Mini 527 - Doom in Valencia - Game Over!

[Archaist]

Role confirmed.

[Archaist]

Well, I've been waiting for everyone to confirm. I don't think we should really start with 2 people missing.

[Archaist]

Anybody else see this as lurky? Of course scum wouldn't want discussion to start yet, the chances of suspicion falling on them would be much higher. Same is true for town, yes, but isn't the town more concerned with having discussion to get reads on people? If suspicion falls on you, all the better, since that might give you a clue about people suspecting you. Not so much for scum.

Thoughts?

My reason for saying that is because I think that starting without everyone present is excusing absence and failure to confirm. If major discussion begins and someone is missing, then when they or a replacement do come in they basically have a free excuse for lurking and they avoided having to contribute in the early discussion, both of which could benefit the Mafia.

[Archaist]

My last two votes have been very well thought out.

I would also like to hear the reasoning behind those. I notice that despite neko2086's asking you to explain them, you ignored the question.

Meme, why do you like your vote. Is it because of ridethebomb's omgus vote on you?

Well, that didn't make me sad to be voting him. I'm still rather liking my vote.

That's not really an explanation. RtB really hasn't made any posts that I find vote-worthy.

[Archaist]

You decided pretty quickly there, soupfly. Don't you think that it's a bit unusual to "pressure" someone for just one post? I really don't think that neko2086's post was all that telling one way or another, so I'd like to know how you came to the conclusion that he isn't scum so quickly.

[Archaist]

Could you give an explanation for you vote, soupfly? Don't think you can dissuade questioning just by saying it's getting old... after what, only 7 pages? Making votes on "secret information" is something only the Mafia can do in reality, as only they have any extra info about who is Town and who is Scum when starting the game. In his last post (#153), neko2086 made some perfectly reasonable statements, what about that post makes him worthy of a vote? You voted neko2086 for "pressure," which you lifted after only 1 post, and now you vote him again. Rapidly voting and unvoting without wanting to give any explanation sounds very scummy to me.

Vote: soupfly

[Archaist]

@Archaist: Why soupfly? I voted neko without giving reasons first.

Yes, but you didn't vote to

pressure him for just one post

, then unvote, only to vote again later. It's not just the voting without giving reasons, it's the combination of that with the strange voting pattern that soupfly has that leads me to suspect him.

So, in your opinion, town would never attempt to keep mafia in the dark?

There is a difference between keeping some information from the Mafia and completely failing to give any reasons, actually trying to dissuade people from asking you to do so as soupfly just did. If you say that people can vote without reasons under the pretext of "keeping information from the Mafia" then you are possibly excusing baseless votes, as anytime someone wants to vote without reason they can just cover it up by saying they are hiding some information. There has to be a balance between keeping information to yourself and giving justifications for your votes.

[Archaist]

and soupfly specified that he saw something after the last post. Did you check that last post and come up empty? Or did you vote soupfly without bothering to see if you might agree with him?

If you read my post #157, you would know that answer.

In his last post (#153), neko2086 made some perfectly reasonable statements, what about that post makes him worthy of a vote?

If that is indeed the post that made soupfly vote neko, then I am coming up empty for reasons. For now my vote will stay, but that might change depending on any later explanations from soupfly. I just don't see anything in neko's post 153, which was his last post before soupfly voted him again.

[Archaist]

First of all, I've had final exams recently so I apologize for not posting.

Ok, back to the game:

The town is way more likely to risk putting their foot in their mouth to make a good strong point. Scum is more likely to sit back and let townies put feet in their mouths.

You do realize that this statement is overused and very WIFOM right? I've seen this used so much (I've probably used it myself) but does it really hold any merit? It could easily be scum trying to cover up their risky actions by saying they are just being an active townie and "putting themselves out there." Likewise, a townie might hang back if they have some kind of special role or if they are just cautious in general. I really don't think you can generalize it so simply.

You then say:

a good mafia can be just as consistent as a good townie

Doesn't this contradict the point I previously quoted? On one hand you say that scum is more likely to sit back, then right after that you say that they can be just as consistent as a townie. To me that means consistent in posting, viewpoints, suspicions, etc. So which is it? The obvious answer is that scum can be both, but admitting that makes a good portion of your post meaningless.

[Archaist]

pressurevote Guardian why is Sir Wario scum?

he isn't being particularly helpful while looking like he is trying to be

That said, while I think it's pretty clear why Guardian is voting Sir Wario, I also think that his explanation is pretty lacking. Do you have any posts in particular that made you think Sir Wario is actively lurking? Furthermore, you yourself seem to be actively lurking, especially with this post:

Still here, still think Sir Wario's scum.

Even if your suspicions on Sir Wario hadn't changed, you could still have made some useful comment on the posts of other players. Saying "I'm here and my suspicions haven't changed" isn't being very helpfull, so voting for Sir Wario because "he isn't being particularly helpful" is pretty hypocritical.

[Archaist]

First, he attacks Soupfly because of Soupfly's reaction test on neko; moreover, the way in which he does so is the reaction I would expect from a scum who sees his buddy get reaction-tested

So do you agree or disagree that Soupfly's "reaction test" was suspicious? What about my response to it do you find suspicious? Just saying that it is what you "would expect from a scum" isn't descriptive or helpful at all.

Third, he points out a number of neko's scummy actions in his second to last post, yet fails to make any conclusions about neko's alignment.

In that post I pointed out

one

scummy action, that being the contradiction in his post. One contradiction is far from enough to conclude on someone's alignment.