Mini 443 - Tapioca Mafia - Game over!!

[Khelvaster]

Wouldn't it be better to lynch someone who is showing mafia signs, like MightyFireball or d8p than someone who is silent? If he is silent, he will be in trouble with the mod. It's better not to suspect people if they haven't done anything. That's the game mod's duty, not the town mob's duty.

Speaking of silence, I notice that MightyFireball hasn't really said much about the accusations that have been levied against him--perhaps he is waiting for them to be forgotten?

FoS: MightyFireball

[beanbagboy]

Oh, ok, sorry. I missed what you were saying... I am mentally klutzy.

Still, I'd rather vote a suspicious active player. But, good point Ripley. I want a prod as it is possible he's just forgotten about this game. But I see your point.

Also, Khel, I agree about lynching an active person but not about MF.

[pickemgenius]

Wouldn't it be better to lynch someone who is showing mafia signs, like MightyFireball or d8p than someone who is silent? If he is silent, he will be in trouble with the mod. It's better not to suspect people if they haven't done anything. That's the game mod's duty, not the town mob's duty.

Speaking of silence, I notice that MightyFireball hasn't really said much about the accusations that have been levied against him--perhaps he is waiting for them to be forgotten?

FoS: MightyFireball

Lurking is a mafia sign, especially if he's made 11 posts in other games. Mighty has made 3 posts in other games, and has been gone for only a day.

Please outline on why you suspect d8p, when you defended him in a previous post.

It's in the towns interest to get discussion going, using any method available.

[beanbagboy]

Good point, Khel, didn't you just defend d8p?

[MightyFireball]

I'm sorry I haven't posted in a little while, but I really didn't have much to contribute and didn't want to make it seem like I was posting without content. However, on the Earwig issue, I feel that he is probably lurking, due to the fact that he's made 11 other posts without posting in this game. I can see no other reason for the lurking other than the possibility that he is scum. Not too many accusations had been made against him until Ripley made his post about his lack of content in his posts. Therefore, he had no reason to lurk, unless he had something to hide.

FoS: Earwig

[kabenon007]

While this is not an accusation against Mighty, it is something suspicious I find in his response. All he does is repeat what everyone else said, instead of coming up with his own thoughts. Now, if his own thoughts are exactly the same, and we can't know for certain whether they are or not, that's fine, but that seems highly unlikely.

[beanbagboy]

Yeah, as for metagame, in Newbie 356, Nurdok did that the whole time and he was mafia. (Okay, I was the other scum, but I thought he could have done a better job, lol.)

Diff people play differently, but still, that's a general scumtell IMO.

[Khelvaster]

Wouldn't it be better to lynch someone who is showing mafia signs, like MightyFireball or d8p than someone who is silent? If he is silent, he will be in trouble with the mod. It's better not to suspect people if they haven't done anything. That's the game mod's duty, not the town mob's duty.

Please outline on why you suspect d8p, when you defended him in a previous post.

It's in the towns interest to get discussion going, using any method available.

I was using d8p and MightyFireball as two examples of active people who are being suspected. I wasn't implying that I believe d8p or MightyFireball were mafia with that statement. I later went on to voice why I suspect MightyFireball. Again, I don't believe d8p is mafia because he just hasn't seemed contradictory enough. M

MightyFireball seems to have made more accusatory posts than anyone else in this game, and he has switched his targets around several times, so that is why I FoS'd him. I hadn't yet voted for him because I wanted to see how he could explain himself. However, he hasn't.

Speaking of mightyfireball...

I'm sorry I haven't posted in a little while, but I really didn't have much to contribute and didn't want to make it seem like I was posting without content.

I have accused him in my last two posts, and not only does he not defend himself, he goes out of his way to say he didn't really have much to contribute. I take it then that defending oneself isn't a contribution to the game? It seems more likely that he is ignoring the accusations because they are well-grounded and supported.

I also found a problem with what he just said because it brings up a contradiction between his last post and post 126 that's impossible to argue out of:

(emphasis added)

I'm sorry I haven't posted in a little while, but

I really didn't have much to contribute and didn't want to make it seem like I was posting without content.

In fact,

having fewer posts is probably as bad or worse than having more with little information in them.

Because of this,

Vote:MightyFireball

[Khelvaster]

I have that [quote="pickemgenius"] tag on the top of my thread because I copied and pasted my quote from pickemgenius's last post. I am in no way attempting to imply pickemgenius posted that stuff.

[Khelvaster]

So, that was an accident in forgetting to clip out the top of the quote.

(sorry for trip post again)

[MightyFireball]

I also found a problem with what he just said because it brings up a contradiction between his last post and post 126 that's impossible to argue out of:

(emphasis added)

MightyFireball wrote:
I'm sorry I haven't posted in a little while, but I really didn't have much to contribute and didn't want to make it seem like I was posting without content.


Quote:

In fact, having fewer posts is probably as bad or worse than having more with little information in them.


Because of this, Vote:MightyFireball

Khelvaster, I think you misunderstood me here. While I think it is true that having fewer posts with no content is equivilant to or worse than having more posts with more content, that doesn't mean that I support posting without content. Posting without content is, in most cases, worse than not posting at all. Therefore, I explained my choice to not post at all as opposed to posting when I didn't have a definate opinion, which would turn into a post without content.

Now, if his own thoughts are exactly the same, and we can't know for certain whether they are or not, that's fine, but that seems highly unlikely.

Kabenon, while my post was very similar to posts made by others, I did add my own thoughts in after stating the fact that he had made 11 other posts and none in this game. I continued to say that Earwig had no reason to lurk other than if he had something to hide because no accusations had been made against him. This, to my knowledge, had not been said in any previous posts.

[Khelvaster]

*Note here that I'm using the words "useless" and "useful" as blanket terms--useless information means information that isn't directly contributing to the game; useful information is information that is directly contributing to the game*


I still don't understand how you are arguing your case. You just misstated what you posted the first time, and I can't concieve of any reason you'd misstate yourself except to draw attention away from the controversial quote. You just posted that you said in a previous post:

Khelvaster, I think you misunderstood me here. While I think it is true that

having fewer posts with no content is equivilant to or worse than having more posts with more content,

that doesn't mean that I support posting without content.

You just said it's better to contribute a lot and have it be useful than to contribute a little and have it be useless.
That sounds fine, except that wasn't what you said in your original post.

In fact, having fewer posts is probably as bad or worse than having more with little information in them.

You just said here that it's better to contribute a lot and have useless information than to contribute a little and have useless information.

Posting without content is, in most cases, worse than not posting at all. Therefore, I explained my choice to not post at all as opposed to posting when I didn't have a definate opinion, which would turn into a post without content.

MightyFireball wrote:
I'm sorry I haven't posted in a little while, but I really didn't have much to contribute and didn't want to make it seem like I was posting without content.

In both of these quotes, you are saying that you don't have anything to contribute, and that's why you aren't posting that frequently. Thus, you are saying that it's better to post rarely and have useless information than to post frequently and have useless information.

To summarize my argument, you made two contradictory arguments, then threw out a piece of bad logic, trying to sidetrack me.

1. You say that it's better to contribute a lot and have it mostly be useless information than to contribute a little and have it mostly be useless information.

2. You say that it's better to post a little and have it mostly be useless information than to post a lot and have it mostly be useless information.

3. You argue that your actions being #2 is not contradictory to #1 because of the irrelevant fact that frequently posting and having large amounts of useful information is better than infrequently posting and having mostly useless information.


#3 is a red herring. Since you already admit that you didn't have much to contribute in the past day, whether or not frequently posting lots of useful information is better is irrelevant, because

That's not what you were doing

.

Every post of yours I see turns out compounding your contradictions. I'll leave it to other townies to judge whether my analysis is correct or not.

[Copp├â┬®lia]

I voted Earwig because the four posts he'd made avoided posting content and actually contained material I found suspicious.

Everyone keeps going about voting him for being silent, and there is even talk of replacing him, as if he hadn't been posting at all. In most games, the time elapsed since he last posted wouldn't raise an eyebrow.

This is a good point, and -just to make it clear- my posts on the subject of lynching quiet players in general and Earwig in specfic are directed towards Shadyforce, not you, Ripley. I thought you made it clear why you were voting for Earwig, and understand the reasoning behind it even if I haven't yet decided if I share it. My posts were a response to this series of comments:

But if all else fails, I say that when the mod sets a deadline, that we just look at the most suspicious player, or the quietest player, and just lynch them (or force a role claim) just to keep the game moving. Anyone disagree with that?

Well, I mean lynch the most suspicious player, unless that person has done nothing more than cough at the wrong time and we've nothing else to go on, in which case the town is probably better off just lynching the quietest as they are the ones who have had the least chance of giving themselves away if they are scum, and have contributed the least to the town.

*cough*Earwig*cough*

Where Shadyforce is plainly stating that the reason he'd vote Earwig is due to being the quietest player. I find the wording of post 134 the most suspicous, because it seems to me like an attempt to direct attention from suspicious players by saying that they have 'done nothing more than cough at the wrong time'.

@Khel and MF- I'm still trying to work my way through this argument. I know this- that this quote:

Khelvaster, I think you misunderstood me here. While I think it is true that having fewer posts with no content is equivilant to or worse than having more posts with more content, that doesn't mean that I support posting without content.

makes no sense to me, even in Khelvaster's interpretation. A little clarification, please?

[kabenon007]

MF, check posts 149 and 152. There we have not only one, but two people saying that Earwig has posted 11 times.

Quote:

In fact, having fewer posts is probably as bad or worse than having more with little information in them.

and

Posting without content is, in most cases, worse than not posting at all.

These two statements are direct and exact contradictions of themselves. Can you please explain, Mighty?

[Khelvaster]

@Khel and MF- I'm still trying to work my way through this argument. I know this- that this quote:

Khelvaster, I think you misunderstood me here. While I think it is true that having fewer posts with no content is equivilant to or worse than having more posts with more content, that doesn't mean that I support posting without content.

makes no sense to me, even in Khelvaster's interpretation. A little clarification, please?

He is saying this:

A. It is good to make posts that have lots of conent
B. It is worse to frequently post and not have content in any of your posts
C. The worst thing you could to is to make few posts and not have content in any of your posts.

A makes sense. B makes sense. C does not make sense. Why should it be better to post 100 times with 90 of the posts being meaningless, instead of posting 10 times with 9 of the posts being meaningless? I thought that the less confusing and meaningless posts there are, the easier it makes it on townies to find mafia. I am new to forums, but even I can see that Mighty's argument is just nonsense.

If MF worded his arguments any more clearly, they'd be so much easier to pick apart. He obscures the fact that his argument is fundamentally flawed by putting all these confusing negatives and double negatives in his posts.

Btw, thanks for pointing out that this didn't make sense--I was so busy looking at his posting pattern that I didn't realize how internally inconcistant that individual post was.

[pickemgenius]

He is saying this:

A. It is good to make posts that have lots of conent
B. It is worse to frequently post and not have content in any of your posts
C. The worst thing you could to is to make few posts and not have content in any of your posts.

A makes sense. B makes sense. C does not make sense.

A, B & C makes complete sense to me.

A. No duh.
B. No duh.
C. Actually, that is probably the worst thing you could do.

[Aimee]

I promise I'm actually re-reading... but another maybe 8 hours until a post. Currently up to page 5.

[pickemgenius]

I promise I'm actually re-reading... but another maybe 8 hours until a post. Currently up to page 5.

looking forward to some fresh analysis

[Ectomancer]

Earwig needs a

mod prod

, IMO.

You guys agree?

word up. I'm itching to hear from him, about everything that's happened.

---Prod sent---

[Khelvaster]

He is saying this:

A. It is good to make posts that have lots of conent
B. It is worse to frequently post and not have content in any of your posts
C. The worst thing you could to is to make few posts and not have content in any of your posts.

A makes sense. B makes sense. C does not make sense.

A, B & C makes complete sense to me.

A. No duh.
B. No duh.
C. Actually, that is probably the worst thing you could do.

Making lots of useless and confusing posts is worse than making a small number of useless and confusing posts.

[MightyFireball]

In both of these quotes, you are saying that you don't have anything to contribute, and that's why you aren't posting that frequently. Thus, you are saying that it's better to post rarely and have useless information than to post frequently and have useless information.

That's not what I'm saying at all. By not posting when I had nothing to contribute, I'm saying that it's better to not post at all then to post with nothing to say. I have, in fact, made two seperate statements. The first is, making fewer posts with nothing to contribute is as bad or worse than making more posts with nothing to say. The second statement is that it's better to not post at all than to post with no content. I think these two statements have been confused by Khelvaster.

Also, I'm sorry that this whole argument is so confusing, but it's hard to make it clear, with several things being discussed at once.

[pickemgenius]

Making lots of useless and confusing posts is worse than making a small number of useless and confusing posts.

I guess I just like people posting rather than not.

We vary on opinions, but this is really taking us nowhere.

*truce* maybe more scum talk would be helpful instead?

[beanbagboy]

I'm reeling, lotsa discussion - ok, Khel isn't making sense anymore. At all. d8p has stayed conspicuously quiet through all this, IMO.

Yeah, :goodposting: and stuff, I just came back from dance, I'll analyze soon.

[Khelvaster]

*Truce*

I really do not understand what MF's argument is supposed to be.

In both of these quotes, you are saying that you don't have anything to contribute, and that's why you aren't posting that frequently. Thus, you are saying that it's better to post rarely and have useless information than to post frequently and have useless information.

That's not what I'm saying at all. By not posting when I had nothing to contribute, I'm saying that it's better to not post at all then to post with nothing to say. I have, in fact, made two seperate statements. The first is, making fewer posts with nothing to contribute is as bad or worse than making more posts with nothing to say. The second statement is that it's better to not post at all than to post with no content. I think these two statements have been confused by Khelvaster.

First of all, I want to apologize. Upon reading back a fifth or sixth time, I realize that I had lumped in "not posting at all" with "fewer posts," (since both no posts and few posts are fewer than many posts) when you apparently meant to have "fewer posts" mean "few posts." That error of mine was both our faults--I should have read that in a more favorable manner and realized what you meant, and you should have used the more specific term in the first place.

Anyway, there is just one more thing I have a gripe with here:

Since you keep using the term "as bad or worse than," I'll take it to mean "worse than." If you meant "as bad as" or "equal to," I suspect you'd have used that clearer language instead. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Also, for the readers' ease, I am changing the "fewer posts" and "many posts" low post # with low contribution and high post # with low contribution . Again, correct me if I am wrong with my interpretation of this.

So, you say:
1. Making low post # with low contribution is worse than making high post # with low contribution .

2. Making no post # is better than making low post # with low contribution ,

3. Thus, making no post # is better than making high post # with low contribution , and also is better than making low post # with low contribution .


I don't think I'm experienced enough to know whether or not #3 is a true statement. I believe it is not, but I've played 3 IRC mafia games and am in the middle of my first forum game, so I am nothing compared to people who've played for years.

Since #3 was the logical conclusion based on his statements, if it is true, I will retract my argument against MF for the time being. If it is false, I will advocate wholeheartedly that we lynch him, because scum tend to make arguments that turn out to have bad logic far more than townies do. What are your takes on this?

[Aimee]

My long awaited analysis is here!

A Tapioca Mafia Timeline

Random voting starts. Everyone random votes. Halfway down page 2, a vote count reveals that shayforce leads the random voting, but is still at lynch -4. Nothing serious. That is, until Khelvaster suddenly chimes in asking if the bandwagon shifted from shadyforce to pickemgenius. Em, no. There hadn’t even been a bandwagon, really. Pickemgenuis seems to notice this and places the first “real” vote, against Khelvaster. But Khelvaster says he was just basically wondering what was happening. Everything was simply random, Khelvaster. That’s all.

Shadyforce starts an apparent lurker hunt by going after Ripley, who had yet to post other than random voting. Shady said that the scum could be hiding. Shanba jumps onto the bandwagon and so does MightyFireBall, although he says that bandwagons are something to look out for. Um, then why did you join one then? Shanba asks exactly the same question, and then votes for MightyFireBall. Shanba, don’t you think that was maybe a bit extreme? A FoS, maybe, but a vote is a bit much.

Ripley comes on and says he just skimmed the first few pages, waiting for the game to properly start. He then says he is happy with his vote on Khelvaster, saying he seems a bit interested in bandwagons.

Beanbagboy points out that Shanba seems to just be jumping on the bandwagon “for the sake of wagon jumping”, and promptly votes for him for it, something which Shanba doesn’t really deny. Shanba’s lack of defence is noted by beanbagboy, as well as me. Kabenon007 also says Shanba seems asking permission on whether he should be going on the bandwagon or not. Later, it is established that in fact Kabenon007 was referring to Khelvaster.

MightyFireBall disagrees with what Shanba said about him earlier. He says that in fact, Shanba is being a hypocrite for being suspicious of MightyFireBall for being suspicious of a bandwagon, whilst Shanba said he enjoys them. Em, that’s not hypocritical. Shanba never said he was suspicious of bandwagons. In fact, if anything, it just emphasises the point he likes them. Not sure about MightyFireBall’s post here.

Coppélia then jumps forward with some real hypocrisy. Earlier Khelvaster said he was against bandwagons, yet recently he said they were the only way for the game to move forward. For this inconsistency, Coppélia places her vote against Khelvaster, and MightyFireBall adds to this by putting a FoS on him.

Beanbagboy remains suspicious of Shanba who “seems itchy for a wagon” (I hope you meant ‘itching’), but then becomes unsure and says bandwagonning is natural. Why the vote on Shanba then? If you are undecided, why leave on your vote?

Shanba later emphasises the earlier problem about MightyFireBall’s hypocrisy comment, by explaining exactly what I thought. Although he also says the case for Khelvaster is stronger so votes for him.

Shadyforce also says that bandwagonning can be beneficial for the town, and instead the bandwagon should be on a less active player. Myself, Earwig and d8P are named as candidates. Kabenon700 also wants the lurkers to post more before the case against Khelvaster continues.

Earwig, meanwhile says he is not intentionally lurking but doesn’t give a reason for his lack of posting. He then just jumps on the Khelvaster wagon saying “I am sort of just going along with the Khelvaster thing...”, which I see as overtly scummy. He puts a FoS on him, but it just seems like a way of fitting in with the majority. No reason is given, and I see this firmly as the most scummy thing at that point.

d8P then comes on and says he doesn’t find Khelvaster inconsistent. He says that when Khelvaster was posting about bandwagons, he was indicating a trend rather than a desire to be on a bandwagon. He also basically says Khelvaster isn’t as scummy as he seems, yet still puts on a FoS. Personally, I’m not feeling it.

Ripley says he interpreted it as “almost asking for permission to join the latest big thing.” Ripley also notes that basically everyone in the game with the exception of beanbagboy and shadyforce have mentioned negatively his actions, by vote, FoS or otherwise.

Beanbagboy then says he finds Khelvaster’s actions more newbish than scummy, and actually finds the people who targetted him more suspicious, which I agree with. He says that people are “overreacting”, and targets Coppélia as one of the people who jumped on the bandwagon without major reasoning. But who else would you accuse of that, and why didn’t you give them FoSes, maybe? Why Coppélia in particular? And I believe that Coppélia did bring up a major inconsistency of Khelvaster. Other people would have been better targets.

Khelvaster comes on, but instead of defending himself, he merely decides to say he is unsure who to vote for. I’m very disappointed – I would expect a defence, but the fact there wasn’t one suggests... something. Meanwhile, his lack of a vote also shows indecisiveness, and also the fact he seems pretty unwilling to join in discussion. You understand, Khelvaster, that discussion is more important than voting (although voting is still crucial)?

Shadyforce then votes for pickemgenius saying he is “getting scummy vibes... but I can’t quite put my finger on it.” To me, this sounds like a gut suspicion, although there is nothing wrong with that. But he says pickem hasn’t posted much in the way of analysis or thoughts, and has been more slyly voting. I have to say I agree with this, and pickem in the next post doesn’t really defend himself, but tries to shift suspicion towards Khelvaster.

Coppélia disagrees with BBB, and argues that she in fact did contribute to the wagon, but pointing out his inconsitency. As Coppélia argues “Inconsistency is the main reason I’m voting for Khelvaster...” I have to say I agree with Coppélia here.

MightyFireBall, who hasn’t done much, says he is willing to remove his vote from Khelvaster if he explains himself, which sounds pretty reasonable to me. And Ripley announces that after Khelvaster didn’t explain himself, he has turned against him, so to speak. I agree with Ripley here too.

Beanbagbob says that Coppélia is over-reacting to his pressure vote. I strongly disagree here. Coppélia was merely defending herself, and genuinely seemed suspicious of Khelvaster. I feel that BBB was taking the “third bandwagon vote” too seriously here.

Khelvaster then says he can only come on at certain times (definitely justified). He then says he was pointing out bandwagons, but won’t do it anymore, and also says that he is an “easy target” and brands the person who attacked him first to be scum. That is pickemgenius. Er, why the first person? Why not people who jumped on after? His next post accuses pickmegenius, Earwig or MightyFireBall. I don’t understand whi FireBall was picked. Also the reasoning for pickem sucks. He was actually the first on the bandwagon, yet he accuses him of following Ripley. ‘Cept Ripley voted for you as a random vote, so technically pickem did really start the bandwagon properly, which pickem says in his next vote. Khelvaster also accused pickem of vote hopping, something I hadn’t considered up to that point.

d8P considers Khelvater’s actions as newbish, and switches his suspicion to MightyFireBall, who he says has produced the least content, a point that is hard to argue with.

Ripley also points out that pickem pointed out Khelvaster’s actions on the next post, wheread Ripley’s initial vote was random. I have to say, I agree with this.

Khelvaster’s case becomes blurry here. He says that it was pickem’s initial plan to target Khelvaster because he was an easy target. Yes, pickemgenius just decided pre-game that he would target someone who could maybe be an easy-target, despite the fact that no one had posted yet, and decided he would start a bandgwaon on this ‘easy target’ based on a hypothetical random vote that may or may not be made. Yup, logical. Khelvaster also says the pickem could have bounced lots of votes against people in the random voting stage, so he could just go back to them if he wanted to. Except that vote hopping is a common mafia tactic, and can easily be identified. Khelvaster’s mistakes seem to be newbie orientated.

Indeed, MightyFireBall agrees with what I said, and pickemgenius argues that Khelvaster’s point is WIFOM, a point that is hard to argue with. He also says he was voting to “evoke a response”, which he says (and I agree) definitely occurred. He also disagrees with the whole random vote idea, which I agree with.

A bit inconsistent, beanbagboy mentioned a few posts previously he found Khelvaster to be “sincere”. Then, he says “weird”. He thinks that Khelvaster is scum trying to cover up his mistakes. “...the more he talks the more it seems like he slips up.” Why the sudden change of opinion?

Kabenon007 says that Khelvaster has waited for a while before saying he was a complete newbie to forum mafia, and says that Khelvaster is getting defensive, something beanbagboy agrees with.

Khelvaster doesn’t know what WIFOM is, but then it is explained. Meanwhile, Kabenon007 says that because Khelvaster didn’t mention his lack of experience, it could just be a tale. I have to say, I agree with this. I am very impressed with Kabenon007’s analysis.

Coppélia responds to beanbagboy’s points by pointing out that three votes is often scummy in a newbie game, but in a large game three votes is no-where near a lynch. I have to agree. Putting the third vote on doesn’t really have much of an impact in this game. She also argues that Khelvaster is being too defensive. She makes a good point – other than pickem, he hasn’t really explained what he thinks of people. He sounds at times confident and at times rushes to explain his newb status, making Coppélia unsure about him. I agree with this.

d8P then says he doesn’t contribute much unless he has something valuable to say. Whilst I agree to an extent with this, I think the line between ‘valuable’ and ‘invaluable’ is difficult to draw. He also accuses MightyFireBall as being the person who has contributed least and just agreed with others. I would agree, but Earwig has posted much less and been less helpful. MightyFireBall points back to a post where he analysed Khelvaster, and whilst this is true it isn’t an elaborate or particularly analytical post. Coppélia then agrees with me, and aks d8P how he would define valuable.

Beanbagboy then states that he didn’t find the way that Coppélia placed the third vote scummy, just the way she jumped on the popular bandwagon for no reason. I disagree – she pointed out something she found suspicious about him, and wasn’t just following the crowd like Earwig. BBB also agrees with Coppélia about Khelvaster, who brings up things that “don’t make sense” in his position. BBB then disagrees with d8P and says that anything that anyone says is valuable on day 1. This does make sense I have to say, but some posts weren’t exactly valuable, eg. BBB’s Garth Brooks in Ipod (although I agree, bad choice. Why was that even ON your Ipod?) Calling d8P hypocritical, he dismisses his reasoning. And then votes for him. Personally, I don’t see the case, and MightyFireBall hasn’t exactly contributed that much.

Coppélia immediately points out she does have a reason for voting for Khelvaster. I agree. It is pretty obvious, and I am not 100% sure of beanbagboy’s point here anymore. She also justifies her previous post about d8P.

Talking of d8P, MightyFireBall immediately comes on and votes for him. When I saw this, I immediately thought OMGUS, but I will of course read the post. I disagree with MightyFireBall here. It isn’t about just randomly posting. It is about posting with content that matters most. Players in my eyes should be valued not due to how many posts they have but how many content filled posts they have. Even Khelvaster agrees in the next post, by saying that “making posts just for the sake of making posts is scummy.”

MightyFireBall makes a case against d8P being a hypocrite. Maybe it is just me, but I don’t particularly get the case, in question. He can still be pressuring you and expressing suspicion without a vote, you know? Although, checking back, I don’t see voting, just pressuring. I don’t see the hypocrisy.

Beanbagboy states Coppélia voted for little reason. Dude! She had a great big fat inconsistency! What else do you need?

Meanwhile, d8P says that on day 1 he expects there to be suspicion and analysis, basically. He says that not all posts are useful (eg. Ipod post). d8P emphasises that he is not advocating silence. I also agree with d8P about MightyFireBall. He most definitely said that he found that MightyFireBall wasn’t contributing any of his own material.

Also incidentally, maybe this is through lack of sleep, but when did MightyFireBall start the wagon? If he did, I apologise. Even if he did, just starting a bandwagon doesn’t always match with producing content. You can start bandwagon’s but not produce any content, in the form of discussion. In terms of voting, yes. In terms of discussion, no. Finally, d8P says he is still voting for MightyFireBall, because he is considered scum hiding under the radar. Whilst I agree, Earwig is the more obvious example.

Shadyforce finally comes on and says he will analyse later., but then says we should, in doubt, lynch the quietest or most suspicious player. Um, why the quietest? Just because they are quiet doesn’t mean they are scum. Coppélia agrees with this, saying that in fact lynching the quietest player may not be the best plan, to which Shadyforce explains as meaning the player who contributes least, and labels Earwig. I agree, Earwig is suspicious, but also quiet. A combination of the both is the problem.

Kabenon007 says it is important not only to have random bandwagons, but people shouldn’t be switching from bandwagon to bandwagon continually.

A vote count reveals that Khelvaster is way out in front. All of the four on it justified their votes, except Shanba. Maybe seeing he could be targetted, he almost immediately unvotes and FoSes d8P, saying he would be fine with lynching either of them. Um, why?

Ripley then emphasises my suspicion on Earwig exactly – he is just following a bandwagon without a clue why he is doing it. Shadyforce (who doesn’t analyse), votes Earwig for agreeing with Ripley (although he had suggested Earwig was suspicious). The awaited analysis isn’t on the way yet.

Khelvaster, as though not even reading Ripley’s post, suddenly asks why the target has now moved to Earwig. Um, if you actually read Ripley’s post, it would be pretty obvious. And also, garnering two votes really implicate that people are shifting in large numbers. Ripley notices this, saying quite rightly “Overestimating bandwagons seems to be a persistent habit of yours.”

BBB then says d8P isn’t looking like a townie (but not explaining why), and that Khelvaster defending him is scummy. And what about all of d8P’s allegations against you... did you forget? A mod prod is also asked of Earwig, which is thoroughly deserved.

Coppélia disagrees with the fact that anyone “contributed least to the town”. Whilst that seems admirable, don’t you agree it is pretty obvious that people like me and Earwig have done nothing? But BBB seems to agree with Bob, and FoSes Shady. Ripley points out that Earwig has been actively posting elsewhere, which definitely screams “strategic lurking” to me.

Khelvaster then says it is better to lynch scummy people than silent people. MightyFireBall and d8P are named as scummy. Then, Khelvaster FoSes MightyFireBall for being silent. Um, a bit of an inconsistency, no? BBB doesn’t agree about MFB, but no reason is given, and pickem also emphasises that he now accuses d8P, yet defended him earlier. The inconsistencies are just growing.

MFB then suspiciously turns up and says he has nothing to add. Um, lots has happened. To kind of emphasise the suspicion against him, he just jumps on the Earwig bandwagon, giving an FoS. Don’t you have, like, your own opinions? Kabenon007 also says this.

As expected, Khelvaster makes yet another inconsistency. He says that d8P and MFB were 2 players he thought were scummy, but says he wasn’t implying they are scum. So what are they then? He says he doesn’t actually suspect d8P much (another inconsistency) but finds MFB very suspicious. However, he points out a contradiction from MFB, which is quite justified, and puts an FoS on him for it.

MFB defends by saying that he finds posting non content scummy, but says not posting is actually better (he said it the other way round, I am just a bit confused... it is late, leave me alone.) MFB says that he did have suspicion against Earwig, which he believes hadn’t been voiced in previous posts. Wrong. Ripley and beanbagboy both commented clearly before you.

Khelvaster makes another post, but to be perfectly honest, I haven’t a clue what was going on here. It was suspicion against MFB, that’s all I know. This is my fault though, not yours Khelvaster. Sorry. Kabenon007 points out MFB’s inconsistency too. Khelvaster then actually explains his reasoning well. I am impressed.

Amusingly, Khelvaster says that making lots of confusing posts is scummy. Um, that makes you scummy, then, in my eyes, Khelvaster, seeing as I don’t have a clue what you are saying half the time! Sorry, actually that is a lie. I feel that your case against MFB is pretty justified.