Mini #553: Over!

[Guardian]

I re-read massive.

If Sethaniel is town, then I think massive is the best target/lynch. I see the vig hunting that massive was doing, and that bothers me.

Just, I can't see a massive-Sethaniel scum group, and I find Qman's actions suspicious. Hmm...

[massive]

unvote, VOTE MATT_S

If you didn't quote your role PM and the mod didn't delete it, we only had CoolBot saying that that was what happened. Matt_S's removed post is 252. Matt_S claims to have quoted his role PM "too much" in 264. CoolBot saying what it was is 266.

[Matt_S]

Are you accusing me of faking mod text?

[BridgesAndBaloons]

Massive's showing that a mafia member came to your aid. I saw this also, but I didn't come to the same conclusions that Massive did. I don't like this sudden vote switch to MattS.

Why is Massive completely ignoring posts 622, 624, and 625 that all said basically (I might be mis-paraphrasing here) that they're fine lynching him today?

also: I'm just checking in to let you guys know I am busy, but I have about 15 minutes to check up on all my games. If you have a specific question that I can answer quickly and directly, I can probably do that. I'll check in every couple of days.
I hate being inactive, sorry.

[Talitha]

Vote Count

Guardian (2)

- BridgesAndBaloons, ting =)

massive (2)

- Matt_S, Sethaniel

Sethaniel (1)

- Guardian

Matt_S (1)

- massive

Not voting:

Empking, destructor

8 alive means... yep, still 5 votes to lynch.

[Guardian]

Massive's showing that a mafia member came to your aid. I saw this also, but I didn't come to the same conclusions that Massive did. I don't like this sudden vote switch to MattS.

Why is Massive completely ignoring posts 622, 624, and 625 that all said basically (I might be mis-paraphrasing here) that they're fine lynching him today?

qft. the matt vote really disturbs me. seems like omgus, and poorly reasoned.

massive, why do you think matt is scum, even if he isn't confirmed?

[BridgesAndBaloons]

EEWOP: I meant to include an

unvote

with that post. Right now (especially since I'm inactive) I'm having a hard time figuring out my suspicions in all my games.

However, Guardian:

IGMEOY

big time. You did not completely convince me that you're not scum, but I'm willing to give you a chance for now.

[ting =)]

Reading new posts now. Posting in a bit.

[ting =)]

Okay, I'm going to respond to a few stuff that caught my eye, and then make a case on guardian based on Imat's posts, then a case on guardian from his own posts. I don't have time now to post my thoughts on the others, but I still do think massive is scum.

-------

but there is a disturbing interaction with Coolbot day one. Ting =) makes an excellent read on Coolbot day one... but the read is almost too good. He is spot on that Coolbot is scum, and for the right reasons.

What really troubles me is that he unvotes and moves on when other options present themselves. It could be seen like he was planning to bus, but when no one bought into it, he dropped it and moved on.

Aside from that, though, he's been pretty spot on in his logic and reads, and seems like a townie. I am unsure about ting=), but I think that there are better targets than him, and while I am open to be convinced otherwise, right now I don't think he should be lynched.

I disagree on the bold bit. I attacked coolbot for nearly the whole day, even when bringing up my case on eljcko. I never dropped my attack, I even still mention him in my last post for day 1. If anything, my attack was defelected by massive, in the following posts:

@Coolbot. Do you have a name?

Oh, and ting, stop fishing. I'm not going to tell you what my role is.

Can anyone here confirm for certain that we have named-nonfellowship people? All we have, as far as I can tell, is Coolbot's word. Well, coolbot's half-word, he mentioned that he wouldn't confirm or deny either way.

I'd like to know because he never mentioned named-nonfellowship until massive asked if it was possible.

I find that question very interesting, ting, because here in my notes it says "ting: not Fellowship" ... guess I ought to look back and find what made me think that, but I bet I got some more questions now.

@Matt, Massive. I ask because I'm still suspicious of coolbot. I dropped him from my scumlist and had him as 'don't know' because his actions would make sense if he was named-nonfellowship. However, if named non-fellowship doesn't exist, then that would make coolbot scum to me. It's not role-fishing, I'm asking so I can decide what to make of coolbot.

Which should have told you that I, too, had a named-non-Fellowship role. I mean, I asked enough questions about it.

I brought this up at the start of day 2 to massive. He pretty much took the heat for eljcko and assured me that he was town and that coolbot had the same role.

Like I already said - this makes me think that either Massive is scum who was defending his godfather, or that coolbot very cleverly hid behind massive. I'm leaning towards the former.

----

Imat case coming.

[ting =)]

Okay, it would help if you kept my 57th post open in another tab, I'll be drawing from it. Important stuff in bold for people on the go.

Since we know for sure the identity of one scum, the most conclusive argument would be one that ties him to another person. I see a connection between Imat and Coolbot because Imat's defense of Coolbot was

unprompted, and not something you'd expect from a player unsure of another.

Unprompted - There was no need for Imat to defend coolbot AT ALL. Coolbot was nowhere close to being lynched, and his actions were far overshadowed by others. Yet, Imat defends him. In fact, there's only 2 people in the whole game who felt compelled to defend coolbot - Imat and Massive.

Now, you could argue that Imat was just being a good townie defending people who's case on them he didn't agree with, but then - why hasn't he been bothered to look at khel, he was under way more pressure than coolbot throughout the whole day? He only made 3 posts on eljcko for the whole day 1, compared to 8 posts concerning coolbot, who was definetely under less pressure than eljcko.

Imat has no explanation for defending coolbot.

His defense isn't the kind you'd expect between two townies either.

CoolBot, you'd better not be Scum, cuz I just poured through your posts looking for any sign of scumminess and didn't find any. If you are scum, that'll look really bad for me.

However, I've convinced myself that Coolbot isn't Scum, a dangerous position to have on any player, so I won't take action on him yet.

I'd expect that kind of thing from masons. Or maybe a cop and a townie he investigated. NOT from a townie who's mentioned being unsure about the other person's alignment.

Even when he later 'suspects' coolbot, he does no attacking at all. He mentions minor transgressions, but he always frames them lightly.

[ting =)]

Okay, Guardian.

What I don't like is the way he sweeps all of Imat's scuminess as just poor judgement.

When BAB pointed out that Guardian's defense of Imat is basically just saying Imat was a lousy player, Guardian replies:

I'd say that's far too basic, so no.

Some of his actions are explained in part as him being a bad player. His logic is bad, but none of the bad logic appears to have malice behind it. Bad players can sometimes be even more prone to showing they have malice; I don't think Imat had any tendencies in that direction.

Also, some of his actions just make sense, and I'm not sure why he was about to be put at lynch -1 for those actions.

This is a horrible defense. Bad logic, poor judgement, lousy play - none of them are an excuse for scummy behaviour. Everytime someone does something scummy, they might as well just go, ''Oops, I didn't think hard enough. It's not scummy though, my judgement's just taking an off day.'

You

can't

excuse him like that. Scummy play is scummy play. Whether it was prompted by a lack of logic or because he was scum and had malicious intent is something we decide. Unless you have a meta on Imat showing that he consistently plays badly like so, then his actions were just plain scummy. Not bad play.

-------

Guardian also keeps mentioning how Imat's play on coolbot was justified. I don't think so, but that's a matter of perspective. I still believe that his defense of coolbot was unprompted, and that his 'suspicions' of coolbot were half hearted affairs.

-----

Now, the two people Guardian has suspicions of:
Massive, and Qman.

He's made cases on both of them. I think the case on massive was stronger, but Guardian has put Qman as his top suspicion. I think guardian and massive are both scum, and it reads to me like guardian knew he couldn't ignore the attacks on massive, but also didn't want his partner lynched.

So, he struck a compromise by mentioning suspcions of massive, but ultimately pushing for someone elses lynch.

Obviously, this is just an assumption. It's all hypothetical, but that's how I read his suspcions on massive and qman.

[Guardian]

Okay, I'm going to respond to a few stuff that caught my eye, and then make a case on guardian based on Imat's posts, then a case on guardian from his own posts. I don't have time now to post my thoughts on the others, but I still do think massive is scum.

Wait... you still think Imat/Guardian is scum, or you still think massive is scum? Which?

but there is a disturbing interaction with Coolbot day one. Ting =) makes an excellent read on Coolbot day one... but the read is almost too good. He is spot on that Coolbot is scum, and for the right reasons.

What really troubles me is that he unvotes and moves on when other options present themselves. It could be seen like he was planning to bus, but when no one bought into it, he dropped it and moved on.

Aside from that, though, he's been pretty spot on in his logic and reads, and seems like a townie. I am unsure about ting=), but I think that there are better targets than him, and while I am open to be convinced otherwise, right now I don't think he should be lynched.

I disagree on the bold bit. I attacked coolbot for nearly the whole day, even when bringing up my case on eljcko. I never dropped my attack, I even still mention him in my last post for day 1. If anything, my attack was defelected by massive...

I brought this up at the start of day 2 to massive. He pretty much took the heat for eljcko and assured me that he was town and that coolbot had the same role.

Like I already said - this makes me think that either Massive is scum who was defending his godfather, or that coolbot very cleverly hid behind massive. I'm leaning towards the former.

Actions speak louder than words.

You made a solid case on CoolBot early day one, then unvoted a few posts later, and never voted him again, instead leading a wagon on ejlicko, townie. If you are scum, you distanced with him while making cases on a townie, Coolbot//ejlicko.

You're accusing me of doing the same thing with massive//Qman, and we don't even know the alignment of either.

We DO know the alignment of both the player you made a secondary case on yesterday, and the player you ended up voting.

How are you not setting a double standard by saying your actions are not scummy, but mine are? Especially since we know the alignments of the players your actions involved but don't know mine...?

[Empking]

The game is too confusing for me to give you my description of everyone in the game right this moment but I can tell you I'm really sure that Ting is a good guy and I think

Vote; Massive

isn't.

[Guardian]

Since we know for sure the identity of one scum, the most conclusive argument would be one that ties him to another person. I see a connection between Imat and Coolbot because Imat's defense of Coolbot was

unprompted, and not something you'd expect from a player unsure of another.

Uh... what??

His looking further into coolbot was directly prompted by your own 141... Imat noticed you were strongly attacking coolbot and decided to look into him...

Imat was... you know... commenting on what other people's cases... playing the game... scum hunting...

So saying that he was unprompted in looking at Coolbot is false.

Not something you'd expect? Why not? More on this next post.

Unprompted - There was no need for Imat to defend coolbot AT ALL. Coolbot was nowhere close to being lynched, and his actions were far overshadowed by others. Yet, Imat defends him. In fact, there's only 2 people in the whole game who felt compelled to defend coolbot - Imat and Massive.

So those two are his buddies huh, the two that defended him? Very doubtful. Oh, were mafia that simple.

Now, you could argue that Imat was just being a good townie defending people who's case on them he didn't agree with, but then - why hasn't he been bothered to look at khel, he was under way more pressure than coolbot throughout the whole day?

Limited time and resources?

He only made 3 posts on eljcko for the whole day 1, compared to 8 posts concerning coolbot, who was definetely under less pressure than eljcko.

Also note how Coolbot was under more pressure when Imat entered the game, and Imat was more active when he entered the game?

He was getting less and less involved and eventually replaced out at the time ejlicko was getting attacked. He made roughly the same [proportion of posts about ejlico/total posts by him in the time period] as he did [proportion of posts about Coolbot/total posts by him in the time period]. Why did you ignore this?

Imat has no explanation for defending coolbot.

His defense isn't the kind you'd expect between two townies either.

CoolBot, you'd better not be Scum, cuz I just poured through your posts looking for any sign of scumminess and didn't find any. If you are scum, that'll look really bad for me.

However, I've convinced myself that Coolbot isn't Scum, a dangerous position to have on any player, so I won't take action on him yet.

I'd expect that kind of thing from masons. Or maybe a cop and a townie he investigated. NOT from a townie who's mentioned being unsure about the other person's alignment.

Again... why not?

Even when he later 'suspects' coolbot, he does no attacking at all. He mentions minor transgressions, but he always frames them lightly.

Yeah, that makes sense considering he "convinced himself that Coolbot isn't scum"...

You expect him to attack Coolbot with an all out assault after that, or what?

ting=)... It is good to hear from you, but a lot of your assumptions here are way off.

[Guardian]

Okay, Guardian.

What I don't like is the way he sweeps all of Imat's scuminess as just poor judgement.

STRAWman to the rescue?

When BAB pointed out that Guardian's defense of Imat is basically just saying Imat was a lousy player, Guardian replies:

I'd say that's far too basic, so no.

Some of his actions are explained in part as him being a bad player. His logic is bad, but none of the bad logic appears to have malice behind it. Bad players can sometimes be even more prone to showing they have malice; I don't think Imat had any tendencies in that direction.

Also, some of his actions just make sense, and I'm not sure why he was about to be put at lynch -1 for those actions.

So you say I attribute everything to poor judgment... and then quote a 3 paragraph post where I explain in detail how I am not just attributing everything to poor judgment...

Super STRAWman! Leaps tall arguments in a single bound!

This is a horrible defense. Bad logic, poor judgement, lousy play - none of them are an excuse for scummy behaviour.

In part, they do. Moreover, I go on to explain how judgment isn't important in figuring out who mafia are, it is MALICE. You completely ignore this.

Everytime someone does something scummy, they might as well just go, ''Oops, I didn't think hard enough. It's not scummy though, my judgement's just taking an off day.'

Again, no. A lot more of Imat's contributions made sense than you give credit for.

I assert that those contributions of Imat that may not be as logical don't have any malice, and no one has argued to the contrary.

You

can't

excuse him like that. Scummy play is scummy play.

First: I just did.
Second, you aren't understanding my argument (or are intentionally straw manning) in making this post, so don't tell me I can't do something you don't understand.

Whether it was prompted by a lack of logic or because he was scum and had malicious intent is something we decide.

Okay, now you understand. See how there is a distinction?

Unless you have a meta on Imat showing that he consistently plays badly like so, then his actions were just plain scummy. Not bad play.

I don't meta. Instances like this are why. Meta provides an unreasonable burden of proof.

Unless you have a meta on Imat showing that he plays logically and makes good cases, his actions were just plain bad play. Not scummy.

See what I did there?

I think in analyzing his actions in THIS game indicates that his play was just bad play, not scummy. If you want to argue to the contrary, or meta to the contrary, be my guest.

Guardian also keeps mentioning how Imat's play on coolbot was justified. I don't think so, but that's a matter of perspective. I still believe that his defense of coolbot was unprompted, and that his 'suspicions' of coolbot were half hearted affairs.

I think his defense was totally justified. Re-read Coolbot's posts 0-8 in isolation, the posts Imat read before forming his analysis/defense of Coolbot. Coolbot does not look scummy in reading those posts in isolation. Ergo, saying you found him town-like makes sense.

Now, the two people Guardian has suspicions of:
Massive, and Qman.

He's made cases on both of them. I think the case on massive was stronger, but Guardian has put Qman as his top suspicion. I think guardian and massive are both scum, and it reads to me like guardian knew he couldn't ignore the attacks on massive, but also didn't want his partner lynched.

So, he struck a compromise by mentioning suspcions of massive, but ultimately pushing for someone elses lynch.

Obviously, this is just an assumption. It's all hypothetical, but that's how I read his suspcions on massive and qman.

I disagree. I think my case on Sethaniel is stronger. I am beginning to lean that the arguments in general on massive, and the subsequent actions by massive, are suspicious, but my case on Qman is better than mine on massive.

Who is more scummy, me/Imat, or massive? Why?

The game is too confusing for me to give you my description of everyone in the game right this moment but I can tell you I'm really sure that Ting is a good guy and I think Vote; Massive isn't.

What do you think of Sethaniel? Why are you so sure Ting=) is a good guy?

[Guardian]

EEWOP: I meant to include an

unvote

with that post. Right now (especially since I'm inactive) I'm having a hard time figuring out my suspicions in all my games.

However, Guardian:

IGMEOY

big time. You did not completely convince me that you're not scum, but I'm willing to give you a chance for now.

Fair enough.

Love to hear more from you about me/Imat, or about your thoughts on massive & Sethaniel.

[massive]

Empking

: Thank you for taking the time to replace. I wish you were doing an ACTUAL job of replacing rather than just voting the bandwagon. Unfortunately, you're replacing Khelvaster, the one person I most confident about being town.

Matt_S

: You've continuously done scummy things the entire game and the ONLY thing that has saved you from being lynched has been the fact that we all believed that the mod deleted your role PM quote. You are now saying that is not the case despite saying "Oops I guess I quoted too much of my role PM" immediately after it happened. I don't think you faked it, I'd like to think you would be modkilled for faking mod text -- although who knows with the way our original mod was willing to go to great lengths to prevent your lynch. So why don't you go ahead and tell us what exactly happened in that post that required the mod to edit your post?

BAB

: A post saying "I could lynch massive" and a vote for me are two different things. I'm certainly fine with going about the business of presenting my own cases and worrying about the unvoters when the time comes.

Guardian:

I'm more than happy to go back through the entire thread and present, in total, all the scummy things that Matt_S has done, but I am going to post this rejoinder first.

ting:

I "deflected" your attacks because the attacks weren't taking into consideration that there was the possibility of named-non-Fellowship town members, of which I was one. In the face of nameclaim discussion and continued discussion about the Fellowship, which do you think is more likely -- that I would purposefully associate myself with CoolBot and put us both in a category outside of the discussion; or that I would associate CoolBot's "hinted role" with my own role, and take actions to bring the possiblity of named-non-Fellowship to the forefront?

He pretty much took the heat for eljcko and assured me that he was town and that coolbot had the same role.

I think this is probably a mis-statement on your part. At best you can say I had the same "role classification." Saying I had the same role as CoolBot is saying I'm scum.

I'm disappointed by anyone who is using [386] as "evidence" of my fishing for a vig claim. I had already stated TWICE by that point that I am confident Qman is Mafia -- do you think I might be being a LITTLE sarcastic in that ONE SENTENCE?

[Empking]

Ting in my reading through was the strongest person in saying that Coolbot was guilty with a good case against him and since the serial killer is dead and I don't see why the mafia would try and get him lynched I think he's innocent.


I'll be reading Sethaniel's posts again now.

[Empking]

Sethaniel, I feel that the "don't talk about the LOTR theme" is a null tell, I feel its more of a I don't want to be bored or I want to be able to contribute after all if he was scum their's a lot of safe claims he could make.

I feel that the that's an interesting kill is also null because most people (i think) thought the game was mafia and town without a serial killer, let alone a vig or similar role that would kill on the first night.

As the game is really confusing I think he's slightly more scum than town but I wouldn't vote for him.

[Matt_S]

You've continuously done scummy things the entire game and the ONLY thing that has saved you from being lynched has been the fact that we all believed that the mod deleted your role PM quote. You are now saying that is not the case despite saying "Oops I guess I quoted too much of my role PM" immediately after it happened. I don't think you faked it, I'd like to think you would be modkilled for faking mod text -- although who knows with the way our original mod was willing to go to great lengths to prevent your lynch. So why don't you go ahead and tell us what exactly happened in that post that required the mod to edit your post?

I never said it wasn't deleted. I said it doesn't confirm me. And it wasn't a quote of my pm. If I had to guess, I'd say it was deleted for making references to the theme when the theme was supposed to be gone. However, I must say that you're trying pretty hard to discredit me instead of the case against you.

[Sethaniel]

our original mod was willing to go to great lengths to prevent your lynch

you're trying pretty hard to discredit me instead of the case against you.

QFT on the second quote.

and, that's pretty much why I feel voting massive is the right decision. Now he's arguing that the mod is taking sides?

[massive]

The mod DID take sides. He confirmed the existence of unnamed townies (which Matt_S was alluding to being at the time, without directly saying it) after the theme pull, and then simply deleted Matt_S's post for reasons that no one knows (and Matt_S isn't divulging) rather than modkill him. I called shaka! out for it on both occasions.

Matt_S

: We've had many posts referencing the theme that have not been deleted. What could you have said, specifically, about the theme that would have been so egregious as to result in your post being deleted? In fact, the post is smack in the middle of a discussion ABOUT the theme, and about you calling yourself an "unnamed townie in the Fellowship" in specific.

As for discrediting the case against me, let's see: Matt_S is voting for me because I didn't talk to CoolBot on day one and I random-voted for CoolBot on day one [610]. Sethaniel is voting for me because, as far as I can tell, he's twisting around 20/20 hindsight about unnamed townies, despite the fact that unnamed townies would make no sense in a specifically-themed game as this was [614]. Empking is voting for me because he's lazy and I'm the bandwagon [637]. So please tell me what on that you would like to see me defend against? There also appears to be "vig-fishing" which is, as far as I can tell, one sentence, and should have been easy to read sarcastically.

I can defend against Sethaniel's vote, maybe. Sethaniel says that it would be easy to read Matt_S's initial comments as being that of an unnamed townie. On day one there was no reason to believe we had unnamed townies. Even Matt_S didn't expect us to believe it, saying numerous times that "maybe the mod was screwing with him." The only evidence we have that there were even unnamed townies in the game is because eljcko turned up as one.

[massive]

Oh, and Matt_S, if you want to play the whole "Mafia random vote for Mafia" game, howsabout voting for Spindax, whom CoolBot random voted for on Day One, and who became Qman, who became Sethaniel?

[BridgesAndBaloons]

Maybe its because I'm a little preoccupied lately, but I'm not following the logic of the attack against Massive. I forgot why (and If) I thought he was scummy before.

The only things that caught me eye real quick:


@Massive:

I'm certainly fine with going about the business of presenting my own cases and worrying about the unvoters when the time comes.

Right now you're at L-2. I've half a mind to vote you just to see you defend yourself. The votes on you are serious, and at this point you seem the most likely to be lynched. (yes I still meant what I said earlier in this post. I am

not

contradicting myself here. If you think I am you are misreading this).

also @Massive:

the ONLY thing that has saved you [Matt_S] from being lynched has been the fact that we all believed that the mod deleted your role PM quote

uh... not true at all. I completely discounted that whole incidence. It's the whole "claiming un-named townsperson and having the Godfather come to your rescue" thing. Do you understand what I'm saying here? Did you read my initial game analysis posts?

I'm asking these questions because you seem to grossly misunderstand* why the town is unwilling to lynch Matt_S.




*or I might be the one with the misunderstanding

[BridgesAndBaloons]

EEBWOP: this is what I get for skimming. You

are

kind of defending yourself. Disregard my first comment towards you.