Mini 424 - Game Over

[Javert]

Part One

:

The "I've got a life" point I made was not meant to be an appeal to emotion – I am fairly sure

anybody

reading my posts will not feel any sympathy for me, nor was I trying to elicit any. I was simply explaining that I think you were too quick to call paint me as somebody not contributing, so I pointed back to my post where I in fact

did

warn the town that it would take me a day or so to get back into the rhythm.

As for other games, there were indeed a number I also had to hold off in contributing in any great detail, precisely because of my most recent schedule. There are also games I consider higher priority than this particular game; it is low on the totem pole, so to speak.

Part Two

:

From what I understand of your position, you are willing to vote for noncontributors and such for the

purposes of discussion

– correct me if I am wrong – as gathered from your insistence of "see, the thread dies when Ancalagon isn't at Lynch -1!". I

can

understand that much, though as we have gone over, I don't necessarily agree with that tactic myself in comparison to others.

In other words, our common goal seems to be discussion. But the problem is, a lynch

halts

discussion.

Being willing to

lynch

noncontributors, especially when there are a number of them (i.e. the others are unlikely to have commented on the one lynched) strikes me as unintuitive. I tend to make sure there is sufficient discussion before I push for a lynch, even in cases where I am very positive somebody is scum. Furthermore, as I believe I mentioned in the lost data, I think continually pushing on noncontributors instead of focusing on things you find scummy is a good way to stop from taking stances on players.

Granted, you have given us the premise that if

you

vote for somebody, you find them scummy: but I tend to like a few lines of reasoning so that I know

why

you think that. I can hardly imagine trying to get reads on players if everybody voted with the explanation of "I wouldn't vote them unless I thought they were scummy".

Part Three

:

I, in fact, simply

could not remember

if there had been an additional case against Ancalagon besides which has already been mentioned. I did not personally recall one – but the impression of your posts (and others' posts) seemed to imply that there had been one, so I too was interested in seeing it.

But as long as Ancalagon can't even be bothered to comment on the stuff that isn't missing, why would you assume he'd be more productive if we provide him with even more to ignore?

I assume this because a good deal of Ancalagon's posts seem to be focusing directly on the lost data. I agree that he should be commenting on the latest happenings and the past posts, however, which I have already mentioned in [172].

[Javert]

I assume this because a good deal of Ancalagon's posts seem to be focusing directly on the lost data.

I figured once he was presented with something tangible to respond to, he would have no reason not to comment on other things, and would hence begin to do so.

I agree that he should be commenting on the latest happenings and the past posts, however, which I have already mentioned in [172].

Highlight added for clarification.

[MeMe]

From what I understand of your position, you are willing to vote for noncontributors and such for the

purposes of discussion

– correct me if I am wrong – as gathered from your insistence of "see, the thread dies when Ancalagon isn't at Lynch -1!". I

can

understand that much, though as we have gone over, I don't necessarily agree with that tactic myself in comparison to others.

Just wanted to clarify that my "see the thread dies" comment was a joke -- and, if I remember correctly, had either a winking or laughing smiley to make sure it was

read

as one.

In other words, our common goal seems to be discussion. But the problem is, a lynch

halts

discussion.

However, getting someone closer to a lynch makes discussions much more urgent/interesting -- and might even move this game a notch or two higher on the players' totem poles.

Being willing to

lynch

noncontributors, especially when there are a number of them (i.e. the others are unlikely to have commented on the one lynched) strikes me as unintuitive. I tend to make sure there is sufficient discussion before I push for a lynch, even in cases where I am very positive somebody is scum.

Please reread my post #170 where I outline who I would've been willing to vote at the time. I mention "lynch" only with Ancalagon. The other three names are people I could see voting to get the day past its current stagnation and toward a close. You're making it sound like if I could end the day right now with no more discussion I

would

-- and that's simply not the case.

I, in fact, simply

could not remember

if there had been an additional case against Ancalagon besides which has already been mentioned. I did not personally recall one – but the impression of your posts (and others' posts) seemed to imply that there had been one, so I too was interested in seeing it.

Ah. Your post read much more like a request on Ancalagon's behalf alone, especially the last portion where you characterize yourself as intervening for him. I had no idea you were also making a

personal

request for information. That puts your earlier post in a different light.

As for the rest of your post, it falls into the "fair enough" category for me.

[Javert]

I do agree that putting people closer to a lynch often ups the discussion. My problem here stems from the fact that I have just seen and been in too many games as of late where somebody is put at Lynch -1, and the day ends with a premature hammer - whether it is done accidentally or purposefully is not entirely relevant. Regardless of whether or not that person turns up to be scum, Day Two often starts with people in the "so what now?" attitude. I try to avoid situations where premature hammers are possible in general.

Also, you are correct about [Post 170]: I had read it to mean you would be fine lynching any of those players, whereas you did specify simply voting them. I suppose the impression of your post is that you want to end day as quickly as possible, and this was mostly derived from your comment that you are "just ready for the day to be over". And I figured if you wanted the day to be done with, whoever you were voting at that time would be the person you wanted lynched - hence why I believed you were willing to lynch any of those players.

[MeMe]

I see how it makes perfect sense to read it that way -- totally my fault.

[spectrumvoid]

I haven't finished yet, but I just thought I'll post what I have so you all don't have to keep waiting. ^ are basically notes to myself, meant to be edited away when I finish, but I'm too lazy to do them now. Things in - bullets are pure copy-paste without analysis, just for my own notes.

OMG:
I think Elias made a mistake on page 1. And while this might not show if Elias was town or scum, I find OMG's reaction to kil overblown. Kil asked a perfectly logical question (explanation later), asking Elias to respond.

OMG just went way over and jumped to defend Elias with a vote on kil. And he's saying kil being proactive is bad. This post is almost incoherent, and after reading it, the only thing I'm getting is OMG thinks kil is scummy for going for a tiny mistake of Elias. On page 1, other people also pointed out that mistake. Then he starts getting also pissed off and saying he's not going to answer any more questions. Being emotional and hyper-defensive is a classic scum-tell.

He claims later that he's naturally aggressive in an attempt to defend this jumpy post. He also claims that people deliberately ignored/misintepreted his earlier post, when I also feel that I don't understand his earlier post, the one where he just said whatever kil said was BS.

For no reason at all he votes ac (in retaliation to ac's vote on him.)

Then he asks to get replaced, which he withdraws (giving up is another classic scum-tell.)

Then again for no reason at all he votes nocmen.

*Also been after javert for annoying him.

Conclusion:
OMG has made a few classic scum-tells. He also fixated on kil, for being 'lazy' when there were other inactive players. However, I find it hard to believe scum would draw this much obvious attention to himself. Non-commital at the moment, because yes, I'm aware this is wifom, and this is the too scummy to be scum fallacy. I need more time to think this over.

Kil:
I find kil not scummy over his question to elias. I think he clarified himself nicely, and explained why he questioned elias again in post 29. (Unlike OMG, I think kil's question to elias was valid.) I don't see this as kil jumping on elias, I read this as a pro-town move to try to get a read on elias.

Pointed out that Nocmen started the 1st wagon and lay low.

Voted Barroman for not adding much to the game yet casting suspicion to Elias. This is not a contradiction, kil never did commit to saying elias was scummy.
His questions were phrased along the lines of: why did you do this and that? And explaining why he thought that could be scummy.
(This was after Javert pointed this out.)

Kil's responsed to OMG. It's also right of him to point out that other people were also inactive. He voted OMG, clarifying he didn't think it's a strong case.

Conclusion:
Slightly pro-town read on kil at the moment, based on how he reacted under pressure. I'm leaving that whole appeal to emotion thing out because it sounds just like OMG insulting kil, and I think kil was right to point out that mafia is supposed to be fun, not insulting. Either way, I think it's irrelevant.

* I need someone to verify that kil disappeared on site, not just for this game.

Javert:
Non-commital: Doesn't believe elias could make that mistake, yet suspicious of people attacking elias.

First one to point out how Barroman's questions to Elias could be scummy. Then again, he 'will be monitering the situation' and 'investigating others simultaneously. ^Note: check this.

- Asks ac1983 to comment on Elias-issue.
- Asks Meme to comment on ancalagon.
- Responds to Barroman, saying he did not answer B's questions to Elias.
- Asks OMG why Javert is annoying OMG.
- Asks nocmen who Ancalagon is defending.
- Points out the Shadow isn't voting. Asks shadow when is it time to vote
- Asks Barroman if B agrees elias has answered B's questions.
- Clarifies he did not answer B's questions.

Unvotes B, because B was sincere in his explanation of his intentions
I'm not sure whether to believe this. If either Javert or B turns out to be scum, I'll take another look at this whole Javert-B interaction. It's hard to describe exactly why, but Javert felt to me like he was picking it out purely so B could explain himself thoroughly over this. However, I will not be considering this today, because pairings are bad on day 1 due to lack of night information.

Goes against kil: kil is appealing to emotion using that fun VS insult thing, kil is asking them not to pressure him for irrelevant reasons.
This is significant. ^need to check timeline with other players, whether Javert is "going against the flow."

- Votes ac1983, could be the shadow if he doesn't reply.
- Makes a please contribute post.
- Asks nocmen where the Javert is nitpicking-scum vibe comes from, why is he drawing connections on day 1.
- Explains why he's busy, defends ancalagon against... Meme? ^check.

Consistency in his next 3 posts with his earlier playstyle (harping on ac1983 and Shadow for not contributing enough) + consistent with his earlier 'investigating others simultaneously' bit. ^need to check with Meme's post. Also consistent with his push for discussion (earlier he went around asking people what was their opinion on others.) Javert is a good conversation starter.

Conclusion:
Javert is a good mafia player. He's also very detailed. He plays fairly unemotionally unless riled up. Very slightly protownish for liking discussion (just veryvery slightly). No other clear read on whether he's town or scum, but this is what I gathered from his playstyle.

Next up:
barroman, followed by ac1983fan, followed by ancalgon, followed by Meme.

[Elias_the_thief]

sorry for my absense guys, ive been sick for a while and I still am. After I post this or a similar message in all my games I will return to bed. But you can expect me back in 1-2 days.

sidenonte: no analysis about me? or is your belief that i made a mistake it?

[kilmenator]

I am here, but just recently have become very busy. I will try to post tonight. I think the only game I posted in, I posted last night late, and then went to bed. I will however, try to catch up. Give me a day or so...

[omg_im_innocent_wtf]

Being emotional and hyper-defensive is a classic scum-tell.

NO IT ISNT

HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU PEOPLE HAVE TO BE WRONG BEFORE YOU LEARN? IT IS LIEK PLAYING WITH MONKEYS THAT HAVE SOMEHOW LEARNED HOW TO TYPE I SWEAR

unvote, vote spectrumvoid

.... i dont care about his role. i am not putting up with this bs any more.

[kilmenator]

Being emotional and hyper-defensive is a classic scum-tell.

NO IT ISNT

HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU PEOPLE HAVE TO BE WRONG BEFORE YOU LEARN? IT IS LIEK PLAYING WITH MONKEYS THAT HAVE SOMEHOW LEARNED HOW TO TYPE I SWEAR

unvote, vote spectrumvoid

.... i dont care about his role. i am not putting up with this bs any more.

I disagree, while it isnt always a scum tell, it often can be a scum tell. The fact that you are hyperacting over him saying it was a scum tell doesnt look much better either!

The discussion between Javert and Meme is interesting, mostly just talking about getting discussion going and such. The way I read it, it seems like Javert over reacted to meme's little joke about the lynch -1 thingy. I dont have time to do a complete reread right now, with analysis, but I think the people most scummy at this point are

The Shadow-lurker, but could just be inactive
OMG- hyperdefensive, almost opportunistic about his attacks on people, overtly rude
Ancalagon- scummish
Nocmen-scummish
Possibly Barroman scummish... I dont know

Anyway, those are my thoughts thus far, rather lazy and tired at this point to do a complete reread and analysis, but maybe this weekend...

[omg_im_innocent_wtf]

omfg

link me to ONE game where that has ever been right. just one.

see here is how theories should be developed....

grass is usually green. observe green grass. grass is green. people think and add to theory. yes. grass is usually green.

here is how it works here:

overdefensive players are scum. townie lynched, scum win game because people were dumb enough to think the townie was scum. overdefensive player was not scum. moronic players get lobotomy. yes. overdefensive players are scum.

it is this absolute retardation thats why im rude to you idiots. im fed up of reading this bs in every single game i play. there is always at least one.... and this game was actually fine, until the 'one' showed up.

[Elias_the_thief]

I have to admit that this is the same way he acted in 417, and he turned out to be a protown roleblocker in that. Im mostly better by the way, so I'll probably start posting regularly soon.

[spectrumvoid]

Yelling at people and using bad grammar (I'm pretty sure even someone who's English isn't that great knows how to capitalise I's)doesn't make you town either.

In other news, I've been grounded for playing scum.net during exam period, I should regain access this weekend.

[spectrumvoid]

Elias: I'll get around to everyone soon, no worries. Glad to hear you're feeling better!

[omg_im_innocent_wtf]

Yelling at people and using bad grammar (I'm pretty sure even someone who's English isn't that great knows how to capitalise I's)doesn't make you town either.

In other news, I've been grounded for playing scum.net during exam period, I should regain access this weekend.

wtf......... i m nt vting any1 but dis guy til he is ded ok?

[ac1983fan]

FOS:SV

craplogic.

[Elias_the_thief]

ac, could you elaborate? I didnt see an instance of SV using craplogic. could you quote it or something for clarification?

[LyingBrian]

• Vote Count:
  • 2) Ancalagon
    • MeMe
    • Nocmen
  • 2) ac1983fan
    • Barromán
    • Javert
  • 1) Barromán
    • ac1983fan
  • 1) MeMe
    • Ancalagon
  • 1) Nocmen
    • omg_im_innocent_wtf
  • 1) omg_im_innocent_wtf
    • kilmenator
  • 3)
    not voting
    • Elias_the_thief
    • spectrumvoid
    • The Shadow
• Lynch:
  6 votes

[omg_im_innocent_wtf]

lol thats cool i dont really wanna vote for him anyway, his annoyingness doesnt actually make him scum. it just makes him another player ill have to ignore....

and yeah ill be more careful next time.

[ac1983fan]

Being emotional and hyper-defensive is a classic scum-tell.

(OMG gets mad at kil)

Yelling at people and using bad grammar (I'm pretty sure even someone who's English isn't that great knows how to capitalise I's)doesn't make you town either.

Meant to make that mostly and

FOS:Kil

, but I was distracted.

[kilmenator]

Being emotional and hyper-defensive is a classic scum-tell.

(OMG gets mad at kil)

Yelling at people and using bad grammar (I'm pretty sure even someone who's English isn't that great knows how to capitalise I's)doesn't make you town either.

Meant to make that mostly and

FOS:Kil

, but I was distracted.

Ummm... you obviously did not get your tags right, because I dont think I ever said that, I said that making people be emotional can be a scum tell, and I said that being overdefensive can sometimes be a scum tell, but I dont recall saying overdefensiveness was a scum tell.

[Ancalagon]

I've still not seen any analysis from you on the stuff that isn't missing.

That's because I want you to answer

my

questions as well. I am analyzing, but some of the stuff that isn't missing is also attacking me, which I must defend.

From the most recent behavior, omg comes off as the most scummy. However, I can see him showing up as town, since his behavior has been consistent all game. Omg, perhaps insulting and yelling at people isn't the best way to play.

kilmenator comes off scummy, but not very. I can't see much hard evidence on his posts, they just don't seem right.

[omg_im_innocent_wtf]

no, i play fine.

voting people based on pro-town tells like overdefensiveness is the wrong way to play. never learning from your mistakes is the wrong way to play. voting people because you are offended by what they say is the wrong way to play.

finding me scummy here is beyond stupid, and yet it happens every game i play on this site. pathetic.

[Ancalagon]

no, i play fine.

voting people based on pro-town tells like overdefensiveness is the wrong way to play. never learning from your mistakes is the wrong way to play. voting people because you are offended by what they say is the wrong way to play.

finding me scummy here is beyond stupid, and yet it happens every game i play on this site. pathetic.

You say never learning from your mistakes is the wrong way to play, but people find you scummy in every game you play. Ironic?

Anyway, how is finding you scummy beyond stupid? You ad hominem and attack everyone here.

[Nocmen]

no, i play fine.

voting people based on pro-town tells like overdefensiveness is the wrong way to play. never learning from your mistakes is the wrong way to play. voting people because you are offended by what they say is the wrong way to play.

finding me scummy here is beyond stupid, and yet it happens every game i play on this site. pathetic.

I laugh at your hypocrisy over this game. As Ancala said, you tell us to "learn from our mistakes", and then complain about how you are seen as scum every game you play. Have you ever thought that you are the one making the mistake with how you play? So before we learn from our non-existent mistakes (aside from listening to you, thats a given), maybe you should reflect on why we see you scummy and learn from that?