Mini 443 - Tapioca Mafia - Game over!!

[beanbagboy]

Ok: at D8p, I wasn't used to people using votes for pressure in a bandwagon, yes, that is, I'm used to people voting for who they're voting for. (Yes, bobness.)

I joined the Khel is suspicious wagon after taking a more careful look at his posts. When I wrote the post saying he wasn't suspicious, what I was talking about was that I didn't think the "hypocracy" was suspicious. I still don't. But his posts afterwards were getting throughly more scummy. I reconsidered and put him in the pile of "don't knows."

What I was trying to say is that a very common scum tell was being the third wagon vote. While as you said, these are outdated, no offense to Bob, but we're both kind of new and I could totally see her accidentally doing that. (Again, bob, this isn't an insult, I saw something suspicous.)

It's in the common tells section, How to Find Mafia.

3. From what I had seen, she hadn't contributed anything NEW. She replied to my satisfaction. Yes, she supplied those quotes but they were just going along with what had already been stated.

4. I meant he hadn't been here to post anything substantial, sorry if that was too vague.

Yep, like I said he didn't make much sense with those attacks, it's what is garnering my vote for him.
OK, when you said I said I thought he was being sincere, what I had meant was that the initial hypocracy wasn't a scumtell. Then, I looked over the other things he had posted and those DID look like scumtells.

Also, so you understand me because it sounds like I was being vague:

Bob wasn't suspicous simply for putting the third vote. A third vote is a third vote. It's not a scumtell. I felt she was simply restating what had already been said on a case which, at the time, I thought was weak. The case she was using was simply that he mentioned a bandwagon that wasn't.

So:

d8p: I agree with a lot of what he says, I see what he's trying to say now, town, prob.

Aimee: Er... her analysis, on reread, gives off some weird vibe. I can't really explain it, but it seems almost like... like, she's trying to get us to follow her analysis of which there are a few holes. I don't know, seems town, but I'm watching her (as I am watching everyone.)

Khelvaster: My lynch for today, I think his WIFOMs and the "I'm a Newb!" card in addition to random and OMGUSy style of voting disturbs me.

MF: Too many people, I need to look over again, but I guess it's true that he hasn't really contributed...

Shanba: Quiet lately.

Me: I am obv scum. Scummity scum scummmm!

Kabenon: Staying under my radar, I haven't really gotten anything from him yet.

bob: Consistent with other games, prob town.

Pickem - Target of too many votes that make little sense. I don't know, but that gives me the slightest vibe of pro town.

ShadyForce - A lot of random voting, like the Pickem thing. That doesn't fly.

Earwig - Possible scum. I could see him go either way, going scum right now though.

Ripley - A bit insistant on Earwig, I can't tell if this is his playstyle or a scumtell. I'm going with town but that seems strange. Possible scumbussing?

[Copp├â┬®lia]

No offense taken, BBB *airkiss*.

If you want me to go over why I voted for Khel, and where I still find holes in what you're saying about it, I will. But I don't want to flog a dead horse about a vote I'm no longer doing, especially when I'm going to end up repeating myself.

@d8p- I admit, I've been glued to your anaylsis like it was the latest installment of my favorite show. You've inspired me to take some time tomorrow after work to re-read the whole thread and come up with some questions, and conclusions.

re: challenging me/defending Khel: I like it when people challenge me on my assertions, as it gives me a chance to either a) strengthen my argument, or b) see flaws where I previously didn't. It also gives other players the benefit of looking closer at exchanges they may have missed, and drawing their own conclusions. If what you're saying is that you're worried that you're making Khel's case for him and you're not yet sure you want to be...I get that, but I still think you should say what's on your mind. If Khel is scum, such close scrutinty on his posts by many players will help reveal it. If he's town, you're helping the town, period.

[Copp├â┬®lia]

Oh, I did forget about this:

Bob, despite being in like twelve games, is still a goon, which disturbs me.

I'm in four games, actually...but that's not my point. Why on earth does my post count disturb you?

[Aimee]

Hey, Bob, you are 'Mafia Scum' now!

BBB, care to explain what holes are in my analysis?

d8P, I will come to your points later.

[beanbagboy]

@ Bob: No, it's fine, I get you're analysis now. The post count thing was a joke, just saying how you're not one to post a lot (unlike me lol.)

Like, you said 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.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember Khel saying he was ever against BWs. Can you link to a post where he says this? I don't remember it. (Oh, wait, I see... he doesn't say he's against them, he says that he isn't looking for one past random voting.)

He says that people are “overreacting”, and targets Coppélia as one of the people who jumped on the bandwagon without major reasoning.

Yes, at the time I felt she was simply restating what was a weak case. She didn't bring up anything new. If I remember correctly, she was simply saying that he was talking about bandwagons, right? Or were you referring to something different?

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.

I wasn't saying I was making a pressure vote. I didn't understand that she was simply making a vote as pressure to get Khel to state his defense. Misinterpretation.

Also, the third vote wasn't what caused it, as I said before, the "third vote" I meant was anyone jumping on a popular opinion without giving any new opinions.

Khelvaster’s mistakes seem to be newbie orientated.

While I don't disagree here, there are a lot of those mistakes, and I'm more inclined to think that he is pulling the "whoops, I'm a n00b" card quite a bit. I did the same thing in another game, and I don't think it should be taken for gospel.

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?

To clarify, I had looked back over the game, and I had seen other things (overly defensive, WIFOM, newb card etc.) that did look suspicious. It wasn't anything new that had come up, it was a new interpretation of old data. I still think the initial mistake wasn't very important, but I do think that some other things he has done are scummy.

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.

Does it have an impact? No. But is it noticeable? If the third voter is supporting a weak case (it could be fourth or even fifth, the idea being a vote that's not really near a lynch but making a bandwagon) then it is pretty scummy, IMO. It's not the impact so much as the intention.

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.

I think everything past random voting is valuable. Even if they post nonsense, you can tell that they don't have much devotion to the game. Realistically this isn't always true but even one line observations can speak miles in games of mafia.

1. 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.
2. I disagree – she pointed out something she found suspicious about him, and wasn’t just following the crowd like Earwig.
3. BBB also agrees with Coppélia about Khelvaster, who brings up things that “don’t make sense” in his position.
4. 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,
5. 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?)
6. 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.

Numbers mine.

1. Yup yup, like I said, no need to repeat myself AGAIN, lol.
2. I disagree, unless I'm remembering incorrectly she was just supplying the quotes for the original argument.
3. Uh huh. Yes.
4. Ditto above.
5. Right, but that was random voting. It was my way of saying "Hi, I'm here, but I don't have many comments."
6. I wasn't dismissing his attack on MF. I was saying that he hadn't contributed much up to that point, and his first post was attacking MF for doing the same. It was saying he was being hypocritical. He has now posted to my satisfaction, however.

She (Bob) also justifies her previous post about d8P.

Sorry, what was that? I don't see it in your PBPA.

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.”

OMGUSsy, agreed, but, "of course I will read the post?" You didn't read it earlier? Um... forgive me, but not reading valuable posts doesn't exactly seem townish to me.

Content, right, but if they just don't post at all that's not any good either. Also, I slightly disagree with Khel there (and you) in that sometimes, if you don't find much to comment on (or choose not to) just posting to say "I'm here, just watching though" can let people know that you're there. But just spamming isn't good, yes.

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?

Yes, but he was saying "not posting = scumtell" when he hadn't really posted. That's hypocracy right then and there.

The inconsistency, if we're talking about the same one, wasn't that huge. He said bws were the only way to move the game along, but then everyone got suspicious of him for it (for no reason) and then he said he wasn't looking for a wagon. I interpreted that as either saying that "Ok, I understand that Wagons are bad, I'll avoid them now" or "Post-Random Voting Wagons are bad, I'll avoid them." Also, she had little NEW reason, other people had said this before numerous times. She even starts the post by saying "Okay, now that several people have pointed this out:" She said it herself! Sheesh!

I also agree with d8P about MightyFireBall. He most definitely said that he found that MightyFireBall wasn’t contributing any of his own material.

I never said MF was a big contributer. I said d8p shouldn't throw stones with his glass house.

Live by the sword, die by the sword.

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.

:goodposting:

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

Er... Aimee, yes, that's what Khelvaster said earlier, if I understood him correctly... WTF? You're actually starting to look more hypocritical...

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.”

Ok, the first part, I totally agree. But overestimating bandwagons? Aimee, two people shifting very quickly can be large numbers, if I remember they did it within two posts of eachother. It was fast and it seemed to be bigger than it actually was.

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.

I explained why earlier. I thought you knew what I was talking about, but I'll say it again: he attacked MF on the basis of low content posts whilst he had done the same thing at the time of attacking.

They seemed very OMGUSy to me at the time. I guess you're right, though, I should have said that, sorry.

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.

Okay, agreed.

Also:

I disagree quite a lot with what beanbagboy argues, especially concerning d8P (he still hasn’t responded to) and Coppélia.

But this is inconsistent, I agree with a lot of what you said! My case against bob, I'll say it again, was that she hadn't brought anything new to the table,

at the time.

She simply restated a weak case. SHE EVEN ADMITS TO THIS!

Other than that, I agree with basically every player analysis you state. Look, here:

(BBB agrees) Coppélia I find to be pro-town and I agree with lots of her analysis.

(BBB agrees NOW.) d8P I am getting mixed vibes from. He seems quiet at some quite convenient times, yet he makes quite solid points. Unsure at the moment.

(BBB thinks that while not THE scummiest, Earwig is pretty scummy.)Earwig is easily the scummiest person so far, due to the way he just jumped on the bandwagon without adding any new analysis.

I actually find Kabenon007 the most pro-town player so far. I am very impressed with his analysis. (BBB guesses so.)

Khelvaster’s posts are riddled with confusion and inconsistency. Nonetheless, he seems quite passionate, and does have a good case against MFB... I think...
(BBB points out that the MFB thing was started by D8p. Otherwise, BBB completely agrees, Aimee! The only Khel thing I disagree with is the initial case! We agree on everything else!)

Despite his claims, I think that MightyFireBall hasn’t posted anything new of his own thoughts. Some analysis would be greatly appreciated.
(BBB agrees.)

pickemgenius has faded into the background recently, and thus I currently don’t have a clear opinion about him.
(BBB agrees, but he thinks the fact that lots of people were targeting him with no real reasons makes him ever so slightly more protown.)

I see Ripley as firmly pro-town. He makes a good case against Earwig which I totally agree with.
(BBB agrees, but the Ripley-Earwig link is VERY strong, and BBB thinks that is slightly suspicious.)

Shadyforce seems to want the end to lurkers. I don’t really agree with this strategy, and scummy people should be our target.
(BBB agrees.)

Shanba has jumped on lots of the bandwagons, and has now disappeared. I want to know his thoughts about the Earwig case, and about the Khelvaster argument.
(BBB agrees.)

See what I mean? I still think Khel is scummy, but I think that MF is scummy upon reading your analysis. However, I think you were being pretty inconsistant yourself.

So:

FoS: Aimee, MightyFireball, Earwig. Also: UNFoS: d8p.

I no longer find him scummy.

The Aimee thing is because her analysis has a lot of holes, and she is "disagreeing" with me for no apparent reason. I don't know why.

[Khelvaster]

Aimee did a massive analysis; she was probably tired out and slipped up carelessly. No need to persecute her--she was helping the town.

On the subject of d8p--has anyone but d8p said anything in defence of his apparent collaboration/veiled scumtalk with MightyFireball?

[pickemgenius]

I guess I'll comment on Aimee's post.

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.

yay!

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.

Can't defend against a gut, but most of my previous posts were random votes, and I don't take much stock in them.

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 why 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 post. Khelvaster also accused pickem of vote hopping, something I hadn’t considered up to that point.

yep.
Random voting, don't hold much stock in votes there, that explains the hopping.

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.

yep.

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.

yep. bonus points for the sarcasm 8)
Don't take much stock (etc...)
The newbie;scum line is blurry.

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.

yep.

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.

yea.



Well, that was swell.

[Ripley]

On the subject of d8p--has anyone but d8p said anything in defence of his apparent collaboration/veiled scumtalk with MightyFireball?

MightyFireball was the one who defended it, in post 215:

As to the first, I really don't think this is scummy, more of a coincidence. We both happened to be on at the same time, so we made several posts responding to each other.

Maybe d&p has as well, I can't remember. I admit I'm getting slightly lost amidst the huge amount of microanalytical posting that's been going on.

[MightyFireball]

Yeah, I went back and skimmed d8p's posts, and I didn't find a defence against a possible pairing of he and myself. Khel, could you give a post number where d8p denies this? Thanks.

[d8P]

@Coppélia: Glad to hear it. And regarding Khel, I don’t know. The problem really is that Khel isn’t taking apart the attacks against him when they‘re made. Even vague insinuations or misinterpretations can become as influential as established facts if left to stew in the town subconscious for long enough. I’m not convinced that intercepting a pass is any use after the players have started the next play, especially if you don’t know who’s on your side.

@Aimee: Well, that makes me feel all warm and Sisyphusy
I really have to spend a bit more time previewing my posts. I'll prob end up posting a corrected version

Part four:

Khel: After I criticized MF’s lack of content despite his higher number of posts, there was a brief exchange where I tempered my tone (posts 119-121), and they were challenged later and I still haven’t responded to that challenge, I think. However, it makes more sense for me to deal with that when it arises further down.

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.

This is pretty cut and dried. BBB contradicted her defence in saying “you seemed to be jumping on a popular attack for no real reason”.

Posts related to this issue:

Post 49 - Khel: I already cast my vote—I’m not looking for a bandwagon

(Posts 50 – 58 see a bw form against Ripley, unrelated)
Post 59 - Ripley: happy with his vote on Khel for the “early third vote” on shady followed by [post 47] – which show an “unhealthy interest in bandwagons”
Post 60 -

Khel: Bandwagons are the only way to move the game along

(Posts 61-71 unrelated stuff between Shanba and MF, Wait, Kabenon did get Khel confused with Shanba, though: and once straightened out asked Khel to comment on “bandwagon permission”, which refers to post 47.)
Post 72 -

Coppélia: If you feel bws are the only way to move the game along, why were you against them earlier?

The popular bandwagon was Ripley. No one other than Coppélia had switched their vote to Khelvaster or even mentioned post 49 or 60. Of course, misunderstandings happen all the time, but this one stands out because BBB repeats it for so long despite being in the wrong and despite repeated clarification from Coppélia.

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.

This could get repetitive because I respond to this later, so I’ll come back to it then instead.

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.

Yep, see points above. So that should have resolved the issue. Coppelia’s post about this was very straightforward. All questions of alignment aside, someone had made a mistake and the other player had patiently explained how.

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.”

I comment on his defence of me further down.

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.

There’s more – I

was

still voting him.

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

And she had explained it twice already.

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

This involves stuff from marker 2. Some of these are significant for context, some mark what I saw as the beginnings of a trend.

Post 98: I accused MF of posting quite a lot for someone who hadn’t contributed anything, rather than Earwig who just hadn’t posted, and I voted MF.

Any reasonable townie would want to quick-lynch someone who he thought was mafia.

Not unless said townie was absolutely sure that said person was Mafia. If it turned out the person was innocent, the townie would probably end up getting lynched, which would not be good for the town.

If I were a mafia, I'd be bouncing my vote around as many people as possible, and then if someone who I voted for was falsly accused of being mafia, I could switch my vote back to that person without seeming overly suspicious.

Well, since that's generally accepted as scummy behaviour, I would just as soon say that it wouldn't be done by a scum member. That statement doesn't seem like hardcore evidence of pickem's guilt.

Post 114: Kabenon called for more from quieter players: Aimee and me.

Post 116: I pointed to my previous posts, on the previous page and say that I don’t like to muddy the water by jumping at every eddy. I restated why I was voting MF.

I did indeed make the first analysis of Khelvaster's post in which he incriminated pickemgenius. That analysis post was post number 102. It may not have been particularly elaborate, but it wasn't based off of anyone else's analysis. I'm not entirely sure if you missed that one, or if you just didn't think it was good enough to count.”

He only made this contribution

after

I called him out on it in post 98.

Post 120: I tried to make it clear that I wasn’t judging his ability to analyse. I’m a nice guy not a wise guy. Wokka, wokka.

To make it less personal, I made reference to what was wrong in general about a mild attack; the inference being that his analysis of Khel’s post was not a monumental contribution because it was weak.

Post 121: MF says he sees my point (I don’t think he did)

Note: posts 119-121 are the ones singled out as veiled scumchat by earwig. I don't think there is any way to respond to that. I voted, giving reasons, he questioned my analysis, I restated why I was voting, he claimed to have understood. Huh?

Post 124: BBB votes me for “many, many reasons”
1. Anything anyone says is valuable
2. d8P said he’s not interested enough to post as nothing’s happened, but said that someone else doing the same thing is scummy
3. d8P asks MF for a reason, MF points out that he started the wagon and d8P says that’s not good enough

Post 126: MF feels that I’ve changed my mind, i.e. my attack on him was mild, votes me.

Post 128: Khel attacks MF’s post, defending me... better than he’s defended himself before or since... Because I defended him? That is not a good reason – I could’ve been trying to curry favour by arguing with Coppélia.

Post 129: I take over and deal with BBB’s points with 5 of my own, pointing out that BBB had been wrong in 124.1, lied in 124.2 (the difference between d8P:“I try not to post too often unless I have something valuable to add” and BBB:“I’m not interested enough to post as nothing’s happened” isn’t exactly subtle), cheated, misrepresented and lied in 124.3. The important bit for me is “MF points out that he started the friggin wagon”. Aimee picked this out in her analysis.

Also incidentally, maybe this is through lack of sleep, but when did MightyFireBall start the wagon? If he did, I apologise

He didn’t. BBB just made it up.

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.

@Ripley: I tend to agree. This is taking all the fun out of the game, kinda.

Anyway, I'm done - I think I've covered all of the stuff I needed to. Conclusion tomorrow.

[d8P]

P.S. @BBB: I hope my posting is still to your satisfaction.

[Khelvaster]

Yeah, I went back and skimmed d8p's posts, and I didn't find a defence against a possible pairing of he and myself. Khel, could you give a post number where d8p denies this? Thanks.

You must have gravely misunderstood what I said. I said there was no post where anyone except d8p defends his alleged veiled mafiaspeak with you. I was wrong--you defended that. However, since you were also accused of the same thing, let me amend my statement:

There was nobody besides the two accused parties, MightyFireball and d8p, who defended them. d8p didn't really defend himself at all as far as I could tell. You played it off as a coincidence--if that's the best defence that could be come up with, I'm inclined to think the whole thing is really suspicious.

[Khelvaster]

d8p's defence must be somewhere in that post right above my last post, but I just can't find it. He's documenting things, but didn't say anything about himself and MF's supposed collaboration.

My agenda right now, until I am convinced otherwise, is a D1 lynching of MF, a D2 lynching of d8p, and a D3 lynching of Earwig.

[Copp├â┬®lia]

I'm still re-reading the thread, but I wanted to pause for a minute to say "Guh-

what

? to Khel. You cannot pick D2, D3, and so forth lynchings. No, seriously, this is such a bad idea. We have no idea what information the end of D1 and the ensuing night will bring. It can, and should, change our opinons of others. To have that kind of tunnel vision is going to be bad for town.

[Khelvaster]

That's why I said until I am convinced otherwise. What I mean is, assuming MightyFireball is scum, d8p is guilty until proven innocent. Assuming d8p is scum, Earwig is guilty until proven innocent. If something happened during the night to change my mind, that is possible. I guess what that statement really meant was that those three people are the three scummiest people in my view: MF is the scummiest, d8p is the second scummiest, earwig is the third scummiest. Until something happens to change my mind during the night, this is how I will continue to view them.

[pickemgenius]

That's why I said until I am convinced otherwise. What I mean is, assuming MightyFireball is scum, d8p is guilty until proven innocent. Assuming d8p is scum, Earwig is guilty until proven innocent. If something happened during the night to change my mind, that is possible. I guess what that statement really meant was that those three people are the three scummiest people in my view: MF is the scummiest, d8p is the second scummiest, earwig is the third scummiest. Until something happens to change my mind during the night, this is how I will continue to view them.

WHOA WHOA WHOA

You are "guilty" until proven innocent, as

everyone

is "guilty" until one of the scenarios below that I typed before typing this happen.

The only way to be 100% sure of anyone being "innocent" or scum, is
a. to be lynched
b. to get NK'ed

[d8P]

@Ripley: you asked what I meant when I said that I was disappointed "the town was not responding" referred to the fact that when I tried to explain that Khel hadn't been inconsistent, Coppélia didn't see what I was saying, and even Khel didn't agree in his next post.

@Khel:

I did indeed make the first analysis of Khelvaster's post in which he incriminated pickemgenius. That analysis post was post number 102. It may not have been particularly elaborate, but it wasn't based off of anyone else's analysis. I'm not entirely sure if you missed that one, or if you just didn't think it was good enough to count.”

He only made this contribution

after

I called him out on it in post 98.

Post 120: I tried to make it clear that I wasn’t judging his ability to analyse. I’m a nice guy not a wise guy. Wokka, wokka.

To make it less personal, I made reference to what was wrong in general about a mild attack; the inference being that his analysis of Khel’s post was not a monumental contribution because it was weak.

Post 121: MF says he sees my point (I don’t think he did)

Note: posts 119-121 are the ones singled out as veiled scumchat by earwig. I don't think there is any way to respond to that. I voted, giving reasons, he questioned my analysis, I restated why I was voting, he claimed to have understood.

I find it ridiculous that I've been called on again to knock this down, after MF already has. Earwig's accusation is unfounded - there was about twenty minutes between two posts, two and a half hours till the next, and I can see no argument to support the idea that the timing of two players' posts implies they're affiliated. Is there one?

In all of the posts in question I attacked MF. Is it the fact that I changed my language to be more polite but stuck to my position that he was scum that makes you think this was mild?

I think the real question here is why you think you should pursue a defense against someone else's uncorroborated speculation, especially since that's impossible to defend against. What should I undermine? The reliability of Earwig's hunches? I'm afraid I haven't seen enough of those to comment.

Having said that, for me there are five main suspects. Setting questions of inexperience aside, in order of most suspicious to ...less :

BBB: for all the times he has just made stuff up about players. He clearly thinks he doesn't need to read. He has thrown all sorts of aspersions around and hasn't backed down when challenged. He has consistently misrepresented what other people have said about him and themselves. He has mixed up the chain of events to defend himself or his arguments. Kab said he thought he was overeager. Eager players read, imo.

Khel: has been flighty and inconsistent (defending then attacking me), hasn't defended himself properly on two occasions and seems to be under the impression other people should defend MF and me... against another player's gut.

MightyFireball and Earwig: while both have responded to pressure and are more active, there still seems to be very little from Earwig in terms of content. I have to say that I find his "collaboration" allegation annoying.

Shanba: flighty, was very vague in disagreeing with my analysis of MF and BBB: "I think Mighty Fireball and Beanbagboy came out of the argument looking better than D8P", but has been consistent in pursuing Khel.

So one issue remains: experience. Is BBB's inexperience the driving force behind his play? Ditto for Khel.

unvote: MightyFireball, vote: beanbagboy

FoS: MightyFireball, Earwig and Shanba

[Earwig]

............
The only way to be 100% sure of anyone being "innocent" or scum, is
a. to be lynched
b. to get NK'ed

The other way to know 100% of anyone being scum or town is if you're scum yourself.


I'm not saying "You" literally, PEG, I'm saying it figuratively.

[Earwig]

Yeah, I went back and skimmed d8p's posts, and I didn't find a defence against a possible pairing of he and myself. Khel, could you give a post number where d8p denies this? Thanks.

Are you publicly asking one of your scum-buddies for help in defending yourself??

[Khelvaster]

I find it ridiculous that I've been called on again to knock this down, after MF already has. Earwig's accusation is unfounded - there was about twenty minutes between two posts, two and a half hours till the next, and I can see no argument to support the idea that the timing of two players' posts implies they're affiliated. Is there one?

In all of the posts in question I attacked MF. Is it the fact that I changed my language to be more polite but stuck to my position that he was scum that makes you think this was mild?

It looked like
I think the real question here is why you think you should pursue a defense against someone else's uncorroborated speculation, especially since that's impossible to defend against. What should I undermine? The reliability of Earwig's hunches? I'm afraid I haven't seen enough of those to comment.

Having said that, for me there are five main suspects. Setting questions of inexperience aside, in order of most suspicious to ...less :

BBB: for all the times he has just made stuff up about players. He clearly thinks he doesn't need to read. He has thrown all sorts of aspersions around and hasn't backed down when challenged. He has consistently misrepresented what other people have said about him and themselves. He has mixed up the chain of events to defend himself or his arguments. Kab said he thought he was overeager. Eager players read, imo.

Khel: has been flighty and inconsistent (defending then attacking me), hasn't defended himself properly on two occasions and seems to be under the impression other people should defend MF and me... against another player's gut.

You mean, when people make arguments I actually listen to them? I defended you first because I didn't really see what was wrong with you. Then, I saw Earwig's post. In short, I changed my mind because someone made connections that I hadn't noticed. That is far from being "flighty and inconsistant."

MightyFireball and Earwig: while both have responded to pressure and are more active, there still seems to be very little from Earwig in terms of content. I have to say that I find his "collaboration" allegation annoying.

I think Earwig slipped up here too. Nobody else had noticed the collaboration because they weren't thinking of you and MF as a team. However, there was one other person who knew the connection between you two--he was most likely looking for a way to distance himself from you two while, at the same time, not hammering the point away. The way he, after being a lurker for so long, suddenly picked out collaboration between two mafia members is suspicious, to say the least. Look at Earwig's original accusation:

Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 3:03 am Post subject: 116

..................As I said, I'm most suspicious of MightyFireball because he continues to go along with what is being said without any attempt to make his own analysis. That shows lack of interest. Yet he has quite a few posts.

Lack of interest in helping the town plus maintaining a high post count equals trouble.

Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 9:53 am Post subject: 119

D8p, I did indeed make the first analysis of Khelvaster's post in which he incriminated pickemgenius. That analysis post was post number 102. It may not have been particularly elaborate, but it wasn't based off of anyone else's analysis. I'm not entirely sure if you missed that one, or if you just didn't think it was good enough to count.

Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 10:12 am Post subject: 120

No, MightyFireball I hadn't missed it, but I'm not saying it was not good enough, for goodness sake. I marked it down as unhelpful, which, to be fair, was a little harsh.

Mild attacks always worry me more than strong ones - I can't help thinking the defender and attacker are in cahoots, firing blanks.

Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 2:11 pm Post subject: 121

Well, I generally don't want to appear too aggressive, lest someone think I was scum trying very hard to get an innocent lynched. I do see your point about mild attacks, but the opposite, overly aggressive attacks, are not without suspicion either.

These posts make me think of scum chatting with each other. This kinda confirms it, IMO:

Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 10:12 am Post subject: 120

…….Mild attacks always worry me more than strong ones - I can't help thinking the defender and attacker are in cahoots, firing blanks.

Earwig just leaves this argument after posting it. He doesn't follow up--he says just enough to be considered useful, then goes back into hiding again.

Shanba: flighty, was very vague in disagreeing with my analysis of MF and BBB: "I think Mighty Fireball and Beanbagboy came out of the argument looking better than D8P", but has been consistent in pursuing Khel.

I don't see any problems with Shanba here. Just because he pursues me doesn't mean he can't suspect you as well.

So one issue remains: experience. Is BBB's inexperience the driving force behind his play? Ditto for Khel.

unvote: MightyFireball, vote: beanbagboy

FoS: MightyFireball, Earwig and Shanba

What the hell? you unvoted MF, and then you FoS him? I don't really see any evidence against BBB--he hasn't done anything blatantly scummy. That only leads me to the conclusion that you are worried if we lynch MF and find him to be scum, that you will be next.

d8p, it seems you must have supported George Bush in the 2004 elections. You seem to believe anyone who changes their mind after listening to a logical argument is "flighty," and therefore is hiding something.

If I didn't post already:

FoS: d8p, Earwig

[MightyFireball]

Not at all. I was confused by what Khel had said, and I was asking for an example as a clarification. Also, Khel, when you said this,

Assuming d8p is scum, Earwig is guilty until proven innocent.

Where did you get the connection between d8p and Earwig? There hasn't been much of a connection between them as far as I can tell, so you can't really just assume one is guilty if the other one is. I'd like some clarification on this if you don't mind. Thanks.

[Khelvaster]

Not at all. I was confused by what Khel had said, and I was asking for an example as a clarification. Also, Khel, when you said this,

Assuming d8p is scum, Earwig is guilty until proven innocent.

Where did you get the connection between d8p and Earwig? There hasn't been much of a connection between them as far as I can tell, so you can't really just assume one is guilty if the other one is. I'd like some clarification on this if you don't mind. Thanks.

I finally became convinced that Earwig's lurking was something else when he came out from hiding just long enough to accuse two people, then went back into hiding. Look at my above post to see what I had to say about that. What I am saying is, if d8p and MF are scum, then it would follow that Earwig would be the third scum IMO.

[kabenon007]

Khelvaster, the only ones who have a lynching agenda are mafia, because no townie would have preset ideas about whole lines of people who they think are scum. Much more information is given out when the first person is lynched, and even more when the second is lynched. We can observed who defended who, or who laid back instead of defending. We need to have a lynch 1 before we should even think about L2 and 3.

vote Khelvaster

[beanbagboy]

@Khel: Erm... If she was taking all that time I assume she would be more careful. It's entirely possible that she's trying to mislead us and as townies we have to look out for that.

@PickEM:Congrats on getting your Mafia Scum status! Also, I agree with what little you said there (most of it was quotes, you have to admit) so I'm putting you on my town list.

FoT (finger of town):Pickemgenius

@d8p: Yes, you are posting to my satisfaction. However, I disagree: I don't back down because I try not to just go with popular opinion. If you'd rather me just mindlessly follow the crowd I will.

Also, a lot of people say I don't read: part of it is finals, part of it is I can have short attention spans at times. This isn't how I act as scum, a good example is Newbie 356 (yes, I am aware of how many times I reference it but it's my only completed game that I can reference.)

As for the MF thing, ok, I thought I had remembered someone having said that. I had been writing that when a lot was on my mind and I didn't have much time to check, I think I was mixing up names. I forgot.

@Khel: Did you just copy and paste d8p's opinion without even quoting? And you're giving him a FOS? WTF?

Also, don't say "on day two we will lynch x or y if a or b is scum" or "on day two we will lynch x" because that is a common scum tactic known as setting up lynches.

@d8p: The whole attack on me feels a bit OMGUSy. It completely started with me voting for you, if I remember. I'm not sure if I buy it. I think you're trying to do what you think is best, and I still think you town for now, but that could change.

[pickemgenius]

@PickEM:Congrats on getting your Mafia Scum status! Also, I agree with what little you said there (most of it was quotes, you have to admit) so I'm putting you on my town list.

FoT (finger of town):Pickemgenius

w00t.

Yea, most of it was.