Open 54 - Basic 12 Player (over) before 529

[Glork]

I have a homework assignment for you all.

Read the first few pages of these two games:
Mini 344: Sesame Street (eye on Glork/Kain)
Mini 358 (eye on Glork/Sprontalic)

...and then tell me why I decided that my vote should settle on Rip.

[Crub]

Actually.

Unvote, Vote: Ripley

Oh but I don't want to vote ripley And your vote on Patrick was one of the reasons I'm voting him

[wank]

You guys take this way too seriously. I am happy with my vote.

[Ether]

1 Crub (Bookitty)
1 Glork (Ripley)
1 IH (Andycyca)
1 Patrick (Crub)
1 Ripley (Glork)
1 Shanba (Patrick)
1 Sikario8 (wank)

3 Unvote (IH, Shanba, Sikario8)

10 alive; 6 to lynch.

[Patrick]

Bookitty seems pretty genuine for now. Although maybe the fact that she called me protown is swaying me a bit there.

First, this post:

What in my two posts made you think I'm protown?

doesn't seem like something scum would say. In my experience, scum tends to be so happy other people think they're town, they don't question why.

This post is more of the same thing:

I wondered about possible buddying up, since all his posts have contained comments about my innocence, but having read his reasoning I could see it as genuine (though even from my biased perspective, I don't agree with it).

I like the principle. It might be a bit premature to apply here though, as I might well have said that as scum too. But ok, I can believe you are sincere in saying this.

And later:

What does this mean? Why do you find it scummy that we're contributing alot?

Even though this comes later, and is odd in itself:

Non contributor? No, I've contributed more than alot of people. How the hell am I a non contributor when 3 people haven't said or done anything at all? I'm annoyed by this.

So Patrick is scummy for contributing a lot, AND not contributing? Um... how does that work?

Not sure what point you're making here, but what happened was wank apparently thought people contributing alot are scummy, then Elmo worded something awkwardly that made it look like he thought I was non contributor (but in fact he didn't).

The argument between Glork and Ripley looks more like playstyle difference than scumminess to me. I can easily believe Ripley is genuine in his last post. I don't really agree with Glork's protown vibes from wank and sikario that he cited there, but it seems fairly consistent with protown Glork, and if he's scum he's fairly boldly cutting out alot of options (or at least, making it difficult to move onto those players without good reasons). I have read both the games linked too a while ago, especially since I was in one of them.

Oh but I don't want to vote ripley And your vote on Patrick was one of the reasons I'm voting him

Why would Glork voting me be a reason to vote for me? Also, what are the other reasons for voting me? .

Mod

: please have a chat with IH.

[Bookitty]

My take on Glork's homework assignment was that in both those cases, a vote was placed on someone (during a period where many votes were being placed without reasons, in general) and someone else asked/demanded a reason for THAT vote, out of all others, thus betraying a personal interest in the person being voted for. In both cases the one being voted with was a scumbuddy of the person asking for an explanation.

In this game, the corresponding event would be Ripley demanding an explanation from Apple, my predecessor, for his vote on IH.

Am I right, Glork?

(Oh, and merry Glorkmas, everyone.)

[Glork]

You were close. More notable is the fact that Kain/Spront/Rip all got very hussy over my chosen playstyle, demanded that I explain myself, and then basically OMGUSed me when I refused to.


There're enough parallels that I'm willing to stick with my vote. I think Ripley is a hell of a lot more articulate than Kain or Spront were, but the tells are there and I'm going to go with them.

[Crub]

Given that, do you also feel that Patrick is scum based on the fact that it was your vote on Patrick that started Ripley's reaction to your playstyle?

[wank]

That's really sad if the theory proves accurate.

[Glork]

Given that, do you also feel that Patrick is scum based on the fact that it was your vote on Patrick that started Ripley's reaction to your playstyle?

Not necessarily because of that. In fact, in Mini 358 Atticus (whom Spront went out of his way to defend) was a townie -- there seems to be some confusion regarding that. This kind of situation says much more about the protector than the protectee.

Keep in mind, though, that I am suspicious of Patrick for other reasons, and having Rip come to his aid like this certainly doesn't ease my qualms about either player.

I can also think of one more instance where this sortof happened, although the circumstances were somewhat different. In Kingmaker II, I was badgering PJscum, and Pookyscum came flying to his aid with a very focused attack on how my browbeating wasn't helping. I didn't go after Pooky because of his defense, because I felt that my behavior was actually pretty outlandish in that game, but Pooky and PJ both turned out to be scum.

[Shanba]

But you know what? I'm done with that. I think he is deliberately unhelpful, plays games, provokes, mocks and taunts because he's the kind of person who enjoys doing those things. I think his persistent singling out of the most articulate players in the game for attack is because those are the people most likely to and most able to stand up to him. I think the poor scumhunting is because he's not scumhunting. I think he's scum.

Pheh. I'm not sure I buy this. As I pointed out, he hasn't really felt like I would expect Glork to, but I tihnk it's a stretch to say he's done no scumhunting. I also don't think he would deliberately single out articulate players. As scum, it's much easier just to kill the articulate ones at night than get your hands dirty pushing for their lynch. Maybe that's just me. Oh, and also, Glork was pro-Elmo who is an articulate player, so he's not just singling out articulate players.

I think Glork's argument against Ripley has some merit. Defending someone under attack is something I've often done as scum. I do it as town too, though. It may simply be more of a playstyle thing. However, Glork has other games to show the meta (and also a more specific parallel than just defending someone under attack).

I've read the Jdodge wagon now, and I'm not sure what to make of it. Sikario is the first vote, but Elmo had been pressuring JD prior to Sikario's vote. Sik never really explains why he voted, but he seems genuine in his conviction that JD is scum. The Ripley votes. I'm not sure I like his vote

For persistent refusal to post content for the whole of the day; consistent neglect over a sustained period that can't be put down to exams, holidays, illness etc etc. In a game where there's been a general feeling that nobody's been all that scummy, and people are struggling to find good reasons to vote, I think we might as well use the opportunity to ditch some deadwood. There's no reason to expect his play to change and the problem he presents will become ever more acute as numbers lessen.

Also, while I haven't played with Glork before he clearly has a fine reputation as a scumhunter, and has already listed half the players as protown: Crub, Elmo, IH, Glork, Andy, apple. If you put your faith in Glork here and believe he's protown, the chances of JDodge being scum look encouraging.

mostly because I disagree with his assertion that there's a general consensus that noone looks very scummy. By that time I hda been pressured, Andy had been pressured, I had attacked Patrick, Glork had declared lots of people pro-town and thus narrowed down his list dramatically and so on. Indeed, in that very post he had said he had indicated a suspicion of IH. I'm not sure what he would be trying to gain as scum, though. Meh.
Then Elmo votes and provides some nice reasoning. Glork hops on the wagon. Hard to say whether this is Glork just wagoning or Glorkscum trying to take advantage. Put it down as neutral for now. Finally, Andy adds a weird vote just at the end of the wagon

Now I don't definetly like JD's reaction

UNVOTE, Vote: JDodge

I really hate this vote. Given the way the deadline rules work, Jdodge's lynch was not guaranteed, and Andy's vote changed nothing if a deadline hit. But if people had started being active, then it might have been more significant.

FoS: Andy, Ripley

I'm wavering a bit on Patrick. I still think he's the most likely to be scum but I'm getting more vibes going back. SCumlist currently reads Patrick, Ripley, Glork, Andy

[Patrick]

Tsh. I am going to be feel really stupid if Ripley is scum in this game. But I can't supress a bad feeling about this. The main reason I'm not seeing the scumminess others seem to be is that I think in general Ripley is fairly intolerant of people playing weirdly. I'm not sure I can think of an example right this second, but it comes from stuff I've seen him say to Simenon and IH on several occasions, and it's my meta on him. I don't like the way the "wagon" is moving forward. It's not actually a wagon of course, but it seems to have potential to be one, and people who I think are a good deal scummier are being ignored. The fact that Shanba has angled himself to get on there if necessary hardly makes me feel better about it.

Crub is rising on my suspicion list too, by refusing to answer any of my questions and because I think his attitude towards Glork is getting a bit icky. I will say that's more indicative of Crubscum Glorktown, and that I don't think Glork and Crub are scum together. Probably the only point in his favour is that he hasn't joined the Ripley hate that currently has me feeling uncomfortable.

I really hate this vote. Given the way the deadline rules work, Jdodge's lynch was not guaranteed, and Andy's vote changed nothing if a deadline hit. But if people had started being active, then it might have been more significant.

See my intepretation was a bit different. I wonder to myself what Andy had to gain if he's scum by doing this, and at the moment I'm not sure. That's the main thing that's made me waver on him.

The last votecount showed a bunch of spread out votes, which means we haven't got much consensus. I think those who haven't need to weigh in on some of the recent topics of conversation and take some stances, and give us an idea who they'd be willing to vote.

[IH]

don't tread on me.

Lynch Glork.

In other news, after modding duties this game comes first.

[Bookitty]

don't tread on me.

Lynch Glork.

In other news, after modding duties this game comes first.

Why are you asking others to lynch Glork when you're not even voting him?

[IH]

Gotta find out whether I'll win the bet now, or whether I'll have to wait until a later date.

What bet?

I'm amazed you were able to make that statement about his alignment from his two posts. Unvote Vote: elmo

I dislike this vote.

Unvote; Vote appleof88

His change of vote to IH with the explanation "I like IH's cartoon"... just felt wrong. If he'd said "Shameless bandwagoning", for example, that would at least have sounded honest.

I thought all that banter between Patrick and Glork was a continuation of some running joke between them and didn't say a single thing about the alignment of either one.

This one either.

I thought we were already out of random...

You posted "I think Patrick is town" out of nowhere. Nobody was talking about him, not even posting suspicions and the first thing you do is to throw a comment based on (gut?) only 2 posts.

FoS: Elmo I'd like an explanation on why you mentioned Patrick so suddenly.

This still stinks to me. You know he was reading the page. Look at the bolded line.

it was just a lame arse comeback
like when some says
"that drawing is rubbish?" and then you say "your face is rubbish!"
kinda like that

1.Ass
2.UR FACE

Post 52 is me not paying attention. Woo!

FoS:Me

It sounded like a first vote, not a second vote. First votes frequently have little or no reason, or are plain random, or jokey, and are basically made for no other reason than to get things going. But when someone changes their vote, well, there's usually some kind of reason behind the change, because things are already moving, and replacing one silly vote with another is futile. Even if there's no real game reason, there's usually something - even if the change of vote is made just to accompany a witticism. Here there wasnt anything. And also, appleof88 moved his vote to a player who'd been put on 2 votes just three posts earlier, which caught my attention a bit more than it would have otherwise.

Why didn't you probe Glork for his change of vote to me at the time Ripley? Unless you mean second vote on a person, not a person's second vote, and that's just silly.

Let me double check who is dead before I go any further... JD and Elmo. Kay.

I suddenly dislike post 65. Glork pressed Elmo's throwaway statement about Patrick, but all I got was a Lulz @ IH. I thought mine was a little more greivous than Elmo's.... why did I seem to get off the hook? <.<;

I also dislike Apple's FoS of Ripley in post 69. Feels like since Glork threw some support into it, he's just saying "Yeah! FoS!" Since he even noted that "wow, alot of thought went into that post" earlier. (like when he first commented on Ripley's post)

Thats the second time you've asked me to comment further on this issue. I gave you a detailed account of my thoughts about appleof88's post 32 in my post 53, and as a result have already been accused of overthinking and "reading too much into things". Quite a nice one-two wank and appleof88 have going there; one gets you to expand on your original post, you oblige by replying in as much detail as you can, then the other attacks you for providing the detail that was requested. Cute.

Over re-re-re-reaction. Since Wank said "comments Ripley?" I'm not quite sure how I feel about Ripley calling it a "one two". Why did you leave Glork out of it THIS part of your post, since you mention him in the next part of it, but you say it's a one two from WANK and APPLE. not GLORK and APPLE.

I dislike Andy's post 77. It seems to be the exact oppisite of what I think about them atm.

I think Ripley being reactionary is less from alignment at this point (post 83), and more from frustration. This is kind of funny here.

[qupte="IH"]Do you think it's possible Glork could have just misread your post?

How on earth do I know? I mean, it's possible anybody can misread any post, but unless there's a clear misunderstanding you tend to assume they haven't. I think he might have not read the last paragraph. Did you think there was an alternative interpretation of my post? Why aren't you asking Glork if he could have misread my post? [/quote]

and then I ask him the reverse and don't seem to get an answer.

Could it be possible you're misunderstanding Glork's post?

Again, do you think there was an alternative interpretation that I missed?

I didn't see any traces of panic in his reaction. Only in its sheer amount. Otherwise, I would have opted for a vote over finger. I feel more pressure may reveal more?

Now that votes against andy is piling up, I should get reading...

I feel this is kind of a lame excuse.

I still can't get a read on andy.

But reading back, I noticed a few things...

Has sika contributed anything worthwhile besides acting as the village idiot?

54 and 72 is interesting. So is 77.

Lastly, I am not going to pick apart ripley...at least not yet. But I am amazed you find his posts typical pat. And why so much interest in my pressure on him?

Unvote. Vote: ripley

FoS:Wank

This is terrible. You show no attempt to get a read on andy. I don't see a thought pattern at all. "I can't get a read on Andy" is all I see. You list three posts that you say are interesting. You then say you're not going to pick apart Ripley, ask Patrick why he's interested in the pressure, and then VOTE Ripley. I thought you weren't going to pick him apart?

I guess it's a matter of play style. Ripley exercised fairly considerable effort in fighting my accusation and now he's finally fed up with my probes. I wonder what he would do if half of the people were on his case...

I dislike your "subtlety", which doesn't feel like you're looking for scum. It's just more like you want to see a breakdown so a lynch will happen. In other words, you THINK you smell blood, and want to go after it more. Not to mention, half of the people on his case is technically a lynch.

In other words, you've found something lynch worthy, but it doesn't look like you think it's suspicious, but you're depending to much on others support. The maybe's and wonder's and I guesses are scummy. Quit being so uncomittal. As far as I could tell he wasn't "fed up" with your probes, and was actually probing you, you just were ignoring him.

unvote, vote:Wank

Some of Glork's prodding is weird.

I find it odd that you seemed to imply that he's protown and just not acting well. It's like you're trying to coach/baby him into contributing, assuming that he's having a hard time as town, rather than thinking he may be lazyscum.


At least, that's just how I read it.

and I got a Lulz at IH = \

I like Patrick so far this game.

Post 176 is good from Elmo. I suggest everyone go look at it, and comment on it now. http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... &start=175

Ripley is grumpy. Grump.

General gameplay question for everyone...
Which do you generally find scummier: Somebody who is somewhat inflammatory and contributes weakly to discussion, or somebody who posts without adding anything to the discussion?

Why did you ask this question? Is this in regards to Wank? If so, why are you attempting to make people compare Wank and someone else (such as, at the time, JD, or Apple)

Arguing semantics is stupid. Wank declared that he thinks posting to much is scummy, and then claims he never said it.

This should be kept secret but I am of the opinion that those who post too too much is scummy.

I value semantics. The devil is in the details no? Let's take a quick lesson. Where did I say that "posting too much is scummy"? As to the reasoning, think about it. And when I say it, I mean guilt.

Made it to page nine,

unvote, vote:Wank

will finish after I finish help cleaning my house up, kthxbai. <3

[IH]

I see an Either that should be "also"

[wank]

Considering the last genius that pull the above shenanigan turned up townie, I will hold my vote. Why isn't anyone else voting sika?

[Glork]

Because I've yet to see anybody present a case to convince me that he's worth voting for.

[Glork]

Why did you ask this question? Is this in regards to Wank? If so, why are you attempting to make people compare Wank and someone else (such as, at the time, JD, or Apple)

They were supposed to highlight Apple and Sikario, respectively. I was stuck on this whole "Why is Patrick jumping on Apple for one thing, but giving Sik the Newbie Card for another thing?" train of thought at the time.


IIRC, nobody really answered it in a straightforward manner, though, so I just let it drop.

[Glork]

I'm expecting this post and vote to be the Mafia equivalent of suicide by cop.

What exactly does this sentence mean?

[Crub]

in the name of progress.

unvote;vote ripley

[Patrick]

That seems kind of inconsistent, given that you've never expressed suspicion of him all game, and you've barely attempted to lay out any kind of case against me that might persuade people to vote for me. Why give up so easily?

[Glork]

Because you're getting lynched tomorrow.

[Patrick]

Feel free to let Crub answer a question addressed to him. I'm sure he's capable.

[Patrick]

Unvote, Vote: Crub

mainly because deadline is fast approaching and I prefer a Crub lynch to a Ripley lynch. We've got about 50 hours left, unless 6 people post in the last day of it, which I'm not especially confident we're going to manage.