Mini 388: DOOMsville II {Game Over!}

[Patrick]

Yeah, all that is true about klebian, though I can't say it surprises me. However, we do need klebian give us some substancial suspicions now.

I might be misunderstanding this, but Pat seems to be saying that there's a case on klebian, so klebian needs to say who he finds suspicious. I'd've thought Klebian should be defending himself, not looking for people to accuse. Requests for people to post lists of who they do and don't trust, ostensibly for later examination, smack (very vaguely) of a distraction technique, maybe to gloss over a scum who's throwing out tells. That's what we should be looking at, and for.

I think you are misunderstanding it. What Turbo is saying about klebian is true. However, in my experience with klebian, it's nothing unusual. He seems to play that way as scum and town. I think he needs to give his suspicions now and reasons why, which he seems to be working on. I really don't get how you could possibly decide this is a distraction technique. Are you saying it's wrong to ask for his suspicions? It feels like you're trying to pull something out of thin air here.

[Patrick]

Turbo was there.

I'm not saying klebian has to give his thoughts in list form. Whatever works for him I suppose. I usually only do a complete every player list in a 7 player game, and not always then.

[klebian]

OK, here's the reread as promised. (Day off from school today)

I think your all screwed in the head....

vote:friday-14th

reasons why i have that typo lol

this is not helpful

and throwing random votes are helpful?throwing accusions for utterly no reason is useful?well if that isnt useful either,then wtf do you mean in your mind is useful?

So why were you so offended by this? I mean you

were

joking around, right? Do you think joking around is in fact helpful towards finding scum?

Then again, perhaps you did achieve something.

Unvote: Ozymandius
Vote: Friday-13th

Friday's question seemed more like a newbie who apparently was under the impression that random votes are just how people begin, not for any use, and decided to do a 'similar' thing, by voting a nonexistant person. I think turbo was making too big of a deal out of a minor thing done by someone who just wasn't acquainted to the game.

Patrick sorta summed this up in post 50: "My take on it is that so far, Fridays play has not been helpful and the suggestion that random votes aren't helpful shows some lack of knowledge, but I've yet to decide whether this is newbtown or newbscum. " I think this was a more on-the-spot assessment as compared to turbo's.

This was discussed in the next few posts, and someone pointed out that friday had just won a newbie game as scum. Irrelevant without actually reading the game.

post 59:

So Turbovolver was the first to change their random vote, and immediately got voted by two others.

Ozymandius was the next one to change his random vote, and got voted for it by ShadowLurker.

Very interesting. I'll keep my SL-vote for the moment.

Why is this interesting?

What I actually meant with the comment was that it seemed strange that there seemed to be three people who thought an early vote change was vote-worthy (Rosso, Mert, SL). The two votes for Turbo could be coincidence, since they didn't came with reasons, but I doubt it.

SL's vote for Ozy definitely was a little suspicious, since the reason behind it ("votehops too much") is BS, while SL apparently intended it as at least a semi-serious vote, hence my vote for SL.

Patrick makes a valid point though, SL didn't mention Turbo who did the exact same thing SL accused Ozy of. However, Turbo is actually right that one shouldn't answer someone's questions for them.

Rosso, please explain why you think Sotty should be lynched.

plz stop trying to make masterpieces out of shit

unvote vote falcone

Now, I understand this was the first post after a crash. No one had posted for 6 days. Falcone was asked to explain what he found interesting, and when he responded to the question, shadowlurker called him out for this. I don't think sl's statement had basis; falcone thought it worth notable that many people were being voted for vote changes, and had even been asked to clarify.

Post 65:

sorry i couldnt post,forum said i couldnt acess and stuff....

be posting shortly

yeah umm...

These posts were made 6 hours apart. While I know he said 'shortly', 1) That can be interpreted different ways, and 2) Other players were just making "I'm here" posts, so I don't think it's correct to call someone out for not 'posting shortly' when others weren't as well.

SL, I don't quite get your vote for me. Is it because I used the first thing that was remotely interesting to try and start a discussion, or just because I voted you?

Both possibilities seem like not-so-great reasons for a vote.

Sl then called this a false dilemma and there was discussion over whether this was or not, and that SL had been avoiding the question.

ok, without much to go on in the first few pages. The person I find most scummy at this point is Shadow Lurker. She seems much to defensive with just one vote on her. So for right now I will

Vote: ShadowLurker.

Still watching this game, along with my others.

good defense kilmenator, i'll leave u alone for now

Unvote Vote Ozy

he's been lurking

This was SL's next post after people asking him to clarify his opinions. He unvoted FALCONE and voted ozy...

ok, without much to go on in the first few pages. The person I find most scummy at this point is Shadow Lurker. She seems much to defensive with just one vote on her. So for right now I will Vote: ShadowLurker. Still watching this game, along with my others.

You "killmenator" people at night, don't you?

FOS: killmenator

Seemed like a stupid and random post... Can't really explain why else this post was made.
Around a page of the next discussion is very random, and things irrelevant to the game were discussed, for the most part.
SL confirm voted someone he wasn't voting, and this caused confusion, and people started discussing whether he forgot, or whether this was a deliberate lie. This question was stated by Patrick, and it's interesting to note that SL didn't say anything about this being a false dilemma. Kilmenator made what I'd consider a sort of newbish response, and this made Patrick vote for her because he said she was just looking for reasons to vote SL, despite the fact that she was voting him for being too defensive, which was fairly unrelated to the topic which was then being discussed.
Patrick then said this: "If you vote Shadowlurker, you're saying that you think scum are more likely to lie about where they had a vote than a pro town player, which I don't think is true." This statement really seems like he's trying to make people not vote SL. He then says "All I can say is I don't find it scummy, and that behaviour like that can often make you the target for superficially thought out or oppotunistic votes." :Badposting:

Then for many posts, people argue against shadowlurker, and he eventually says that his inital arguement was to generate discussion. I've found that SL makes the excuse of 'generating discussion'. Kilmenator makes a comment about it was more suspicious HOW he generated discussion, and offered no lynch as a hypothetical better alternative.

Turbo responds:

I dont think it was the generating discussion part that got targetted. I think it was the way in which you generated the discussion. Why not throw out a No Lynch or something like that to generate discussion instead of how you were acting? And honestly I dont like how turbo seems to always be coming to the defense of SL. Maybe it is nothing, but I think that SL should defend herself because she is the one who put herself in this situation.

So, on to new topics. I would like to hear more from other people, and would like to hear their takes on what is going on.

I like the way you arbitrarily suggest no lynch as a better alternative to confirm voting somebody you aren't voting. Both are 'classically scummy' moves that are used early game solely to get things going, so I don't know why one would be better than the other. I get the feeling you don't either, and made that post up as you went.

Unvote: Friday-13th
Vote: killmenator

As for the defending ShadowLurker thing, I like to comment on everything I can.

that reasoning is just horrid. And that last sentence doesn't really seem right, since I haven't felt like he's been doing that; it seems more like he's been attacking newbie posts and defending experienced souding posts.

After the crash, turbo randomly brings up the fact that friday had voted only once the entire game, on rosso, and defends rosso. The vote had been made pages earlier, and this makes me think that turbo is just attempting to attack Friday on whatever basis he can.

Patrick then has a reread and calls it fruitless. Personally, my reread up to that point has shown a lot of things. I believe his reread was made with a fairly biased point of view.

Later, ozy remarks on this statement of kilm's "i didnt want to deal with another bunch of pages of stu[id arguments that go no where!" with "Kil, when you mentioned that you didn't want disussion, I find that odd, because I was thinking that any discusion helps the town" I don't really think this follows. I think there's a difference between discussion and stupid arguements that lead to nowhere.

This is around 10 pages. I will do the other 10 pages later. But I want to say that so far I see patrick and turbo seeming pretty scummy; however, there were quite a few players that I barely even mentioned due to lurking, and lurking so much that you don't make a substantial post AT ALL is I think just as bad as being active but making scummy posts.

[Patrick]

Patrick then said this: "If you vote Shadowlurker, you're saying that you think scum are more likely to lie about where they had a vote than a pro town player, which I don't think is true." This statement really seems like he's trying to make people not vote SL. He then says "All I can say is I don't find it scummy, and that behaviour like that can often make you the target for superficially thought out or oppotunistic votes." :Badposting:

Please explain why that is a bad posting?

Patrick then has a reread and calls it fruitless. Personally, my reread up to that point has shown a lot of things. I believe his reread was made with a fairly biased point of view.

Please elaborate on this too.

[Norinel]

I'm a little surprised nobody's going after me for not posting thoughts on specific people, since klebian and I replaced in to the exact same situation. I'm working on a read right now, will have stuff to say about Day 1 over the weekend, if not sooner.

[Turbovolver]

I'm a little surprised nobody's going after me for not posting thoughts on specific people, since klebian and I replaced in to the exact same situation. I'm working on a read right now, will have stuff to say about Day 1 over the weekend, if not sooner.

You didn't have any posts that got my hackles up. When a lurky player is happy to come in to dredge up posts for other people, or is always present to defend themself but does little else,

that

is scummy.

[Turbovolver]

Friday's question seemed more like a newbie who apparently was under the impression that random votes are just how people begin, not for any use, and decided to do a 'similar' thing, by voting a nonexistant person. I think turbo was making too big of a deal out of a minor thing done by someone who just wasn't acquainted to the game.

When Friday responded like that, I was definitely suspicious. Unless you think joking around is in fact helpful towards catching scum, you cant really have much of a problem with the "this is not helpul" statement.

Defensiveness isn't in itself scummy, but unexplained defensiveness is. I thought this was definitely something worth pursuing, because while it was possible Friday was just a naturally defensive and hostile player, it was more likely she reacted that way as scum.

Now, I understand this was the first post after a crash. No one had posted for 6 days. Falcone was asked to explain what he found interesting, and when he responded to the question, shadowlurker called him out for this. I don't think sl's statement had basis; falcone thought it worth notable that many people were being voted for vote changes, and had even been asked to clarify.

This is actually sort of misrepresentitive. ShadowLurker didn't appear to be chastising him for providing his reasoning, he was chastisting him for providing

bad

reasoning, i.e. "making masterpieces out of shit".

These posts were made 6 hours apart. While I know he said 'shortly', 1) That can be interpreted different ways, and 2) Other players were just making "I'm here" posts, so I don't think it's correct to call someone out for not 'posting shortly' when others weren't as well.

Wow, you're really biased against me huh? Yeah, I interpreted shortly as "sorry, I'm here again, I'll post". You are correct that it might have meant "in a few days" but that's not a big deal.

And your second point is just laughable. There's a difference between an "I'm here" post and a "I'm here, posting soon" post. Not only that, but of course I'll be waiting more for Friday to post, as I felt she was scummy and I believe I was waiting on her response at the time!

Seemed like a stupid and random post... Can't really explain why else this post was made.

Because I was suspicious of kilmenator and decided to throw a bad pun in there as well. Kilmenator said "I don't know who to suspect, not really sure about this, but I'll vote ShadowLurker for being too defensive." I mean, Shadowlurker hadn't even been defensive!

and people started discussing whether he forgot, or whether this was a deliberate lie. This question was stated by Patrick, and it's interesting to note that SL didn't say anything about this being a false dilemma.

How is it a false dilemma? Either Shadowlurker deliberately confirm voted someone he wasn't voting, or he forgot and it was an accident. What other possibilities are there?

Kilmenator made what I'd consider a sort of newbish response, and this made Patrick vote for her because he said she was just looking for reasons to vote SL, despite the fact that she was voting him for being too defensive, which was fairly unrelated to the topic which was then being discussed.

The defensive reason was baloney, like I said above, so that would in fact be "just looking for reasons to ote SL".

Patrick then said this: "If you vote Shadowlurker, you're saying that you think scum are more likely to lie about where they had a vote than a pro town player, which I don't think is true." This statement really seems like he's trying to make people not vote SL. He then says "All I can say is I don't find it scummy, and that behaviour like that can often make you the target for superficially thought out or oppotunistic votes." :Badposting:

What? Patrick is right. I don't see any reason that scum would be more likely to confirm vote someone they weren't voting than town.

Then for many posts, people argue against shadowlurker, and he eventually says that his inital arguement was to generate discussion. I've found that SL makes the excuse of 'generating discussion'. Kilmenator makes a comment about it was more suspicious HOW he generated discussion, and offered no lynch as a hypothetical better alternative.

I like the way you arbitrarily suggest no lynch as a better alternative to confirm voting somebody you aren't voting. Both are 'classically scummy' moves that are used early game solely to get things going, so I don't know why one would be better than the other. I get the feeling you don't either, and made that post up as you went.

Unvote: Friday-13th
Vote: killmenator

As for the defending ShadowLurker thing, I like to comment on everything I can.

that reasoning is just horrid. And that last sentence doesn't really seem right, since I haven't felt like he's been doing that; it seems more like he's been attacking newbie posts and defending experienced souding posts.

That reasoning is not horrid. Shadowlurker did something 'stupid', that people might consider scummy just because it was 'bad play' - evidenced in this thread, and even by you. Kilmenator said: "Why would you do that, when you could vote no lynch?" When no lynch is also a "bad play" move which some people deliberately do to generate discussion. That is, NO DIFFERENT.

More to come.

[ShadowLurker]

I'm a little surprised nobody's going after me for not posting thoughts on specific people, since klebian and I replaced in to the exact same situation. I'm working on a read right now, will have stuff to say about Day 1 over the weekend, if not sooner.

Please do, CT Mafia was lost even though they got it down to 1 mafia out of 11 because the confirmed innocents did not feel like doing anything.

[Turbovolver]

After the crash, turbo randomly brings up the fact that friday had voted only once the entire game, on rosso, and defends rosso. The vote had been made pages earlier, and this makes me think that turbo is just attempting to attack Friday on whatever basis he can.

When a player has made only one vote and that vote is for a dodgy reason, that is a pretty solid basis for attacking someone. "Whatever basis he can," yeah right.


Oh, so that's all that was left.

[Turbovolver]

Also there was a mistake in my first big post: there was some text of Klebian's that got in there and wasn't quoted.

Also I didn't yet respond to this:

As for the defending ShadowLurker thing, I like to comment on everything I can.

And that last sentence doesn't really seem right, since I haven't felt like he's been doing that; it seems more like he's been attacking newbie posts and defending experienced souding posts.

Well, obviously the statemtent should be "I like to comment on everything I can and consider worthy".

I certainly don't agree with "attacking newb posts and defending experienced posts" though. Even if that's the way things have panned out, and I don't think that they have, my motivation certainly hasn't been some sort of crusade against new players.

[Adele]

Geez, this game's so

fast

. I keep looking, thinking "I'll catch up later" then next time I check in there's loads more!

Klebian is suspicious because he hasn't been posting anything about his suspicions. So by telling us what he thinks of the game, that is a type of defense, really. When a player has to make up suspicions on the spot, it's sometimes easy to notice... we'll see.

Yeah, but we need generic contributions, not just, "Oh, I suspect X, I guess, the most, then Y". The analysis he's doing atm looks good to me, if it keeps up.

[Patrick]

Yeah, but we need generic contributions, not just, "Oh, I suspect X, I guess, the most, then Y". The analysis he's doing atm looks good to me, if it keeps up.

I feel I have to disagree. The analysis he's doing is partly a summary of the game and partly using logic that doesn't seem to make sense.

[Adele]

Yeah, but we need generic contributions, not just, "Oh, I suspect X, I guess, the most, then Y". The analysis he's doing atm looks good to me, if it keeps up.

I feel I have to disagree. The analysis he's doing is partly a summary of the game and partly using logic that doesn't seem to make sense.

The summary is useful, and the analysis makes sense to

me

. The points he's made against SL, Turbo and (to a lesser extent) you, Patrick, all seem sensible, whereas your rebuttals do not.

For example, at one point, as Klebian pointed out, you said:

If you vote Shadowlurker, you're saying that you think scum are more likely to lie about where they had a vote than a pro town player, which I don't think is true.

I think any given lie is more likely to be given by scum than a pro-town player. Scum could easily hope that they can move their vote to a safer/more useful location without a good reason this way without people necessarily noticing and, if they do, assuming it's a mistake. This is not LAL territory, but it definately looks like a tell to me, as does you jumping in to defend him rather than letting him explain for himself why he really

did

move his vote, then. I also agree with the :badposting: he then went on to give you.

[Patrick]

I stand by my comment. I don't for a second believe scum is more likely to confirm a vote on someone they're not voting than town. Scum do lie, but I don't see why they would lie about something so easily checked. He just attracted a load of attention to himself, and in my opinion, some oppotunistic votes.

[kilmenator]

guys, things have been crazy around here. It should slow down in the next day or so, will read and post later!

[Turbovolver]

The summary is useful, and the analysis makes sense to me. The points he's made against SL, Turbo and (to a lesser extent) you, Patrick, all seem sensible, whereas your rebuttals do not.

There is NO way that stuff is 'sensible'.

"Look here as Turbo prods the person he was most suspicious of when they say they would post and didn't. He completely ignored the other people who posted to say they were around!"

"Look here as Turbo attacks someone he was already suspicious of for only having one vote and that vote being for a crappy reason. He must just be just trying to attack her on whatever basis he can!"

[Ozymandius]

I'm sorry everyone, but I am requesting to be replaced. I have some things that I need to deal with and I cannot be active in this mafia game at this time.

[Machiavellian-Mafia]

I will start seeking a replacement for Ozymandius immediately.

.................................................................................
.................................................................................
.................................................................................
.................................................................................
.................................................................................
.................................................................................
.................................................................................
.................................................................................
.................................................................................
.................................................................................

While everyone in the center of the town keeps discussing who should be lynched, Patrick suddenly drops dead onto the ground. Immediately everyone looked around to see who might have done this, but to everyone's chagrin, no trace of the killer could be found...

Patrick, protown copycat, killed Day 2

You are the Copycat. Every night you may choose to copy someone’s ability and use that copied ability on a player of your choice. You must submit both who to copy and who to target at the same time, so you will not be notified of what ability you copied. For example, if you copied the doctor and targeted player X, player X will be protected.

[Machiavellian-Mafia]

So now with only 9 people alive, it will take 5 to lynch!

[Patrick]

wtf?
go town...

[Turbovolver]

Well, I don't think it was a modkill.

[Adele]

So, we have an anonymous daykiller...

Well, I don't think it was a modkill.

Don't think? Are you taking responsibility or speculating? If the latter, I agree; I can't imagine a mod not taking responsibility for a modkill.

[ShadowLurker]

I don't believe too much speculation on the kill/killer until it comes out is a good idea as it will distract us from finding scum.

For the moment though, I'm leaning toward the killer being protown.

[klebian]

I am too. I will respond to some of my rebuttals later, unfortunately, I have been fairly busy these last few days, and will be busy today as well, so it will take some more time for me to respond + finish my reread/analysis. In the meantime, I'd like if norinel adds at least something.

[Turbovolver]

So, we have an anonymous daykiller...

Well, I don't think it was a modkill.

Don't think? Are you taking responsibility or speculating? If the latter, I agree; I can't imagine a mod not taking responsibility for a modkill.

Speculating. I checked over the latest Patrick posts quickly and didn't see anything modkill worthy.

I do agree that speculation about who is the daykiller isn't really worthwhile at this time.