting for someone, just like the rest of you. I just "random"voted for someone who already had a few votes.

You random vote people because you say that it's good for getting the game moving. Then I - the horror - use it to get the game moving!

Given that bertrand was among the flippers, vote stays.

From what I can decipher (there's a little guesswork here, as bertrand wasn't terribly clear about specifics), the "bad explanation" was that part about randomvoting for someone, just like the rest of you (I say that because it's the only part where I really explained anything). Now, I'm not sure what's "bad" about that, but I can say with a certain degree of confidence that everything in there is true. It seems relatively factual.

I'll also guess that the CrapLogic was the part about using the randomvote to get the game going. So, let's look at it logically: I made two statements that implied a third.

Statement 1

:

You random vote people because you say that it's good for getting the game moving

. That's pretty much the widely accepted view. Tossing votes around early is inducive of game action. That's why people do it. Do you disagree there?

Statement 2

:

Then I - the horror - use it to get the game moving!

That was the intended purpose of the vote, which I have stated many times. To stimulate action, which I, indeed, did.

Statement 3

:

Therefore, voting me because I used my randomvote to get the game moving is hypocritical, and therefore, bad.

This statement was implied by the first two sentences. It's the obvious logical continuation. Soo... I'm not sure what you're calling craplogic, but it all seems pretty airtight to me.

Now, finally, I'll venture to say that "misrepresenting the situation" was calling Bertrand a flipper. I was defining "flippers" as people who FoSed me, attacked the random bandwagon, or otherwise took the randomvoting as significantly different from other random voting. Anyways, given that there's no concrete definition of a "flipper" out there, it's not really misrepresenting any situations.

Well, there you go. I analysed my post based on your three accusations. If that's not good enough, then yes, I need more. Please let me know what you were thinking on this one.

There was the craplogic and misrepresentaion of the situation.The one on you isn't, anyway.

No, there really wasn't. You're just trying to write it off as "craplogic" and "misrepresentation" without providing reasons.


...and I'll choose to ignore the (funny? ad hominem? sarcastic?) one-liner at the end of the post.

-Pie

[Pie_is_good]

[In response to Bertrand...]
Much as I love going to war, I'm gonna accept your truce. I think I kinda got a little worked up over a disagreement - It doesn't mean the points brought up should be ignored, but it also doesn't mean that the disagreement implicates the other person as scum.

...and hell, it shouldn't impact the game too much longer. Things have happened and there's no more use for random bandwagons. I generally hate random mafia playing with a vengance, but in the absence of logic it's the only thing to turn to.

[in response to the TSAGod bandwagon...]

UNVOTE, VOTE: ADELE

I saw TSA's comment on The Pie Bandwagon as blatantly sarcastic, but I can still see how it could cause misunderstandings. However, I think TSA has explained himself adaquetly, and now it just feels like Adele is grasping for a way to keep this bandwagon rolling.

The lesson has been learned that sarcasm doesn't always translate well in a post. But that doesn't mean that we need to assign blame to TSA. It's not his bad or your bad or my bad; there's no official laws saying how to distribute blame.

-Pie

[Pie_is_good]

It sounds like you're saying that she's not obviously scummy...?

Can you clarify what you mean here? Are you saying that she

is

obviously scummy?

...I've seen nothing to make me change my vote, though, in the mean time.

[Pie_is_good]

UNVOTE: ADELE, VOTE: AKONAS

...

Unofficial Pie-is-in-need-of-a-votecount-and-so-he-had-to-count-them-anyways Votecount

Bertrand - 2 (StevieT92, Fuldu)
Akonas - 4 (Nemesis, VitaminR, TSAGod, Pie is Good)
TSAGod - 2 (Thok, Akonas)

12 alive, 7 to lynch.


...I can see a good case for both being scum, so if the consensus is Akonas, I'll go with that.

He's now at lynch-minus-three, and lynch-minus-two is claiming territory. Be ready.

-Pie

[Pie_is_good]

Well, I didn't see them making a whole lot of impact towards a lynch, and at the beginning we really have no good reason to bandwagon anyone. Do you have good reasons to be suspicious yet? Apparently only on me, and I'm just trying to get conversation stirred up. Random voting/bandwagoning always helps at the beginning.
As pie said:

All I was doing was randomvoting for someone, just like the rest of you. I just "random"voted for someone who already had a few votes.

You random vote people because you say that it's good for getting the game moving. Then I - the horror - use it to get the game moving!

Is this bandwagon about me using someone's own tactic on them after they...didn't get in trouble?

And I wasn't saying that Adele was scummy at all. Just asking for clarification.

This post set off my scumdar.

I was pretty straightforward about the random bandwagoning. You, however, posted with reasons. The fact that you're turning around and saying I did it, too (which I did, by the way, get in a fair amount of trouble for) sounds like a backup excuse that you're falling on.

I bandwagoned for the sake of bandwagoning. You bandwagoned to see my response.

If you're retroactively changing your reasons for bandwagoning, that's scummy. If you're saying that you random bandwagoned at a time when there was plenty of evidence available, that's also scummy.

Kinda lose/lose.

In any case, that's lynch-minus-two. Claimtime.

[Pie_is_good]

I did vote for him, Thok. Look right above the votecount.

On that note, FoS: Thok, for a logical hole in that last post. Even if TSAGod is scum, that doesn't invalidate his reasons for the bandwagon. Scum are perfectly capable of posting logical attacks on others, you know.

[Pie_is_good]

On that note, FoS: Thok, for a logical hole in that last post. Even if TSAGod is scum, that doesn't invalidate his reasons for the bandwagon. Scum are perfectly capable of posting logical attacks on others, you know.

Total Crap. If scum starts a bandwagon, it's NOT ON OTHER SCUM.

FoS pie, part OMGUS

Oh, cool. Let me prove myself innocent then.

Unvote, Vote: Adele

Unvote, Vote: Akonas

Unvote, Vote: Bertrand

Unvote, Vote: DierdraPhoenix

Unvote, Vote: Nemesis

Unvote, Vote: Fuldu

Unvote, Vote: Stevie

Unvote, Vote: Thok

Unvote, Vote: TSAGod

Unvote, Vote: Tyfo

Unvote, Vote: Vitamin R

Well, I started a (short-lived) bandwagon on everybody. And since everyone cannot be protown (or the game would be over), I must have just started a bandwagon on scum. And since scum only start bandwagons on protowners, I can't be scum!

There you have it. The last person to vote for everybody is the lynch for today.

(and a final

Unvote, Re-Vote: Akonas

)

FoS: Bertrand

With all due respect, I think he's really, really acting like a n00b. Seems like he took the comment about him being a n00b and ran with it.

[Pie_is_good]

Eh, Not so much. There are a few testable claims. I would, for one, advocate testing your claim to prove your alignment rather than just lynching you.

[Pie_is_good]

Following your logic, all noobs are scum? Thanks, I'm leanring a lot from you. You must be innocent because you have much more experience than me.

No. I'm saying that you're a better player than you give yourself credit for. You come off to me as acting

deliberately

noobish.

[Pie_is_good]

Double posting to say:

I'm trying really hard to not be flaming here. I really do think Bertrand is a decent player, but he's been a little confused this game. I'm not trying to be one of those people who screams "OMG you n00bzorz" whenever someone disagrees with me. If it's coming across that way at all, I'm sorry.

[Pie_is_good]

Pie, I'm still waiting for that other stronger wagon.

TSAGod talked about the stronger wagon, not me. But the very fact that you say starting a bandwagon on scum confirms you innocent is proof enough that it doesn't. The motivation for bandwagoning fellow scum is: It makes you look innocent in the eyes of the town.

[Pie_is_good]

when scum bandwagons scum they generally don't start a powerful wagon to get their partner lynched, they start a weaker one when the stronger one is going.

One scum "confirmed innocent" is more powerful than two normal scums. Especially early in the game.

Therefore, if what you are saying is true (that scum never tries to lynch their partner), it's in the scum's best interest to lynch their partners. Your argument proves itself wrong.

[Pie_is_good]

The roleblocker shouldn't out themself on the off chance that they were the reason for the lack of a kill. Too many other possible explanations, not the least of which is that the scum have second win conditions that make choosing not to kill a feasible strategy.

QFT.

It's too early to determine anything from Roleblockers claiming, and it's entirely possible that the roleblocker, should there be one, isn't responsible for the kills (or lack thereof).

[Pie_is_good]

I'll agree with TSA on this one.

Vote: Thok

Basing a risky short-term strategy on very limited information is bad play.

Oh, and if anybody has sigs turned off or whatever: I'm going to be out of town from
Saturday the 18th to Friday the 24th.

[Pie_is_good]

I am back.

:blink:

Okay, I confused Bertrand and Thok in that last post. I'm seeing both as somewhat scummy, and I could honestly go with either. Bertrand could be passed off as a scum or just an inexperienced townie.

Thok almost seemed so in to the "cult" idea based on just two nokills-- there are plenty of explanations for that other than cult, and he just seemed to be a little too in to that idea. It looked to me like he had extra information.

[Pie_is_good]

I'm not sure that Thok is all that scummy, he's just the current bandwagon. Under a time constraint, I'd rather just get a bandwagon rolling.

[Pie_is_good]

Given that we're down to 2 days before the Deadline, I think we should have both Thok and Bertrand claim (and lynch the scummiest) to save time.

Not voting Bertrand to give him a *little* breathing room to claim in.

...and, to make things perfectly clear, I'll go for the lynch if Bertrand doesn't claim in his next post.

[Pie_is_good]

Unvote, Vote: Bertrand

Tomorrow's the deadline, and I don't see us getting a claim and having time to analyze it in time.

[Pie_is_good]

Yeah, he seems effectively SK-without-a-kill for his major WC. Good enough lynch for me.

/already voting Bertrand

[Pie_is_good]

Unvote, Vote: Bertrand

Tomorrow's the deadline, and I don't see us getting a claim and having time to analyze it in time.

I had suspicions of Pie_is_good from before, and this seems needlessly cavalier, especially when the very next post turned out to be bertrand's claim.

vote: Pie_is_good

[/quote]

I felt it was neccesary to be somewhat cavalier, given that we were under tight deadline, the game was at a crawl, and Bertrand had been somewhat lurky through the game. So yes, it was fairly "cavalier," but not needlessly so. In 20/20 hindsight, he claimed in the next post, but how can you expect me to know that beforehand?


In other news, I did a quick reread, and the only thing that really popped out at me is this:

Some of us might have major win conditions that require us to avoid being culted?

Are you (Thok) saying that

you

have WCs that avoid being cult'd? If so, why would you not claim that earlier? It seems pretty blatantly protown, and it doesn't neccesarily hurt or help your chances of being culted.


Pie

[Pie_is_good]

If a scum outs their partners, I would focus on acheiving my Win Conditions first, but I'd certainly be willing to cut a deal. Maybe, if we're about to lynch, we could give the person a chance to cut some kind of a deal.

I'd be up for it.

[Pie_is_good]

-Adele's plan looks great. I have to agree.

I'm going to go out on a bit of a limb and say this: Based on my role, I have a little bit of a reason to suspect Thok. I'd like to get a claim from him.

Vote: Thok

[Pie_is_good]

Could you expand on that a little bit? More precisely, how solid is this evidence?

The evidence is not 100% conclusive, but it's pretty incriminating. My knowledge of his actions so far has been consistant with my knowledge of a scum's actions so far, and that's about all I can say on the subject without giving too much away. Also, I have a chance of catching him in a lie if he claims wrong.

Any particular reason for the semi claim which will undoubtedly become a full or near full claim? Surely if you had waited for a claim from Thok you could wouldn't have tipped him off first...

Reason - because we have 9 alive and 3 or 4 scum left, meaning someone's going to need to change something or else we are going to lose.

Waiting - If you'll notice, I have bandwagoned/voted Thok a few times in the past. In the above post, I said the minimum I could possibly say that I thought would induce a claim.

[Pie_is_good]

Reason - because we have 9 alive and 3 or 4 scum left, meaning someone's going to need to change something or else we are going to lose.

...a one-for-one tradeoff with the town player dying first would probably be pretty good for scum right now. Now, I don't think the numbers are quite as drastic as what he's describing, but I'm not going to vote without a bit more information. I'm not averse to the idea of Thok claiming, but I think he should do it without vote pressure, because it isn't clear that vote pressure is safe right now.

The 'Reason' that I gave above was the reasoning behind me deciding to play a little risky, not neccesarily reasoning behind why you should believe me. It was responding to the people asking why I decided to semiclaim.

I'd be okay with Thok claiming under no vote pressure, but I haven't heard him agree to claim at all yet.
Until then...

Pie

[Pie_is_good]

FoS: People voting VitaminR

If we won't make Thok claim, I'll claim to put more solid evidence on him. I assume that I'm going to end up claiming anyways if we're ever going to lynch him, but if I do it after Thok claims I'll have a better chance of catching him in a lie.

[Pie_is_good]

No, it's all based on role.

[Pie_is_good]

Maybe. What results (if any) did you get on Fuldu?

[Pie_is_good]

I will be content to claim if Thok answers three more questions:

-Do you usually get results on people you target?
-If so, was there anything abnormal about your results?
-If so, what?

[Pie_is_good]

I was roleblocked Night 1, if that's what you were asking.

Yes, and this information is now virtually useless, given that I had to hint so strongly in order to get a claim.


Thok was random-blocked night 1 (some may disagree, but I think it's worth randomblocking as a roleblocker). Because of the no-kill, I blocked him again night 2. No kill again. Night 3 I blocked Bertrand, for obvious reasons, and the kill showed up (assuming Bertrand's death was due to a vig).

...hence the suspicion.

[Pie_is_good]

Well, if he was scum, he wouldn't

know

for sure that he'd been getting roleblocked.

[Pie_is_good]

And about the scum group sending out someone different - He could still be an SK. But either way, the odds that I was responsible for one of the kill-less nights are, IMHO, too high to ignore.

[Pie_is_good]

I have to agree with Adele here - saying she's female is consistant with both town and scum's actions. Doesn't really prove much.

[Pie_is_good]

Well, looks like the Thok thing is done. He can be let off with an IGMEOY.

...although I'll say that he might be a decent target for our cop, provided the cop doesn't already have an innocent there.

[Pie_is_good]

Well, looks like the Thok thing is done. He can be let off with an IGMEOY.

...although I'll say that he might be a decent target for our cop, provided the cop doesn't already have an innocent there.

So the IGMEOY = a vote from you?

IGMEOY

...I'm still here.

Well, yes. He's still the most supsicious in my mind. The bandwagon threat seems to have died off, though.

[Pie_is_good]

Unvote, Vote: Stevie

[Pie_is_good]

Here, still finding Stevie more suspicious.

He's changed his vote in posts 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10 , and he's made 13 posts (1 of which is just a "I'll be gone" post). Also, his posts have been short and fairly argument-less. That's not to say he's never presented an argument (once, I think), but he's never followed through with one. That's a majority, people.

His bandwagoning is a little too shameless for my tastes. Not taking risks is more scummy, IMHO, then taking risks and getting questionable results.