Mini Normal 1888 - TwoFace Mafia - Game Over

[TwoFace]

Vote count 1.03

aronagrundy - DogWatch, gerryoat (L-5)
Dogwatch - mozamis, Shadow_step (L-5)
Shadow_Step- Eddie Cane, FireScreamer (L-5)
Keyser Soze - Transcend, Barleycorn (L-5)
Transcend - NorskaBlue (L-6)
gerryoat - Keyser Söze (L-6)
Eddie Cane - aronagrundy (L-6)
FireScreamer - Pants98 (L-6)


Not Voting: FrankJaeger

With 13 alive it takes 7 to lynch

Day 1 ends in (expired on 2017-03-06 16:51:40)

Mod Note - I will check on activity and see if anyone needs prods later tonight. If you see an error please let me know. Thank you

[Keyser Söze]

what conclusions have you drawn from that conversation about dog's alignment?

Conclusions RE: DogWatch's play

I think DogWatch is going to be an easy player to lynch on THIS site.

Fire has three votes now with zero reasoning behind them. Can the three of you explain?

If I was scum I would have jumped on this like:


Why would scum-DogWatch want us to pick apart 3 naked/unsupported RVS votes?

I read it better as: DogWatch didn't understand the true nature of mafiascum RVS and wanted to find out if he'd overlooked something.

DogWatch is not a new player to mafia, thus, I cannot see scum-DogWatch playing 'dumb'.


DogWatch later says:

transcend, how did keyser scum claim?

DogWatch is seeking the SUPPORTING REASONS behind people's naked votes and unexplained suspicions.

I do not think this behaviour is scum-indicative.

Conclusions RE: Shadow_step's rhetorical question

Fire has three votes now with zero reasoning behind them. Can the three of you explain? We're getting out of the rvs stage at this point. Which reminds me to remove my random vote UNVOTE:

Concerned townie much?

- I read this as Shadow Step implying that DogWatch was playing the LAMIST card. There was no need for anyone to answer this question. Only agree or disagree with the implied observation.
- DogWatch's question was so ridiculous to my ears that Shadow Step is allowed to flag this as suspicious (I DO NOT agree with his conclusion though).
- I think DogWatch is stuck in confirmation bias here. In regard to Dogwatch's vote, Shadow Step described it as: "Scum are survivalistic, town are less so. As town you're not as worried about getting lynched as you are as scum. As scum you quickly want a CW.". THUS, Shadow was reading Dogwatch's non-alignment play as scummy.

Why can't town vote for someone when they are under pressure? Why can't town be survivalist?

- bottom line: I lean on stubborn-town Shadow projecting what he thinks is conclusively scum-indicative on DayWatch's non-scummy play.

[Barleycorn]

Fire has three votes now with zero reasoning behind them. Can the three of you explain? We're getting out of the rvs stage at this point. Which reminds me to remove my random vote UNVOTE:

I played on a small site back in 2007-2008. Haven't played since. RVS wasn't a thing. Random questions were usually how we started, but I read some games on this site and it looks like RQS is an instant scum read which blows my mind. I don't really know how to play on this site yet. I'm used to games based around night decisions/analysis, items, numerous power roles, crazy gimmicks, etc. This site just looks like endless day phase squabbling to me.

If there's nothing weird about those three fire votes in the context of this site , I'm cool with that. I just didn't interpret it that way at the time.

I have an eight hour drive ahead of me, so I'll be back on later tonight/early tomorrow.

I think we agree dog doesn't understand Rvs. my interpretation is that his initial post is potentially trying to appear like he's contributing to discussion while not actually taking any sort of stance. he clearly doesn't get rvs, so immediately attacking a small wagon that formed during rvs could be "oh, lemme defend this wagon, their votes are all naked so they won't have a case and I'll look good".

and yes, that's not the strongest case on the world, remember dog is only slightly on the scum side for me.

i understand the case. i'll ask you again - would you agree that you made a different case in 189?

[Keyser Söze]

VOTE: Aronagrundy

im town. this maf

You're playing different to town-gerry

[Eddie Cane]

idts

[Barleycorn]

189 - dogwatch said we're out of rvs, but then he said he doesn't get rvs. this is inconsistent.

case 2 - scum!dogwatch, not getting rvs, thought he could get towncred by jumping on what he saw as 3 unsupported and therefore bad votes.

i am annoyed that you don't see these as distinct. or is my interpretation of your 189 incorrect?

dude I JUST admitted you probably weren't noob scum like I originally read, and you're going to call me opportunist? This feels very reactionary, like an omgus

Fire has three votes now with zero reasoning behind them. Can the three of you explain? We're getting out of the rvs stage at this point. Which reminds me to remove my random vote UNVOTE:

the second doesn't make much sense when he later posts that his previous site doesn't use rvs, it's implying that he understands rvs ("were getting out atp") while at the same time later saying he doesn't get rvs.

[DogWatch]

It's NOT inconsistent. I said I thought we were getting out of RVS, but when I got corrected on that, I admitted I didn't understand RVS as well as I thought I did. There's no inconsistency there.

[Barleycorn]

It's NOT inconsistent. I said I thought we were getting out of RVS, but when I got corrected on that, I admitted I didn't understand RVS as well as I thought I did. There's no inconsistency there.

i know this and i am pretty sure eddie knows this.

[Eddie Cane]

189 - dogwatch said we're out of rvs, but then he said he doesn't get rvs. this is inconsistent.

case 2 - scum!dogwatch, not getting rvs, thought he could get towncred by jumping on what he saw as 3 unsupported and therefore bad votes.

i am annoyed that you don't see these as distinct. or is my interpretation of your 189 incorrect?

dude I JUST admitted you probably weren't noob scum like I originally read, and you're going to call me opportunist? This feels very reactionary, like an omgus

Fire has three votes now with zero reasoning behind them. Can the three of you explain? We're getting out of the rvs stage at this point. Which reminds me to remove my random vote UNVOTE:

the second doesn't make much sense when he later posts that his previous site doesn't use rvs, it's implying that he understands rvs ("were getting out atp") while at the same time later saying he doesn't get rvs.

It's on the tangent that scumdog, not getting rvs, tried to use rvs related votes for town cred but it failed because he doesn't get rvs. they aren't mutually exclusive. or, it could be towndog taking a small rvs wagon too seriously.

[DogWatch]

it could be towndog taking a small rvs wagon too seriously.

ding ding ding

[Barleycorn]

you are giving me head pains.

in 188 i ask you where your scum lean of dog comes from.

in 189 you tell me it's (in part) because dog said we were out of rvs, but then said he didn't get rvs, which doesn't make sense according to you. the other parts of the scum lean are his interaction with shadow and his use of trigger words.

interjection - why is a new player using 'trigger words' scum indicative?

in 190 i ask an unclear question that's basically hinting that there was no inconsistency in dog's play. i revise this question in 197.

in 191 you come up with a

new

case that bypasses my question. then in 194 you bypass my question again by incorrectly saying I was asking you to do meta analysis.

the two points i've made that you seem not to understand are -

1. that the case you make starting from 191 is absent in 189 and
2. that there is a distinct case in 189 that i asked you about, and that you subsequently abandoned

work with me to figure this out or i'm voting you.

[Barleycorn]

for some clarity in what i'm doing, i think 189 + 191 is scum but i'm trying to see how possible it is that town!eddie made those posts.

[DogWatch]

dude I JUST admitted you probably weren't noob scum like I originally read, and you're going to call me opportunist? This feels very reactionary, like an omgus

Fire has three votes now with zero reasoning behind them. Can the three of you explain? We're getting out of the rvs stage at this point. Which reminds me to remove my random vote UNVOTE:

these pinged me. the first is just spamming trigger words; "reactionary", "omgus". the second doesn't make much sense when he later posts that his previous site doesn't use rvs, it's implying that he understands rvs ("were getting out atp") while at the same time later saying he doesn't get rvs. his interaction with shadow is also a part of the reasoning.

you are way too hung up on this, there is no inconsistency and barley has been trying to drill this into your head

Also it would be great if everyone could refer to me by the correct pronoun

[Barleycorn]

you are way too hung up on this, there is no inconsistency and barley has been trying to drill this into your head

Also it would be great if everyone could refer to me by the correct pronoun

you said this already in 206, why are you repeating it?

and will do re: pronoun.

[DogWatch]

Because the discussion is going in circles and I felt the need to reiterate, Eddie is being dense

[Barleycorn]

if you think whether or not you were being inconsistent is the crux of the discussion, you're being dense too.

[DogWatch]

No it's more about where his scum reads come from and why he hasn't addressed your questions sufficiently

I'm with you, I don't see how town Eddie makes some of these posts and I do get a scum lean

[mozamis]

would you still think this is ai if it were the case that eddie has done something similar before

if he were town when he did it, i guess not.
It just has that scvummy feel about it ("go on, vote me, i dont care, i'm sao fucking tiwn, oh he wifom! etc)
its not a definte tell, obv (is there such a thing?). But worth a Fos.

[Barleycorn]

would you still think this is ai if it were the case that eddie has done something similar before

if he were town when he did it, i guess not.
It just has that scvummy feel about it ("go on, vote me, i dont care, i'm sao fucking tiwn, oh he wifom! etc)
its not a definte tell, obv (is there such a thing?). But worth a Fos.

what do you think about our interaction from 189-now?

[FireScreamer]

Gut

You are not going to get 6 other people to agree with Gut. You know this and are not trying. Which means you are putting on a show and I wonder why.

[FireScreamer]

As a rough stance on where I am just now.

Most Town

Barley
Grundy
Keyser
Mozamis
NorskaBlue
Frank
Pants
Eddie
Transend
Gerryoat
Dogwatch
Shadow_Step

Least Town

Wasn't what I thought the list was going to look like when I started. And its very early days. Obviously some of these are on basically nothing.

[Barleycorn]

Gut

You are not going to get 6 other people to agree with Gut. You know this and are not trying. Which means you are putting on a show and I wonder why.

why can't gut be the honest basis for transcend's read of kaiser?

[FireScreamer]

Gut

You are not going to get 6 other people to agree with Gut. You know this and are not trying. Which means you are putting on a show and I wonder why.

why can't gut be the honest basis for transcend's read of kaiser?

It can be. But voting him based on that doesnt actually create any pressure on him. So why do it?

[Barleycorn]

it does create pressure.

[FireScreamer]

it does create pressure.

How so? What is to be feared of a vote based on intuition which is by its very nature non transferable?