Mafia Behind the Maiden (Game over!)

[ToastyToast]

oh, the other question: It seems an unnecessary comment to make, and the buddying=all those people you <3 may actually fall for something and see you as town for it. It works similar to sheeping. A scum sheep can be like "I like this guys opinion!" The person who made said opinion will be happy that they managed to convince someone, and thus the similar opinion leads to a town read. With buddying, its the same, but the "similar opinion" takes the form of a compliment. I think it could work the other way, but thats not what I was getting at. Just like your past negative relationship with UN has made you want to ignore him, a highly positive experience with a player could make you less willing to vote them, whether or not you consciously realize it.

PEDIT: In my long post I think I said I thought you guys were both town. I understand the whole pot-shot thing, but I disagree that you are the only victim of it. Sounds to me like its just how Glork is playing--taking short little jabs at people. I think glork is explaining less than he thinks he is, which could be the issue/why he isn't responding.

[ToastyToast]

Why? You didn't have a similar reaction to me trying to move SpyreX onto Tammy. What makes the two situations different? Is me trying to get my scumreads lynched scummy? Why?

No, they aren't different. UN did it as well. I would've mentioned SpyreX and Glork, but most of it occurred prior to where I needed to catch up. Being like "oh hey, you should just vote Toast" is just a dick move that is basically telling people they don't have to think for themselves. Not necessarily scummy but it definitely rubs me the wrong way.

[Vi]

Vote Count III:

Leonardo
ToastyToast (L-7) ~ Haze, Duplicity, UberNinja, Glork, SpyreX, Debonair Danny DiPietro, Tierce, implosion
Alchemist (L-11) ~ MathGirl277, Nikanor, Magister Ludi, Nexus
Tammy (L-12) ~ dramonic, Oman, singersigner
UberNinja (L-13) ~ Lady Lambdadelta, Teleporting Speed Hippos,

ToastyToast

Magister Ludi (L-13) ~ Wyrd, Zdenek
Tierce (L-13) ~

Quilford, Tammy, MaguaofIllusion,

Oversoul, ToastyToast
Nikanor (L-14) ~ Hinduragi
Glork (L-14) ~ Alchemist
singersigner (L-14) ~ Gammagooey
MaguaofIllusion (L-14) ~ Tammy
SpyreX (L-14) ~ MaguaofIllusion

Wyrd (L-15) ~

Quilford

Hinduragi (L-15) ~

Zdenek

Not Voting:

implosion,

Katsuki, GreyICE, Quilford

-Replacing Katsuki. Please hold...

--With 29 alive, it takes 15 to lynch.

3

[dramonic]

Perception: You`re trying to get valorization from that post more than actually trying to show that Glork is scum.
That`s how I see it.

EDIT: That looks NOTHING like Leonardo 0-o
also we`re at three.

Maybe if you tried promoting him, etc.
Also if all else fails, one can blame that it's fanart. I'm just trying to pick out the good ones. ~Vi

[Alchemist]

What does that have to do with the merit of my arguments? Yes, I want you to acknowledge (or anyone for that matter) where exactly my post has value and where it doesnt.

[Alchemist]

yo vi you should use this

http://x9j1.deviantart.com/art/Roy-Fire ... -201436596

Spoiler:

fuckn lol

[dramonic]

What does that have to do with the merit of my arguments? Yes, I want you to acknowledge (or anyone for that matter) where exactly my post has value and where it doesnt.

I mean it looks more like a "I am town!" post than a "Glork is scum!" post.
Is what I'm trying to say.

[Alchemist]

I dont care what it looks like.

Address my points.

[dramonic]

I did.
Your points are incapable of conveying the "intended" objective and seem purely meant to discredit the person you're interacting with and paint you in a positive light.
With very little success I might add.

[Tierce]

It's not number of dead people, it's not number of VCs (VC 1 had a zero), it's not random.

I'm paranoid about that goddamn blue number.

[Alchemist]

I did.
Your points are incapable of conveying the "intended" objective and seem purely meant to discredit the person you're interacting with and paint you in a positive light.
With very little success I might add.

Uh, no you didnt.

Whats with all the babbling? Talk to me straight dude.

1. Are my assumptions about Glork's behavior and attitudes fair?
2. Do you acknowledge that Glork misrepsented me in http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.ph ... 6#p4092336?
3. What do you think of Glork's initial vote on me?

[Duplicity]

I'm feeling marginally better about Toasty, while I don't think his wall post screams town by any means I can understand a lot of his other thoughts and really like him stating he thinks Glork-Alchemist is T v T especially since looking at how this is going Alchemist is the likely counterwagon to him.

MoI's angle of attack attack on SpyreX is incredibly town though I like SpyreX's response a lot and don't exactly thing the "I'm not good at scum ect. ect" is anywhere near as strong a scum-tell as MoI seems to believe it is. Implosions post especially the later part of it including him saying that Alchemist is scum is bad. It's the sort of stance I see him taking as scum, leaving himself open to the option of jumping to that wagon if the Toasty one was to dissolve whereas I think as town he'd be seeing the exact same thing we are about why Alchemist is town.

Oh god Alchemist. I sat down and thought 'oh awesome, dot points that I can go through and explain to you exactly where you're wrong' but really your post isn't anything ressembling a case against Glork. His vote on you for #380 is somewhat understandable given he has no meta on you and that your post was trash, was fluff and was in a structure that's not commonly used. Post #386 of yours was similar in that the way you formated and went through your points were awful. Also the difference between Glork attacking you here and scum in the past is that Glork stopped and considered that perhaps your posts were more-so playerstyle related than anything else which #399 shows. He didn't respond to your points there because he was waiting on peoples responses to whether this is just your meta or if you're flailing scum, when he got his answer he backed of a bit.

Duplicity, Magna/Magua, Glork, what's the justice wagons?

Ludi/Singer/LLD/Hind/Implosion/Nexus. You should ISO them at least and let me know what you think about them too.

Unvote, Vote: Ludi

[MaguaofIllusion]

@Tierce:

$10 is it's related to activity; the less activity, the faster the number goes up, when the number hits a target, bad things happen. The inverse of the battery mechanic in every other Vi game.

That being said, you're not dumb, you're not ignorant of Vi's other games, I can't believe it would take you more than 20 seconds to come up with this theory. Instead it's all, "WHATCANITBE?!?!?!" I very much agree with Oversoul that this seems exactly like you being all, "Look how ignorant of the setup I am, that's a towntell!"

@Toasty:

As hypocritical as this is considering who I'm hydra'ing with, those quote stripe walls, they won't get read (by me, at least).

@Alchemist:

Here's the thing. My desire to lynch Glork D1 is low because if he's town, he'll die N1. It's a lot like Magna. Come back and visit him if he's alive D3 or D4.

[Tierce]

@Tierce:

$10 is it's related to activity; the less activity, the faster the number goes up, when the number hits a target, bad things happen. The inverse of the battery mechanic in every other Vi game.

That being said, you're not dumb, you're not ignorant of Vi's other games, I can't believe it would take you more than 20 seconds to come up with this theory. Instead it's all, "WHATCANITBE?!?!?!" I very much agree with Oversoul that this seems exactly like you being all, "Look how ignorant of the setup I am, that's a towntell!"

I'm not actually bothering to make theories.

1) I don't know the flavor.
2) It's D1.

I typically go into wild off-the-wall theory mode later in the game (as scum (see the scum QT for MLP) or town (see Weather Mafia II), so no, I'm not trying to make this a towntell, tyvm), today I'd much rather watch scum eat rope and see what happens to the number when we get a nightcycle in. There's not much point in blind speculation atm. I'm wary. I won't allow myself to be distracted by it for too long.

[Alchemist]

unvote
vote: ludi

choo choo

I played glorkRevere, you've been warned.

[Glork]

Whee, okay.

I elected not to go into detail about my initial vote, which was completely intentional. History shows (and any one of like 15-20 people in this game can confirm) that this is a VERY common thing for Glork to do. Getting people to react to a vote without knowing entirely why that vote was placed is a tactic that generally only works when used by experienced/accomplished scumhunters, but it's a damned good one *if* it's used well. I pointed to two posts as the reason for placing my vote.

Dramonic actually hit the nail on the head with his Post 578 (by the way, Tim, Post Tags are your friend):

Perception: You`re trying to get valorization from that post more than actually trying to show that Glork is scum.
That`s how I see it.

This is exactly what he did with ML that led me to vote him to begin with.

Post 380 is/was a post where you spent most of your time and energy into trying to make your argument look... idk, cute? appealing? amusing?... I'm not exactly sure what the best word to use here is. Regardless, the format was obviously intended to do *something*, and the fact that you put so much into it without really fleshing out any kind of argument or making any inquiry to further asses ML's alignment/position gave off an "I'm using rhetoric, but not bothering to scumhunt" feeling.

This is a scumtell.

I voted you, and then you posted Post 386. Your first sentence is awful and hypocritical. I looked at Activity Overview, and at that point I believe 6 players, including you, had made more posts than ML, including doozies such as Post 18 (RVS, excusable), Post 64, Post 149, Post 179, and Post 236. There's obviously been a complete lack of effort on your part to contribute, so when you make a post that is 90% cutesy word choice and 10% actual tangible content, it's plenty enough to raise an eyebrow.
You then CONTINUE with the rhetoric, with the "hurt feelings" and "wounded soldier" nonsense, when browbeating isn't remotely appropriate.
His Point 1 is true (again, see the posts I linked to, where you DO post a lot without really saying anything). His point 2, I hadn't had a chance to go back and assess, so I skipped over it. Point 3 -- your "I already figured out your alignment" comment is completely worthless, becuase it's not a statement anyone can take at face value -- it accomplishes NOTHING (just like the posts I had linked to). Point 4: See Point 3. Point 5, he hasn't been any more dodgy than you have been at this point. Point 6 is nothing but an Appeal to Majority, which... oh yeah, another scumtell.

So yeah. That entire post was awful. Just like in Post 386, there was needless fluff/rhetoric, and what little content you *did* provide got lost among your attempts to "play socially" as you'd like to put it.


The best I could get was that your

choice

of language was to evoke some kind of emotional response, becuase you had little in the way of actual evidence/proof to make an actual, logical case against ML.

Your response was another pile of fluff (..."orgy"? Really? Where the fuck did you even get that word from as it relates to my post or your behavior?), at which point I thought "okay, is this really what this idiot does all the time" (Cue: Tim accusing me of ad hom again here, but I really was thinking that you were a complete moron at the time. Sorry.)
So I did what Glork often does. I sought meta references. I asked Tim to provide examples where he's been an obnoxious, wordy orator rather than someone who plays mafia using traditonal logic and scumhunting. Apparently, in your most recent big post against me, that amounts to "calling you a politiican." Again, if that's the choice of words you wish to use, go right ahead. What I

was

doing was trying to understand whether this was really a scumtell coming from you, or if you're just naturally scummy.

After that, someone (EDIT: Yes, Duplicity in Post 409) confirmed that yes, this is in fact a "feature" of your playstyle.

I pretty much dropped it at that pont and haven't really pursued a Timeater wagon since.

Sooooo yeah.



By the bye, this:

6. Based on just this experience ALONE, I feel I have enough for a scumGlork case.

pretty much undermines your entire case. You flat-out admit that you haven't taken anything else into account, which is a big part of the issue. It's really hard to sit here and watch you ask people to assess the "logical validity" of your argument when your argument is not only extremely selective, but based entirely on (flawed) speculation about the thoughts and motives behind the three posts you chose to attack.




I find it fascinating that, after using appeal to majority against ML, you've used the same thing here, asking several people to weigh in on your case against me before I can have a chance to respond.
I also find it interesting that you chose to stop your case where you did, ignoring my post where I debunked your "Glork's throwing his weight around" argument in Post 451, or Duplicity's confirmation of said playstyle in Post 481.

[Glork]

EBWOP: Addendum. Timeater, can you please read Duplicity's assessment of me in Post 481 and comment on it? Twice -- TWICE, including with you -- I reigned myself in and chose to dig a little deeper into whether someone I suspected was scum, just to doublecheck my gut. Both times I wound up changing my mind. Do you think this is a hallmark of scumplay, despite Dupe's assessment that it fits GlorkTown to a tee? If so, why?

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

@DDD: Instead of saying things, then voting a person that doesn't relate to any of the said things, could you, like, explain your votes?

SpyreX has my vote until I decide he doesn't. I'm voting Toasty because SpyreX is.

[Glork]

@Alchemist:

Here's the thing. My desire to lynch Glork D1 is low because if he's town, he'll die N1. It's a lot like Magna. Come back and visit him if he's alive D3 or D4.

Efffff Ohhhhh Essssss

Really getting tired of the "if Glork doesn't die N1 he's scum" arguments.

I didn't die before N3 in MLP Mafia.
I didn't die until like D6 in WINvitational.
I didn't die until N3 in Blood Bowl.
I didn't die at all in League.


Yawn.



Yawn yawn yawn. Kill Glork N1 is old hat. Glork gets protected enough (League, Blood Bowl) to discourage scum killing me.


Next person who says I'm scum for not dying early is eating a fucking bullet. I promise you.

[Glork]

^^^ btw, those four games I pointed out are the only four completed games I've had since coming back to the site.

[MaguaofIllusion]

@Alchemist:

Here's the thing. My desire to lynch Glork D1 is low because if he's town, he'll die N1. It's a lot like Magna. Come back and visit him if he's alive D3 or D4.

Efffff Ohhhhh Essssss

Really getting tired of the "if Glork doesn't die N1 he's scum" arguments.

I didn't die before N3 in MLP Mafia.
I didn't die until like D6 in WINvitational.
I didn't die until N3 in Blood Bowl.
I didn't die at all in League.

Yawn.

Yawn yawn yawn. Kill Glork N1 is old hat. Glork gets protected enough (League, Blood Bowl) to discourage scum killing me.

Yeah, so, that's not what I said, but it's very interesting that you took it that way.

In fact, now that you took it that way, it reads to me as pre-planned defensive posturing on your end -- that you want to make sure to get this out there D1 instead of having to bring it up D3/D4.

Next person who says I'm scum for not dying early is eating a fucking bullet. I promise you.

Well, since you put it that way, I'll go ahead and say it: if Glork doesn't die N1, he's scum.

Go.

[Zdenek]

Magister Ludi's third party hunting early rings alarm bells.

I'm really low access for the next couple of days, so I can't reply to much. I skimmed last couple pages. But this is a problem. I'm not sure at all what you're talking about here, and this seems to be the main reason you voted me. I was never third party hunting. The only passing mention I had of third party was that the second win condition could have belonged to a third party scum group, (in response to oversoul's circuitous attack) and that the regular scum win condition would hold for the scum. I seriously don't know why so many people are trying to attack me with this. I can't have been the only one confused about whether or not the second win condition was scum, and I sure as hell would not have been confused If I actually was scum and knew what the hell my win condition was.

And what are you talking about with 'early'? That whole discussion happened around page 20.

It's not the main reason I voted you. I've been bothered with your play since the start of the game. I totally don't buy confusion about the setup as a town-tell.

Early is day one, before we've seen how many night kills there are, and who get's killed.

I feel I am in the right. If you feel I am in the wrong, state why if you can be bothered to read this.

I think you are somewhat right about the interactions, but that some of things you've said exaggerate what Glork has done and when I read over the posts, I my interpretations of the events don't point to him being scum. I definitely don't have a town read on Glork, but I doubt we are lynching him today, and I'm pretty happy to wait to worry about this issue.

@Zdeneck: why is hunting for third parties early scummy?

Well, the simplest is that town's main concern is usually figuring out who is scummy and then getting them lynched. Scum need to figure out who might be SK, because that's someone they might need to NK. I can additionally say that scum often need to find a way to appear busy, and it's a heck of a lot easier on them to appear busy by talking about the setup and hunt for an SK than pushing lynches on townies, or protecting or bussing their buddies. That said, I don't believe that it's a particularly strong tell.

[Glork]

@Alchemist:

Here's the thing. My desire to lynch Glork D1 is low because if he's town, he'll die N1. It's a lot like Magna. Come back and visit him if he's alive D3 or D4.

Efffff Ohhhhh Essssss

Really getting tired of the "if Glork doesn't die N1 he's scum" arguments.

I didn't die before N3 in MLP Mafia.
I didn't die until like D6 in WINvitational.
I didn't die until N3 in Blood Bowl.
I didn't die at all in League.

Yawn.

Yawn yawn yawn. Kill Glork N1 is old hat. Glork gets protected enough (League, Blood Bowl) to discourage scum killing me.

Yeah, so, that's not what I said, but it's very interesting that you took it that way.

In fact, now that you took it that way, it reads to me as pre-planned defensive posturing on your end -- that you want to make sure to get this out there D1 instead of having to bring it up D3/D4.

Next person who says I'm scum for not dying early is eating a fucking bullet. I promise you.

Well, since you put it that way, I'll go ahead and say it: if Glork doesn't die N1, he's scum.

Go.

Do you know what a contrapositive is?

You explicitly said "If he's town, he will die N1."
The equivalent statement is "If he doesn't die N1, he is not town."

I interpreted your post that way, because that's what you said, logically speaking. Your initital statement was shit, and that's what my kneejerk (and yes, visceral, because it pisses me the fuck off almost as much as Burden of Proficiency) reaction was.




herp derp, logic is tech.

[Gammagooey]

eh don't want to vote toast. i see what people are saying about his suspicions being the main wagons but him going into detail about those 3 before 2 of them were actually being wagoned takes a lot of the punch out of the argument imo.

glork stop pulling annoying worded technicalities out of your ass you know what he meant

[Glork]

@Alchemist:

Here's the thing. My desire to lynch Glork D1 is low because if he's town, he'll die N1. It's a lot like Magna. Come back and visit him if he's alive D3 or D4.

Efffff Ohhhhh Essssss

Really getting tired of the "if Glork doesn't die N1 he's scum" arguments.

I didn't die before N3 in MLP Mafia.
I didn't die until like D6 in WINvitational.
I didn't die until N3 in Blood Bowl.
I didn't die at all in League.

Yawn.

Yawn yawn yawn. Kill Glork N1 is old hat. Glork gets protected enough (League, Blood Bowl) to discourage scum killing me.

Yeah, so, that's not what I said, but it's very interesting that you took it that way.

In fact, now that you took it that way, it reads to me as pre-planned defensive posturing on your end -- that you want to make sure to get this out there D1 instead of having to bring it up D3/D4.

Next person who says I'm scum for not dying early is eating a fucking bullet. I promise you.

Well, since you put it that way, I'll go ahead and say it: if Glork doesn't die N1, he's scum.

Go.

Gamma, that's exactly what he fucking meant. How can he say I chose to interpret his post a different way when he fucking SAID I'll be dead tonight if I'm town?

Every time I see that argument, I get visions of games such as Lights Out, where after leading two scumlynches in one day, the scums chose not to kill me specifically because Glork should have been the completely obivous kill because there were no protective roles and why on earth would anyone keep Glork alive? (The last scum said in postgame that he chose to keep me alive hoping that town would question why I was still alive.)

I've had to go through this fucking argument for 7 years, and I'm sick and tired of it popping up every 6-12 months. It's annoying as shit. So yeah, I'm shutting it down as soon as possible. I'd rather go through this shitstorm sooner rather than later. Goodness knows there are already enough retarded arguments distracting us from finding scum. What's one more to add to the mix?