Mini 571 - Movie Mafia - (Game Over)

[Justin Playfair]

Hi, everyone. Glad to be here.

Jalathas, just a couple of questions. About these posts:

You are being a bit defensive, The Jester. It seems kinda like you're trying really, really hard not to offend anyone, which is making you stand out a bit to me.

And,

I suppose what I should have said is that you're playing fairly defensively. Defensive has bad connotatons around here, it seems. Like I said, it seems like you're trying to post without offending anybody. That generally implies you've got something to worry about if you do make a blip on someone's scumdar.

Then,

EBWOP: By the way, when I say offend, what I mean is make someone suspicious.

Here’s my question. The Jester reacted in a very (nearly inexplicably) harsh fashion to Avinashv’s statement about everyone voting and his asking about how to proceed. And whether we go with your first phrase “without offending anybody” or your second, “make someone suspicious”, this seems hardly the way to do so. The Jester’s reaction to Avinashv’s post seemed to almost aim to both offend and arouse suspicion. So can you explain why you believe it was an attempt to do the opposite? Can you also explain how, logistically, it could have accomplished what you said you felt The Jester was trying to do?

This also applies to what may be an attempt on your part to suggest that The Jester’s initial refusal to make a random vote was an attempt not to offend or arouse suspicion. If eleven people are walking in one direction and one is walking in the other the other is more noticeable, I would think. But even if you sincerely believe that The Jester’s refusal to place an initial random vote was an attempt to avoid offending or arousing suspicion, how would that make sense given his immediate attack on Avinashv, which seemed certain to do both?

There is this, after Jex votes you for the admittedly not so great reason of over-explaining what a joke vote is:

You first vote Jex, which seems pretty pure OMGUS to me. You then put this face on it:

Gah! Clicked too soon.

For baiting me to look like a hypocrite.

Could you please explain how what Jex said would make you look like a hypocrite? Pendantic, sure, maybe. But why a hypocrite? And why would you consider this to be scummy, even if this is what he was doing?

Thank you for any answers.

[Justin Playfair]

Just a couple other early things:

Avinashv,

Get used to having your name misspelled. Seriously. Just one question:

The Jester: I was being mildly sarcastic: of course not everybody had voted for everybody else, but the sooner the joke votes get over with the sooner D1 can end. Don't patronize me, don't call me a liar, and let this damn thing go.

Are you saying here that when you posted that everyone had voted you were aware not everyone had? If so why didn’t you say, perhaps, that “Now that everyone had weighed in” or something which would have communicated the same desire to move on without misrepresenting, even innocently, the actual events in thread?

The Jester,

I certainly don’t believe you were trying to be inoffensive or trying to fly under the radar, given your posts, but I am a bit curious about this:

@avinashv: I don't believe "everyone" has "voted" for everyone else yet. So you're giving false information.

Later, defending yourself you first post this:

How was I overreacting? You said everyone voted, and wasn't true; therefore false information. If I instead said something like, "Oh my god, he lied, lynch him! BANDWAGON NOW!" That would be overreacting. Please show me where I was overreacting before giving more empty information.

Then you post this:

Avin said I overreacted for saying he was lying? It was a statement, not a "Oh my god, what the hell have you done?" I said, no not everyone has voted. Being technical, does not make someone defensive.

The reason I find the above a bit curious is that in your first post you say “you're giving false information.”, which although not actually calling Avinashv a liar is certainly putting a particular spin on what, at that time, could certainly have been an innocent misstatement. You then point out you didn’t say something like: "Oh my god, he lied, lynch him!” which with the addition of calling for a lynch isn’t quite a denial of having called him a liar, but certainly seems to be shading. You then post: “Avin said I overreacted for saying he was lying?” which would seem to indicate that you were calling him a liar, as opposed to someone who had just made a mistake.

So a couple of questions:

Did you believe Avinashv was lying when you made your first post in response to him?

If so, why did you believe he was lying instead of simply mistaken?

If not was there a particular reason you posted so aggressively in response to what Avinashv had posted?

Thank you for your answers (when you return).

[Justin Playfair]

Jalathas,

A couple of things I didn’t like in your previous answers:

To use a variation on your metaphor, if everyone's pointing fingers, the one guy who doesn't seems to be more rational. Note that I never said his attempt was working, just that he was trying.

Well, this might be true except for the fact that nearly everyone randomly votes, not voting is a curiosity which makes you stand out, and there is nothing that would logically make you seem more “rational” about not engaging in this opening bell process. And the fact that you’re backtracking enough to say that you never said his attempt was working doesn’t seem genuine either. You made the statement about The Jester in an accusatory fashion. You suggested it was part of a pattern of behavior he was engaging in. The pattern didn’t exist and your counter-metaphor above just doesn’t seem to apply to the situation.

I'd just defended my own pseudo-logical random vote. It seemed to me that he wanted me to argue that I hadn't over-explained, at which point he could claim, "My vote was no more serious than yours. How can you attack me for something you just defended yourself on?" Thus, hypocrite.

Do you still believe this? And why would you think that what you did was not a worse show of hypocrisy than actually doing what you say it seemed to you that he wanted you to do?

Avinashv,

Based on the evidence in thread so far, do you really believe you have found all the scum in town? If not, is there a specific reason why you have presented your suspects in the way you have?

Deathguise,

Getting a day one pressure bandwagon (even a series of them), isn’t an uncommon tactic among experienced players. It’s not a tactic I like, but there are players who know this game far better than I do who engage in this. Is there any reason other than a general distrust for this play style that makes you suspect Thinktank?

Farside,

Hey there. Glad you’re with us.


At the moment I’m going to

Vote: Jalathas

I’m far from sure but Jalathas has had the oddest reactions, and we’re four days from a no-lynch. If worse comes to worst, to avoid a no-lynch I would probably vote Avinashv as well, but my take so far is more anxious newbie than scum.

[Justin Playfair]

Ack!

The above portion of the post where quotes should have been is repeated below. Sorry, been forced to be away for a short while and trying to catch up everywhere. Forgot the quotes. Sorry.


Jalathas,

A couple of things I didn’t like in your previous answers:

To use a variation on your metaphor, if everyone's pointing fingers, the one guy who doesn't seems to be more rational. Note that I never said his attempt was working, just that he was trying.

Well, this might be true except for the fact that nearly everyone randomly votes, not voting is a curiosity which makes you stand out, and there is nothing that would logically make you seem more “rational” about not engaging in this opening bell process. And the fact that you’re backtracking enough to say that you never said his attempt was working doesn’t seem genuine either. You made the statement about The Jester in an accusatory fashion. You suggested it was part of a pattern of behavior he was engaging in. The pattern didn’t exist and your counter-metaphor above just doesn’t seem to apply to the situation.

I'd just defended my own pseudo-logical random vote. It seemed to me that he wanted me to argue that I hadn't over-explained, at which point he could claim, "My vote was no more serious than yours. How can you attack me for something you just defended yourself on?" Thus, hypocrite.

Do you still believe this? And why would you think that what you did was not a worse show of hypocrisy than actually doing what you say it seemed to you that he wanted you to do?

[Justin Playfair]

If I could, may I point out that Jex's conclusions are most probably invalid. Jennar pointed out that Jack Sparrow's vote would appear in thread. He did not do the same for Mr. Green's, and in addition it would seem to me that it would likely not, since its presence there could then be used for precisely the sort of purpose Jex now supposes.

Since Mr. Green's public vote does not count and his secret vote would likely not be shown there is no reason to believe that any of the above people could not have publicly (no count) and secretly (counted) have voted for the same person. So overall, Jex, I don't believe you did any harm.

[Justin Playfair]

Dahill,

also i'm going to announce my intention to probably vote OGML later on but i wan't to see his response first

Why? You know, why announce your intention to probably vote OGML later on? If his response would make any difference?

This might just be a curious construction, but I wouldn’t mind seeing your response.

That said,

OGML,

Your return to thread was serendipitous and precise enough to suggest lurking with purpose. I don’t think you have a whole lot to defend against from the initial case, because I can’t recall a game I’ve been in where I didn’t see multiple early game posts like the one you made, and they were made no more often by scum than town. But to dive back into thread the way you did, and not to defend but to attack one of your accusers on an ill-considered but not absolutely scummy action…smacks of deflection. Because I may be interpreting that incorrectly, though, could you explain to me why this single action by Jex was sufficient, on it’s own, to warrant a vote from you? Or if this incident was part of a larger pattern of suspicious behavior by Jex, could you explain it to us?

Avinashv,

I’m not positive yet whether your statement above on the subject of a bus was scummy or just the most overly-defensive newbie maneuver I’ve ever seen. But…

What's "bussing"? I assume it's a tactic where scum get votes for each other? That seems like a waste, especially this early. I honestly thought thinktank's actions would have cleared my name somewhat.

Let’s break that statement down.

What's "bussing"?

What is this strange thing you call “bussing”?

I assume it's a tactic where scum get votes for each other?

Could it be exactly what I write in my next sentence? Who knows?

That seems like a waste, especially this early.

But surely, even if such a thing exists, it would have never been done at this stage of a game. Not that I even know what it is.

I honestly thought thinktank's actions would have cleared my name somewhat.

And to prove my innocence I will then openly put forth the conclusion that would be the only possible goal for scum engaged in this strange “bussing”, which I have outlined and provided a strategy statement about.

Avinashv, that post doesn’t exist in nature. It might be overeager defense, it might be scummy, but at the moment it’s bothering me more than anything else I’ve seen from you. Please give me some sort of explanation for that statement that doesn’t require me to believe that those four sentences were written in order by someone who wasn’t even sure what bussing was.

[Justin Playfair]

Avinashv,

I wasn’t being condescending. I was telling you that you’re asking me to believe too many impossible things before breakfast. It is certainly true that you could have picked up what bussing was, assuming you didn’t already know it, from what dahill posted.

But the four sentences you put together ask us to believe that:

1. You didn’t know what bussing was, thereby proving you couldn’t be engaged in it since you don’t even know what it was.
2. You guessed what it was, weren’t sure, didn’t look it up in the wiki or anywhere else but put your belief raised by context into your second sentence, even while still asking what bussing was in your first sentence.
3. Came to a conclusion, based on your “I wasn’t sure” contextual interpretation, that defends you from the charge of possibly engaging in bussing. So you’re still not interested enough to find out for sure what bussing is by the easy methods of finding it out, but oddly enough you are interested enough to use your interpretation, which you claim not even to be certain was right, to defend yourself against its implications.
4. Called out for the interpretation of events that any scum engaged in bussing or being unsuccessfully bussed would hope for.

So I’m left with either you being a new enough town player to think that this sort of disingenuous defense would work or you being scum.

Now maybe you’re right. Maybe you 1. still didn’t know for sure what bussing was…2. guessed it from context but wanted to post your guess instead of looking it up…3. mounted a defense in your next sentence based on the contextual assumption you made even though you weren’t sure your premise was even correct, and…4. after correctly guessing what bussing is and coming up with early game defense #1 on its use were still blissfully unaware that you were writing down the hoped for conclusion of the strategy you had outlined and defended yourself from.

And if I said, “Aw, let’s leave Avinashv alone on this, he’s just a newbie and probably doesn’t know any better”…

Then I would, in fact, be condescending. I am, instead, calling you out on what seems like pretty clear dishonesty on your part. Which is treating you as an equal.

I believe it’s possible you weren’t sure what bussing was when you first saw it and wanted to communicate that fact in your post. That’s why I haven’t voted for you yet. But I don’t believe that when you wrote those words you didn’t know what bussing was. The parts just don’t fit together. And they don’t fit together in a way that makes a conveniently self-serving stew of claimed ignorance and insouciant defense, which certainly does have scummy implications.

Do you have something further to offer on this topic or are you standing by what you wrote above?

[Justin Playfair]

Hmmm...

So we were all wrong about the Mr. Green thing. Is that really enough reason to stop posting entirely?

OhGodMyLife, have you finished your review yet? Any conclusions?

[Justin Playfair]

I also believe thinktank chose avi as his wagoning target not just because avi wasn't scum but because those who had started the wagon weren't either. I have mixed feelings about springlullaby, she made some similar comments to thinktank about wagoning for the sake of wagoning, but I seriously doubt that more than one scum would be on the avi wagon. Scum tend to spread their votes out more than that. Thinktank could also easily have been trying to buddy up to both springlullaby and myself by joining us in voting avi.

OhGodMyLife,

The above statement bothers me a bit. It presents itself as though it represents your thoughts about Springlullaby, but it works to defend you by proxy, since you were also on the wagon for Avinashv. Any particular reason why this was tucked into your view on Springlullaby this way?

[Justin Playfair]

Springlullaby,

I’m sure not positive enough that Avinashv is scum at this point to vote him, much less actively advocate his lynch. There is a school of thought that you should lynch all liars, and I feel absolutely certain there is a lie in Avaniashv’s response about bussing. I was made more certain of this by his original deflecting post to me and by his silence on the subject since. However, in my short time here I have already seen lies, and admitted lies, told by folks who ended up town.

What makes me less likely to vote for Avinashv for the above is that I have now metaed him and found his attitude in other games to exhibit the same characteristics he has displayed here. Since these games are ongoing this is essentially a non-tell, but since my reasons to be suspicious of Avinashv center on this it makes me less likely to vote him without additional information. This includes his rather silly claim of false quotes against you for what was obviously paraphrasing, and not only obvious paraphrasing but paraphrasing that didn’t even exaggerate his initial tone. In short, I am suspicious of Avinashv, but unless some other information arises he will not get my vote today.

[Justin Playfair]

Vote: OhGodMyLife

Since I questioned you last your actions have only made me more suspicious of you.

The issue of a claim bothers me a bit. Only one claim you could make would seek to define your alignment. That role has no investigative power, so a claim of it would not allow you to claim an alignment. Your soft claim would have the same result of drawing a scum night kill to you as a hard claim would, and setting up an incipient reason for not being night killed in spite of this makes me uneasy.

Your votes for both Jex and Dahill1 seemed opportunistic in a way that doesn’t conform to town play. But your worst vote has to be the one on Springlullaby, because it seems to reveal plainly what troubled me earlier about your defense of those who were on the day one Avinashv wagon.

Her alignment will be most helpful I think in orienting our thoughts, or at least orienting my thoughts.

Why? What would Springlullaby being town tell you? What would Springlullaby being scum tell you? And why, when just earlier you stated your belief that Springlullaby was town, based on her presence on the day one Avinashv wagon, would you choose her as your lynch target, with no other expressed opinion which would show a change in your opinion of her?

Your behavior on the topic of Dahill1 also bothers me a great deal. Your initial vote on Dahill1 was for Dahill1 mistakenly assuming the game was monsters vs. humans, in the same way your vote on Jex was for her unfortunate assumption about Mr. Green. Of the two, the Dahill1 vote makes even less sense than the one on Jex, unless you can provide us a reason why Dahill1 being mistaken about this would serve a purpose for the scum in this game.

You later provided five additional reasons for your vote. The first two being discounted by Farside you then asked her about the remaining three. But the remaining three were:

3. Announcing an intention to vote for somebody but not actually doing so is scummy. It reads as testing the waters, but not jumping in til it has become popular to do so. This is exactly what you did.
4. Until just now you had never actually voted for anybody all game. Were you afraid of leaving a voting record to tie you back to your scum partners?
5. No, what I gave was not a poor reason, it was a meta/psychological read of sorts rather than an actual game play read. In the ensuing time I went back and looked at your actual gameplay and viola! Its scummy.

Number three I asked Dahill1 about, and although his answer was moderately satisfactory this is probably the best of the list. Number four isn’t a reason at all, of course, as Dahill1 only replaced in on day two and plenty of us haven’t cast a vote yet today. For instance, I didn’t until the vote on you above. And number five isn’t even a reason. You’re just claiming Dahill1 looked scummy to you.

At this point in the game I don’t feel great about Dahill1 myself. But your jumping from one target to the next in the way you are bothers me more than anything anyone else is doing. There is still time for me to move this vote off you, and I will consider carefully whatever answers you provide for the above. With the scant participation in this game there hasn’t been a whole lot of evidence to sift through, but from what I have been able to dig up more seems to point toward you being scum than anyone else.

[Justin Playfair]

Mod, if we are going to need replacements for Jalathas and Deathguise, please add my voice to those asking for a deadline extension.

Unvote

Want to think on this.

[Justin Playfair]

OhGodMyLife,

I may just be being dim here, but could you explain your thinking about Greasy Spot's death and the possible Jack Sparrow implications in a bit more detail? I'd been considering the implications of Greasy Spot's death and was on the edge of an opinion that he had been killed by a pro-town Van Helsing, due to the likely implications of his day one actions.

[Justin Playfair]

Unfortunately, I feel like I’m in much the same position as Farside. If I were to make a scum list from first to third of the three people I currently feel the most uncomfortable with based on their day one and two behavior it would be:
OhGodMyLife
Jalathas
Avinashv

OhGodMyLife has had a bad day two, and the more I think on his Jack Sparrow as scum theory the less comfortable I am with it. Jack Sparrow swung the hammer on Thinktank, who proved to be scum, and though this may have been the most super attenuated case of distancing in the history of this game (eventually they will discover I am Jack Sparrow, and then I can point to hammering my scum buddy with my secret vote on day one) it certainly doesn’t seem very likely. And it is hard to envision to repeated wild “anyone but me” attacks with league behavior. At the least they are not pro-town. All that said, I still don’t feel like OhGodMyLife is the vote for today.

Jalathas was terrible day one and vanished under questioning. New player though, so I would at least like to see what a replacement can offer before pursuing this further.

Avinashv is very difficult for me. He has put himself in a position where it would be impossible for me to ever trust a town read on him, but at the same time I’m just not convinced he’s scum. In addition, because of the generally combative and OMGUSy nature of his responses I’m far from sure we will gain reliable information from lynching him.

Quick thoughts on some others before we go to night, just in case I don’t wake up in the morning.

Farside22: Extraordinary job day one focusing on Thinktank. You can’t discount the possibility of a day one scum sacrifice, but her lack of day two follow-up is mitigated by two factors: Her second suspect died night one and there has been very little day two information to go on. Normally I would consider the differential between her day one and day two activity suspicious, but I don’t think you can do so in the conditions we find ourselves.

The Jester: This is one point where a lynched league Avinashv might point a possible direction for day two suspicions. I’ve read and reread the early Avinashv/TheJester/Jalathas exchanges, and I feel certain there is at least one scum in that mix. My current feeling is: Jalathas/Avinashv/The Jester, but The Jester didn’t help himself by picking Deathguise of the four total posts, only two with any content at all, as the person who had attracted his suspicion.

Springlullaby: Springlullaby has only cast votes on Avinashv since the game began. She cast votes on him twice on day one without ever even unvoting in between. She has been pursuing a lynch on him with an almost evangelical zeal. Whether Avinashv turns up league or scum I find it hard at this time to envision Springlullaby as scum. This kind of over-committing is usually found in town.

Jex: I don’t have a firm read on Jex at the moment. I consider the speculation on Mr. Green to be a nulltell, for a number of reasons. I also like her stand on OGML and find her day one transition from OhGodMyLife to Thinktank to be reasonably solid. The only question I see in her play to this point is whether she is demonstrating fairly circumspect town behavior or subtly opportunistic scumminess. Also, while Jex and OGML may both be league, if one is scum the other almost certainly is not.

Dahill1: Rereading Dahill1 in isolation I am less suspicious of him than previously. Less suspicious, however, does not mean not suspicious. Although his behavior in calling out his future vote on OGML and his warning not to hammer Avinashv may both be innocent, they could equally be seen as scum calling out to partners in thread. OGML’s attack on Dahill1 was largely baseless, as have been most of OGML’s “self-preservation” posts, but Dahill1’s actions to date leave his alignment in serious question.

Deathguise: Four posts. Liked me as league so he couldn’t have been all bad. In his two posts with content he arrives at a reasonable position in FOSing instead of voting The Jester early, then votes Thinktank, expresses suspicion of Avinashv, clears The Jester softly and Jalathas and Sprinlullaby more solidly. The vote on Thinktank serves to clear Deathguise less than it might otherwise because Deathguise never appeared again.

Since we do not want to go to night without a lynch:

Vote: Avinashv

Back to digging in the morning.

[Justin Playfair]

By the way, I would ask that anyone who checks in before nightfall do a similar summation of their thoughts. We have multiple possible night kills, so if you have anything you think may help town get it in before the sun sets.