Mini 1404 - Monopoly Mafia - Game Over

[Baby Spice]

Are you actually trying to say you've been responding to what I've said and been asking you the entire game?

Saturday Dec 15 2012:

I'd like to see these stats compiled.

How many replies it takes Baby to respond with said statistics:

First off the lies:

Hows about #148, you know where I told you to go look for yourself. You failed to mention that bit didn't you Jal.
Hows about Jakes #375 where he actually did what I suggested you do and went and looked for himself. Failed to mention that bit at all didn't you Jal.
Hows about where Jake said that it looked true. Again I see you fail to mention that.
Did you in fact go look for yourself or not Jal? Something else you've failed to mention.
How about the other posts that you claim was me ignoring you, which were me dealing with other players.
I know, since I said: "I've played under a couple of names here, and yes Mhork, it under one of those." maybe checking the themed mini queue (since I quoted games out of the coney island list) for someone else using those self same stats, perhaps in a live game that couldn't be quoted or linked too? Maybe even games involving Lord Mhork? Bet that was beyond you effort levels.

You keep throwing around different sort of stats.

I've thrown around two. One reliable, (the 72%), one not so, (the 50/50). One in one post and the other in answer to a direct question.

Failed to show where I threw around multiple different sorts of stats didn't you. Hint, you can't show it.

Jal, you absolutely scream scum who can't believe they were caught and can't understand what lead to it and is trying desperately to discredit what you think caught you.
What caught you was a terrible vote. What caught you was your repeated lies and mis representation. All that statistic was was:

a simple fact to decide where I would start to look for scum.

Of course the final insult. More misrepresentation.

Are you actually trying to say you've been responding to what I've said and been asking you the entire game?

Well yes I have and did, and no, I believe I said something completely different in the post you are trying to infer that your quote is an answer too.

I'm sorry Jal, have you actually made a post worth responding to instead of ignoring me and then asking about things I've already said/addressed?

^I fixed a spelling mistake

Btw: Apart from blowing it off in #111 Jal has gone well over twenty posts without explaining why her actions in #66 aren't scummy. Nor has she tried to show why her subsequent actions regarding that post aren't scummy. Of course she can't because they were scummy.
Then accuses me of ignoring things.

[Baby Spice]

Ok, specific to #458

1. Wow, statistics huh. Lie. One statistic. Addressed pretty much as soon as you asked. Either you believe me or you don't If you don't then no amount of anything by me will convince you until you go and look for yourself. Which is exactly what I told you to do. There is no burden on me when you would not have believed me anyway.

2. Strange comment from you. Isn't it strange that you keep harping on about a minor point rather than the actual scumminess that I voted you for. Weird in fact. (I use that word a lot too, strange that) I find it gets good reactions from people. Typically the scummy ones worry about it and the townies don't. Strange that.

3. Wow, you like harping on about why me using a statistic to decide to look at a wagon, and given the nature of that statistic it also decided the when, to show that you're not scum or that your vote was not scummy.

4. Strange (there's that word again) that you decide that my reason for looking at a particular wagon doesn't make sense. What is a sensible reason for looking at any one player or at any one group of players?

5:

One is a statistic which you used as a basis to vote and one isn't.

Note that statement is a plain flat out lie and ignores me stating, more than once I believe, that I voted Jal for her scummy action.

You know I noticed something strange (Wow that word keeps popping up, weird that)
Jal can't understand why I chose to look at that particular wagon (that statistic thing) and blames something other than her scummy action for my vote (That would be that statistic thing again). Despite me saying many times why I looked where I looked and voted whom I voted.

Now I shall repeat:
I'm sorry Jal, have you actually made a post worth responding to instead of ignoring me and then asking about things I've already said/addressed?

(I'll grant you point 2, strange, was worth responding too)

[Lord Mhork]

Will mafia tomorrow when my day hasn't been eaten by league of legends...

[Guy_Named_Riggs]

Current Vote Count 1.08

Jal - 3 (Baby Spice, Robert2424, Robert2424) (L-4)
StrangerCoug - 3 (Jake From State Farm, Jal, Xisiqomelir) (L-4)
Lurker - 3 (Lord Mhork, StrangerCoug, numberQ) (L-4)

Baby Spice - 1 (Mehdi2277) (L-6)
Lord Mhork - 1 (Lurker) (L-6)

Not Voting:Agent_Ireland, Mogadishu Jones, UberNinja

With 13 alive, it takes 7 to lynch
Deadline is in

(expired on 2013-01-05 14:10:00)

~numberQ has been prodded~
~Agent_Ireland has been prodded~
~Mogadishu Jones has been prodded~

~Prods will still be given out during the time period of December 24th through December 26, but they will not count agaisnt you due to the holidays. If you are able to post during this time, please do so. Prods will be official again starting the 27th, unless you are declared V/LA before then~

[StrangerCoug]

Regardless of everything, how about the way it was worded makes you pause?

The fact that the claim makes it clear it's a card ability. I believe his card claim, and the more I think about Mehdi2277's post, the more I think it's a good point, but I fail to see why something alignment-independent is reason to say "Hold everything, we're not lynching Lurker."

When the kids are gone, I want to look at you and Baby Spice. Forced to unvote Lurker in favor of one of you two right now, though, it'd be Baby Spice; I think there is a pro-town motivation to you trying to figure out what I mean by my posts.

[Agent_Ireland]

Holidays, busy busy, all that good stuff. Catching up now, will post more when done. Until then, I've read this post and will answer it.

Was rereading, question to

Agent_Ireland

: Do all your cards say "for now" on them?

The property card I don't know how I feel about because I feel like their power can be given or taken at any time due to the "for now" statement in mine.

Yes, I have two cards and both said for now.

[Agent_Ireland]

I'm just going to post my reads on people instead of quoting post that have already been discussed in the past.

Town: Jake, Jal, Jones (No, I am not favoring the people with usernames that start with J)

Other than town reads, I have everyone else at null. Don't really have a scum read on anyone, so I am just going to stick with this for now.

@Jal

you bring up good points against SC, and because I don't have a vote anywhere, I feel like this is a good reason to place my vote and use it.

VOTE: SC

[Mehdi2277]

She also brought up good points against spice so why SC over her?

[StrangerCoug]

FoS: Mehdi2277

I understood it when you asked Jal that question, but you basically repeating the question to Agent_Ireland is coming off as buddying me too closely. It's unnerving.

[Mehdi2277]

The way these wagons are going interest me.

[Lord Mhork]

Why are you saying this?

Why are you asking this?

It looks like a lot of useless information. We should just drop the speculation altogether because roles cannot confirm town or scum in this setup.

@Lurker

, why didn't you claim your card with the watcher role right away? Why only the railroad?

Well, I didn't think that the card would involve my role at the time (Just my power), plus I didn't see a need to since no one else had claimed a power role. (Also, Who Would I watch? Early in the DP, nobody needs watched more then any other person at the time.)

Do you actually know what a role claim is? It's when you claim your

entire

role to the town. It's not for you to pick and choose 'well I'll claim this but not this yet because no one else has.' That's not the way this works. Also, that gives me weird rolefishy vibes, like you were hoping to get someone else to claim first.

Why not just claim the two cards right away but not the power then?

Because It's A utility card.

There are only 2 Utility cards in monopoly: Water works and Electric company.

(Nearly) Everyone would know that those cards are very unique, and so would know that it was a power role.

So you were attempting to hide information from the town?
Inb4 'OMG MISREP.' I don't see why people don't want to pressure lurker here. He's admitted to trying to hide information and lied about what cards he had until someone actually forced him to fess up to the rest of his claim. Where is the pro town motivation here?

@Lord Mhork

:

@Lord Mhork

: Was your #227 intended mainly as a defence against Lurker's #168, or was it primarily intended to be a demonstration of Lurker's scumminess? If it's some admixture of the two, what are the rough proportions?

Additionally, how do you feel about StrangerCoug's hop from you to Lurker in #257?

Yeah it was a little of Column A and a little of Column B. It began with me just being very irritated with lurker's poorly done case, but that last line where I accuse him of IIoA is enough for it to be a case as well. I'd say... 75-80/20-25? Somewhere in that ball park? I wasn't really trying to win votes with that post, if that's what you're asking.

I'd be willing to give StrangerCoug the benefit of the doubt for misreading, though I don't like how I had

just

said I had made a mistake. I don't really see the scum motivation here though to misunderstand a really, really obvious correction. I'd say it's more of a null tell/leaning slow player tell.

Well, I can appreciate that it wasn't purely defensive in nature. However, since it was mostly intended to be about Lurker's case and not your own, I don't consider #227 any kind of basis to sheep a vote after. It's especially peculiar since he moved his vote off you to sheep you.

I don't consider "too obvious" a suitable excuse for StrangerCoug's "sold" vote. Scum can and will slip in and get away with all sorts of things in a fast-moving game. I've caught scum D1 in a game fabricating things wholesale.

And I don't really know what to make of him hopping on lurker like that. If he thought my deconstruction of the terribad post revealed enough scum intent from lurker, more power to him. I'm more worried about his 263. That's where my bad feels are coming, not so much from 257. That hop can be neutral too, I guess.

Can you discuss this in further detail?

Not Mafia-related:

Spoiler:

"Admixture"
Dat word...

This seems like the type of game where "apposite" will also get dropped. Maybe a "pseudonymity" too.

I will indepthify later when I have time. Also, not mafia related, I like your lexicon. :3

[Jake from State Farm]

Damn, lost my vote cause I got sent to jail.

Lynch SC for me please

[UberNinja]

Oohhhh a Jal wagon.

How can I resist?

Vote: Jal

[Mehdi2277]

A wagon of three people now? And anyways un can you answer how long you need to read or what did you read?

[UberNinja]

I read nothing. I'll need a week to read.

[Lord Mhork]

I feel so left out 'cause nothing cool is happening to me...

Why is Jal scum, Über?

[numberQ]

Number continuing on the SC argument he backs down from his votes too easily. Vote me because of meta, k don't want to argue meta when I show he's wrong. Vote Mhork because of something not true and backs down again. While I understand unvoting when you misread something doing it repeatedly shows lack of care with votes.

Does 2 unvotes count as unvoting repeatedly, especially when one of them was a misunderstanding? Not counting RVS votes. I'm trying real hard to see the scum motivation behind SC's actions, because there has to be something to this case unless 3 of my more-town reads (SC's wagon) are scum or hilariously wrong.

On the other hand, Jal's been pretty convincing with the Baby case, with Baby's statistics and whatnot. So yeah, Baby's my second scum read.

Also, I would have liked to have done more with this post but I decided to start playing Skyrim again. Time = gone

And I know it was said in the mod's latest post, but I don't see the harm in this:

@mod: VLA until the 27th for Christmas stuff.

[Mehdi2277]

It's mainly being opportunistic and not as much as thought with some votes then I'd think he'd have as town, but yeah spice trumps him currently.

[Jal]

@Baby Spice

:

Ok, specific to #458

1. Wow, statistics huh. Lie. One statistic. Addressed pretty much as soon as you asked. Either you believe me or you don't If you don't then no amount of anything by me will convince you until you go and look for yourself. Which is exactly what I told you to do. There is no burden on me when you would not have believed me anyway.

2. Strange comment from you. Isn't it strange that you keep harping on about a minor point rather than the actual scumminess that I voted you for. Weird in fact. (I use that word a lot too, strange that) I find it gets good reactions from people. Typically the scummy ones worry about it and the townies don't. Strange that.

3. Wow, you like harping on about why me using a statistic to decide to look at a wagon, and given the nature of that statistic it also decided the when, to show that you're not scum or that your vote was not scummy.

4. Strange (there's that word again) that you decide that my reason for looking at a particular wagon doesn't make sense. What is a sensible reason for looking at any one player or at any one group of players?

5:

One is a statistic which you used as a basis to vote and one isn't.

Note that statement is a plain flat out lie and ignores me stating, more than once I believe, that I voted Jal for her scummy action.

You know I noticed something strange (Wow that word keeps popping up, weird that)
Jal can't understand why I chose to look at that particular wagon (that statistic thing) and blames something other than her scummy action for my vote (That would be that statistic thing again). Despite me saying many times why I looked where I looked and voted whom I voted.)

1.

I've already proven it took you ten posts and 2 1/2 days to prove your statistics. It was not addressed immediately. I don't need to "believe" you. I've already proven, with

facts

, that you didn't.

See post 484 for more detail. I know you've read it.

I have also not argued since you posted games that I don't believe you, yet you are trying to fabricate that I am.

2.

What exactly do you find townies worry about relative to scum, Baby? I looked through several your past games. You don't bring up statistics, at least not in the 10+ games I looked at. If you aren't bringing up statistics, then how can you gauge the reaction to someone asking for proof and being adamant to you proving it to be a scum reaction?

Or am I confused and you're talking about your use of the word strange?

I looked at that too. You barely use the word strange in games. We're talking 0-2 mentions a game, and more to the tune of "strange choice" regarding a night action. Of the few times you used strange several times? You're scum. You were cult in Stars Aligned III, which seems to be the equivalent to mafia for that game and your were a traitor cop in Secret Society Mafia.

Either way, you don't employ the former tactic, and of the rare occasion you more consistently employ the second you're scum.

3 & 4.

I will repeat myself.

I was the second vote on Lurker, which effectively started the wagon rolling. You had to read my "bull shit misrepresentation" post first before two more people hopped on. If you felt my post and vote were scummy and bullshit, you didn't need a statistic.

It doesn't make sense for you to look at the wagon first and THEN look at who is scum on it.

Next, I want you to show case how "Lord Mhork would be one of those easy targets" is a statistic. Also, how it actually related to the topic at hand (how it's acceptable at face value).

VOTE:
VOTE: Baby Spice

[Jal]

How many people here originally thought the cards were handed out relatively equally in the manner Medhi described, with 11 people having 2 cards and 2 people having 3?

@StrangeCoug

:

The fact that the claim makes it clear it's a card ability. I believe his card claim, and the more I think about Mehdi2277's post, the more I think it's a good point, but I fail to see why something alignment-independent is reason to say "Hold everything, we're not lynching Lurker."

I don't think claiming a power itself is worth taking a vote off someone.

Would you say a good portion of what's holding you back is the amount of people who got off his wagon and don't want to lynch him anymore?

@Medhi

: Do you think I'm just not understanding StrangeCoug properly? Do you understand his reasoning when he originally states it? Also, do you think any of his reasoning is scummy, especially now that he has explained more?

[Jal]

Correction to #2: "What exactly do you find scum worry about relative to town, Baby?

[Agent_Ireland]

She also brought up good points against spice so why SC over her?

Because the whole thing with Baby just looks like a battle of what people think of a statistic that is blatantly obvious. The whole thing about answering the question is all a patience thing and how long someone is willing to wait for an answer.

I may have missed something, but this is what the Baby argument looked like to me, and it wasn't enough to vote that way.

[Xisiqomelir]

Merry Christmas from GMT+8!

Prod-dodging till tomorrow night

[Lurker]

Yay prod dodge!

As for the question in post #519, I though that the cards would be unevenly passed, making the game even more bastard then It may be.

[Lord Mhork]

Ack. V/LA 'til after Christmas. December 27th