Robotics Mafia Mini 347 - Game Over

[PookyTheMagicalBear]

that last bit about the not reading b4 u posted your suspicions was good pj,

like really amazinly good play there.

Why? Cuz if we do lynch Rom and he turns out to be scum, we can't use your argument against him to clear you in any way because you made the attack post BEFORE you found out your alignment.

Would a scum reveal that sort of stuff so that if Rom is lynched as scum and turns up guilty and cut off his best clearance? Normally I'd say no but with you, I can see you setting it up so that you could use the fact that you DID reveal the fact that you posted b4 you checked your PM as an argument to choke off suspicion on you.

Pretty damn Tricksy.

I will contemplate further.

[petroleumjelly]

Well, I found a little bit of spare time, and I just read over the whole PWS / HIAB situation again a few times. Here's what I think about it:

1.) I do not believe that PWS was trying to bait reactions from "the actual Cop" - I am really not catching a malicious intent from him right now in that respect. If that was seriously his strategy, it was a rather subtle and well-developed one (and good enough in purpose that I will be very suspicious of it if I catch somebody doing something similar in another game), but really the only way I think he would do that purposely is if he was

coached

into doing it before the game started (which of course implies at least one experienced scum partner). Since I am not willing to follow down that particular primrose path at the moment, I am thinking that PWS simply made a random vote which unfortunately sounded very much like a Cop investigation.

2.) In rereading, I actually disliked HIAB's response to the immediate wagon less and less. First, he calls out Pooky for claiming to have an investigation, when it was, in fact, only a falsely insinuated investigation from PWS. Secondly, he suggests role-blocking (which really has no relevance to anything in a Cop headstart game). Problem is, his response was

so

unorganized in terms of actual thought processes (that sounds mean, so apologies) that I can't really determine if he was panicked town or panicked scum. His willingness to claim so

quickly

is something I also can't place an aligment finger on (since I have unfortunately witnessed both townspeople and scum who are willing to claim at the drop of a hat simply to get wagons off of them).

3.) I am actually not as concerned with PWS's votes as other people seem to be. He random voted HIAB (which, as stated above, I do not believe was malicious), and then switched to Bacde (although I was not too impressed with his reasoning [something to do with 'letting Pooky live?]), although he clearly expressed agreement with Glork's analysis by saying "I heart Deathmask Nezumi" (i.e. Glork's avatar).

Also, he never jumped on the Scalebane-wagon, which I can be pretty sure scum had at least a small hand in. His continuation vote on Bacde/Ibby on Day Two is consistent with where he left his vote on Day One (Bacde).

PWS's vote on Romanus wasn't that bad, in my opinion. I expressed a case against Romanus, and Romanus waved the "I only acted scummy for discussion"-wand as a defense. PWS was not satisfied with such a defense, so he voted for him (and asked for a

better

defense, rather than pushing for a claim or a lynch). Semi-noteworthy is that although he said he was putting Romanus at 4 votes, he was actually only putting him at 3 votes, seeing as MoS had unvoted Romanus by that time.

Overall, my only qualm with PWS is that I wish he would put more explanations into his votes. Other than that, I don't think he is particularly more likely than anybody else to be scum.

*****

For Pooks:

You silly ol' bear. I only mentioned that simply so that it should be clear that I did not have any scummy intentions of trying to 'misrepresent' Bacde or anything (as MoS is trying to argue): that was simply my personal opinion on the state of game without knowledge of any of the roles in the game.

[PlaysWithSquirrels]

Let me address a point that keeps coming up again and again. The not-so-random vote thing: it wasn't me trying to be sneaky.

If I had a cop investigation, I would say so. If I was trying to breadcrumb or lead the town in the right direction without exposing myself, saying "not-so-random vote" would be stupid. I would have been exposed. The reasoning that I'm scum trying to get a rise out of a real cop is pretty far-fetched. I can't really say that it isn't plausible, because I guess it is. I know it certainly isn't something that I could think of and the thought that an experienced player would take the time to come up with this bizarre play and have me execute it is pretty outrageous? I have a history of making stupid jokes in game. You can go check that.

As for the relative lack of explanation for my votes, I apologize if my reasoning isn't clear. Romunus's "I'm just trying to spark conversation" defense was pretty awful. By the time he had chimed in, we were pretty much on our way to a discussion. Doing scummy things and just playing them off as "furthering the game" doesn't fly with me.

I'm gonna need a reread.

[PlaysWithSquirrels]

Also, where the hell is EnderX?

[Glork]

I'm gonna play the "meta" card and guess that PWS did not think to draw any cop roles out by claiming "not-random" vote. I think that kind of insinuation is a little ridiculous.

[ibaesha]

Semi-noteworthy is that although he said he was putting Romanus at 4 votes, he was actually only putting him at 3 votes, seeing as MoS had unvoted Romanus by that time.

What do you think of this in regards to the fact that on page 1 of day 1, he unvoted HIAB for fear of quicklynching? 5 out of 7 votes on day 1 vs 4 out of 6 votes on day 2. It's equal so even though Romanus was at 3 votes, if he -thought- Romanus was at 4, why isn't he concerned with the same thing as he was yesterday? Clearly, we weren't ready for a lynch yet considering the heavy duty conversation that was going on and the fact that the day is still young (IMO).

PWS: Would you care to answer for that?

Also, where the hell is EnderX?

Agreed.

[EnderX]

EnderX has had his available free time drastically cut due to work-related incidentry. I've already PM'd Coron about replacing me.

[petroleumjelly]

There's a pretty distinct difference between yesterday's HIAB and today's Romanus wagon.

1.) HIAB's wagon was based off of what people thought to be a Cop investigation. PWS knew that was not the case, and so stopped the wagon before it could progress further. That is the exact type of wagon people

should

hop off

2.) There are actual reasons to be pushing on and voting for Romanus. The same was not true of HIAB.

3.) PWS also cited a specific purpose for his vote on Romanus (when there was no reason for his vote to be on HIAB), with the implication that if Romanus could defend himself better than "I was promoting discussion", he would *probably* consider unvoting (although he never said that, it seems strongly implied).

The two wagons are in no way synonymous in substance, which changes the context of having somebody at lynch -2.

[PlaysWithSquirrels]

Semi-noteworthy is that although he said he was putting Romanus at 4 votes, he was actually only putting him at 3 votes, seeing as MoS had unvoted Romanus by that time.

What do you think of this in regards to the fact that on page 1 of day 1, he unvoted HIAB for fear of quicklynching? 5 out of 7 votes on day 1 vs 4 out of 6 votes on day 2. It's equal so even though Romanus was at 3 votes, if he -thought- Romanus was at 4, why isn't he concerned with the same thing as he was yesterday? Clearly, we weren't ready for a lynch yet considering the heavy duty conversation that was going on and the fact that the day is still young (IMO).

PWS: Would you care to answer for that?

Also, where the hell is EnderX?

Agreed.

I would like to answer. HIAB was 2 votes away from lynch I believe. We had absolutely nothing to go by. I mean pressure is cool and all, but I didn't want anyone lynched on false assumptions.

Romanus, however, I'm pretty sure is scum. I don't mind putting him at 2 to lynch.

[Mastermind of Sin]

3.) I didn't put words in your mouth: your exact interpretation of Bacde's post was this:

You actually thought he was a cop coming out?

wait,

I wasn't the only one thinking this?

Imagine that.

How else am I supposed to read this? It certainly sounds to me like you are saying Bacde was saying: "

I wasn't the only person to think that PWS could be a Cop coming out?

"

Which is equivalent to what I said:

5.) What? Now you just admitted that Bacde considered PWS could be a Cop.

I was not "putting words in your mouth". If you meant something else, say so, otherwise I see no other interpretation of your statement.

I wasn't interpreting for Bacde there. That was me talking, not him. I was saying,

"wow, I wasn't the only one who was surprised that he thought PWS was a cop coming out?"

, which is essentially what Bacde was saying as well. The only difference was that he voiced it before I could.

[Romanus]

Somehow, I never took any of that early voting, random, non-random thing as very serious. It was a little wierd, but just looked like a bit of a misunderstanding to me. It may be that it is being way to over analyzed.

[PlaysWithSquirrels]

*bump?*

Quick! Somebody say something insightful!

[Glork]

Ender needs replaced?

[PlaysWithSquirrels]

Touche.

[Mastermind of Sin]

boom!

[petroleumjelly]

Vote: Romanus

, and

FoS: Mastermind of Sin

. I just reread the game by itself, then each player individually.

I still think Romanus is the best place for my vote right now. My reasons have not changed. Being scummy, and then defending it by "I was trying to promote discussion" does not work with me. I understand that by holding that position, there is really no way you can 'defend' your actions further, but I still think you are the most likely person to be scum at the moment, so that's where my vote will stay, unless I find reason to move it.

Mastermind of Sin had not really participated (which I consider to be going into detail on one's thoughts) in the game

until

I came in and made my post against Romanus (who MoS had been voting at the time), at which time MoS shifted the subject to Bacde/PJ and the fact that he disagreed with my interpretation of Bacde's actions. I am getting the feeling that he was trying to "get me in trouble" so to speak: by calling my posts 'flailing'; that I must have been 'suffering from a short lapse into the realm of stupidity' into believing that PWS may have been a Cop (this line almost sounds like something

Coron

would say) even though he must necessarily universalize that into meaning that Glork, Pooky, and Lordy must have suffered from the same illness, seeing as they thought the same thing; saying that I stated that "hypocrit must = scum", which is, and never will be, my position in any game; and calling my argument 'bullshit'. Fact is, that was

my

interpretation of Bacde's actions, I

supported

my interpretation, and I don't much care if MoS does not agree with my interpretation. I can understand the position he is coming from, but the manner and timing in which he attacked to me state his opinion does not sit well with me.

MoS, what is your take on Romanus? Ever since I talked about my opinion Bacde, you have failed to mention him, even though that's where your vote was before I replaced.

Ibaesha, are you avoiding this game for a reason? Please explain why. I gave my position on the PWS / HIAB, and I was sort of expecting a response since you are the person currently advocating voting for PWS. Do you still think his intent was malicious? Do you still think his vote on Romanus is 'scummy as hell'? If so, explain why.

[ibaesha]

Nope, not avoiding this game at all. I just didn't have much to say as I felt that we were at an impasse.

As for PWS: I think it's possible his intent was malicious and I'm not inclined to let it be entirely dismissed. I believe that you and others are possibly underestimating him. It's also odd to me that with the huge deal you've made about the cop headstart, that you're willing to dismiss PWS's actions so easily. Either I am being overly paranoid, or you're not being paranoid enough. His vote on Romanus still appears like a convenient bandwagon vote to me based on how and when it was placed.

Beyond that, I am waiting for some things.
1. For HIAB to respond to the questions and suspiciouns put forward to/about him.
2. For Romanus to respond to the suspicions you raised about him from his behavior yesterday. While earlier in the day I didn't find him that suspicious, his focus on only trying to defend his vote on me while ignoring everything else and fading off after he was 'trying to get reactions' is suspicious.
3. For EnderX to be replaced.

[Mastermind of Sin]

I voted Romanus for placing the third vote on a wagon, especially when it only takes 3 to lynch, and for apparently no reason. I don't buy his excuse about wanting to generate discussion. I think it's just a copout because he got called on a scummy play. Then you came along and rang every alarm in the place, so I had someone better to vote. What more do you want to know?

[Romanus]

I voted Romanus for placing the third vote on a wagon, especially when it only takes 3 to lynch, and for apparently no reason. I don't buy his excuse about wanting to generate discussion. I think it's just a copout because he got called on a scummy play.

I want everyone to note that my "copout" actually happened before anyone called my play scummy. I never changed my tune on why I was voting for Ibby. Go back and acutally look at the sequence of events. I said that I thought my vote on Ibby would generate more discussion. I classified it as a bandwagon with no reason BEFORE anyone saw fit to call me scummy for doing it.

There have been a couple of early day things that were really jokes, or not that serious that have been held onto by certain people. Unwillingness to see another point of view or actually feigning ignorance and stupidity are somewhat scummy to me.

Also, in my defense, I helped to get the Scalebane lynch. I called him out for a logical fallacy, and not long after he cracked. I am NOT saying I did it all by my lonesome, and he did crack rather easily. I also know that that doesn't clear me, but should get me some creedence.

Now what exactly am I supposed to be responding to about Day 1? My FOS on Pooky. My helping to get Scalebane lynched? My dismissal of the early Day one issue? Not sure.

[PlaysWithSquirrels]

I really don't know what to say to that.

[Glork]

Hmm.... for my (and others') reference, here are the posts in question:

Yesterday was extremely productive, but did little if nothing to help today. I'm all for getting this wagon moving and seeing what happens

Vote: Ibby

With 10 alive and 5 to lynch, that's 3 votes already, without much practical reasoning put forth to discuss.

vote: Romanus

Of the three votes, I think yours has the least basis, since you essentially claim to be voting him because we don't have any good info from yesterday, so you'll bandwagon him because he already had 2 votes.

Dude, where is everyone. I thought my unexplained wagon on Ibby would generate more than this.

As far as context goes, there was basically no relevant discussion between Posts 168 and 178.

So, looking at this... I understand where MoS is coming from, since Romanus put Ibby halfway to lynch, and he really didn't give any reasoning. But (go ahead and accuse me of WIFOM here) I'm having a little trouble thinking that Romanus would be that *blatant* if he was scum going after Ibby. It's hard to tell whether Romanus was going "Crap, MoS is onto me!" or whether he was going "Why isn't anyone doing anything about my blatant wagon?" But I'm leaning towards the latter, given that almost *NOTHING* else was going on. It's a lot easier for scum to sit back and lay low when the game is inactive than to go "Guys, I'm giving you something to talk about." I'm thinking that Romanus is probably legit on this one, even if he was being a little sloppy.

[Glork]

In fact, looking at Post 167, Romanus says "I wanna see what happens." Definitely a reaction-finding attempt.

[PlaysWithSquirrels]

Hmm.... for my (and others') reference, here are the posts in question:

Yesterday was extremely productive, but did little if nothing to help today. I'm all for getting this wagon moving and seeing what happens

Vote: Ibby

With 10 alive and 5 to lynch, that's 3 votes already, without much practical reasoning put forth to discuss.

vote: Romanus

Of the three votes, I think yours has the least basis, since you essentially claim to be voting him because we don't have any good info from yesterday, so you'll bandwagon him because he already had 2 votes.

Dude, where is everyone. I thought my unexplained wagon on Ibby would generate more than this.

As far as context goes, there was basically no relevant discussion between Posts 168 and 178.

So, looking at this... I understand where MoS is coming from, since Romanus put Ibby halfway to lynch, and he really didn't give any reasoning. But (go ahead and accuse me of WIFOM here) I'm having a little trouble thinking that Romanus would be that *blatant* if he was scum going after Ibby. It's hard to tell whether Romanus was going "Crap, MoS is onto me!" or whether he was going "Why isn't anyone doing anything about my blatant wagon?" But I'm leaning towards the latter, given that almost *NOTHING* else was going on. It's a lot easier for scum to sit back and lay low when the game is inactive than to go "Guys, I'm giving you something to talk about." I'm thinking that Romanus is probably legit on this one, even if he was being a little sloppy.

Well said, Glork. I tend to agree. I was kind of leaning that way when I saw Romanus try to probe himself town by saying he called out the SK. "I'm trying to generate discussion" really isn't a tactic used by an experienced player.

Unvote

.

[Coron]

searching for a replacement.

[Coron]

Mas medias kindly replaces enderx