Mini 706 - Prozacmod 2 -Door Mafia - Over

[farside22]

I think spreyx case is weak at best. I feel like sirdanilot and Korlash feels like a town arguement based on one comment. I think both have a point about what scum does and doesn't do but I don't see a reason why asking question about votes is scummy.

[armlx]

I am not accusing Korlash of not thinking that I am scum. I simply asked if he wouldn't have voted me already if he did. How is that me accusing him of anything? Look at the context. He inferred that he did something because he thought I was scum, I replied by asking 'wouldn't you have voted me already if you thought I were'? How is this a strawman of any sort?

Because you didn't say that straight up, and instead tried to redirect the argument from the initial issue towards semantic discussion.

Vote sirdanilot

[SpyreX]

What do you mean, 'what'? Read the little discussion I had about this with Korlash.

How does Korlash's statement = you have to post first or hot pokers or whatever else voodoo you thought was going to happen.

What in the name of everything do you think would be the awesome "tactical advantage" gained?

Why is that last statement "Why would a towny need such an advantage" so grimy and sticky?

Or... What?

So basically you mean that you are just going to copy paste Korlash' case here?

Yep. <3

No rationale? What? What else could I have done to try and create some discussion? Tell me. And if you say 'you can do nothing to create discussion page 1, post 1' then you can't be serious that you are thinking that trying is a scum tell.

Many, many things can be done to create conversation. There has to be a "hook" if you will however - if you gave any reason for the vote then something could have happened from it (even if you didn't believe it). Voting someone for no reason and then when he gives the proper silly response of ignoring it and then going "I BLAME HIM FOR THIS" isn't awesome.

Notice to all the viewers at home: This is how one sparks discussion.

What 'what'? I said exactly what I thought. He stopped the discussion, and since there was nothing else to go on, I found him scum. And I still do right now. Remember, this is the first few pages of the game and there simply isn't anything else to build a case about. At least I got/tried to get the game into a kick start.

See you've said he's scum for not playing your reindeer games. Not even "he's scummy" or "This is bad for the town because of X" or anything. You even appealed to the audience to help you pressure him for it.

And you still find him scum? Swish.

Wait, seriously. Could you summarize your case on me? Wait, I'll do it for you.

1. What? OMG SIRDAN OBVSCUM
2. <3
3. What? You tried to create discussion and you failed because it was page 1 post 1? OMG SIRDAN OBVSCUM

Thats a bad summary. You got one part right though.

1.) Alas I have been devoured by Korlash's tactical maneuvers in our battle of wits. Who, but a scum, would stoop to such amazing tactical prowess to defeat but a mere towny. How dare ye let such a scoundrel that utilizes said advantages live. P.S. Pudding.
2.) <3. You got that one right.
3.) What? You tried to create discussion in a method that could not, in fact, create discussion and then blamed the other party for not creating said discussion and wrung your hands like the poor belabored towny you are appearing to be.

I think spreyx case is weak at best. I feel like sirdanilot and Korlash feels like a town arguement based on one comment. I think both have a point about what scum does and doesn't do but I don't see a reason why asking question about votes is scummy.

Of COURSE it was weak. Its not a case. I wanted to see the dancing that would ensue and now that I have... I just cant bring my fingers to caress the necessary keys to make the vote go away.

[Korlash]

I am not accusing Korlash of not thinking that I am scum. I simply asked if he wouldn't have voted me already if he did. How is that me accusing him of anything? Look at the context. He inferred that he did something because he thought I was scum, I replied by asking 'wouldn't you have voted me already if you thought I were'? How is this a strawman of any sort?

To answer your question I don't know. I might or might not be voting someone if I think they were scum. All depends on the situation, case, and what I expect to gain from my vote.

On a more this game right now note, I never inferred I did anything for any reason. Simply explaining why I would hypothetically want an advantage on you. I then went on to explain I did not intend for any sort of advantage. You knw these little mistakes like this don't mean a lot on their own but they do start to add up... I'm begining to feel you're intentionally trying to twist my words...

3. It was just a small thing, that you basically forced me to post my summary earlier. It was still worth noting though.

I didn't force you to do anything. In fact you could have just mimicked what I did and then any heat the town raised for us avoiding the sumeries would fall on me for posting first.

Hell even better, you could have told me to go first. For any reason you could think of. "korlash posted before me I think he should sumerize it first" or anything of the like.

I think spreyx case is weak at best. I feel like sirdanilot and Korlash feels like a town arguement based on one comment. I think both have a point about what scum does and doesn't do but I don't see a reason why asking question about votes is scummy.

What? Someone has a weak case on page 4?!?!? NO WAI! That's impossible!

Also it's not asking questions about votes persay... You could say "asking questions about reasonless votes." I mean what the hell is Jebus suppose to say, "Uh... I don't feel good about that vote..." ? Seriously... Besides my whole "case" (If you want to call it that) about Sir is that he has an un-townlike survivalist nature this early in the game.

1.) Alas I have been devoured by Korlash's tactical maneuvers in our battle of wits. Who, but a scum, would stoop to such amazing tactical prowess to defeat but a mere towny. How dare ye let such a scoundrel that utilizes said advantages live. P.S. Pudding.

I hear this one a lot... >.>

[farside22]

What? Someone has a weak case on page 4?!?!? NO WAI! That's impossible!

I thought he was trying to make a case on someone. I stated a fact. Same on me for being serious.

[SpyreX]

I dig what you were saying and I have no problems with it. Its just not a case.

[sirdanilot]

Hmm, a discussion with 3 people. I'm just going to address all of you individually for now, but I may not be able to post that much later on so maybe expect more things like summaries or so in the future.

I am not accusing Korlash of not thinking that I am scum. I simply asked if he wouldn't have voted me already if he did. How is that me accusing him of anything? Look at the context. He inferred that he did something because he thought I was scum, I replied by asking 'wouldn't you have voted me already if you thought I were'? How is this a strawman of any sort?

(1)Because you didn't say that straight up, (2)and instead tried to redirect the argument from the initial issue towards semantic discussion.

Vote sirdanilot

First, let me quote the issue at hand.

Am I scum? If you thought I were wouldn't you have voted me already.? And if you do not need an advantage, why would you take it. Isn't scum hunting the most important?

And yes, paranoia is good in mafia.

1. So, as you see, I never ever said directly that I was accusing Korlash of not suspecting me. All I said is 'if you thought I were wouldn't you have voted me already'. Explain to me exactly how that translates in your mind to saying 'why are you not suspecting me, that's suspicious!'.

Armlx, you point is completely incorrect here, you should pay more attention to what I am saying since I said exactly what I meant to say. I really don't like this.
2. Uh what. How am I steering towards a semantic discussion here? You know what, let's bring in some more context.

To answer your question a townie should take every advantage offered to him/her to best out the scum. If you were scum for instance, answering first may help me out a lie. That aside I need no advantage and neither do I ever plan for one. You can take that last post of mine however you want. Paranoia is good for the soul.

I really don't see why you are thinking I am steering towards a semantics discussion at this point, so instead of guessing let me invite you to back this up, explain clearly why you think I am steering towards that, using the context.

(1)How does Korlash's statement = you have to post first or hot pokers or whatever else voodoo you thought was going to happen.

(2)What in the name of everything do you think would be the awesome "tactical advantage" gained?

(3)Why is that last statement "Why would a towny need such an advantage" so grimy and sticky?

Or... What?

1. It isn't his statement, it's the fact that he didn't post the summary right after armlx asked us to, and instead he posted something else (a joke). The fact that he did post makes me believe that he did have the time to, but somehow chose to wait until I posted it. If he didn't have time he wouldn't have posted at all.
2. Oh no, there's no 'big' advantage. But it could give hypothetical Korlash-scum the room to set up a fake case on me, can you see that possibility? He could call me out on things in my summary, that would've been harder if he posted first. And as for Korlash-town, well he didn't really build a case on me after my summary, but at the time he could've so I just found it a bit weird that he would let me post it first, that's all.
3. I have no idea. Why would a towny need such an advantage? I don't think a towny would need it, actually! Hence what I said.

So basically you mean that you are just going to copy paste Korlash' case here?

Yep. <3

Then this point is irrelevant, since you refuse to actually post something I can defend myself against.

Many, many things can be done to create conversation. There has to be a "hook" if you will however - if you gave any reason for the vote then something could have happened from it (even if you didn't believe it). Voting someone for no reason and then when he gives the proper silly response of ignoring it and then going "I BLAME HIM FOR THIS" isn't awesome.

Notice to all the viewers at home: This is how one sparks discussion.

So, what kind of reason. You mean, something like 'you're the last to confirm' or 'I don't like your avatar' or other joke reasons like that? Guess what, I don't believe in them. They never ever generate real discussion, they just amount into people discussing about the avatar in question or something like that. That's not what I meant with discussion

Could you provide us some 'hooks' that I could've thought of in page 1, post 1?

See you've said he's scum for not playing your reindeer games. Not even "he's scummy" or "This is bad for the town because of X" or anything. You even appealed to the audience to help you pressure him for it.

And you still find him scum? Swish.

What is the difference between 'he's scummy' and 'I find him scum'? Also, anti-town =/= scum always.

The reason I appealed to the audience was to get some discussion spreading to the rest.

Wait, seriously. Could you summarize your case on me? Wait, I'll do it for you.

1. What? OMG SIRDAN OBVSCUM
2. <3
3. What? You tried to create discussion and you failed because it was page 1 post 1? OMG SIRDAN OBVSCUM

Thats a bad summary. You got one part right though.

1.) Alas I have been devoured by Korlash's tactical maneuvers in our battle of wits. Who, but a scum, would stoop to such amazing tactical prowess to defeat but a mere towny. How dare ye let such a scoundrel that utilizes said advantages live. P.S. Pudding.

Stop exaggerating, that doesn't help at all, it's a scummy tactic since that's no scum hunting.

2.) <3. You got that one right.

Unless you present to me a defendable case I am going to find this point irrelevant and delete it from my posts in the future to avoid cluttering them with nonsense.

3.) What? You tried to create discussion in a method that could not, in fact, create discussion and then blamed the other party for not creating said discussion and wrung your hands like the poor belabored towny you are appearing to be.

So I was supposed to not take any effort to create discussion at all? Are you promoting the same, senseless play style that almost everyone uses these days, that is, 'vote x I hate your avatar lol' 'lol how can you hate my avatar it contains *insert anime character*' 'lol *anime character* sucks *insert another anime character* is way better lol' 'lol no way' etcetera etcetera?

Of COURSE it was weak. Its not a case. I wanted to see the dancing that would ensue and now that I have... I just cant bring my fingers to caress the necessary keys to make the vote go away.

So, is this your way of saying 'hmm he defended himself against the arguments well but I have gut suspicion'?

And I was about to discuss with Korlash as well but I am running out of time now, so expect a reply to him later on.

[Phate]

I was going to post yesterday, but bluehost ate it. I'm not going to have much access until Monday. The essence of my post was as follows:

The argument between sirdan and Korlash was ~a waste of my time to read. It strikes me as two townies going at it - I wouldn't vote for either of them at the moment. Korlash's play is typical of the other game I've played with him (in which he was town). What interests me more are the people taking sides. I'd be alright with an armlx or SpyreX lynch.

[ZazieR]

I'll have to look at the discussion between SpyreX, SirD and Korlash before I'll give my thoughts. But those posts are huge.

[SpyreX]

Ohh this is gonna be a fun fun game.

1. It isn't his statement, it's the fact that he didn't post the summary right after armlx asked us to, and instead he posted something else (a joke). The fact that he did post makes me believe that he did have the time to, but somehow chose to wait until I posted it. If he didn't have time he wouldn't have posted at all.

The logical leap of: he didn't post it right away therefore he would never post it is flabbergasting.

Not to mention if this was a real concern and there was some tactical advantage you could have asked him to, in fact, post it first.

2. Oh no, there's no 'big' advantage. But it could give hypothetical Korlash-scum the room to set up a fake case on me, can you see that possibility? He could call me out on things in my summary, that would've been harder if he posted first. And as for Korlash-town, well he didn't really build a case on me after my summary, but at the time he could've so I just found it a bit weird that he would let me post it first, that's all.

If its not a big advantage why worry about it at all? Again, there is a lot of hypothetical and hedge-worlds (could) for a scenario that never happened.

3. I have no idea. Why would a towny need such an advantage? I don't think a towny would need it, actually! Hence what I said.

That statement "Why would a towny need such an advantage" is a back-talk "you are scummy for this". That is why its really, really grimy.

Then this point is irrelevant, since you refuse to actually post something I can defend myself against.

Korlash's first statement that I quoted is anything but irrelevant to this debacle. There is no need to repeat it, just bring it to the front again. Hence, <3.

So, what kind of reason. You mean, something like 'you're the last to confirm' or 'I don't like your avatar' or other joke reasons like that? Guess what, I don't believe in them. They never ever generate real discussion, they just amount into people discussing about the avatar in question or something like that. That's not what I meant with discussion

Could you provide us some 'hooks' that I could've thought of in page 1, post 1?

Of course there is no solid evidence post 1. However, by putting any reason whatsoever you have a much better chance to spark discussion. A random vote with the addendum "What do you think of that?" is not going to do anything ever. What did you think it would do?

As for hooks: you could have said it was a policy lynch, you could have bandwagoned, you could have said it matched another players confirmation time because they were talking in scumchat, etc. Anything is better than nothing.

What is the difference between 'he's scummy' and 'I find him scum'? Also, anti-town =/= scum always.

The reason I appealed to the audience was to get some discussion spreading to the rest.

Sorry, he's scummy for X or this is anti-town for Y. X and Y imply reasons that can be

discussed

. Jumping straight to he's scum doesn't do anyone any good. Appealing to the other players under the guise of wanting discussion when there is no avenues for discussion is not, again, going to get discussion going.

Stop exaggerating, that doesn't help at all, it's a scummy tactic since that's no scum hunting.

Look at your own summary of me. Look at what you've said about your initial "discussion". Look at your talk with Korlash.

Maybe you need to read this and make it your own mantra. However, the cognitive dissonance is noted.

So I was supposed to not take any effort to create discussion at all? Are you promoting the same, senseless play style that almost everyone uses these days, that is, 'vote x I hate your avatar lol' 'lol how can you hate my avatar it contains *insert anime character*' 'lol *anime character* sucks *insert another anime character* is way better lol' 'lol no way' etcetera etcetera?

Wow. YES THAT IS WHAT I WAS ALLUDING TO.

Wait, no its not. You setup a scenario where, ultimately, no discussion could be generated and then blamed the other party for not generating discussion. This would be bad enough but then you said he was scum for it. When others asked what the hell was going on you also backhandedly called them scum for it.

So, is this your way of saying 'hmm he defended himself against the arguments well but I have gut suspicion'?

And I was about to discuss with Korlash as well but I am running out of time now, so expect a reply to him later on.

What?

More of a: "The initial post wasn't a case. It was designed to see how he responded to it. Now that he has in fact responded I am far more comfortable with my vote."

Because I am.

[Porochaz]

JDodge will be replacing Tisp

[SpyreX]

I was going to post yesterday, but bluehost ate it. I'm not going to have much access until Monday. The essence of my post was as follows:

The argument between sirdan and Korlash was ~a waste of my time to read. It strikes me as two townies going at it - I wouldn't vote for either of them at the moment. Korlash's play is typical of the other game I've played with him (in which he was town). What interests me more are the people taking sides. I'd be alright with an armlx or SpyreX lynch.

A few questions:

1.) Why is sirdan town?
2.) Why is Korlash town?
3.) Why am I scum (or at least scummy)?
4.) Why is arm scum (or at least scummy)?
5.) Why do arm and I end up holding hands in every game we play?
6.) Why is taking sides (immediately not assuming both parties are town) inherently scummy?
7.) Why ask why?

[strife220]

I am not accusing Korlash of not thinking that I am scum. I simply asked if he wouldn't have voted me already if he did. How is that me accusing him of anything? Look at the context. He inferred that he did something because he thought I was scum, I replied by asking 'wouldn't you have voted me already if you thought I were'? How is this a strawman of any sort?

Let me re-phrase. What do you think Korlash's intention is if he's accusing you of being scum but not voting for you?

[armlx]

1. So, as you see, I never ever said directly that I was accusing Korlash of not suspecting me. All I said is 'if you thought I were wouldn't you have voted me already'. Explain to me exactly how that translates in your mind to saying 'why are you not suspecting me, that's suspicious!'.

That's exactly what you said.

I really don't see why you are thinking I am steering towards a semantics discussion at this point, so instead of guessing let me invite you to back this up, explain clearly why you think I am steering towards that, using the context.

You keep derailing Korlash's issues with tangential theoretical conversation. He responds adequately to your question, and you straw man it with his lack of vote.

[JDodge]

Notes:

Page 2. Nobody playing seriously. Someone, please just kill me now.

This game needs a little something something.

Vote: Strife220

If you all chip in, we can make a beautiful thing happen.

Why Strife? I have 2 votes and so does Korlash. Any reason you feel one person should have a BW over the others?

What the fuck?

I'm honoured Korlash May I sig it?

Also, I must admit. Your point against Korlash is interesting. Perhaps I need to look at this Korlash-guy. But you have to tell me, how did you find out that he had some information about your role?

And I agree. There's no such thing as coincidence . Once scum, always scum. Flameaxe, what do you have to say to defend yourself?

(Korlash, I like you . I see mafia games still as a way to have fun and I like to make jokes through the whole game. But some players don't agree with me about that. Luckily, I have you in this game .)

EMOTICON ABUSE IS FUN FOR ALL

I am deadly serious here.

Vote strife for victory.

Thanks for playing. You win some lovely parting gifts, including a lifetime supply of rice-a-roni.

Korlash + Sir exchange - best exchange of the entire game thus far. Useless in the long run, but still.

This whole page sounds like a giant TL;DR to me. Can Korlash and Sirdanilot take their arguments back to level 1 and explain what their BASE issue with each other is?

Aren't you the one who argues for verbosity and all that crap in games? Isn't that weird...

You also don't seem to be "interacting" to your own standard. That also seems odd.

Uhm, if you call these simple rip-a-post-apart-into-quotes (RAPAIQ) posts tl;dr, then you're going to have a hard time this game because that's the way I post. And believe me, I have seen people posting even longer posts than mine. Way, way, way longer, in fact.

Lol. I can read them, I just realize that when people do a bunch of those in sucession it tends to stray the argument from logical processes and you both end up arguing strawmans of strawmans.

Again? How odd.

I'm on page 5 now, and allow me to again say "help me dear god help me".

K.

Armlx seems to be posting far more one-liners than I remember. Remind me to look back into this later.

I'm completely stupefied by farside's "oh, I had two votes and so did Korlash, so why did you vote Strife" comment.

Nobody is looking at Darox with the scrutiny they should. What bugs me the most is that Darox is playing typically of the sort of player that armlx tries to force his views upon, but armlx has been largely ignoring this.

Hence, for now, I am going to

vote: armlx

based solely on the ignoring of Darox. My own personal opinion is that the most likely trio is Armlx-Darox-SpyreX.

[armlx]

Aren't you the one who argues for verbosity and all that crap in games? Isn't that weird...

Uhh....I don't argue for verbosity. Only participation.

Armlx seems to be posting far more one-liners than I remember. Remind me to look back into this later.

I suggest you read most of my games recently.

Nobody is looking at Darox with the scrutiny they should. What bugs me the most is that Darox is playing typically of the sort of player that armlx tries to force his views upon, but armlx has been largely ignoring this.

Darox does this every game. Says player A should be wagoned (usually someone like MafiaSSK), waits to see who does, and goes from there. After the first couple times it gets old. See B5 Mafia.

[Darox]

Yeah I do that in every game with Armlx.

It's like how every replacement always finds me suspicious in some way.

[SpyreX]

Arm, are we always scumbuddies? Is that how it is. Are you my secret santa?

[sirdanilot]

I am not accusing Korlash of not thinking that I am scum. I simply asked if he wouldn't have voted me already if he did. How is that me accusing him of anything? Look at the context. He inferred that he did something because he thought I was scum, I replied by asking 'wouldn't you have voted me already if you thought I were'? How is this a strawman of any sort?

Let me re-phrase. What do you think Korlash's intention is if he's accusing you of being scum but not voting for you?

Hmm... now I am getting a bit confused, let's get the context.

To answer your question a townie should take every advantage offered to him/her to best out the scum. If you were scum for instance, answering first may help me out a lie. That aside I need no advantage and neither do I ever plan for one. You can take that last post of mine however you want. Paranoia is good for the soul.

So basically he said why it would be good to gain advantage if I were scum. However, I hadn't seen serious signs of him suspecting me yet, hence I asked 'am I scum'? Because if he wasn't suspecting me, what was the point of taking the advantage. So, to answer your question, Korlash wasn't really accusing me, but he explained something he did by saying 'it would be good if you were scum because X' which is why I was wondering why he wasn't voting me.

Am I making myself clear now, because I completely understand all this myself but I am having a bit of trouble to explain it.

1. So, as you see, I never ever said directly that I was accusing Korlash of not suspecting me. All I said is 'if you thought I were wouldn't you have voted me already'. Explain to me exactly how that translates in your mind to saying 'why are you not suspecting me, that's suspicious!'.

That's exactly what you said.

What? So basically, you are conceding the point? If not, explain yourself more clearly please.

I really don't see why you are thinking I am steering towards a semantics discussion at this point, so instead of guessing let me invite you to back this up, explain clearly why you think I am steering towards that, using the context.

You keep derailing Korlash's issues with tangential theoretical conversation. He responds adequately to your question, and you straw man it with his lack of vote.

Well, refer to my explanation to strife because that's what I meant with my message. I don't see how that is 'semantics', although maybe a bit theoretical it never strayed away from the game and the issue at hand.

Armlx, I find the reasoning you used to vote me very weak, half of it was plainly untrue and the other half can be discussed, but is also untrue in my eyes. I am not really liking this, to be honest.

Korlash, SpyreX, if there are any issues that you absolutely need a reply to, go ahead and quote them and I'll reply to them, but in neither of your two last post I found something important enough to reply to right now, given that I don't really have that much spare time right now.

[armlx]

What? So basically, you are conceding the point? If not, explain yourself more clearly please.

No, I'm saying you are trying to misrepresent yourself as not scummy after the fact.

Well, refer to my explanation to strife because that's what I meant with my message. I don't see how that is 'semantics', although maybe a bit theoretical it never strayed away from the game and the issue at hand.

What was the issue at hand nad how does that directly apply to it?

[Korlash]

The argument between sirdan and Korlash was ~a waste of my time to read. It strikes me as two townies going at it - I wouldn't vote for either of them at the moment. Korlash's play is typical of the other game I've played with him (in which he was town). What interests me more are the people taking sides. I'd be alright with an armlx or SpyreX lynch.

You're alright with a lynch on page 5?

Ohh this is gonna be a fun fun game.

Well yeah... I'm in it! ^^

I do have to agree with some of your post 111.

@ Everyone who called this a Town v. Town argument:

Why? What makes it a town v. town argument? Or will you all be honest with yourself and just admit you don't care you just want an excuse to not read it. Not every two person verbal exchange that is a pain to read is town on town action.

[Porochaz]

Jebus has been prodded.

[armlx]

Why? What makes it a town v. town argument? Or will you all be honest with yourself and just admit you don't care you just want an excuse to not read it. Not every two person verbal exchange that is a pain to read is town on town action.

This. I used to say that a lot. It only propagates as probability-wise 2 random people from a game are likely to be town, so the presumption is just a result of probability clouding over potentially scummy behavior.

[Korlash]

By that logic each singluar person is "probably" town. So taking anyone alone leads us to assume they are town. Thus no lynch is ever possible...

[armlx]

By that logic each singluar person is "probably" town. So taking anyone alone leads us to assume they are town. Thus no lynch is ever possible...

Right, which is why calling a long debate as such town v town by the nature of it being a long debate is dumb. Null vs Null would be more appropriate most times I believe.