Mini 396: ChatMafia Mafia; GAME OVER

[Jack]

What makes you think this is irregular behavior for me?

It is not irregular behaviour for you, the irregularity lies in the fact that you treat two similar cases in dissimilar ways.

1) I haven't treated the similar cases at all...yet.

2) Why is that scummy?

[HurriKaty]

Sure townies lurk, but people lurking is never a good thing.

I'm probably having a duh moment, but could you explain exactly what this means?

[Jack]

Sure townies lurk, but people lurking is never a good thing.

I'm probably having a duh moment, but could you explain exactly what this means?

If townies lurk it widens the pool of possible mafia and makes a correct lynch or cop investigation less likely.

[Zindaras]

1) I haven't treated the similar cases at all...yet.

This is exactly my point. You ignore other, similar cases. That's an irregularity right there.

[ChannelDelibird]

I agree with Zindaras' argument wholeheartedly, but I'm torn at the moment as to whether Jack's defense is scummy or idiotic. I find it difficult to believe that Jack can't understand the irregularity that has been pointed out (it seems blindingly obvious to me), so I see it as three possible things: Jack is scum and is desperately trying to cover his slip by being very literal in his defense; Jack is town and genuinely does not understand the accusation; Jack is town and doesn't want to be caught admitting he has made a mistake, for fear of the town interpreting it as scum giving up, and so defends his point beyond the realms of credibility.

I really can't make up my mind at the moment, so I'll

FoS: Jack

and keep my vote on StallingChamp for now.

[Jack]

I agree with Zindaras' argument wholeheartedly, but I'm torn at the moment as to whether Jack's defense is scummy or idiotic. I find it difficult to believe that Jack can't understand the irregularity that has been pointed out (it seems blindingly obvious to me), so I see it as three possible things: Jack is scum and is desperately trying to cover his slip by being very literal in his defense; Jack is town and genuinely does not understand the accusation; Jack is town and doesn't want to be caught admitting he has made a mistake, for fear of the town interpreting it as scum giving up, and so defends his point beyond the realms of credibility.

I really can't make up my mind at the moment, so I'll

FoS: Jack

and keep my vote on StallingChamp for now.

What's wrong with being literal? He used the word irregular with a nod towards draygn_mage's logic, which clearly does not apply as he admitted. He wants to say that he thinks it's scummy that I'm not going after other lurkers but has yet to give a reason why and I want him to.

I think he's scum and I'm trying to pin him down on this one. His argument is contrived and I think I've revealed it as such. It's the same as before:

[quote="Zindaras]Ah, I see I was wrong about which vote was cast by HurriKaty. No matter, it's still in the dangerous bandwagon zone. As was yours, Jack. And I don't really like how you're making a ridiculous vote on me. FoS: Jack [/quote]

What was dangerous about it?

High danger (=chance) of being a bandwagon vote.

To recap before this point, Zindaras jumped on the Angus wagon while saying he was going to keep an eye on bandwagoners. Not only is that hypocritical, but voting for bandwagoners is an easy out for scum. He later FoS's me and votes HurriKaty for votes which are in the "dangerous bandwagon zone". I ask him what's dangerous and he says that by danger he means a high chance of being a bandwagon vote, which doesn't make sense if you look at the original wording. He didn't think out his vote because he's not really looking for scum.

Now look at the last page where he was accusing me. You see draygn_mage makse a post about irregularities and gives examples which involve a player changing his behavior. Since my vote for Coron is only one action it can't possible involve me changing my behavior from one manner to another, that would require two actions. Zindaras however says:

Anyway, what I'm accusing Jack of is a perfect example of an irregularity.

...

As dragyn_mage said, it's an irregularity

Which he quickly retracts in this post:

t is irregular because you use different measures for different people.

Meh, I just liked the way dragyn worded it. It doesn't change the point, however.

He didn't really buy into draygn_mages reasoning and think it applied to me, he was just using it for support. The two of us took up an entire page and he still hasn't explained his reason for voting me. First he tried to use someone elses logic and now he's changed his reason to "he's voting coron but not other lurkers" but hasn't explained why that is scummy (or irregular but that's just semantics). It isn't btw, that's how I like to call out lurkers. If you call out three people they all know you just want them to delurk, if you call out one he may think you find him genuinely scummy and post something worthwile.

I was going to wait until Coron posted again but this post is too long not to

Unvote, Vote:Zindaras

[Zindaras]

To recap before this point, Zindaras jumped on the Angus wagon while saying he was going to keep an eye on bandwagoners.

Yes. This is not an illogical way to go, if you think someone is possibly scum but not convinced. Bandwagons usually occur on town, so it's a point in favour of the guy getting wagoned.

Not only is that hypocritical,

So I was bandwagoning?

but voting for bandwagoners is an easy out for scum.

Bandwagoning is an easy out for scum. Looking at bandwagoners is an easy way to catch scum.

He later FoS's me and votes HurriKaty for votes which are in the "dangerous bandwagon zone". I ask him what's dangerous and he says that by danger he means a high chance of being a bandwagon vote, which doesn't make sense if you look at the original wording.

It's in the bandwagon zone, and it's in the zone where there's a high danger (chance) of the vote being a wagon vote. This makes perfect sense.

He didn't think out his vote because he's not really looking for scum.

Baseless.

Now look at the last page where he was accusing me. You see draygn_mage makse a post about irregularities and gives examples which involve a player changing his behavior. Since my vote for Coron is only one action it can't possible involve me changing my behavior from one manner to another, that would require two actions. Zindaras however says:

He didn't really buy into draygn_mages reasoning and think it applied to me, he was just using it for support.

It is irregular behaviour. The irregularity does not have to be between multiple posts. The irregularity lies in the fact that you

attack one player for something, and let another player go free for exactly the same thing

. There is a difference (irregularity) in the behaviour regarding comparable situations.

Not displaying the same behaviour towards comparable players is the same as not displaying the same behaviour as time changes. In dragyn's example, the variable time changed (Day 1-->Day 3). In you, the variable player changed.

Ergo, irregularity.

The two of us took up an entire page and he still hasn't explained his reason for voting me. First he tried to use someone elses logic and now he's changed his reason to "he's voting coron but not other lurkers" but hasn't explained why that is scummy (or irregular but that's just semantics). It isn't btw, that's how I like to call out lurkers. If you call out three people they all know you just want them to delurk, if you call out one he may think you find him genuinely scummy and post something worthwile.

I have said, multiple times, that I'm voting you because you're using different measures for comparable players, which insinuates that there is a difference, to you, between the players. Which would, therefore, imply outside knowledge, ergo, scum.

Your whole irregularity argument consists of nothing but semantics, and you haven't explained how it's irregular to vote one lurker but leave the rest untouched. You haven't explained why it would put more pressure on anyone to vote one lurker and leave the rest alone than to vote one lurker and FoS the rest.

[Y]

1. Zindaras
   
   
2. Coron
   
   
3. AngusHutchsky
   
   
4. Twito
   
   
5. Y
   
   
6. StallingChamp
   
   
7. HurriKaty
   
   
8. Masterchief
   
   
9. Jack
   
   
10. ChannelDelibird
    
    
11. draygn_mage
    
    
12. Milkman

So...

Zindaras and Jack:

I'm actually leaning towards Zindaras' reasoning, but the whole thing is boring and almost no one besides those two are talking. The game needs more content.

Coron:

He hasn't been contributing for a long time.

AngusHutchsky:

Was at an almost lynch and since then disappeared completely. I also don't like the way he got away with the "I'll probably won't be here soon, so I'll 'paint' whatever I just decided by myself without any body's approval as my proof".

We

should decide what proof we want, not you.

Twito:

Can't remember anything he said... That's not good.

StallingChamp:

He thinks he has a sure scum (or close to it). Foolish...

HurriKaty:

We have some posts, but very little and most of them with content we've seen by other players too.

Masterchief:

Who is it?

ChannelDelibird:

Same as HurriKaty.

draygn_mage:

Except for one post with content, I can't remember he contributed on something.

Milkman:

Same as HurriKaty and ChannelDelibird.

I didn't reread all the thread or any post. I'm doing it from my memory, so I might be a little off. I don't think I can summarize myself objectively.

Can we get a Vote Count and a massive Prod?

Lynch me if you want, but lets get some progress...

[Masterchief]

Masterchief: Who is it?

What?

[Jack]

I have said, multiple times, that I'm voting you because you're using different measures for comparable players, which insinuates that there is a difference, to you, between the players. Which would, therefore, imply outside knowledge, ergo, scum.

Your whole irregularity argument consists of nothing but semantics, and you haven't explained how it's irregular to vote one lurker but leave the rest untouched. You haven't explained why it would put more pressure on anyone to vote one lurker and leave the rest alone than to vote one lurker and FoS the rest.

That's regular behavior for me, therefore not irregular. But you've finally explained your reason, thanks. I'll counter with your own logic: you are voting me but not anyone else, this insinuates that there is a difference, to you, between me and the others. Which would, therefore, imply outside knowledge, ergo, scum.

In my experience, it puts more pressure. In my first newbie game I called out one of the scum for lurking but dropped it to go after someone else, he kept lurking and only dropped in to put the lynch vote on me.

[Jack]

EBWOP: The word you are looking for is "discriminate" Zindaras.

Also,

Unvote, Vote:Coron

because I'm getting a nasty "scum sit back and watch while townies accuse each other" feel from this game.

[HurriKaty]

HurriKaty:

We have some posts, but very little and most of them with content we've seen by other players too.

Aww dammit, am I doing that again?!?!?

[Y]

What?

Vote Masterchief

. He responded to my post in less than an hour, meaning he's here, he's reading, but purposely not contributing.

[ChannelDelibird]

Mod:

to elaborate on Y's request, I'd like to request prods for:
Coron
AngusHutchsky
milkman

And Masterchief is actually in this game? I had completely forgotten, such is the fact that that was his second post. The timing, as pointed out by Y, is very very suspicious. (Ironically, I appreciate that you won't like me doing this, Y, because it's 'content already seen from other players', but I'm not going to ignore something scummy because someone has already pointed it out, and I'm not going to make up a reason for my vote that isn't genuine.)

unvote, vote: Masterchief

maintaining a

Strong FoS: StallingChamp, Weaker FoS: Jack

[draygn_mage]

As far as I can piece together between naps while viewing the Jack vs Zindaras argument, the complaint is that...

1. A lurker (Coron) was voted and no FOSes were distributed amongst the other lurkers.

2. When the voted lurker made a contentless post (I'll come back and post content later), the voter should have unvoted and moved on to the next lurker.

3. The voter disagrees, claiming that he is waiting for a post with content before he moves on to the next lurker.

4. Somehow my post (scum use anything to stay alive and only irregularities in playstyle and reasoning are useful scumtells) is dragged into it and becomes the reason for the OMGUS vote.

Did I miss anything?

[Zindaras]

That's regular behavior for me, therefore not irregular.

I'm not saying it's irregular because it differs from your normal way of playing, but the irregularity lies in your treatment of other players.

you are voting me but not anyone else, this insinuates that there is a difference, to you, between me and the others. Which would, therefore, imply outside knowledge, ergo, scum.

Note the word "comparable", here. You're scummy. They're not. Therefore, not comparable.

In my experience, it puts more pressure. In my first newbie game I called out one of the scum for lurking but dropped it to go after someone else, he kept lurking and only dropped in to put the lynch vote on me.

You dropped it.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that you should keep the pressure on the guy, request prods or whatnot, but not keep the vote on him after he posts, and Coron did just that. I think you were too single-minded on the matter.

If you want to keep pressure on him, unvote, go to the next guy, and if he doesn't post within a week or something, vote him again.

Chiefy could be Jack's buddy, I think.

[Twito]

duh, nevermind, he isn't even here.

lets try random.com again

unvote, vote Jack

FOS: draygn_mage

for early game votehopping.

Vote: Masterchief

because he hasn't posted yet.

Why did you choose him over others?

FOS: Milkman

unvote Vote: Y

voting coron is a scum tactic.

FOS: Y

In case what coron says is truth.

UNFOS: Y

I think coron is trying to distract me!

FOS: Coron

For trying to distract me.

UNFOS: Coron

Vote: Draygn_mage

for saying he doesn't remember how to play this game.

Ditto, and for randomnesses sake.

vote draygn_mage

Scummy post. You put the third vote on draygn_mage and use "for the randomnesses sake" part to distance yourself from the bandwagon.

Unvote, vote AngusHutchsky

So your using logic 3rd vote on wagon is scum?

2nd FOS: Milkman

Vote: Masterchief

because he hasn't posted yet.

Great vote. Especially sense the game just started.

Your agreeing with his vote?

FOS: Masterchief

I agree with milkman in a way. Your vote can't be random

and

be based on a suspicion at the same time, and in that sense I think you worded your post badly. But however I wouldn't call the 'suspicion' anything real to go on and I think that was evident with the 'for randomness' sake' comment afterward.

This post makes sence.

Ok done commenting first page. You can ignore all those Fosses.
Now I'm just gonna skim rest of the game.

My suspicions in correct order.

1. StallingChamp
Misrepresentating.

2. Masterchief
He got caught for lurking

3. Jack
I was reading the reasons StD had againts him. I count picking on someone doing something that others are doing aswell scummy.

FOS: Masterchief and Jack

[Twito]

Btw I'm back from Acapulco.
I might re-read properly someday.. Probably not. I prefer following the game from now on.

[Y]

Huge post with no relevant content. I don't like it...

[Zindaras]

3. Jack
I was reading the reasons StD had againts him. I count picking on someone doing something that others are doing aswell scummy.

StD? He's not even in the game.

[Twito]

3. Jack
I was reading the reasons StD had againts him. I count picking on someone doing something that others are doing aswell scummy.

StD? He's not even in the game.

Oops meant you sorry...
Mixing games..
Caught up for last 5 hours with all my games and that's too much for my memory to handle.

[Twito]

Huge post with no relevant content. I don't like it...

It's not so huge and I pointed into first part being kinda useless. Which is exactly the reason why I didn't go on about all game like that and stopped after first page.
You do get my suspicions from it. Unless you skipped the important part, end of it. SKIMMER!

[milkman]

3. Jack
I was reading the reasons StD had againts him. I count picking on someone doing something that others are doing aswell scummy.

What does this mean?

[Twito]

3. Jack
I was reading the reasons StD had againts him. I count picking on someone doing something that others are doing aswell scummy.

What does this mean?

What makes you think this is irregular behavior for me?

It is not irregular behaviour for you, the irregularity lies in the fact that you treat two similar cases in dissimilar ways.

1) I haven't treated the similar cases at all...yet.

2) Why is that scummy?

I meant Zindy.

[Masterchief]

What?

Vote Masterchief

. He responded to my post in less than an hour, meaning he's here, he's reading, but purposely not contributing.

I just happened to be here at the time. I do have a life you know.

Also Twito, have you been smoking pot again because I made that post A LONG TIME AGO.