Mini #564 - Mafia in Crubtown - Game Over

[QuantumFruit]

Hello.

In that case,

vote: Pink Puppy

- because pink sucks.

[QuantumFruit]

Unvote, Vote: windkirby

He totally just OMGUS-ed Akonas. Plus, I'm defending my man. (Yes, I'm purposefully embarrassing you, dear.)

Also, he came up on darkdude's dice roll the first time he did it. The dice are never wrong.

And if that's not enough reason, he's in two of my minis as well!

[QuantumFruit]

This one (Crubtown) and Fish Monkey God. It was more of a joke because someone else joke-voted someone for being in two of their mini games - kind of a like a purposeful crap-logic to be amusing and point out how ridiculous joke-voting was at the same time.

[QuantumFruit]

Quote:
like a purposeful crap-logic to be amusing and point out how ridiculous joke-voting was at the same time.


Could be an excuse for scum bandwagoning...

What could be? I was defending Akonas because we know one another, and then letting the reasons for voting windkirby get progressively more ridiculous. Joke votes are, by nature, pretty ridiculous.

[QuantumFruit]

Thank you, Cephrir. I'm just trying to figure out darkdude's logic. It seems convoluted. I mean, with your logic, everyone could be scum either by joke voting or by jumping on someone for joke voting because they're being defensive of either themselves or a scum buddy.

Yes, everyone is potential scum. I'm just saying at this point, there really isn't evidence, unless you can pinpoint what about one action is scummier than another. And that you have not answered, darkdude.

[QuantumFruit]

Oh, I see. So you're saying that because I was the last one to vote for him, it was suspicious. That makes sense, but since I'm not band-wagoning based on actual evidence and I only got him to 3 votes, when we need 7 to lynch, it's not really valid. If he got anywhere near 7 based on joke votes, people would begin to unvote. I see what you're getting at, but I don't think it's really valid.

You're right in bringing it up, though, because that way we can see people's reactions when they stand accused.

[QuantumFruit]

Right now it's 2. I was the third. Most other people had 1 or 2. In any case, darkdude's was a weak point at best.

[QuantumFruit]

unvote: darkdude
vote: Quantumfruit
4 (joke) reasons? In one post? Looks like overkill in (jokily) justifying the vote.

She just looks a little jumpy to me.

I tend to be long-winded. Where do you get jumpy, though?

[QuantumFruit]

Cephrirs comments seem a bit strong and I dont like his last one about reading into random votes. Yes I dont think there is a goldmine you can get out of them but to say there is nothing ("it doesnt work") to be gained form looking at them and "please dont" seems to me like he is trying to quiet things up.

I think you're a bit strong in your accusations, but I do agree with you that some information can be gleaned from joke votes - if nothing else, then in how people react to them. On the other hand, I think that what Cephrir was trying to prevent was people swerving off track and finding points that aren't actually there. It is possible, after all, to read in to stuff too much. And what happens if you have a flawed premise?

If you go simply from joke voting, I think you have a flawed premise.

I know Akonas in real life, so I felt the need to embarrass him. Windkirby is in both of my games, so I wanted to pick on him a little. They're the only two fellows I am familiar with, hence the vote makes sense. I thought it'd be funny to build up a false case. Apparently, my joke failed, and I sincerely apologize.

I get the impression you thought mozsuggs vote & post slightly scummy hence the reason for your vote, now to say it wasnt serious that leaves me confused.

I think he was mostly saying that it could be perceived as slightly scummy, but it was primarily a joke vote. We were still in the joke vote stage, and no one was taking themselves too seriously. But clearly, some people were taking other players too seriously - so go figure.

At this point, there appear to be two "camps," if I may say so: those dismissing joke votes as joke votes, and those reading into joke votes and saying that they have elements of scum/town. The former could be looked at as trying to cover up their potentially scummy actions and hence trying too hard not to look like scum - because of this, they're scum; the latter could be looked at as trying too hard to appear pro-town because they're going into overkill mode and attacking every minor divergence as scum.

At this point, I could honestly FOS everyone who's been participating, but I don't think it'd do much good.

[QuantumFruit]

@Cephrir:

QuantumFruit wrote:
At this point, there appear to be two "camps," if I may say so: those dismissing joke votes as joke votes, and those reading into joke votes and saying that they have elements of scum/town. The former could be looked at as trying to cover up their potentially scummy actions and hence trying too hard not to look like scum - because of this, they're scum; the latter could be looked at as trying too hard to appear pro-town because they're going into overkill mode and attacking every minor divergence as scum.


Bit of an overreaction here. It's a bit much to say that those dismissing joke votes as jokes are trying to cover scummy random votes, although from this statement it is obvious which "camp" you'd put yourself in. Besides, you assume that those people made scummy random votes that needed to be covered up, which isn't neccessarily the case. Reading too hard into random votes isn't a tell either, it's just what some people do. The divergent opinions here, I think, are really just a simple disagreement and nothing more.

Congratulations, you've restated my thesis! What camp I'm in is completely irrelevant - I'm saying either action could be perceived as scummy, whether it be dismissing scum votes or reading too much into them. For that reason, I think we should look into the random votes as an area to start from, but ultimately not take them too seriously and get off track (because I see how that could happen from either approach).

You happened to miss my point in this analysis, however:

Quote:
At this point, I could honestly FOS everyone who's been participating, but I don't think it'd do much good.

That might indicate to you that you're reading too much into things and scumhunting too overzealously at this point in the game.

Or it might indicate that I'm being dismissive and saying that anything could be scummy, but it isn't necessarily. That's essentially what I'm doing. I haven't made my mind up about anyone. I see how certain things people do could be scummy, but the game hasn't progressed enough for me to make my mind up about any player. I don't know how they normally play. I don't know their motivations. I haven't seen them under pressure. Me, scum-hunting? What basis do I have, pray tell?

@windkirby:

Talitha - You said she was jumpy and long-winded.
My opinion was that if she had made such a long post explaining a simple joke vote on the first page (so early in the game), then THAT would be weird. However, as the game goes on, it gets progressively less jokey, so if you're going to make a jokevote on the second page, it will probably need more than just a simple sentence.

Actually, I said I was long-winded. She said I was jumpy. Plus, I didn't really give the joke vote that much explanation, there just seemed to be numerous jokes I can make. Coincidentally, I'm not a very funny person, so I failed.

Also, yeah, why did you feel the need to give such an in-depth explanation to your joke vote? I mean, you've already explained it before, VoD was just pointing out that it was kind of suspicious - not enough to merit a vote, just kind of suspicious. The fact that you got really defensive could be something we should look into as the game continues.

@zeddicus:

Quote:
What happened was that I looked at mozsugg's vote and thought it was like maybe a 2/10 on my scum-o-meter

it registered on your scumdar at all? yet it was "not serious"?

seems odd.

I think he was more so stating that unless it was a joke vote, that degree of scumminess wouldn't merit a vote. Hence, not a serious vote. I imagine for a serious vote it'd have to be at least above 5. Seriously, though, the purpose of a joke vote (imo) is primarily to prod at someone and have them justify themselves. If windkirby felt his joke vote would elicit that response, then there was a reason for doing it - after all, we must have some basis for joke votes (though, sometimes, it is just for kicks). The vote itself wasn't scummy, I think, but the amount of attention windkirby paid it potentially was.

Also,

@Cephrir again:

Quote:
I never said the vote was random: stop twisting my words. There's a huge difference between a random vote and a not serious vote.

A lot of people will take them as the same thing, and they might as well be.

Wrong. There's a big difference. I just explained the difference. Random would be a dice roll. Even a joke vote (assuming no dice roll, or random number generator was used) is not random.

@some select players who know who they are: Enough with the trite little truisms. You know, where you agree with what another players been saying - like "Yeah guys, joke voting obviously has a purpose of giving us suspicions. How else are we gonna do it?" It doesn't seem very productive. I've just been noticing it and I thought I'd comment.

@Talitha: See, told you I was long-winded.

[QuantumFruit]

And the above quote made me think, because windkirby says he "got a well-backed-up FOS." (I think he's talking about zeddicus' FOS btw). But sounds to me like even windkirby believes the fos had good reason -- like he felt caught. Usually people don't say it like that. They call it a crap fos (because they know it to be wrong) or they just ignore it, because afterall, it's only an FOS. I don't know about other people, but I don't take FOSes very seriously anyway.

I usually explain myself if I get FOS-ed. If I get to it before another person, I explain them if they got FOS-ed, etc. I don't think it's necessarily even defensive to respond to an FOS. I think there is a connotative difference between defending oneself and being defensive.

As far as the CliffNotes bit, you've written a longer one.

Yes, but they might as well be the same thing. Because neither really matters, neither is going to lynch someone, and not a whole lot can be read into either. They might be different words, but come on.

Wrong. You can read into a joke vote, or even more likely the way someone responds to it. That's how games basically always start. That gives us something to go off of. There's really no other basis. While I don't think extended periods of joke voting are productive, some

is

necessary. Do you have any other propositions for getting a game going? Because you don't seem to be employing them.

PUPPY CLIFF NOTES: Quantum thinks we can't know anything for sure at this stage. And she's not scumhunting.

Yeah, you know, nothing is for certain. But you have to take a stand and see what reactions you get and see if someone says anything to change your mind or solidify your suspicion.

And why aren't you scum hunting? What page will you start?

I'm setting up scum-hunting. I mean, no one's

really

scum-hunting yet. That's more so what I was saying. I'm analyzing players/play-styles. I'm reading into people's posts. I'm pointing out what I notice, defending or "attacking" as I see fit. At this point, though, I'm not going to pressure anyone. I'm not doing the confrontational bit of scum-hunting yet. Scum-tracking perhaps.

quantum wrote:
Also, yeah, why did you feel the need to give such an in-depth explanation to your joke vote? I mean, you've already explained it before, VoD was just pointing out that it was kind of suspicious - not enough to merit a vote, just kind of suspicious. The fact that you got really defensive could be something we should look into as the game continues.


PUPPY CLIFF NOTES: Windkirby is defensive to da max!

As I said before, I don't put that much stock in somebody being defensive. They have to respond to your accusations. It does make me look into their posts more closely though, and see if I can find any scumminess. But defensiveness isn't bad by itself, IMO.

That's what I said. Defending yourself, by itself, is not bad, no.

Personally, I don't see the difference. I understand the technicality, but I don't see why you are pushing the difference between joke and random votes, when you don't even think we can read into much at the beginning of that game anyway. I believe you can learn a lot from the beginning of the game, but not from the random votes. It's more about what they say and how they say it that counts for me.

That's why the difference matters. You can't learn a lot from random votes, but you can learn quite a bit from joke votes. I don't think one should base everything on joke votes, though, and that's what I've been pushing. I think they're something to take into account and keep in mind, but know that people make blunders, etc. Like, it's important to be flexible about that, I think. I think we pretty much agree on the core principles, though.

After readin that whole long thing, I feel it was actually very thin on content (sorry!). I think quantum's biggest reason for voting windkirby is simply that he seems defensive. I don't think being "defensive" is any indication of scumminess. And after reading that whole thing I am starting to feel like windkirby doesn't deserve all the suspicion he is getting.

Question A question for all: Is being "defensive" a sign of scumminess? And where do you draw the line between answering people's concerns and being "defensive"?

I can change my vote when I see fit, but at this point, I see most reason for voting windkirby than anyone else (except maybe Cephrir, who I am quite suspicious of at the moment as well for being so dismissive).

Defensiveness is an indication of scumminess. Scum would try really hard not to appear like scum, and be afraid that someone's "caught them." I feel that windkirby reacted too strongly. Answering people's concerns would be more proportional. For example, if I accuse you of being scum and give you two sentences of reasoning (yeah right, two sentences), and your respond with 10-sentence paragraph and a blurb at the end, that's a little weird. It's something to look into. If windkirby was anywhere near a lynch I'd definitely remove my vote.

Also, what do you mean by "boiling down [my] arguments?"

[QuantumFruit]

First of all, before my actual post, I want to apologize for not posting in a while - I've had a very busy week. Not lurking, or if I was, I didn't mean to be.

---

Wrong. You can read into a joke vote, or even more likely the way someone responds to it. That's how games basically always start. That gives us something to go off of. There's really no other basis. While I don't think extended periods of joke voting are productive, some is necessary.

I don't agree, but whatever. It's hard to read into something insubstantial. Not that that phase is unneccessary, it's very important. Just not for that reason. See: below.

What do you not agree with? Why? Why do you think that the phase is very important?

---

Also, QF, I think your problem is that you feel a need to overjustify everything. Think about what you're saying and whether you really need all those quotes.

I want to make sure everyone understands where I'm coming from and what I mean. I use quotes so people know the context. I'm used to being very thorough. If you want, I can tone it down.

Also, what does "IGMEOY" mean?

---

I just think you're wishy-washy. Flippy-floppy. You want it both ways with everything, finding a way to say you're scum hunting, but not really. You're "setting up scum hunting." Which is neither here nor there. It's like if somebody asked you "are you pregnant" and you said, "Yes, I'm a little bit pregnant." How can you be a little bit pregnant?? You either are or you're not!

Actually, I'm not wishy-washy, or flippy-floppy. I have particularly changed my mind on anything. I haven't been fluctuating. It's more like saying "I'm a little bit racist" - which, according to Avenue Q, is possible. Yes, I have a more moderate stance in this business. Fine, tracking is a part of hunting - but what I was saying was that I'm not shooting anyone down yet. There simply isn't enough evidence.

---

Also, I don't see why so many people were jumping on me for long posts with quotes, Cephrir has been doing it, and VoD has been doing it. Not all the time, but in some posts.

I somewhat also take offense at you saying they were thin on content. I have a specific issue I try to express, and then I elaborate so that everyone understands the details and the shades of what I'm saying. That's why semantics come up.

Joke votes are over, and I didn't find windkirby's defensiveness as something to consider later.

Unvote

[QuantumFruit]

Thanks, zeddicus.

Also, mozsuggs, do something productive please.

I'd vote for him, but I'm hesitant. There was a guy in another game I'm in, and he did this same thing. "Man up and vote!" etc. Well, he got lynched Day 1 and he was town. So, I don't know how telling this is.

darkdude, do you not see the legitimacy of claims against you? If you think they are wrong, please explain why they are wrong (granted, they'll probably jump on you for being long-winded and without substance ).

I have a personal vendetta against some of you, and I will try to not let it interfere with the game. I am genuinely hurt by the phrasing "thin on content." I was trying to get people to see the different angles of the issues, and you took it as wishy-washy and lacking substance. Sorry I'm not so polarized. Though, I might just feel upset by it now because I'm tired (:P to you, Akonas).

[QuantumFruit]

@Pink Puppy: It's not about having it both ways for me, I just want to have everything figured out. I wouldn't want to accidentally lynch a townie. I understand what you mean, but I don't think it'd help town to be too trigger-happy either.

@darkdude: It's not about trying to get you lynched. Don't spin it that way. Certain things you've done are suspicious - please explain them. Now, you just OMGUS-ed Yvonne and made yourself look more scummy. How has she made you think she's scum?

FOS: darkdude

@Yvonne and Pink Puppy: I don't see how it holds to say that pointing things out from the sideline is scummy. Darkdude might have just been pointing out a few things to get discussion going - the indicator of his scumminess (imo) would be his reaction.

@Everyone: Let's not get too over-eager band-wagoning and keep track of the vote count. (Btw, I don't throw my votes out like candy, so when I do vote, it's basically a final decision type of thing [joke votes excepted]. On the other hand, it takes a lot for me to decide to vote. Just keep that in mind. I like giving people a chance to defend themselves.)

[QuantumFruit]

@darkdude:

The thing I said baseless was your point about me urging others to vote for windkirby but not voting myself.

Why is it baseless if you just restated the base (I use base to mean the reason for Yvonne's reaction)? Some players find it suspicious if someone expresses suspicion of another player and does not back it up with a vote. I think I understand what you mean by baseless (more like unsubstantiated) - like she doesn't have enough evidence to make that claim or something?

Even if he was the first to express suspicion, could someone please explain why it's necessarily or likely scummy not to cast a vote? I wouldn't have voted either.

At this point, I'd have to agree: newbie town, didn't know how to react.

@Akonas: You thought I voted for darkdude when I FOS-ed him and that's why the bit you quoted doesn't make sense to you.

Also, I wouldn't take that comment from zeddicus too seriously, personally. There will always be the war hawks staying stuff like that for kicks. At a different stage of the game (like if darkdude had 5 votes on him), yeah - with three, I wouldn't flip out about it.

[QuantumFruit]

You made me grin, VoD. Thank you.

@darkdude: That doesn't answer my question. It's irrelevant whether you wanted anyone to vote or not, because we can never be certain about your intent anyway.

What are you getting at with joke votes? That's really confusing to me.

By saying it wasn't baseless, I mean she had an actual reason to do it: it wasn't a joke or random.

[QuantumFruit]

So, you felt like Yvonne was focusing too much on you and not on other players, which is scummy because it's trying to get a specific townie to look like scum and get lynched - yes?

Thing is, there is a reason to play that way, because we then get people to react and respond and arguments grow from that. That would hold if she was still doing it, but I think it was more of a suggestion accompanied by some prodding.

[QuantumFruit]

@mozsuggs: Do you just not like this game in general? (I refer mainly to post 178.) If that's the case, why on earth are you playing?

And you're a strange one, dear - I've been posting quite a bit. Does my being absent since Monday really merit a vote? (You said "if I don't hear something from QF", etc.)
--
Also, is no one weirded out by the fact that he basically said "I'm voting QF because I'm bandwagoning."?

And the hypocrisy of saying vikingfan is talking bollocks and not thinking this through? Was that meant to be ironic, because he really doesn't compare next to him.
--
In short, mozsuggs advocates bandwagoning, says he won't defend himself because it's unnecessary and then does, says he's clearly town, and throws his votes and FOS-es out like candy.

Vote: mozsuggs

[QuantumFruit]

I don't find VoD's post scummy. I think he was being witty (as usual ) while voting for someone. It didn't seem as though he didn't have legitimate suspicion, just trying to get a laugh out of the game in addition to lynching who he thought was scum. Theoretically, mafia games are for entertainment purposes, are they not?

Laying down the hammer always looks suspicious, and someone has to do it every day.

Btw, sorry I haven't been around. Busy week.

And I see darkdude's logic with getting set up with Yvonne's death (what Cephrir explained), but I have a weird feeling about him introducing that. It's as though he's setting it up in advance so we perceive him as town and not scum. Basically, I just have a gut feeling - I'll look into it later as there's more to go off of. (I'm not going to vote on just a gut feeling, no worries.)

FOS: darkdude

[QuantumFruit]

@vikingfan:

the mafia were almost entirely sitting back and letting mozsuggs commit suicide (which is basically what he did).

Well, town let mozsuggs commit suicide too...I find it contradictory that you don't find VoD's hammer suspicious but you use the phrase "mafia were sitting back." Because you just implied that letting mozsuggs commit suicide was scummy, but concede that "he was pretty much pissing us all off at that point."

It seems as though you want to have it both ways. (And you really just can't.)

@darkdude: I totally understand your logic, and my gut feelings aren't always right (at least with mafia), so I'll try not to let it interfere too much.

[QuantumFruit]

@Akonas: I wasn't saying that VoD's post timing wasn't potentially suspicious. It's something to look into if its habitual, etc., but I don't think in and of itself it was necessarily scummy. People make mistakes (yes, that's a truism), and I don't think his action merits a vote. (So, I'm not voting for him.)

And now we have a VoD bandwagon formed. Lovely. Could you be more dogmatic, Akonas?

@Pink Puppy: I called it a suicide in reference to vikingfan's post 263, actually (I was responding to it). I suppose it doesn't especially matter; I just thought I'd clear that up.

After seeing mozsuggs' alignment, I'm not sure about darkdude, especially since it seems that he may be framed by the mafia. It seems like, to me, the mafia were almost entirely sitting back and letting mozsuggs commit suicide (which is basically what he did).

[QuantumFruit]

Point is, you probably shouldn't even really be joking around in a L-1 vote. Regardless of the tone, though, there was seriousness to your vote as well. I mean, you did find issue with the way mozsuggs was playing, and certain things he did were quite indicative of scum. Based on his behavior, I probably wouldn't have been entirely hesitant to place the L-1 vote, or even the hammer. Obviously, I'd think about it, but being amusing is fun.

That's why I'm not jumping on VoD for all this business.

Darkdude's kind of playing this like a newbie, so I don't know what to make of it. I mean, pushing someone for a claim so early is just plain strange. Then, he decides to vote for VoD as soon as he's told to (so as to be compliant with what seems to be the general consensus) and gain favor and make sure not to look scummy. He's being a little too much of a sycophant there for my taste - to me, a bit of a scum-tell. Because other behaviors on his part are so newbish, though, I don't know what to make of it right now. Any insights, people? I'm just afraid of lynching another newb-town behaving as scum.

[QuantumFruit]

@Akonas: Well, did you want him (VoD) to lie?
And fine, they don't always do something habitual. What I'm saying is, if he did this multiple times, it'd be scummy and I'd vote for him. Doing it once is a reasonable mistake - plus, you know my timing with witticisms. Very inopportune. So, I understand VoD and that's that.

[QuantumFruit]

And I agree with you again, Cephrir. Funny how this always happens - I express my agreement with who seems most reasonable and voila! Eh, I guess I'm always leery of people overly adamant against someone. I think it's more playstyle/personality.

And windkirby, I understand how you could construe us as a scum group, but I could just as easily construe you, Pink Puppy, and darkdude as such. Akonas not really even though he was on the bandwagon, because I know how little attention he's been paying to mafia as of late. Basically, your continuous accusation of VoD is counter-productive because there's really nothing more he can say. It's complete WIFOM. Either he really didn't know it was the hammer and that's all he can defend himself with or he did and he's scum and you're completely right but belaboring the fact is excessive and we can't just assume he's scum. It would be a hasty judgment and bad for town.

Also, (and this is a bad way of playing mafia), I like Cephrir and VoD's senses of humor for the most part. They keep me amused and so I like them. So, thanks for keeping me entertained, guys.

[QuantumFruit]

@VoD: I think scum would be responsible with that sort of thing in fear of being called out on it. Scum would get sloppy. So, either you're telling the truth or you're lying, and though I'm inclined to believe you, I won't rule out possibilities. As this is complete WIFOM, I don't feel it merits a vote.

[QuantumFruit]

@windkirby:

However, I still think that it's a pretty scummy thing to do to not even check enough to know you're hammering.

How? Scum would want to be careful not to give anyone reason to suspect them. Hammering someone as scum is very dangerous already, so scum would want to build up a good case for why they did it. I didn't realize is not a good case. Scum would realize, and they'd have to realize. I just don't agree with your logic.

(VoD, you wanted me to clarify what I mean by sloppy as well, so hopefully that's an adequate explanation.)

---

@darkdude:

I don't think VoD has a good defense. He's basically saying that he made a mistake by accident and we should ignore it. To me the best way to deal with this is to push for more information.

This is tripe and horrible for town. There is nothing more to discuss on the issue, he can continue saying it was an accident and whoever doesn't believe him can not believe him and we can argue until we get a deadline and not focus on anyone else. Fine. That would be bad for town, whether he's scum or not, because even if we end up catching scum (and I don't feel like VoD is), we haven't paid attention to anyone else and we have nothing to go off of.

Pushing him for more information - the only "more information" we could have would be a role claim. No one would claim scum, except in a joking context. It would be unwise. So, he claims vanilla townie and it doesn't help anyone and still no one will believe him. Or, he claims a power role. Either (as he explained already) someone counterclaims and his scum buddies NK the cop, or he's town and he's a power role so he gets NK-ed. If he's vanilla townie and claims a power role, well, that's just stupid - the actual power role townie will get NK-ed and he'll get lynched. So, no positive outcome for town, even if we push him to claim.

Also,

He's basically saying that he made a mistake by accident and we should ignore it.

He's not saying we should ignore it, he's just saying we should keep other things in mind, which we should. There's really no additional defense he could give and we should keep it in mind in case he does anything else. He concedes that.

Your band-wagoning, sycophancy, and lack of thinking things through perturbs me. If you'd thought about it, you could have come to everything I've just told you on your own. So, that leads me to believe that you're purposefully trying to mislead us, hoping we won't think it through. Which makes me think even more that VoD is town because you are avidly attacking him while trying to remain un-suspicious and not backing stuff up (but that's a bit irrelevant).

Now, this is serious business -

Vote: darkdude

.

[QuantumFruit]

By the way, sorry for the long post, guys. Hadn't posted in a while.

[QuantumFruit]

@darkdude: You know who's more suspicious than he was? You. This

is

something like math. There are probabilities involved, and you have to consider them when making a decision. You are not. Hence, your reasoning is flawed because you're not thinking it through. It's not arbitrary. The only thing "arbitrary" is who believes him and who does not. Here - outcomes of claiming (again):

The probabilities will be approximately what I give, with a margin of error. Calculations done based on a fairly traditional set up (3 scum, 2 power roles, 7 vanilla townies).

1.) claim vanilla townie, town = no gain for town; 66.66% he's some variety of townie, 58.33% he is actually a vanilla townie
2.) claim vanilla townie, scum = no gain for town, maybe gain for scum if we believe him; 33.33% he's scum
3.) claim power role, town power role = doesn't get lynched, scum knows to NK him; hurts town, though gives some possibility of catching the real scum; 40% chance he is in fact a town power role (calculated as 2/5 because as townie he would not claim to be a town power role)
4.) claim power role, scum = actual power role counterclaims, he gets lynched, but mafia buddies know who the power role is and NK him; hurts town; 60% chance he's scum (3/5 for the same reason)
(I'm not including claiming a power role as a vanilla townie because I will not insult VoD's intelligence. The real power role would counterclaim, scum would NK him/her and VoD would get lynched anyway.

Nor am I including claiming scum because that would be a joke claim and not an actual claim, whether true or not.)

As a townie, he'd claim townie. As scum, his safest thing would be to claim vanilla townie, but since no one would believe him, it's probably be best to claim a power role so buddies could NK the counterclaimer if he's scum. Either way, do you understand why scum has the advantage here? The "Best Scenario" VoD mentioned would not happen, because if he claimed vanilla townie, we wouldn't believe him. If he claimed a power role, town would 100% lose a power role whether it's him or not. And that sucks for town.

[QuantumFruit]

I got prodded! But I only posted a page ago. Also, this is going to be a really long post. I apologize, and brace yourselves.

Anyway...
@Akonas:

I just don't agree with your logic.

1. A good argument is one that makes its maker seem like town.
2. Scum would make a good argument, so as to seem town.
3. vampireofdusseldorf's argument is bad, therefore scum would not make it.
4. scum would not make it, therefore it is a good argument.
Proof by contradiction. One of those must be wrong (hint: it's 3); QED.

It's not a good argument, though, because most of us aren't buying it. A better argument would be knowing that it was the hammer vote and strongly feeling that mozsuggs was scum. Then we might ask for explanation, but it wouldn't look as scummy. The "I didn't know" crap makes VoD look like he's trying to get out of it and doing a bad job. This argument doesn't make him seem like town at all, it just seems like he's trying to be honest. He could still be town or scum, the argument he's making doesn't prove or disprove either.

@Talitha: Why are Cephrir and vikingfan suspicious to you?

@darkdude:

More like "Your attack can make any town into scum" but whatever.

GAHHHH!!!!! We're trying to find who scum is. How do you propose we do that, if not to "attack" whoever seems scummiest? (I'd prefer to use the word interrogate - attack is much to violent for the effect I'm employing.) You've already admitted that you see why you appear scummiest. Please use argument and logic, or point out why other people are suspicious - anything, really!

@Akonas:

Townies don't need to worry about being seen as scum. Try to find who scum is and you will help town win. Worry overmuch about suspicion on you and you will just serve to clog up the works. I don't know whether you're scum or not; I'm getting some scum vibes, but the fact that people are suspicious of you DOES NOT MEAN YOU WILL GET LYNCHED! So just put your head on your shoulders and PLAY THE GAME.

:applause: (Also, on his shoulders as opposed to his arse? - I think that's where mozsuggs said his was.)
Anyway, how strange that you've been more active than I have. I guess we can blame Civ IV for that.

@darkdude:

Well yes I know, but given the situation I think the priority right now is that I should avoid getting lynched, because if town loses 2 members by tomorrow it could be disastrous if there were 4 scum.

But you're not doing anything to avoid getting lynched!

Obviously you can suspect me due to scummy play, but Quantum Fruit stated that I was suspicious due to the fact that I pressured VoD while ignoring that I was also a good suspect (at least that's what I made of her statement). So simplified:

Case = I point fingers at people while ignoring possible signs of scum from myself
Counter = I did not need to concentrate on details against me if I were pro town

When did I do that? The way you accused VoD was when there was a bandwagon already forming and it seemed as though you were doing that to divert attention from yourself.

@VoD:

I had a chace to put an L-1 vote on you that probably would have caused an even greater freak out

Are you afraid of looking more suspicious for similar behavior?

I have not even completed a full game on this site yet but what has helped me to understand this "community culture" is reading through the forums or the wiki.

Yeah, I haven't completed a full game either. I haven't really read through the forums or the wiki either. Then again, Akonas has been playing for a while, so maybe that's why I'm used to it.

--

Hmm...I think I'll break the posts up a little. This is all in response to page 14. Now, I'll do 15 in another post.

[QuantumFruit]

@darkdude:

Just that I don't have much success. This is partially due to the fact that everyone's focusing on me now, so there's not much to work on, as said I won't try to investigate myself. If I were not the lone suspect perhaps things would be better....

You're like Saev in my newbie game. Actually, not a bad idea - try to analyze your actions and see how some stuff is scummy and some stuff isn't. Admit it when something you've done could be potentially scummy. It makes you look less like you're trying to cover your own ass and more like you're trying to make town make their own decisions based on the facts they have.

--

@Akonas: I'm not going to quote post 354 in its entirety, so I'll just reply. First of all, I don't feel like what VoD said in his "defense" was defense at all. I felt like he was just saying what had happened and apologizing for it and that's that. Neither he nor I advocated completely ignoring it, just looking at other stuff too because we were getting much too polarized on a minor detail. We'd all already discussed our reactions to it and the discussion was growing redundant. I don't disregard the fact that the whole situation is something to keep in mind. I completely think it is.

--

@VoD: I think darkdude's use of "investigate" just meant look into why his actions were scummy. I didn't pick it up as a hint he was cop until you'd said it. That makes sense and all, but I wouldn't expect that hint-dropping coming from him.

[QuantumFruit]

Wow. He's back.

[QuantumFruit]

@VoD: I'm satisfied with your answer to that question, thanks.

@darkdude: I was mostly just being cheeky with that response. You were in fact bandwagoning and doing what you were told with regards to voting or not voting. That was suspicious and I wanted to see you respond, so I called you out on it.

--

Also, pressure on darkdude doesn't seem to work, and I wonder if he'll give more input not under pressure.

Unvote.

[QuantumFruit]

@Pink Puppy: I will look stupid, but what is bussing, exactly? I'm an idiot and unfamiliar with the phrase.

@darkdude: But but but...you're bandwagoning again! VoD just voted zeddicus before you...Please do your own thinking. It's not exactly a scum-tell that you don't (a tiny bit of a newbie scum tell because obviously if you're agreeing with someone else, you won't look so suspicious since they believe what you believe, etc.), but it's frustrating.

@VoD: You're amusing. And cute analogy.

[QuantumFruit]

@Akonas: Stop turning this into a personal vendetta (with the whole "you're not getting the last word" bit). It's very unbecoming. I otherwise adore you, but you're being downright ornery.

Was it scummy? Yes, somewhat. Was it noteworthy? Yes, definitely. Was it lynch-worthy? I don't think so; not as an isolated event. Now, have the last word, go ahead. You know my stance.

[QuantumFruit]

@VoD: Geez! Don't be so hard on Talitha. The roar was excessive. Didn't she say she had three kids? And work? And Easter's coming up?

@Talitha: If you don't mind, I won't do post numbers (because I just looked at all of VoD's posts separately from other people's). So yes, here you go...

ok thanks zeddicus............[

Insertion by QF: zeddicus gave a scum-rating of darkdude on a scale of 1 to 10

]
wow 7 is rather high for this early, I will agree that darkdude has drawn suspicion to himself but I'm of the more conservative opinion that darkdude is newb town....
zeddicus wrote:
You pushed a wagon without adding your vote to it. Major FoS: darkdude I need two votes

(given you said you need two votes and did vote later) isnt this doing the same thing darkdude was originally deemed suspicious for......throwing suspicion on a wagon but not voting?

and re mozsuggs
zeddicus wrote:
eager for night?

unvote, vote:mozsuggs


zeddicus wrote:
we need to lynch darkdude now.

again you seem guilty of your own accusations against others.

You have cast four votes already two going with what was popular at the time (mozsuggs & darkdude).
The second vote against winkkirby you went with for awhile rather strongly but seemed to change tracks onto darkdude (who also became suspicious of windkirby)when the windkiby suspicion train lost its momentum and the darkdude one picked up speed.

To me this voting behaviour shows eagerness to get to a lynch more akin to scum play than what I would expect from town....add to this the pointed out hypocrisy
vote:zeddicus

Well it has occured to me that scum can play this put town power role tells in their post if they are setting them selves up for a possible claim, I see that as more likely that a town power role putting them in, also yes talithas lack of decent sized posts does bother me but some of us do have busy lives so I 'm not saying this is suspicious yet.....but if it is an ongoing thing then is very noteworthy, and zeddicus has also been very quiet this game just went back and noted the most activity he has done was on the day moz was lynched......

Yeah I get your point I wont push it too far but as I'm new I just wishing to expand my knowledge, but if this is bad for town then I will do it elsewhere.
Also vote:zeddicus as a surprise for when he gets back.

Now back to zeddicus:
I already made a case against him day one post 164, but this was never comented on. I think this still stands as zed joined the moz wagon and on day two his listed suspicions were also with the two popularist movements (wagons) at that time. Also he added his suspicion to both but didn't vote. Again something he used aginst darkdude day one.

[QuantumFruit]

@darkdude: What pointless statement did I make? Also, the only way we can figure anything out is by looking way too much into everything (including votes).

--

Darkdude, VoD, why are you guys being so damn hard on Talitha? It just doesn't make sense to me and I find it an itsy bit suspicious. It's like she's an easy target and she'll be gone for a while so then you can build a case against her when she can't argue back. Also the "lurking" - someone's busy so they're DUN DUN DUN "lurking" and they're SCUM. (Obviously I'm being intentionally absurd at this point - it's 1:30 AM.) But yeah, "lurking" is an easy excuse to accuse someone with and I'm just not buying it.

[QuantumFruit]

@darkdude: What is a paradox? (Don't be cheeky and define paradox.) The only thing I am defending Talitha in is that she has a busy life and you and VoD were being harsh. I wasn't saying you were looking into it too much - that's not the problem. The problem is that she is a grown individual with a job and a family, and regardless, those should be above a game of internet mafia on the priorities list - and you guys are telling her that she's lurking and accusing her of being scum. When she is around, she analyzes and looks into stuff and puts time into it (as evinced by three long posts in a row) and does more analysis than you in any single post. This is what bothers me.

Just because one of you or both of you has posted why you're suspicious of zeddicus doesn't mean you shouldn't answer when someone asks why that is. Perhaps they wonder whether there's something new you've thought of, perhaps they misunderstood something, maybe it didn't seem like enough reason. Maybe they just missed it.

Also, you just posted twice in a row darkdude - are you scum?

[QuantumFruit]

Because you're looking at exactly what people say rather than the motivation behind them and the motivation of them accusing you.

This is all very true, but based on my intimate knowledge of you: hahahahaha!!! (You know why, I hope. Otherwise, this is a pointless post.)

[QuantumFruit]

If someone chooses to be away with out notifying or is forced away from a game I shouldn't just ignore them till they come back if I find them scummy,

The implication was that someone=Talitha. The other implication was that you found her scummy. You didn't directly state it, but that's a blatant implication, I found.

Also, VoD, which was the first time I accused you of accusing someone of scum?

Wait...what is the explanation for this? Triple post and lots of rephrasing? It was obvious that you were asking me a question, so I do not see the need for this. Seems really weird behavior to me. Perhaps I will be considered doing a OMGUS for this, but I think following your absence and consequent peculiar timing of posts (most of the time immediately after someone points out inactivity) deserves my questioning.

This was referring to Talitha. The mention of OMGUS implies that he is suspicious of her, first that she wasn't posting and now that she was posting a lot. (Paradox, dear?)

--

No, neither of you guys said "Talitha is scum. Vote: Talitha." But insinuations get into people's heads more so than even direct votes. (By people I mean other voters.) It's not even that though - you were just being downright mean to her.

[QuantumFruit]

Reasonable on all counts. What Talitha said about my defense of her is true. If you recall, VoD, I defended you when I felt you were being treated unfairly as well. In any case, going on too long defending people for personal and not game-related reasons can detract from the game, and so I will shut up about it. I imagine everyone gets the point and can make their own decisions.

And I see now how it was referencing zeddicus, since you were talking about him in reference to the moz vote earlier. Fair enough, I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Darkdude did try to build a case against her, however paltry it was. I think I accidentally lumped the two of you together in my wild emotional frenzy.

[QuantumFruit]

@darkdude: What is a paradox? (Don't be cheeky and define paradox.) The only thing I am defending Talitha in is that she has a busy life and you and VoD were being harsh.

I named your case the paradox, but by definition it was more of a simple contradiction.

I was asking why what I said was a paradox. "What is a paradox [in what I had said or done]?" Investigation is different from being plain mean. By "hard on Talitha," I mean "mean to Talitha." I did not mean "interrogating Talitha."

Darkdude, I would like you to read my posts in their entirety and not just what is convenient. I already posted where you attempt to build a case against Talitha. (Not that you shouldn't.)

I wasn't getting on your cases for asking her questions or even necessarily suspecting her if you could back it up. You guys didn't directly call her scum, but it seemed as though you kept insinuating she was lurking and that there was no way to prove that she was actually busy, etc. Then, when she got busy again, you could be like "Oh, see, she's lurking! BAM!" You hadn't done it yet, but it seemed like scum planning ahead and building up the possibility. (Maybe I'm just an itsy bit suspicious of this behavior because I did it in my last game where I was scum and we won.) Anyway. I just thought I'd point out that possibility.

Go reread my posts, wherever I'm chastising you two, I specifically say that it's for the way you do stuff (mean to Talitha) not what you do (question her).

--

Also,
@VoD: Mod said that if zeddicus doesn't post by Tuesday morning he'll be replaced in response to Talitha's question about a page ago.

[QuantumFruit]

Okay, I'm going to address this finitely and I don't want to come back to this any more. You guys were not being very understanding of Talitha's personal life and that bothered me. That's what was mean. You can't expect a person to put mafia above all else. Now can we drop this?

If you guys are suspicious of me for the chiding or anything I did in that time period, fine. If there's anything you actually want me to address, fine. But I think we should move on to something more productive.

For example, why are there only for people heavily in discussion? People put their two cents in occasionally (Akonas and windkirby) on this page, but it's disproportionate. Are you guys busy or what's going on? Brilliant insights, please.

[QuantumFruit]

@Cephrir: Why Akonas high on your suspects list? Actually, what is your suspects list?

@darkdude: What is weird about her posting behavior? She doesn't post when she is busy and she posts when she is not. You post multiple times in a row as well. Huff.

Mean:

Talitha well that isn't exactly what I had hoped for but at least it is something, I have already outlined my thoughts on zed day one and today If you fail to find them I am not going to provide them just for you.

It's basically saying "your analysis sucks" and "stop being lazy rawr." And then he actually said "Roar." in the same post.

That's what triggered it because Talitha had already explained that she had three kids and a job. I did overreact, though, this is true. And I did yet again just lump VoD and darkdude together. Sorry. I guess it

was

more of a tone thing. I felt like VoD was being mean (that was one of his earlier posts that I quoted, he was more reasonable later on) and then everything else seemed to have a negative tone. I was wrong and I can see why that would make me look suspicious. Or, if not suspicious, then just plain stupid.

@PinkPuppy: The meanness issue wasn't to incriminate either of them, it was just bothering me. I felt they should have been more understanding of Talitha's personal life and otherwise look into her actions, but based on what she's posting and it seems like they were hardly responding to the content of her posts.

[QuantumFruit]

@windkirby:

His posting is pretty eradicate,

Erratic. Eradicate is like to get rid of.

Also, thanks for calling me intelligent.

Also, you seem very protective of your masculinity and it makes me want to call you a goober and laugh. So...goober!

@Cephrir: Is your whole list mostly based on gut feelings? If there are specific triggers for you, it'd probably be good to know.

@VoD: Why are you dismissive of vikingfan's less than average amount of posting but not about Talitha's (when that was the case)?

@Whoever this applies to: Why bad gut feelings about Akonas? (I don't think I could have negative gut feelings about him due to personal attachment, so I'd like to have these elaborated upon, though I know it's hard to elaborate upon a gut feeling.)

--

In general, I'm considering doing a player analysis sometime in the near future, but I'll wait until zed posts or is replaced for that.

[QuantumFruit]

@VoD: I'm not seeing how Akonas is "so good" as town. He hasn't posted much. And I don't really recall any posts of sheer brilliance (not that he isn't).

@Cephrir: I see what you're getting at with Akonas. I'll read over his posts for myself again though because I don't want to be easily persuaded. Ah well, if I get NK-ed I'll just know it was him.

@vikingfan:

QF, I don't get why posting twice in a row makes DD scum...there's plenty of other things to criticize him on, but IMO, that is not one of them.

Tone really doesn't translate well. I was being sarcastic because he got on Talitha for posting multiple times in a row and saying it merited questioning, suspicion, etc. and I was pointing out the absurdity of his statements.

@Talitha: Posting a list of only the people you are suspicious of means your are not suspicious of the others. The implication is that if there is no suspicion on them, they seem pro-town to you. There's a difference (maybe) now that you've stated that that is the case for you, but it's a connotative difference that won't really matter if scum is try to lynch the better contributors that it will not be so easy to incriminate. I completely understand what you're saying though and you're right in a logical, abstract sense.

--

Also, I like tone. It makes things fun.

[QuantumFruit]

@PinkPuppy:

Cephrir... did you not read my post saying that Zeddicus is absent from another game I am in (Roach Mini if you want to check)? Most of your argument falls apart if you consider that zeddicus hasn't been around to post more content and will need replacement.

Thin on content before he was absent and he didn't notice it then, I think he meant. We'll see with his replacement.

@Cephrir: I think what Akonas is saying about the hammer was that he didn't want to just dismiss it when there could be some validity to its scumminess. I thought that it was not a sufficient reason to vote someone but it should not be ignored and could be further evidence if he/she/it evinces scummy behavior later. With that, I think we had generally similar beliefs and different ways about it. On the other hand, though, he could be saying this now to be conciliatory and have it both ways, which is kind of eh, because in the beginning, he didn't exactly frame it that way (not the connotative meaning I gleaned from it).

@vikingfan:

this smells WAY too much like backtracking and trying to get the pressure off. unvote vote mozsuggs You're trying to get us to believe that you're just a lazy town player, but it's just as possible that you could be a lazy SCUM player. I agree with Akonas...tell us who you find suspicious. There's 8 pages of material here, more than enough to find something useful.

It's just a small thing but I feel like the vote for mozsuggs was slipped in at the end of a sentence because he didn't really mean it. Just a gut thing there.

False. Would it have been better if I'd put it in at the end of the entire paragraph? I wasn't aware that where one put a vote in a paragraph was scummy...(sarcasm)

I think it's more that it's essentially embedded in the middle so it can slip by. Plus, more tone Talitha's picking up on. I can see where she's coming from, but it's not necessarily true. I mean, it could very likely just be your train of thought. At the end of a paragraph, votes are more distinct because that's the last thing someone reads - they'll remember it.

@darkdude: If you're going to call someone's logic inconsistent you should probably explain further. Otherwise, you likely have no visible logic. Why does Talitha's logic appear inconsistent to you?

@Akonas: Is "QFT" an abbreviation for something or is it addressing me? Because where you posted it, I could see how it would have to do with the way I played in my newbie game so maybe you were referencing it to me, but it otherwise seemed completely out of place. Please clarify.

@EmpTyger: Hello and welcome. Now off from nicery and on to the fun stuff...

This sounds like he knew mozs was going to turn up town.

I don't see where you're getting that; please explain.

Also, rereading my first four pages - yeah, that was painful. I think I really wanted everyone to know that I was in a mafia game with my boyfriend because I thought it was the funniest thing ever (and I was pretty irritating). Also, I say "gleaned" a lot.

About Cephrir's whole 3 scum thing: I noticed it, but there are typically three scum in this size of a game, so it seems like an assumption one would hold true and state as fact.

[QuantumFruit]

@vikingfan:

QF: yeah, it's my train of thought. I think it's harder for votes to slip by since they have to be bolded and will thus jump off the screen at the reader. Who is your boyfriend in this game? QFT is quoted for truth.

Akonas. (In real life, not just for purposes of the game. ) Also, what do you mean by "QFT is quoted for truth?"

@EmpTyger:

About Cephrir's whole 3 scum thing: I noticed it, but there are typically three scum in this size of a game, so it seems like an assumption one would hold true and state as fact.

Where’s this coming from? As far as I can tell, your experience with this size consists of this and 2 others, all of which are still in progress. How do you know what the typical number is?

Akonas has been playing for a while and he basically told me all of this before I joined the site.

@darkdude: As a replacement, I think EmpTyger has a right to ask for clarification on various matters. You know, because had he been in the game previously, he might have asked then. I don't see how this process detracts from scum-hunting, seeing as how it would help us pick up on things we might have overlooked. Explain your logic.

[QuantumFruit]

@darkdude: In response to this statement of yours: "But we seem to be delaying scum hunting." On the contrary, I think it is scum-hunting.

@EmpTyger: In response to the vote on windkirby and brief mention of suspicion on Cephrir - In my first and most recent game of mafia, I was scum. In that game, it was very easy to make people look like scum by their overdefensiveness. This led me to believe it was a reasonable scum tell (granted, it was a newbie game and everyone was pretty mediocre at scum-hunting, so it was easy to mislead town). They didn't point out anything else as scummy and agreed with my overdefensiveness bit. If overdefensiveness is something that makes someone scummy and windkirby was displaying such tendencies, it was necessary to point that out. I've rethought this, but with context and more scumtells it's a valid thing to look into.

I was more suspicious of windkirby than Cephrir, but while I agreed with a lot of Cephrir's reasoning, it seemed like he always just wanted to move on. I don't know if he felt like it would implicate him (or, if he is scum, a scum-buddy also). I thought it was something to point out.

[QuantumFruit]

@darkdude: You say everyone's been idling around, and then in your most recent post prior to that one you say that it's gotten us to talk. So, please explain. Since this game largely consists of talking, thinking, and throwing around rhetoric, talking would imply not idling around. Unless we were talking about something irrelevant. Would you say we're talking about something irrelevant? If so, why?

Also, you appear to skirt around questions fairly heftily. Care to explain this tendency? I don't feel this is particularly helpful for town and I'm not entirely sure why you do this.

@EmpTyger: I'm not really sure why you're asking of my level of suspicion for Cephrir - is there an intended implication there? I wouldn't say there's a level of "none" on anyone, seeing as how anyone can be mafia and assuming I'm town, I don't have an idea who else is (unless I'm a cop who investigated a townie, and to answer your question, who happens to be Cephrir). Low to medium, fluctuating based on his behavior, I'd imagine.

In his player analysis he seemed to exalt me a little too much. I imagine it's a common strategy for scum to buddy up to town. Then again, it's naturally for someone to commend someone he/she agrees with. Maybe I made logically sound arguments. It's not a basis, but it's something. Coupled with his defensiveness, there's something there, something to look into.

--

Random question...if a cop gets replaced, does the replacement know who the other guy investigated and the results?

Yes - Crub

[QuantumFruit]

@darkdude:

I don't know. This part about idling around was written when I just felt like speaking my mind, and it was something I noticed. I never intended for it to be a real help or anything.

You don't know why you said something. You felt like speaking your mind, but you didn't bother thinking it through. And you didn't want to be helpful. Hmm.

@VoD: Actually, I don't think you should dismiss someone just because they're thorough. In my last game I was especially thorough, and I was scum, and it worked out pretty well. For some reason, people like well-supported, logical arguments.

@Talitha: Glad you feel better.

@EmpTyger: If it seems as though Cephrir and I are buddying up, why are you suspicious of Cephrir and not of me? It's fairly obvious why darkdude.

[QuantumFruit]

@VoD: Fair enough - it wasn't something I was suspicious of or anything, I just thought I'd warn people against dismissing scum possibilities in those who form good arguments.

@PinkPuppy: Really? I find it pretty easy to manufacture reasoning as scum. It's harder as town because you don't know who's actually know who's scum, so I get wary of manufacturing arguments against anyone because I can convince people, but then if I'm wrong...not helpful.

@darkdude:

Interesting. Early in the game I was also accused on being too "calculated" in my posts.

Does throwing around potential clues not help? When I stated that I noticed the phenomenon, I did not expect anything to come out of it, but I decided to say it anyways because it can't hurt, and could POTENTIALLY be helpful.

I mean, it's not as if everything you say is helpful either. Did you expect that some of your points would be refuted? If so why did you say it in the first place?

Seems to me you're trying to make a nonsensical case based on nothing.

Calculated? Really? Maybe artificial, calculated implies a higher level of efficiency.

My points getting refuted is helpful because if I'm wrong and someone thought what I thought, they might change their minds. People might think more in general. Then, the case that refuted mine might be refuted. We would theoretically then approach the truth.

--

Lunch break over. I'll finish the rest later.

[QuantumFruit]

First of all, sorry for lurking. I wasn't actually, but I enjoy calling it that because it's amusing. Anyway, haven't really been into mafia lately - felt like doing some art (and much heavy contemplation about college). Actually, I'll also be lurking from Wednesday April 16th to Saturday April 19th (college visit), so there you go.

--

@PinkPuppy: In reference to p. 23 - I feel like you're disagreeing with Cephrir's playstyle not an actual scumtell, and I don't think that objectively it was very scummy that he switched from being aggressive. What would prompt switching from aggressive to non-aggressive? Would that be scummy? Did Cephrir do it based on something scummy? Because the act in and of itself is not necessarily scummy. What circumstances that created it make it scummy?

On the other hand, this makes a lot of sense:

When you first voted Zeddicus, I asked you if you had seen my post stating zeddicus was also absent from another of my games and needed replacement. You said you had seen my post and didn't care. Scummy play is scummy play, etc. If that is the way you play, I would not expect you to unvote the player who replaces in, because afterall they have the same allignment [sic].

@Cephrir:

It's not because I disagree with your reasons, it's because after I respond in a way that (to my mind, at least) is a fine defense, you don't back them up again and instead go on claiming I'm scum. You don't have to respond to everything I write, but when you attack me, and I defend myself, I definitely do expect you to either have something else to say on the matter or back off.

Isn't that what she's doing? I dunno, just saying.

@PinkPuppy:

I really hate arguing the difference between saying someone is "not proactive" vs. "Being reactive is bad." Hate it. I think it distracts from anything useful.

You're so utilitarian.

@VoD: I'm writing now in response to your critique of Akonas saying first that he wasn't sure darkdude was a townie, but that he was somewhat suspicious and then saying he didn't want to lynch another townie: that's not contradictory. I can see why you'd think so and (sorry PinkPuppy), this is kind of semantics, but ultimately, he's not sure darkdude is a townie, so...

darkdude may or may not be a townie
Akonas is unsure, but suspicious that he may not be a townie
and then he

implies

that darkdude is town when he says he didn't want to lynch a stupid townie

Throughout, he maintains a fairly tentative position, and if anything, we should probably examine that behavior from Akonas.

@Talitha:

And I think it's suspicious that you want to treat Zeddicus and EmpTyger as separate entities, just because I don't think it's a natural reaction for a genuine scum-hunting townie.

That's definitely how I'd react regardless of the case. I never really felt very strongly about zeddicus, though, so I can't really do anything here. And the only other game I played in (where I was scum), I wasn't targeting the player who got replaced, so I don't have very much practical experience. It seems fairly natural, though.

@PinkPuppy:

I also find it funny that you were never suspicious of me until I started questioning your actions. Your vote on me is basically glorified OMGUS.

I don't agree with this at all. This is the sort of argument I'd make if I were scum - and have. If you arguments seem weak and built on faulty logic to him, he will naturally be suspicious of you for appearing opportunistic.

@PinkPuppy and Cephrir: Perhaps Cephrir/you (as the case may be) thought zeddicus would have a chance to respond before the replacement and the vote would put pressure? That's only thing that could really make sense.

@Akonas: The "helpfulness" seems like a contrivance. Kind of like pasting a halo above your head and shouting "I am God reincarnate!!!" in the middle of a crowded street. By which I mean "Look at me, I'm a good townie!!" You're not half that nice in person (now I'm just being a jerk, and I acknowledge this).

@darkdude:

Well I don't want to join any wagons since I still highly suspect QF...

That's fine, of course, but may I ask why? Without your permission I will do it anyway: Why are you suspicious of me, darkdude? You mentioned stuff, but it was kind of vague. I mean you tend to do that, but try really attacking me. Do what PinkPuppy did to Cephrir, but better.

[QuantumFruit]

Hahahaha. Wow, that happened twice. You typed that while I was finishing up posting it and Crub prodded me as I was posting it.

This is the only one of my mafia games I like at all. The other two are kind of lame at the moment. So, I'm getting kind of blase about mafia. I apologize.

Also, VoD, you made me feel tremendously predictable.

[QuantumFruit]

@darkdude:

Have you forgotten already? Your previous suspicious behaviour such as protecting Talitha and making nonsensical statements like "you're being mean to her" is what makes you still suspicious in my opinion.

@ VoD

Since QF was inactive lately my suspicions didn't change much about her. She seems most suspicious right now because I personally don't think Cephrir is very suspicious. Most accusations against him are due to his general behaviour, which I don't find scummy.

Really?? The intonation of that is lost in translation. Anyway. This again - I was being protective of Talitha because you were being inconsiderate of the fact that she has three kids and a job and cannot be completely attentive to the game 100% of the time. Besides, that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking why is that act itself suspicious: being protective of Talitha?

Also, was the implication of your last statement that I'm suspicious of Cephrir which makes me suspicious? Because really, I'm not particularly suspicious of him. There are things to look into, which I'm doing - but suspicious is not the right term. On the other hand, if you're saying that you don't find Cephrir suspicious but you should be getting on someone's case - well, that's a stupid reason. If there's any other interpretation I could glean from that that I didn't, please explain.

[QuantumFruit]

@ QF

The original case was that you said I was "being mean" when there was no such action done by me against talitha. Sounded like just a good excuse to try to get me off her case.

And no, the last part of my last post means that I'm suspicious of you because the town's main suspect Cephrir (and myself, but as said previously of course suspecting myself would be nonsensical) doesn't seem scummy to me. That leaves only you. I did not imply any association between you two.

I had augmented my case - your tone (as I picked up) was mean, but upon further inspection, I realized it was not what you were saying, but my perception of how you said it. In any case, you were by no means compassionate and your accusations were poorly founded. Because of this, I felt the need to get on your case. Had you presented fully-formed arguments against Talitha for anything whatsoever, I would be pleased as pie.

As for your last statement, you're basically saying that you must be suspicious of someone and since you're latching on to Cephrir for whatever reason, you need to pick an alternate target. Due to brilliant theories of complete OMGUS, you have chosen to target me. Or, are you saying Talitha and I are scum-buddies and I was defending her?

---

The rest I will respond to when I get home. Bye now.

[QuantumFruit]

@darkdude:

Talitha made some weird post restating the same thing in three consecutive posts
I point out weird behaviour (weird, not necessarily scummy)
QF says I was being mean

Which of course made no sense at all. When I talked about it she was still under the impression that I was being mean and telling talitha to "drop everything and play mafia".

I assumed everyone remembered so I didn't rewrite this in the last posts.

1.) How did she restate the same thing?
2.) First it's weird behavior she's lurking, then it's weird behavior that she's posting.
3.) Because of points 1 & 2, you're not giving her a fair chance.
4.) Also, accusing her of lurking is kind of mean given her reasons for doing so (3 children and Easter coming up).

I feel that it's reasonable for me to defend someone if I feel you're treating them unfairly and trying to latch on to a case that isn't there. I might have slightly blown it out of proportion, that is all. I am a fairly emotional person (I'm an artist, for goodness sake) and Akonas may attest to that.

So, it makes some sense, but it's not my usual cold logic. I can concede that, darkdude.

@EmpTyger: Actually, I haven't quite gotten the suspicion thing down because the only other mafia game I played in I was scum and it was very easy to lead everyone astray. So, I'm uncomfortable maintaining strong suspicions. The thing with darkdude, I dislike his playstyle completely but I don't especially have a gut feeling about him - I think I'd need a combination of the two to find it really suspicious.

Let's do a player analysis:

Cephrir - I can see how he would be latching on to me as a townie pet earlier, seeing if by agreeing with me he could get me to blindly support him. That wouldn't work with me. But, anyway, that's a possibility and I don't know that I necessarily believe it. I think he's been bad at defending himself, but it's a weak case which is difficult and frustrating to respond to.

thevampireofdusseldorf - I don't really know - he seemed pretty eager to get on Talitha's case, that accompanied with a hammer is reason to be suspicious of him.

Talitha - Seems pretty protown to me. I believed her excuse and she's been reasonable.

Pink Puppy - A bit hawkish, kind of building a weak case on Cephrir - that's either a scumtell or an aggressive playstyle. Haven't determined which yet all the way.

windkirby - I kind of forgot about him. He hasn't been posting much. He hasn't done anything big or fundamental, kind of stayed out of the heat (at least in my perspective). Staying in the background could be scummy. Kind of a not a quite lurking, but essentially that. Either scummy or busy. (Okay, now that I'm on page 27, I see he's posting. All previous statements were as of page 26.)

darkdude - You know my opinions of darkdude if you're not braindead. I don't particularly respect his intellect, and find much issue with his playstyle. Gut-wise, though, I'm uncomfortable lynching him because of mozsuggs and his alignment. Which is basically why I unvoted him - I don't know that I have ample reason to be suspicious of him other than personal distaste - though the "I didn't mean for this comment to be helpful" thing really doesn't aid his case. I dunno, he just doesn't seem to be putting much into this game, which is rather unfortunate.

vikingfan - He doesn't post much and his posts are always short.

Akonas - I feel uncomfortable assailing him with insults while he is at my house. It will suffice to say that though I am infinitely biased in these matters, his buddying up posts do cause me to raise an eyebrow. He's usually a bit meaner in these games, I think. Or more blunt, perhaps. In any case, he appears to have been attempting to assuage many of these conflicts, where he would typically have been in the heat of it.

EmpTyger - EmpTyger is playing well. Zeddicus did not...hmmm. Because there are two types of scum, the good kind and the bad kind. The bad kind are sloppy, the good kind are pretty meticulous, go through everything, form sound arguments...I'll have to go through zed's posts later.

--

In response to windkirby's post: Akonas, please confirm that I am terrible at making jokes and I over-explain everything.

Windkirby, you obviously were not going to get lynched for joke-voting Akonas or yelling at him or whatever it was I was defending him for. Clearly, it was a joke.

--

@darkdude: You're annoying. (And I'm a hypocrite because I'm being mean now.)

This is mafia. Like VoD said, do you expect us to give a hug before lynching? Lack of compassion does not mean hatred. So I see no need for you to interfere with my questioning.

Poorly founded? Any question is better than no question at all right? I'm not trying to set up and inescapable trap or anything. So if she answers with a good explanation then it's okay. If not then we could catch scum. Win-win?

I'm feeling you're giving me double standard here. Remember a couple pages back you wanted me to speak only the things I KNOW will be of use to town?

1.) I don't care who you hate. This is an issue of courtesy, completely irrelevant to the game. I was not suspicious of you for it. I didn't say, "Darkdude, you are a jerk, so you're scum." No.

2.) This is a game for entertainment for most of us, I believe. There is no reason to harangue players for their personal endeavors. That is the only point that I was making in reference to your treatment of Talitha.

3.) It's not only saying things you know will be of use to town. It's not saying things that will be of no use to town.

---

@Akonas: I think windkirby basically said he's voting for Cephrir for irregularities in his playstyle and at the same time he has a gut feeling darkdude isn't scum because he's such a newbie.

[QuantumFruit]

@darkdude: Thank you, that was better.

@PinkPuppy: I felt the necessity to pick on him - it got a response, and a better one than he's given in a while, I think. Hurrah.

Anyway, there was reason to what I was doing, and I've already explained that I'm naturally indecisive. I don't feel that my caution is lynch-worthy, but I do understand your putting pressure on me after that post.

I don't have any strong gut feelings about this. Only a few people really actively post and that is a problem. Windkirby has just now started posting again (yes, he said he was going to be gone, but he hadn't been posting much before that either - his last post before he left was April 8th, three days before he was going to be gone). Vikingfan barely posts and it's very short when he does. That usually holds for Akonas, though he's been posting more lately. It's difficult do get a good feel. PinkPuppy is one of the more aggressive players (so quite different from my typical playstyle), but I'm getting a weird town vibe - but it's different from other town vibes I'm getting.

Akonas I was a bit suspicious of after his pseudo-helpfulness, but his posts are pretty logical now

Cephrir's kind of weak at this point. I could perhaps vote for him.

Darkdude was really frustrating me and I wanted a reaction. If he isn't scum, he should try to help town. I thought ad hominem would do the trick - and it did. If you recall, I did have my vote on darkdude before this wagon emerged, and then unvoted because of a gut feeling against it.

As I said, when I come back from Portland, I want to go through zeddicus's posts and analyze that behavior juxtaposed with EmpTyger's.

--

again @PinkPuppy: I was not completely wishy-washy. I stated whom I might have suspicions against, and stated who I did not currently have suspicions against. No, I can not at this point shout "

HE'S SCUM - SCUMMY SCUM SCUM!" and feel confident in doing so. I sincerely apologize for such misdemeanors.

Also, I'd rather have people with respect for others' commitments and mean humor than vice versa. Again, my jokes are not typically funny to most. I know this, and I keep doing it.

[QuantumFruit]

If we all played like you we'd no-lynch every day.

I don't want everyone to play like me. You're right, that wouldn't work. It also wouldn't work if everyone was jumping on everyone else the whole time and no one was being a mediating force. Then, individuals would latch on to one thing and not consider the broader implications. Hence, we'd have essentially arbitrary voting. There needs to be a balance of both.

QF's case was based on her nonsensical accusation of me being mean.

I wasn't saying you were scum because you were mean. I was saying to stop being mean in general.

Anyway, must go to class now. Farewell. I will read the rest later.

[QuantumFruit]

Are you even reading what I wrote? Based on the "you're mean" point, you attempted to stop me from questioning Talitha. THAT'S what makes you scummy!

I didn't attempt to make you stop questioning Talitha. It was just complete WIFOM to argue that she was scummy because she hadn't posted when she gave a reason that she had a job and kids. When you continued to bug her for that, I was kind of annoyed. That's all.

Now...in terms of your list against me: I've answered your questions! I've replied. And then you insist on the same things and say I have not responded. No, the things I've said are not brilliant revelations: they are fairly obvious. But this whole case is fairly obvious. I felt you were being mean in your lack of compassion. I did not say "stop questioning her" I said "stop insisting she was lurking, she has kids and a job and it's a jerk thing to do to hold that against her." I don't understand why that makes me scummy and you still have not answered the why that makes me scummy. You keep reiterating the situation, but that's not what I'm asking you.
I did not shift my position recently; I shifted my position when we discussed the issue long ago and I realized that I was being a big too dramatic (that was when I was depressed and developing a case of insanity, so it seems fairly natural that I'd be over-emotional; Akonas can do a meta on that as well).

---

Now, in terms of how we feel about one another in this game (me & Akonas)...I thought it was kind of interesting how he did the whole paternalistic thing with darkdude, etc., kind of like adopting a pet townie if darkdude's a townie. And for a while he didn't post much, but I know why he didn't post much. So, it's somewhat difficult to build a case against him and I don't really see one. Plus, we both haven't been as into mafia lately as we were before, so I can't hold against him that he isn't putting all of his efforts into it.

---

No, PinkPuppy, I will not cave and just vote for someone. The only person there is a strong logical case against is perhaps darkdude. And even then, I'm cautious of that because he's consistently claimed the newbie thing and he doesn't seem very experienced and I truly feel uncomfortable after the mozsuggs lynch. You, PinkPuppy, distress me slightly in your confrontationalism, but I can't really base my opinions in terms of playstyle. So, essentially, back at square one - no, I cannot make a decision at this point. Sometimes, I feel very strongly that someone is scum. Then, I vote. (In very early stages of a game I might to pressure votes, but that's only early on.)

If everyone attacked one another (and I think I've said this before), I don't think the game would function. There need to be players willing to examine everything and make people think and reevaluate their assumptions.

---

Again at darkdude on his last comment: I AM NOT SAYING YOU'RE SCUM FOR PUTTING OUT USELESS INFORMATION. You said yourself that you weren't meaning for the comment to be helpful. This is a problem in and of itself. You in general tend to somewhat repeat yourself when asked a question rather than answer the core of the question. You seem somewhat shallow or superficial in your analyses and that's really what I meant when I said I didn't respect your intellect. That's solely based on your play in this game - but based on this game, I'm not very impressed. Harsh, but I thought maybe ad hominem would work to get you to think more. In some ways, it seemed like it did.

Anything that could potentially help town, darkdude, is a good thing. But if you don't think it'll even potentially help town, no, you shouldn't.

I don't want you to die, darkdude. You're a beautiful, special little snowflake. Anyway, as I said, haven't been into mafia so much and I was on a trip to look at colleges for a week. Then I had a big competition today that I was preparing for. I've been pretty busy in the last couple of weeks, so that's that. Not lurking, and I didn't know you were next to lynch before today.

[QuantumFruit]

@PinkPuppy: I already explained that I had a pro-town vibe from darkdude, but at the same time, he was the only one I could logically see as being scum. But I won't vote if my gut feeling warns me against it. And I didn't have scum gut feelings about anyone. Sorry.

Also, not voting does not equal "hanging out."

@windkirby: I'm sorry - what? Why do you keep going back to the joke vote as evidence? Can't you dig up something more telling or reasonable than a bad joke? Also, not cool that Cephrir picking a townie pet and tricking me with flattery is getting me in trouble.

So

not cool.

[QuantumFruit]

@Akonas: I don't want the game to be distracted by joke votes and I think it's foolish if suspicions are based only on a joke vote. If there is other evidence anyone wants to bring against me, that is fine and I welcome it. Are you FOS-ing me for the joke vote or not wanting windkirby to be distracted or distract others by a joke vote?

[QuantumFruit]

I'm back if that's any consolation. Sorry.

Hmm...viking theories are interesting. I'll think about it. Sorry I'm not really into this right now.

[QuantumFruit]

I didn't feel like you were scum, darkdude. I felt like you were being a bit simplistic in your analysis and maybe you weren't that into it then, I don't really know. At the same time, though, I had a gut feeling that you were not in fact scum - I didn't want to vote for you simply because it was the popular thing to do.

You didn't make too much of a case against me, just that I defended Talitha when I felt you were being harsh toward her. I might have been oversensitive, but that's about it. I thought we'd had ample discussion on that matter and we were growing repetitive so I shut up. That's all.

Also, busy year: getting a job, going off to college in a couple of months, have to sell all the junk in my house and find tenants...so, kind of time-consuming and intense.

[QuantumFruit]

@darkdude: What change are you referring to? The fact that I admitted that I was being too adamant with the "you're being mean to Talitha" thing, or the fact that I got mean and confrontational towards you? In any case, you actually did a long post that had substance after that, which was my goal.

Also, I don't necessarily think that logic must always take precedence over gut feelings. Often, something a player says really gets under your skin and you can't exactly pinpoint it, but it's true nonetheless. Scum can easily deceive other with logic - in fact, that's how a good scum plays it...it all makes sense! Anyway, I again have to disagree with you, darkdude - though, that gives me a better understanding as to why you think I'm scummy.

There's no real way of proving this, though, because if you're suspicious of me already then it's
me: I think he's town.
(he's town)
you: See, you knew he was town because you're scum and you know already!
(he's scum)
you: You were covering a scum buddy's bum.

or

me: I think he's scum.
(he's town)
you: You deceived us!

So, basically the only way I can redeem myself is voting scum that's actually scum, and even then I'll be bandwagoning unless I figure it out completely on my own.

And as to this:

- In conclusion, I think the darkdude bandwagon is total crap, and I'm becoming increasingly suspicious of anyone on it. Stop me by providing some reasons.

That's just: "justify your positions, guys." How is that bad? He's using an accusatory tone because then people actually respond to it - that's what I did with you.

@windkirby: Why would you still like to see my lynch? Why are you suspicious of me?

[QuantumFruit]

@windkirby: Fair enough...I haven't been playing this well. Why did my indecision seem contrived, though?

[QuantumFruit]

@darkdude: What do you mean "she's obviously not scum-hunting"?? I am. You're really difficult for me to get a read on.

...

I have a gut feeling about Akonas, I have this whole time...ah, what the heck, let's see what happens...

Vote QF, vote already!

Vote: Akonas

. (Sorry dear, nothing personal, but I feel like you're sucking up to me to cover your bum. Which is exactly what Cephrir did.)

...

Problem with going off of gut feelings is that I don't trust them.


@PinkPuppy: I'm not relying only on gut. To be "sure," I need to have gut and logic coincide. My view of darkdude was supported by logic, not gut; my view of Akonas was supported by gut, not logic. I don't trust my logic with darkdude because it's hard for me to get a read on him. I'm especially mixed now because he's playing as vikingfan's role and I have to separate the two.

And actually, you are discounting gut because you're implying that one can't be sure with gut, but can with logic.


@darkdude:

You said you became suspicious of people on the wagon.

You said this to windkirby, I know - anyway, it's quite likely that someone would be suspicious of individuals opportunistically band-wagoning. I don't see how that makes him scummy. Elaborate please.

[QuantumFruit]

@darkdude:

Yes, and thus it has priority over logic?

I trust it more than logic because logic can be skewed with by other people - they can make very convincing arguments that are very easy to understand (and completely wrong). Gut feelings come from the individual, and I haven't had enough experience to where I'm approximately 100% sure because of a gut feeling.

@Talitha: I would say I'd kill Akonas if necessary. I don't know that he'd automatically assume I'm scum if I was - I think we'd naturally assume that the other is less scummy than everyone else, so I wouldn't really feel threatened. If I got the sense that he was getting a gut feeling about me, I'd probably get him killed. I'd had a gut feeling about him for most of the game, but I kind of pushed it away. So I think he'd do something like that (subconsciously, of course).

---

I guess this is just a clarification post. I'll try to do more original insights later, but I'm inbetween classes now.