Robotics Mafia Mini 347 - Game Over

[Maz Medias]

"I'm trying to generate discussion" really isn't a tactic used by an experienced player.

Unvote

.

PJ would like to talk to you.

[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.

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.

Soooo many things wrong with this post. Where to begin...

First off, let's show a little sequence of events:

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

The initial vote.

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.

The next consecutive post, calling you out for having little to no basis behind your vote.

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

10 posts later, the copout.

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.

(italics and bold mine)

Oops. Did we just look at the sequence of events? Did we just see someone classify the wagon as having no basis and call you scummy for it RIGHT after you placed the vote? Oops.

I think that just about shows how full of bullshit

THAT

statement is.

Now to move on to part two.

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.

And this precludes you from being mafia

how?

All you need to know is that Scalebane isn't one of your scumbuddies. In fact, him being an SK was

incentive

for you to get him lynched, so if you really thought he was scum I would expect you to go after him even more as scum than as town. This argument is completely incompetant and invalid.

Unvote, Vote: Romanus, FoS: PJ

[Glork]

Wow, MoS. You're dense. Did you not read my posts?

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

Underlining mine.
Note that he wants to "see what happens when he bandwagons Ibby." It's pretty obvious that "what happens" would, ideally, be a series of reactions from Ibby (which we eventually got) and from other players (which we got from... well, mostly you and PJ).

THAT

is what makes Romanus' claim of "I was fishing for reactions" perfectly feasable. His statement isn't "full of bullshit" as you claim.

You then say that Romanus is bandwagoning "because [Ibby] had 2 votes." Partially true. But there seemed to have been an underlying reason... one that Romanus then explained.


I have a question for you, MoS. Is your blatant misrepresentation an attempt to shove momentum onto Romanus, or are you just illiterate?




You do have a point on the "but I helped find the SK" thing... I nailed the SK as a Godfather in Caddyshack Mafia (though I didn't even attempt to use it as a defense later on). Finding/Lynching an SK is pretty much a neutral action; scum want to get rid of him just as much as the town would, usually.

[GlorkoS]

Glork, I saw your post. I see where you're coming from, but I disagree. I think that it was just another excuse to pile on a third vote for no good reason.

And you're wrong on yet another point, or at least mistaken. The "statement" I was referring to was Romanus' claim that he explained himself before anyone called him out on it, when his explanation came 10 posts AFTER I called him out on it. Either you're blind, or you mistook which "statement" I was referring to.

So no, I'm neither misrepresenting him (blatantly or otherwise) nor am I illiterate.

[Mastermind of Sin]

Oops, I did it again...

[Glork]

Hmm... alright, I see where you're coming from. I want to hear from Romanus one more time before I decide what I think about this whole thing.

[Romanus]

I'm all for getting this wagon moving and seeing what happens

This is my reason given for voting for Ibby. Then MOS made his statement and voted me. Then I said this:

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

more

than this.

underline and bold mine. Notice I say MORE discussion.

My reason for the Ibby vote has never changed. I did it to generate discussion, and it has. If it causes my downfall then I really have no one to blame other than myself.

As for the Scalebane thing. The reason I brought it up was because it was the most substantial post I made on the first day. In my post I say that lynching the SK does not clear me:

I also know that that doesn't clear me, but should get me some creedence.

MOS quotes this and immediately yells about how lynching the SK is a nuetral act and does not clear me. NO SHIT HUH, wonder where you got that from, maybe from my own post.

In all of this I have only been called scummy or whatever for things that I claimed myself.

I wanted people to attack me for wagoning Ibby, and said so when I voted for her.
I said lynching the SK did not clear me.

[Mastermind of Sin]

I'm all for getting this wagon moving and seeing what happens

This is my reason given for voting for Ibby. Then MOS made his statement and voted me. Then I said this:

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

more

than this.

underline and bold mine. Notice I say MORE discussion.

My reason for the Ibby vote has never changed. I did it to generate discussion, and it has. If it causes my downfall then I really have no one to blame other than myself.

As for the Scalebane thing. The reason I brought it up was because it was the most substantial post I made on the first day. In my post I say that lynching the SK does not clear me:

I also know that that doesn't clear me, but should get me some creedence.

MOS quotes this and immediately yells about how lynching the SK is a nuetral act and does not clear me. NO SHIT HUH, wonder where you got that from, maybe from my own post.

In all of this I have only been called scummy or whatever for things that I claimed myself.

I wanted people to attack me for wagoning Ibby, and said so when I voted for her.
I said lynching the SK did not clear me.

You referred specifically to your "copout", which had already been defined as post 178, NOT post 167. In this instance, your statement that your copout came before anyone called you on it was a lie. Stop trying to get around that.

As for the SK thing, you also expected to get some creedence because you helped get him lynched, and I was telling you that you get

nothing

, because there is just as much incentive, if not more, for scum to find the SK as opposed to town looking for him.

So no, I'm not attacking you for things you claimed. I'm attacking the things you claimed falsely. You keep trying to misdirect by acting like your original statement

means

something. I've already explained why I don't buy it, so please stop trying to use that as evidence. You're only repeating the same BS over and over, try to bring something new to the discussion.

[Romanus]

The problem is that there never was a "copout" because I never changed my tune. So, to say that the"copout" happened in one place or the other is crap, because there never was one. I was and am consistent and unrelenting on my reasoning for the Ibby vote, deal with it. You don't like my reason, fine, but don't try and say I changed my story, because I never did.

[Mastermind of Sin]

Well I wasn't even arguing that point. You're the one who referred specifically to your "copout", not me. If you wanna argue the other point, I'm of the firm belief that you put that little phrase on the end of your bandwagon post just so that you could point back to it if someone called you out.

[Romanus]

Oh please.

[ibaesha]

I get the distinct impression that PWS is following Glork.

Glork makes argument against Bacde: PWS votes Bacde. (supposedly based on Glork's reasoning)
Glork never voted for Scalebane: Neither did PWS
Glork votes me: PWS votes me.
Glork votes Romanus: PWS votes Romanus.
Glork makes counter-argument to Romanus vote (doesn't unvote himself): PWS agrees and unvotes.

This is interesting considering this: (which PJ never addressed, noted)

The rest of his contribution to the day say that he wasn't suspicious of anyone, but following Pooky seemed like a good idea. And this is conveniently placed after Glork calls the Pooky wagon scummy. (noted: You called out Romanus' reaction to Glork's post, but failed to notice this)

Still happy with my PWS vote. I get the impression that PWS is afraid to take his own stance on things while blending in by agreeing with/following Glork throughout. While there's nothing wrong with agreeing with Glork (I feel that he's most likely pro-town atm) there is a problem with never offering insight outside of what Glork has already brought up.

My first impression of Romanus' vote on me still stands.

Romanus: PJ brought up some issues against you in post 198 to which he requested I respond based on my not finding you suspicious from day 1. I did so in post 210 and added my own questions/request for clarification on a couple issues. Those are the things I feel you've failed to address today.

About MoS: I don't agree with his take on Romanus, obviously. However, I do agree with his suspicions in regards to PJ and I have felt that MoS has somewhat been defending Bacde/me today, which has made me more trusting of him. Whether or not that trust is misplaced is something I'm slightly unsure of but currently I'm inclined to believe it isn't.

I was expecting a bit more out of Maz when he replaced EnderX, especially since EnderX's contributions have been rather sparse.

mod: Can we get a prod on HIAB

[PlaysWithSquirrels]

I get the distinct impression that PWS is following Glork.

Glork makes argument against Bacde: PWS votes Bacde. (supposedly based on Glork's reasoning)
Glork never voted for Scalebane: Neither did PWS
Glork votes me: PWS votes me.
Glork votes Romanus: PWS votes Romanus.
Glork makes counter-argument to Romanus vote (doesn't unvote himself): PWS agrees and unvotes.

This is interesting considering this: (which PJ never addressed, noted)

The rest of his contribution to the day say that he wasn't suspicious of anyone, but following Pooky seemed like a good idea. And this is conveniently placed after Glork calls the Pooky wagon scummy. (noted: You called out Romanus' reaction to Glork's post, but failed to notice this)

Still happy with my PWS vote. I get the impression that PWS is afraid to take his own stance on things while blending in by agreeing with/following Glork throughout. While there's nothing wrong with agreeing with Glork (I feel that he's most likely pro-town atm) there is a problem with never offering insight outside of what Glork has already brought up.

My first impression of Romanus' vote on me still stands.

Romanus: PJ brought up some issues against you in post 198 to which he requested I respond based on my not finding you suspicious from day 1. I did so in post 210 and added my own questions/request for clarification on a couple issues. Those are the things I feel you've failed to address today.

About MoS: I don't agree with his take on Romanus, obviously. However, I do agree with his suspicions in regards to PJ and I have felt that MoS has somewhat been defending Bacde/me today, which has made me more trusting of him. Whether or not that trust is misplaced is something I'm slightly unsure of but currently I'm inclined to believe it isn't.

I was expecting a bit more out of Maz when he replaced EnderX, especially since EnderX's contributions have been rather sparse.

mod: Can we get a prod on HIAB

I can't refute that. I'm still very much a student of this game and I'm not very confident in my abilities. It just happens to be that I agree with a lot of what Glork says. I've noticed it myself and actually scolded myself for that post saying "I really don't know what to say to that" when I really shouldn't have been afraid to retract my vote and give a reason for saying so. Personal weaknesses aside, I could bring up the point that a Glork/me scumgroup would be preposterous as I certainly wouldn't be stupid enough to associate myself that closely with my fellow scum, but it seems you've ruled that out already. Other than that, I can't really say much to defend my actions.

As to where my suspicions go from here, I'm still very much suspicious of Ibby, but it's certainly wained since my original vote for her. I'm getting really frustrated at the lack of participation outside of Glork/Ibby/Romanus/MoS/PJ. We're missing Pooks, HIAB, and Lordy. That's a significant chunk of players.

[Glork]

Oooh, ooh!

Glork has a theory. It is, far and away, the most scum-crushing theory ever. But Glork is going to play a little tactics first. Glork needs a sizeable chunk of additional action/participation before his theory can take center stage.

[ibaesha]

I wasn't really considering a PWS/Glork scumgroup. I'm just highly skeptical when people start following Glork like a puppy dog. Esp when I'm leaning towards him being pro-town. I've seen inexperienced scum do this before to their benefit and escape notice and suspicions (See Graduation Mafia).

May I ask why you're still very much suspicious of me? You haven't really brought anything forth for me to respond to and as far as I can tell it goes back to your previous suspicions of Bacde (which were based primarily off of Glork's reasoning). I understand that I can't be entirely be let off the hook for what my predecessor did, but I have posted quite a bit of content and thoughts since replacing and believe that there's plenty of me to analyze there. The only other thing I can think of since you haven't brought anything new up is that it's an OMGUS type of suspicion. (Note: OMGUS is -not- something that I think is suspicious or scummy.)

Understandable about the non-participation. Lordy's gone back to lurking. HIAB isn't posting and Maz's entrance was less than contributive in any way. My thoughts on Pooks haven't changed since I originally posted about him, but it would be nice if he participated more.

Preview edit: LOL @ Glork.

[PlaysWithSquirrels]

Also: PWS and Glork - Your opportunism is noted. Bacde wasn't 'pretty scummy'. He made a terrible conjecture which I don't agree with. Glork's logic about the topic is more in line with my thinking. Being wrong about something doesn't make someone scum, so voting me over Bacde having an incorrect theory is non-productive.

Surely you two have thoughts about others by now

.

It was this post that made me suspicious of Ibby. I thought Bacde was scummy d1 and what I didn't want to hear (especially from the person replacing him) was that it wasn't a scummy move at all. In my opinion and in the opinions of a few others in this game, those were some pretty fishy statements to make. That really wasn't what did it. It was the last line that really set off the alarm bells. It was a statement that said to me "Why are you singling me out?" It could be that you weren't prepared to have votes cast against you right off the bat in this game and it could also be that you were feeling like "OMG I got tossed into this game as scum and people already suspect me!" So, yeah, it's something small that didn't sit right with me. I want to actually talk to some people that haven't said anything before I start slinging more votes.

[ibaesha]

Did you disregard my further explanations of why I found it to be opportunistic? Also, I -always- have problems when people are singularly focused. With Glork this is especially so because simply put, I expect more from him. And I felt nothing like what you describe there. I joined this game of my own free will and while I did not know my alignment before agreeing, I was aware that I was replacing Bacde and that he'd been under some fire. If anything, I came in expecting somewhat of what happened and prepared to note who was ready to use follow-up as reasoning and possibly make an attempt at an easy bandwagon off of yesterday's momentum. Hence the eyerolling.

[Maz Medias]

I'm actually still rereading. School/debate ate up last night's time.

[Glork]

No problem. I think the general "grrr, inactives" sentiment is directed towards Pooks/HIAB/Lordy right now. I'd like to see

MODPRODS

on all three, with replacements if deemed necessary.

[Maz Medias]

Wow. Fucking linguistic juggernauts, huh guys?

You know I don't play that, so basically:

I was feeling Bacde up through the obv obv SK lynch, then I was still feeling BacIbby through 205, where I started to dig the Romanus.

I still need to decide between those two, so not vote for now, but expect it on one or the other once I read just their posts.

[Romanus]

From PWS's post 198. He questions my vote of Pooky. What can I say, I have really no idea why I voted pooky, and with all the silly stuff about cookies and whatnot, how does my "random" vote on pooky get any attention at all.

The post on HIAB, well, I just posted what I thought about that comment he made, try to spark some discussion, draw attention to something.

Next is my post 88. Ummmm, well I guess I forgot that I had voted for Pooky. Which only underscores that I had really no reason to vote for pooky in the first place, which was on page 2, where no one had any reason to vote for anyone except a fight over some cookies.
As for not knowing where my vote was, my bad.

Posts 94 and 97.

PWS says that I was following Glork, but it was really the votecount that got me off the wagon. With Scalebane's vote pooky got close to a lynch, too close for what was going on. Also, glork is right, the wagon went too far too fast. It was too early for a lynch, especially one with so little to back it up.

Then post 104 which is an argument against an SK. Regurgitate or whatever, I was siding against Scalebane. It was the issue at hand and I chimed in on it.

I hope this satisfies your past question Ibby and I know it will just give MOS some more to yell at me about.

[PlaysWithSquirrels]

I've never heard of a self-PBP...

[Romanus]

I was asked questions, I answered them.

I've never heard of a self-PBP...

You'll never be able to say that truthfully again.

[Mastermind of Sin]

I don't see why I have to yell at you about that. I had no real problem with you yesterday. Your actions today are far more suspect, although the recent points against PWS have been highly enlightening as well.

[Romanus]

So if I were to say something stupid, or throw my vote around just to get people talking again, that would be scummy, right?