Mini 396: ChatMafia Mafia; GAME OVER

[ChannelDelibird]

And what if there is no picture tomorrow and all we get is an explanation that he didn't have time for mafia?

There's no way he's going to get away with that twice, but I think we can afford to let him get away with it once.

These 2 I find scummy about Jack but then again he was one of the only players backing me up on StallingChamp.

Uh, you what? As I remember there were quite a few, myself included. There's also the fact that we don't know StallingChamp/AniX is scum, and if he is, Jack could have been bussing (which would be a good reason for him to jump on a lurker instead).

[milkman]

k. I'm making a scummy/townish list.

Zindaras- If this was yesterday, prior to the lynch, I'd call him scummy. Mostly for the OMGUS voting of HurriKaty and the whole irregularity thing (I have a feeling someone from that incident is scum). But he did get on the mc wagon.

To sum it up:

Except that Zindaras's whole attack on me has been one OMGUS. Its just LYNCH KATY LYNCH KATY LYNCH KATY without any contributions to the other discussions that are going on, and he's asking ME for an opinion?

No. I've been on you since you 'wagoned onto Angus.

I'm not here to make people angry. I'm here to play a game.

Unvote

Vote: Masterchief

I haven't seen him post anything of substance for a while.

Mod

, could you prod him?

Today, Zindaras is playing like a good townie, and I really liked his scum list. I'll say town.

ChannelDelibird- Yesterday, he was really into the mc wagon, and he seemed to be pro-HurriKaty. The only thing I don't like about his play so far is all the FOSs, as FOSs allow a person to be noncommittal, but that's more a issue with FOSs than Delibird. Today I'm really feeling his post by post of jack. Town here too.

draygn_mage/ AniX/ Coron- Really hasn't given me enough to make a clear picture. POST MOAR. Neutral- for AniX/ Coron, neutral+ for draygn.

Twito- On the mc wagon, did hint at replacement a few times though.

Vote: MC

Coz he has to die or be replaced in every game he is in.

I'm going to say town/neutral+.

AngusHutchsky- Hopefully town. I know his ability doesn't make him town, but if he really is an artist, then we gain a bunch of information.

Y- never let up on angus, and whole bunch of other stuff. not going to post it here, dredge up some of my d1 posts. Scummy.

HurriKaty- I really want her to be protown, but I don't really know yet. Neutral+.

Jack- He keeps trying to rush the angus lynch, and it really bugs me. He was in on that whole irregularity thing, and I'm more on Zindaras side, than Jack's. Guess I'll throw a

vote:jack

on the pile.

[Twito]

Uh, you what? As I remember there were quite a few, myself included. There's also the fact that we don't know StallingChamp/AniX is scum, and if he is, Jack could have been bussing (which would be a good reason for him to jump on a lurker instead).

That actually makes sence. If Jack is StallingChamps buddy he would be doing exactly what he did. First bussing and then quickly moving his vote not to danger his partner unnecasserily.
I guess I could give Augus another day coincidering I don't really find his posting scummy. If there is no picture tomorrow he is getting lynch no more mercy.

Unvote

I'd kinda like to hear from new StallingChamp but I guess I could go with Jack lynch today regardless of that.

Vote: Jack

[Zindaras]

If we don't get a picture tomorrow, Angus is dead.

Simple as that.

[Jack]

I think we should just lynch angus. We're just twiddling our thumbs here.

QFT

...

Vote:Jack

...for trying to rush an Angus lynch.

Hypocritical much?


I believe we went over coron as a lurker extensively. If someone is lurking an fos is not going to get them to delurk. You have to pretend serious suspicion of someone to get them to respond.

"protecting masterchief/stallingchamp" god that's weak. Who was voting for masterchief at that point? Why would I put my vote on one lurker which is bound to draw attention to other lurkers? Why don't you think Zindaras was protecting Coron?

[Twito]

Looking forward what he says tomorrow if there is no picture.
"Maybe there is a scum roleblocker?" "I was busy and didn't have time to send in the picture" "I forgot"

[Jack]

Well, there's only one scum other than angus, correct?

Actually, no. Not for sure, at least. Most of us don't know how many mafiosos there are and can't be sure AH is 100% scum.

Do you know something we don't?

FoS Jack.

Zindaras was claiming there would be a stronger counter wagon if Angus was scum, I was saying that there would only be one other scum if angus was scum (3 is standard).

Add to that the fact that I feel that many of the players who are voting him are scummy and the fact that I feel that if Angus really was scum

there'd be a stronger counter-wagon/counter-argument,

I really do feel that there are enough reasons to believe that Angus is, in fact, town.

Oh the irony!

[Twito]

Nice to have this game weaking up. My vote is actually kinda unstable atm. Jack brings up good points.

[Jack]

ok more detail.

WARNING: This post is quite long.

Post by Post Analysis: Jack

(spontaneous decision)

Yeah right.

Post 14: votes dragyn_mage for saying he didn't remember how to play the game. Which isn't what he said.

page 1

Post 69: You expect him to say that he's NOT pro-town? WTF?

Post 79: Translation: IF YOU DON'T CLAIM A POWER ROLE YOU WILL DIE!

I was wrong on this. I was thinking it's an easy scum claim to say you have a power role but not say what it is. Some roles it's best not to claim though, don't think Angus's is one of them mind you.

Post 125: Votes Coron for lurking despite StallingChamp being a very appropriate place for his vote. I don't get it.

I get impatient.

Post 128: So now you're sure that Angus is innocent?

Was conditional. If he was innocent they would lurk.

Post 130: "I can only vote for one person!!!!! ...who were the other lurkers?" Asks why voting for lurkers when the game is dying down is scummy. Answer: because prods are better and StallingChamp is scummy.

I've always voted instead of asking for prods.

Post 140: And if you do single someone out, you're ignoring someone potentially just as scummy.

Temporarily.

Post 142: "Why is it scummy that I haven't unvoted Coron?" Because you feel he's more likely scum than StallingChamp, for example - you are voting for someone who

might

post something scummy ahead of someone who has. It's also that you're singling him out.

You get a lurker to post somethig and then you move on. There's plenty of time.

I also think your definition of irregular is wrong but don't want to get into another discussion about it.

Post 237: Tells Y off for suggesting that we lynch a lurker. Cough cough.

I never said anything about lynching coron.

Post 278: I do feel you are making too much out of Coron not posting 'tomorrow' as he had said he would. This is the kind of thing I do all the time, and I can't be scum in every game. Zindy's following post is good...

Isn't this a prime example of "irregular" behavior even though it isn't irregular for you? In fact you saying this while disagreeing with my defense is "irregular". Gosh, you must be scum.

Post 280: ...making this a bit silly. I really do think that half the reason you're attacking Zindy is that he doesn't agree wholeheartedly with you.

Possible :p

Post 354: Angus case...

Post 378: Itching to lynch Angus.

Post 381: "The only reason not to vote [Angus] is that tomorrow could prove it without a doubt."

...EXACTLY.

Post 390: Claims we'd lynch Angus tomorrow if we let him live today, which obviously would not be the case if he's telling the truth.

Post 400: Brings up a point against Angus that I came across doing this PBPA. Angus forgetting to send in a picture choice might have been coupled with forgetting to send in a kill choice. However, that would require a lurky mafia partner, unless he was in a two-person group, which is not

impossible

...

Post 403: "Why did you point it out?" Because you in particular are trying to get him lynched quickly and he's trying to survive. That's as pro-town as it is pro-scum.

Post 407: "I don't think we're getting anywhere". Translation: "LYNCHLYNCHLYNCHANGUS"

Post 411: Same.

Post 424: As I said a few posts ago, I disagree with this.

Post 429: And this.

Post 431: And this.

Post 435: "I don't see any reason to doubt his scumminess". Please look back at your own Post 381 in which you do.

Post 437: Jumps to conclusions about number of scum, and reiterates his LYNCHLYNCHLYNCH viewpoint.

HYPOCRITE as alreayd pointed out. Also, I've never been particularly patient.

Now, at the end of all that, I'm going to

vote: Jack

, principally for his singling out of Coron as a lurker, especially when StallingChamp deserved pressure, and for trying to rush an Angus lynch. And, indeed, for all the little things I posted above.

Hopefully I've addressed them.

[Jack]

unvote

because I want to reread on ChannelDelibird. His "I'm sure angus is guilty I'm sure angus is guilty I'm sure oh-wait-alternative-lynch-GIANT-POST-TIME" thing is suspicious.

[ChannelDelibird]

And you see no reason why I shouldn't have become a little bit cautious stringing Angus up like that?

I'll respond to the main body of your response to my PBPA after my dinner, which I'm going for now, but I should elaborate...after deciding I should look at other players than Angus, you seemed to be a good candidate as you'd been pushing the lynch and Zindy was voting for you.

[Jack]

Oh, by the way, I wanted to point out these two things as well, even though CDB's half-pointed them out:

1) Jack totally bandwagoned Angus Day 1. This is mostly for if we lynch Angus and he turns up town and I die tomorrow, but meh.

1-2 mislynch

[ChannelDelibird]

ok more detail.

WARNING: This post is quite long.

Post by Post Analysis: Jack

(spontaneous decision)

Yeah right.

Yeah. Right.

Post 14: votes dragyn_mage for saying he didn't remember how to play the game. Which isn't what he said.

page 1

I know where it was - but he DIDN'T say he didn't remember. He said "let's see if I can remember". i.e. he was rusty.

Post 69: You expect him to say that he's NOT pro-town? WTF?

Post 79: Translation: IF YOU DON'T CLAIM A POWER ROLE YOU WILL DIE!

I was wrong on this. I was thinking it's an easy scum claim to say you have a power role but not say what it is. Some roles it's best not to claim though, don't think Angus's is one of them mind you.

I do agree that Angus' claimed role is one that needs to be hinted at in the manner that it was, but I didn't have a problem with it.

Post 125: Votes Coron for lurking despite StallingChamp being a very appropriate place for his vote. I don't get it.

I get impatient.

Which is not behaviour helpful to the town.

Post 128: So now you're sure that Angus is innocent?

Was conditional. If he was innocent they would lurk.

I'm inclined to think that they'd be more likely to bandwagon if he was innocent, but there is some merit to this.

Post 130: "I can only vote for one person!!!!! ...who were the other lurkers?" Asks why voting for lurkers when the game is dying down is scummy. Answer: because prods are better and StallingChamp is scummy.

I've always voted instead of asking for prods.

Are there any links you could provide to games in which you've done this as pro-town? Also, prods > single votes in terms of pressure on players.

Post 140: And if you do single someone out, you're ignoring someone potentially just as scummy.

Temporarily.

You showed no signs of there being other lurkers for you to go after. And I'm sorry, however "temporary" it is, you are still letting people slide who have an equal chance of being scum.

Post 142: "Why is it scummy that I haven't unvoted Coron?" Because you feel he's more likely scum than StallingChamp, for example - you are voting for someone who

might

post something scummy ahead of someone who has. It's also that you're singling him out.

You get a lurker to post something and then you move on. There's plenty of time.

Hey, whaddaya know? Prods get them all to post something at the same time! Also, why didn't you say when you voted Coron who also needed to post, so that they might see your vote and notice that you felt the lurkers were scummy. That would do just as good a job. I don't think your defense is standing up very well, to be honest.

I also think your definition of irregular is wrong but don't want to get into another discussion about it.

OK, if you don't want to use 'irregular', try 'inconsistent'. Or maybe you prefer 'biased'.

Post 237: Tells Y off for suggesting that we lynch a lurker. Cough cough.

I never said anything about lynching coron.

You find lurking scummy, yes? You find scummy people lynch-worthy, yes? No, it's not quite the same as Y, but post 237 contradicts your stance on lurkers.

Post 278: I do feel you are making too much out of Coron not posting 'tomorrow' as he had said he would. This is the kind of thing I do all the time, and I can't be scum in every game. Zindy's following post is good...

Isn't this a prime example of "irregular" behavior even though it isn't irregular for you? In fact you saying this while disagreeing with my defense is "irregular". Gosh, you must be scum.

The point I'm making here is that it's not particularly pro-town OR pro-scum to not be able to post when you wanted to. If all you wanted was for a lurker to post some content, then you could afford leeway of a couple of days within his time frame. I don't think this is irregular.

Also, saying I "must be scum" and not voting for me is noted.

Post 280: ...making this a bit silly. I really do think that half the reason you're attacking Zindy is that he doesn't agree wholeheartedly with you.

Possible :p

Exactly. Disagreement is not a scumtell, it's a talking tell.

snip

HYPOCRITE as alreayd pointed out. Also, I've never been particularly patient.

Addressed in my previous post - don't you see why I might have become cautious about stringing up Angus like we were about to? Patience addressed above.

Now, at the end of all that, I'm going to

vote: Jack

, principally for his singling out of Coron as a lurker, especially when StallingChamp deserved pressure, and for trying to rush an Angus lynch. And, indeed, for all the little things I posted above.

Hopefully I've addressed them.

Only the smaller ones, I'm afraid. I still feel very comfortable with my vote on you.

[Jack]

You pushed for Angus lynch. I pushed for Angus lynch. You have unexplained second thoughts. I don't. Why is that scummy?

Most of my games are on another site where the mods don't prod.

Lurking isn't scummy, it's neutral.


I find it hard to believe that people doubt Angus is scum.

[ChannelDelibird]

If you think lurking is neutral as opposed to scummy, why did you vote for somebody for lurking?

You haven't answered my question. Don't you see why I might have become cautious about stringing up Angus like we were about to?

You know, Angus could actually be telling the truth. If he can confirm himself tonight that's good for the town, if he doesn't he's dead scum. That's a win-win for the town. We're not in LyLo.

[Jack]

If you think lurking is neutral as opposed to scummy, why did you vote for somebody for lurking?

You haven't answered my question. Don't you see why I might have become cautious about stringing up Angus like we were about to?

You know, Angus could actually be telling the truth. If he can confirm himself tonight that's good for the town, if he doesn't he's dead scum. That's a win-win for the town. We're not in LyLo.

So they stop lurking.

I think "I can't believe people don't think he's not scum" answers the question.

See above.

[ChannelDelibird]

If you think lurking is neutral as opposed to scummy, why did you vote for somebody for lurking?

You haven't answered my question. Don't you see why I might have become cautious about stringing up Angus like we were about to?

You know, Angus could actually be telling the truth. If he can confirm himself tonight that's good for the town, if he doesn't he's dead scum. That's a win-win for the town. We're not in LyLo.

So they stop lurking.

I think "I can't believe people don't think he's not scum" answers the question.

See above.

OK then, so in your view it's 100% completely impossible that Angus is town and simply didn't get his night choice in?

[Jack]

I believe he's scum. How many times do you want me to say it?

How did you go from thinking he was scum yesterday, to being convinced he was scum today, to this?

[ChannelDelibird]

Let me explain this as clearly as I can.

I am not convinced that Angus is town. I don't, however, feel that he's definitely scum yet. I think I and others have been rash in bringing Angus so close to a lynch today when he could confim himself tonight as either town or scum, depending on whether a painting appears tomorrow.

From what I can tell you're saying that if my feelings change over time I am scum for acting accordingly. It is not unusual for somebody to realise that perhaps their past actions have not been perfect.

[Zindaras]

Oh, by the way, I wanted to point out these two things as well, even though CDB's half-pointed them out:

1) Jack totally bandwagoned Angus Day 1. This is mostly for if we lynch Angus and he turns up town and I die tomorrow, but meh.

1-2 mislynch

I see that you're still using crap logic. It'd be a 1-2 mislynch if I'd actually support the Anguslynch, which I don't.

[Jack]

Why bother with FoS?

Vote:AngusHutchsky
...
We could give angus another day. But I don't see anything else.
...
Uh, he is really scummy. The only reason not to vote him is that tomorrow could prove it without a doubt.
...
I think y's point about a painting not confirming his innocence is good. He should just be lynched. If we give him another chance we're just going to end up lynching him tomorrow.
...
"Don't lynch me, I might have stopped a kill! Somehow!"
...
I don't think we're getting anywhere.
...
I think we should just lynch angus. We're just twiddling our thumbs here.

I'd forgotten about da Vinci completely. FoS: AngusHutchsky
...
I would be voting Angus right now but I'd rather we had a few pages of discussion before we lynch him - which we certainly should do.
...
I totally agree with Y, and it's also worth mentioning that I don't believe anyone would be given a role whose sole purpose is to confirm their innocence. There's gotta be more to it (which wouldn't make sense given the nature of the claimed role).

vote: AngusHutchsky
...
If I had a cup of coffee in my hand right now I'd be spitting it over the screen.

Accidentally blocked the kill?

That's both reaching and said from the perspective of a mafiate.

Alright, it's not huge, but that reads absolutely terribly.
...
QFT. I can't see there being a better lynch.

So far we are in complete agreement it seems. Now, here's the interesting post:

@ Jack - I disagree with your anti-Zindaras feeling. He seems pretty town to me in general and t

he defense of Angus that you've taken offense to is sensible.

I do have to admit that there is a slight nagging feeling in the back of my mind that we shouldn't be so hasty in lynching Angus, and Zindy's caution is valid.

In fact, I'm going to unvote. I'm not comfortable with Angus at -1 right now, although given some more time I might go back.

Now, if you read Zindaras's post 423

it doesn't actually defend Angus

. He expresses doubts over the angus wagon, same as he did before. The first time he expressed these doubts (

without

voting) delibird's next post was a vote for Angus. This time Z posts doubts and votes for me. Now all of a sudden Zindaras has a sensible point? Somehow this prompts him to to a pbpa. He claims this was spontaneous which is a really odd claim. It's like he wants to assure us it has nothing to do with Z's vote for me.

He ends up voting me for:

principally for his singling out of Coron as a lurker, especially when StallingChamp deserved pressure, and for trying to rush an Angus lynch. And, indeed, for all the little things I posted above.

Now, the principal reason he previously gave an fos and a weak fos for. The little things he says my answer has satisfied him. "trying to rush the Angus lynch" is the same thing he did if you read his comments. So what I want to know is, how did he go from "Angus is lying and scum" to thinking I'm a better lynch? It's not clear at all, however he attempts to cover it up. He doesn't give any reason for suspecting Angus less than previously. To me, this has all the markings of scum trying to take pressure off his partner. In his last post he says he thinks it was rash, but that it wasn't scummy that he was rash. Then he says I'm rash and therefore scum. It really doesn't follow.

[Jack]

Oh, by the way, I wanted to point out these two things as well, even though CDB's half-pointed them out:

1) Jack totally bandwagoned Angus Day 1. This is mostly for if we lynch Angus and he turns up town and I die tomorrow, but meh.

1-2 mislynch

I see that you're still using crap logic. It'd be a 1-2 mislynch if I'd actually support the Anguslynch, which I don't.

You said if angus is lynched and town then I should be lynched. That would be a 1-2 mislynch, even if you only support the "2".

[Zindaras]

Oh, by the way, I wanted to point out these two things as well, even though CDB's half-pointed them out:

1) Jack totally bandwagoned Angus Day 1. This is mostly for if we lynch Angus and he turns up town and I die tomorrow, but meh.

1-2 mislynch

I see that you're still using crap logic. It'd be a 1-2 mislynch if I'd actually support the Anguslynch, which I don't.

You said if angus is lynched and town then I should be lynched. That would be a 1-2 mislynch, even if you only support the "2".

I'm saying you should be lynched regardless of whatever Angus's alignment is. I'm simply adding it as another argument.

[ChannelDelibird]

Somehow this prompts him to to a pbpa. He claims this was spontaneous which is a really odd claim. It's like he wants to assure us it has nothing to do with Z's vote for me.

I do not claim that it has nothing to do with Zindy's vote for you. Quite the contrary, I mention that the fact that you are an alternative is part of my reasoning for looking at you. Here is the post:

I'll respond to the main body of your response to my PBPA after my dinner, which I'm going for now, but I should elaborate...after deciding I should look at other players than Angus, you seemed to be a good candidate as you'd been pushing the lynch and Zindy was voting for you.

If you look at any game that I have played in the past, you'll see that a PBPA is, if not a first, a second-time-ever thing for me to do. In that way it was spontaneous (i.e. I don't think we should by lynching Angus today -> Who should we lynch instead? -> Jack seems to be really pushing the Angus wagon, and he is already suspected by another player enough for a vote -> Oh! I could do a PBPA as I am bored, have the time, and could usefully see if it's worth my while voting for him.)

In his last post he says he thinks it was rash, but that it wasn't scummy that he was rash. Then he says I'm rash and therefore scum. It really doesn't follow.

How and when have I said that being rash wasn't scummy? The entire point I've been making is that the Angus wagon is scummy.

Now, if you read Zindaras's post 423 it doesn't actually defend Angus.

You interpreted it as such, in the very next post.

I don't like Zindaras defense of angus. It looks like either defending scum buddy or "see guys I told you he was innocent".

[Jack]

Somehow this prompts him to to a pbpa. He claims this was spontaneous which is a really odd claim. It's like he wants to assure us it has nothing to do with Z's vote for me.

I do not claim that it has nothing to do with Zindy's vote for you. Quite the contrary, I mention that the fact that you are an alternative is part of my reasoning for looking at you. Here is the post:

That would be bandwagon then. Which was my point.

If you look at any game that I have played in the past, you'll see that a PBPA is, if not a first, a second-time-ever thing for me to do. In that way it was spontaneous (i.e. I don't think we should by lynching Angus today -> Who should we lynch instead? -> Jack seems to be really pushing the Angus wagon, and he is already suspected by another player enough for a vote -> Oh! I could do a PBPA as I am bored, have the time, and could usefully see if it's worth my while voting for him.)

That's not spontaneous in the slightest. Nice backtracking.

In his last post he says he thinks it was rash, but that it wasn't scummy that he was rash. Then he says I'm rash and therefore scum. It really doesn't follow.

How and when have I said that being rash wasn't scummy? The entire point I've been making is that the Angus wagon is scummy.

You said you were rash but were innocent, and your argument is that I was rash therefore guilty. I'm pointing out the flaw in your reasoning there.

Now, if you read Zindaras's post 423 it doesn't actually defend Angus.

You interpreted it as such, in the very next post.

I don't like Zindaras defense of angus. It looks like either defending scum buddy or "see guys I told you he was innocent".

My post is irrelevant. You aren't answering the charge against you. If I said there was a defense, and you said the defense was sensible, you must have read such a defense and agreed with it. But if there was no defense for you to read (whether I said there was or not), then you didn't really agree with anything. What part of zindies post was a defense of angus that you thought was sensible?