Mini 561: R-1000 Mafia (Game over!)

[armlx]

Not at all.

I am not familiar with your play style. The last game I played with you was ~2 years ago. Many things change.

I also don't like you saying "Unvote Rigel, believe his claim, but leave open possibility of HAMMAH time".

Mod edit
Votecount:
chaotic_diablo (3): armlx, ZONEACE, DeanWinchester

Not voting (6): aioqwe, andersonw, chaotic_diablo, opie, skitzer, springlullaby

With 9 alive it's 5 to lynch.

[aioqwe]

But if there were 3 scum, wouldn't they try to quicklynch right now? Since it's 5 to lynch, and there are currently 2 votes on CD.
Wait a minute, was that just a slip? Or is it just incredibly stupid for all three scum to vote for CD one after the other right if he was town?

I'm pretty sure it was supposed to be something along the lines of, "people don't interpret as armlx and zoneace are both scum. They put in two votes, wait for other townies to pile in, and then there last partner quick lynches." Although it's still not the most intelligent strategy, the way armlx and zoneace they could probably convince the town to lynch someone else that joined the wagon at lylo...

[armlx]

Although it's still not the most intelligent strategy, the way armlx and zoneace they could probably convince the town to lynch someone else that joined the wagon at lylo...

WIFOM of the more experienced players being worse off for the town if they are scum, therefore they should be suspect, is duely noted.

[aioqwe]

It was mostly inteded as a joke but I found it interesting how Zoneace is basically following your every move.

[armlx]

It was mostly inteded as a joke but I found it interesting how Zoneace is basically following your every move.

This is a better argument to frame than the previous one. Care to give examples and thoughts on what it means?

[chaotic_diablo]

Not at all.

I am not familiar with your play style. The last game I played with you was ~2 years ago. Many things change.

I also don't like you saying "Unvote Rigel, believe his claim, but leave open possibility of HAMMAH time".

Two years? I remember someone giving me shit about my self-voting and yelling that they intended to lynch anyone who would attempt such a feat. If that wasn't you, then it must be one of the other players beginning with an A.

We should first clarify how you interpreted my words. I unvoted Rigel. I said the claim was believable. I left the possibility to hammer. In reality, I didn't say that I believed Rigel's claim and I didn't hammer him. The lynch was a deadline lynch, which meant it only carried through because it had the most votes. The possibility of a hammer is a null point since the lynch conditions were met long before my unvote/revote. I found the wagon fishy because I found something that would have convinced me of Rigel's innocence.

Quick lynches are used by scum only if they can obtain guranteed victory.

[aioqwe]

Each of zoneace's 3 posts today:

#179: a vote on CD right after armlx's. His argument emphasizes CD post after his prod, which is basically his unvote and later revote that armlx covered.
#187: He states self-votes are bad because of lack of participation 2 posts after armlx said self-votes are bad because one is refusing to develop connections.
#195: He mentions the meta on Dean and how he shouldn't be attacked for it. Similar to armlx's post (Although it doesn't out right say we shouldn't vote Dean for his one-liners, it still holds the message, for example, look at skitz's unvote right after)

It did set off a small alarm that he might be buddying up to you. On that note, it also might be worth it to note that in 195, he leaves the nice opportunity to come back to dean for his one-liners.

I don't appreciate all of armlx's exaggerations.

CD: What would have convinced you of Rigel's innocence? What was strange about rigel's wagon?

[armlx]

Each of zoneace's 3 posts today:

#179: a vote on CD right after armlx's. His argument emphasizes CD post after his prod, which is basically his unvote and later revote that armlx covered.
#187: He states self-votes are bad because of lack of participation 2 posts after armlx said self-votes are bad because one is refusing to develop connections.
#195: He mentions the meta on Dean and how he shouldn't be attacked for it. Similar to armlx's post (Although it doesn't out right say we shouldn't vote Dean for his one-liners, it still holds the message, for example, look at skitz's unvote right after)

It did set off a small alarm that he might be buddying up to you. On that note, it also might be worth it to note that in 195, he leaves the nice opportunity to come back to dean for his one-liners.

Thats about what I assumed you meant by it.

CD: Why vote for him if you thought he was town, regardless of the deadline lynch. I'm pretty sure he was dead regardless....

[ZONEACE]

Each of zoneace's 3 posts today:

#179: a vote on CD right after armlx's. His argument emphasizes CD post after his prod, which is basically his unvote and later revote that armlx covered.
#187: He states self-votes are bad because of lack of participation 2 posts after armlx said self-votes are bad because one is refusing to develop connections.
#195: He mentions the meta on Dean and how he shouldn't be attacked for it. Similar to armlx's post (Although it doesn't out right say we shouldn't vote Dean for his one-liners, it still holds the message, for example, look at skitz's unvote right after)

It did set off a small alarm that he might be buddying up to you. On that note, it also might be worth it to note that in 195, he leaves the nice opportunity to come back to dean for his one-liners.

I don't appreciate all of armlx's exaggerations.

CD: What would have convinced you of Rigel's innocence? What was strange about rigel's wagon?

I stated my intentions to come after CD yesterday. Excuse me for not posting before amrix. I referenced the meta BECAUSE arm brought it up I was saying that its probably not worth voting dean yet because of the meta but not to let the meta prevent a vote in the future. attempts to fabricate suspicions are not good.

[aioqwe]

I stated my intentions to come after CD yesterday. Excuse me for not posting before amrix. I referenced the meta BECAUSE arm brought it up I was saying that its probably not worth voting dean yet because of the meta but not to let the meta prevent a vote in the future. attempts to fabricate suspicions are not good.

I saw this as one possible town explanation for your actions, but I don't have inclination to feed excuses to possible scum.
Whether the meta prevents a vote for now depends more on what alternatives are currently available. At the moment, CD might be a better place for your vote. Whether Dean's actions (with regards to the meta) is WORTHY of a vote doesn't change though. Right now you're admitting to leaving a back door open if you don't feel like pursuing the CD case anymore.

[ZONEACE]

im sorry, are backdoors not allowed anymore? I didn't want to completely write Dean off as a possible suspect because of his meta, but RIGHT NOW, that meta is enough for me to keep my focus fully on CD and not on CD AND Dean. I'm trying to keep my focus (and that of the rest of the town) on the person who is most scummy to me, and not get distracted by the (as of now) slight possibility that dean is scum. If dean presents himself as a likely scum later on and the meta proves to be false then I'll still have him in the back of my mind as a possible suspect and not have decided previously that because of the meta he can't be scum.

[aioqwe]

I would say backdoors are slightly suspicious. I'm looking back now, and I think I the bigger part of my concern is in your wording. Right now you're saying the same thing as I was trying to say however, your original wording was different. Your original wording suggests that the meta itself can cause varying amounts of suspicion. Also, how can the meta be proven false?

[ZONEACE]

how can the meta be proven false?

If the facts are in opposition of it.

[aioqwe]

I was aiming more at, "if the meta has shown that dean, even as town, tends to post one liners. How can this be proven false?"

[ZONEACE]

oh i suppose it can't be proven false, but it can become out dated.

i'm still not sure what the problem is with me saying that right now because of the meta we shouldn't lynch Dean but keeping him mind for future investigation is a good idea.

[chaotic_diablo]

CD: Why vote for him if you thought he was town, regardless of the deadline lynch. I'm pretty sure he was dead regardless....

I thought I clarified this. I didn't beleive he was town. I found something that may have convinced me that Rigel was town. I was still uncertain about Rigel. When I found out about it, I was also pretty sure that Rigel was going to get lynched anyway.

CD: What would have convinced you of Rigel's innocence? What was strange about rigel's wagon?

opie's attack on me.

I agree with armlx about not liking choatic_diablo's Post 140. I get the sense that it he could be scum giving himself an out if he needs to bus his scum buddy depending on the number of votes at deadline.

For his attack to have any credibility, I must be capable of bussing a scum buddy, then being able to find a way off of it. Since the only ones I'm capable of bussing is Rigel, it makes even less sense. opie in his own words stated that I made the "best" case on Rigel and I even had my vote on Rigel for an extended amount of time; at least up until after the claim. It's ridiculous to think that I would suddenly fall back after doing so much harm to a "scum buddy". opie convinced me that he knew Rigel wasn't scum. Then it's strange that opie would attack me with such an hit-or-miss theory. As scum, I'd expect opie to say more along the lines that I wanted an out from lynching a townie. So that confused me.

In that same post 150, opie gets the feeling that the claim is a safe-claim. I've already listed out the problems with the argument, but I'm unsure of it given that no one other than opie has responded.

Then there's Rigel's claim. Usually, there are more than one townie in a game. I made several assumptions and found things strange. I'll keep them to myself.

[aioqwe]

CD: What would have convinced you of Rigel's innocence? What was strange about rigel's wagon?

opie's attack on me.

What does that have to do with Rigel?

vote:Opie

[armlx]

CD: What would have convinced you of Rigel's innocence? What was strange about rigel's wagon?

opie's attack on me.

What does that have to do with Rigel?

vote:Opie

As per yesterday, I also endorse this wagon behind the CD one.

[chaotic_diablo]

CD: What would have convinced you of Rigel's innocence? What was strange about rigel's wagon?

opie's attack on me.

What does that have to do with Rigel?

vote:Opie

I'm looking at Rigel's alignment through opie's perspective. In such a case, opie's attack on me makes no sense whether Rigel is town or scum. Since I had previously believed Rigel was scum, I got second thoughts after opie's post. I also have a couple other things that confused me, but this was the most confusing one.

armlx, I still believe your self-vote argument is more on the basis that it isn't random, therefore it's scummy. If you look at my self-vote:

Vote: Hillary Clinton

Just kidding

Unvote, Vote:chaotic_diablo

. That underscore creeps me out.

vote chaoticdiablo

That underscore creeps me out too.

A connection can be established. Since you claim that random voting serves to do so, then I believe the more important thing is the connection being established and not the actual vote.

[armlx]

Hardly. Random voting is meant to be not truly random as it can leave trails for later on. Self voting isn't random, but it doesn't leave any trails. And last I checked, trying to cover your connections to people in games that aren't Call of the illuminati is scummy.

[opie]

First off I'm not so sure that chaotic_diablo self-voting is much of a scum_tell.

However, what I do find suspicious is that he starts a bandwagon in Post 63. Then gives it some legs with some legitimate suspicions and defends the wagon in Posts 65, 67, 72, and 101. He rides the wagon until critical mass (until Rigel is forced to claim). Then backs off because of a vanilla townie claim. Saying that it seems believable but is still suspicious and then that he never believed it. Then adds his vote at the last minute to a wagon he thinks is strange.

He drove the wagon and then says he didn't like who got on board. It seems that he was setting up a lynch for Day Two of someone on the Rigel wagon whilst distancing himself from responsibility of a wagon that he started. On top of which he doesn't explain why he feels that the wagon is strange rather says he will wait. Very suspicious. Very scummy.

Vote: chaotic_diablo

With regards to my comments about in Post 150 regarding chaotic_diablo, that vote made me feel that there might be a possibility that he and Rigel could be a scum and started a fight to put some distance between the two. However, there was little activity in the game and that case ended up being the most substantial case made. At the time of Post 140 Rigel had 4 votes: chaotic_diablo, DeanWinchester,opie,armlx.

The next was DeanWinchester with 2 votes: aioqwe; Sarcastro.

By unvoting chaotic_diablo brought the vote count down to only three, just one more than DeanWinchester. I felt like you wanted to get off the wagon, try to divert focus on someone else, but if unable to do so, left yourself an opportunity of jump back on Rigel if his lynch was inevitable due to the deadline. That is what I was thinking when I posted that.

[chaotic_diablo]

With regards to my comments about in Post 150 regarding chaotic_diablo, that vote made me feel that there might be a possibility that he and Rigel could be a scum and started a fight to put some distance between the two. However, there was little activity in the game and that case ended up being the most substantial case made. At the time of Post 140 Rigel had 4 votes: chaotic_diablo, DeanWinchester,opie,armlx.

If my case was only substantial at the time because of inactivity, then it makes no sense why you would attack Rigel's claim with illegitimate reasons. By no means was my case a killing point that proved Rigel was scum. You followed a wagon then supported its lynch without believing the case against it.

However, what I do find suspicious is that he starts a bandwagon in Post 63. Then gives it some legs with some legitimate suspicions and defends the wagon in Posts 65, 67, 72, and 101. He rides the wagon until critical mass (until Rigel is forced to claim). Then backs off because of a vanilla townie claim. Saying that it seems believable but is still suspicious and then that he never believed it. Then adds his vote at the last minute to a wagon he thinks is strange.

I did start a wagon, but for the same reasons you gave out when you started hopping about.

I've had for votes. One for Rigel which was a typical random first vote. One vote for Sarcastro was a bit of a joke for forgetting the game. Another vote for Rigel to get this game moving. And my last vote for DeanWinchester for complying about the lack of activity in the game but failing to provide anything that would help fix that.

That was too was to help get this game moving.

While I attempted to support the wagon that I started with

legitimate

reasons, you hopped on because it was getting bigger. After the claim, I backed off because I was prodded and had paid semi-attention to the game. I knew beforehand that my case wasn't substantial enough for a claim, so I reread and looked around as to why the claim came about. Turns out, my case was the only case on Rigel, therefore I concluded that players were just hopping on the opportunity without giving their own contributions. So I didn't like the players who started "wagonning".

I never said that I never believed the claim. I stated:

I said the claim was believable, not that I believed it. I want to look over my case on Rigel so that I may make a final decision on whether I want my vote on Rigel or not.

The only fact I gave out was that I believed the claim was believable. I even stated that I wanted to look over my case on Rigel.

He drove the wagon and then says he didn't like who got on board. It seems that he was setting up a lynch for Day Two of someone on the Rigel wagon whilst distancing himself from responsibility of a wagon that he started. On top of which he doesn't explain why he feels that the wagon is strange rather says he will wait. Very suspicious. Very scummy.

There's something strange about the Rigel wagon. I'll bring up what I find strange the next day since it all depends on Rigel's alignment.

vote Rigel

I took responsibility by voting Rigel. I had stated earlier that I would have a vote by the deadline. Then as I re-voted, I said that it depended on Rigel's alignment before I could make any further judgements. Coupled with the fact that we were at deadline and I didn't want scum to have information to go with their kill, I decided to wait.

In addition ZONEACE also decided to withhold his case.

well since you're complainging about the 3/10 non majority, i'll make it a 4/10 non majority.

unvote vote rigel

I'll save my persecution of CD for tomorrow since the deadline is today and nohting is going to come of it. Rigel's calim while not BAD certianly doesn't give me reason to not lynch him. If you're town rigel, it was just bad luck for you and I'm sorry.

Please, can we take a look at CD tomorrow guys, his behavior after the prod was more than slightly suspicious.

The only difference is that he had already decided the town's agenda for the next day. He basically said, "scum won't target CD because we'll lynch him tomorrow!"

As a side note, I'm 100% sure Dean is scum. As I said before, if we have a townie, then there are definitely other townies about. Townies are unlikely to vote other townies, therefore we can assume that Rigel's wagon only had power role or scum on it. As a result, we should have expected someone on that wagon to die the following night. Instead, we get another townie: Sarcastro. Right before he died, Sarcastro voted Dean and gave out his explanation.

I don't like sarcastro's random attempt to switch the heat off of rigel. You have a reason for trying to bandwaggon me Sarcastro?

Yes. I think you're scum.

Thats a great argument there sarcastro.

I'm assuming that if Dean were scum, the lack of explanation might have alerted him that Sarcastro might have been the cop. I also want to point out that Dean was on Rigel's lynch, therefore Dean isn't even a townie either. It's possible for scum to kill randomly or set-up the suspicion, but I'm not convinced of those possibilities.

vote Dean

[aioqwe]

I don't think there were no vanillas on Rigel's wagon. Sarcasto was on it I believe, and he turned out to be vanilla. Also, if only power roles and scum were ever on vanilla wagons, don't you think catching scum would be easier?

Still suspicious of dean.

[chaotic_diablo]

I don't think there were no vanillas on Rigel's wagon. Sarcasto was on it I believe, and he turned out to be vanilla. Also, if only power roles and scum were ever on vanilla wagons, don't you think catching scum would be easier?

Still suspicious of dean.

Sarcastro's vote was on Dean at the final vote count. In addition, he switched his vote after the claim.

[springlullaby]

Vote: chaotic_diablo

In c_d's position I don't think I would have bothered to take down my vote to review my case. He claimed townie, what was the risk?

I'm confused by half of aioqwe's posts. Is it me of what?