Mini 739 ~ Mafia Jailbreak, Game Over

[Rhinox]

ok, Korts 57 had some questions for me.. I answered them in 60. Thats the last korts and I have directly conversed.

Other players (IAUN, for example) I haven't mentioned once (until now).

What makes you think I'm ignoring Korts, and what makes you think that is any more notable than the other players I haven't been talking about yet?

[Huntress]

You sort of avoided the question... obviously, there would be discussion to follow if I came to a conclusion that you were scum for not random voting. I'll rephrase my question: Would discussion about you being scum for not random voting be helpful to the town, assuming you're town? Would you be able to draw any conclusion about your attacker, assuming he felt that not random voting was a scumtell?

Yes it would be helpful as it would tell us something about the person doing the attacking, and the reactions of those who joined in, or who didn't join in, could also be useful. Although I might have to do a meta read as well before drawing any conclusions.

So... suppose I laid out a good case to lynch Player Y and voted. Player X comes along immediately after me and votes Player Y "for what Rhinox said". Player Y is then lynched. Are you saying that my vote and Player X's vote mean exactly the same thing and should be understood and analyzed exactly the same way, since the same result was reached (both players voting for a player that was lynched)?

Yes, I think they should both be looked at in the same way, i.e. in context, but the conclusions drawn from them might well be different.

Huntress is being an annoying hairsplitter right now. "i never said i don't

want

to random vote, i just didn't. I never said I

won't

random vote, just not right now". Look, Huntress, cheetah thing, i dunno if you're town or scum, but if you keep the conversation around hairsplits i'm going to get confused and screw up the game. I don't know about anyone else's capacities for nonsense, i don't have much. So please, stop it.

Ah, I get it. You don't want anyone looking too closely at what you say in case they catch you out
Oh, by the way, if you are going to put people's words in quotes, make sure it really

is

what they said, not just your interpretation of it. Or at least make it clear that it's not an actual quote.

I don't like how multiple people jumped to the defense of MME. First pops, now Rhinox; I smell connections.

And I smell something else. (Makes a note for later).

Huntress is being an annoying hairsplitter right now. "i never said i don't want to random vote, i just didn't. I never said I won't random vote, just not right now”.

Where did this first hairsplitter take place? I didn’t read it that way. Maybe Huntress can elaborate on how random her decisions have been so far because this:

Yet my non-vote has caused more discussion so far than any vote.

She acknowledges the power of not random voting in creating discussion, which sound to me like something she knew about going into the game. So was this in fact a reason? Her initial claim to not random vote was not about reason or purpose according to her.

What makes you think I don't want to random vote?

I wonder if this can even be accomplished before long because we are moving to serious discussion and a random/joke action could try to impede that.

The initial non-vote was without reason, although after I decided to do it I will admit to a little curiosity as to what the responses to it would be. I agree that the time for random voting is now past.

Here's a question, Rhinox: if someone posts, and keeps posting, without (randomly) voting yet also without explicitly stating the decision not to vote, would you start questioning them?

Yes, I would.

Does this still apply even though we are out of the RVS?

RC is saying that we should assume the worst until better is proven. Ok, sure. The way he discusses it though is

not as curt it should be

though, which gives me a slight scum vibe. I've decided to read this player mostly on meta, because when i read him just like everyone else he consistently slips by, so i might be using poorly explained reasons some this game,

i'll try to be glass man like Korts

as much as possible though.

Can you clarify what mean by the bits I've bolded please? I see Rhinox has already asked about the "poorly explained reasons" so I needn't repeat that.


I don't like the way RedCoyote kicked off the discussion about self-voting then just let it run without commenting further. I also didn't like his buddying up to me in post 51. (I apologise if it was a genuine compliment but I'm wary of such in these games and that one seemed a bit overdone. )

[My Milked Eek]

I'm still here, rereading tomorrow, no more unexpected V/LA's.

I just got to focus on deadline'd (like very soon) games first.

[My Milked Eek]

To quickly answer:

I guess my question for MME is this - did you notice from the posts above your confirmation vote that others started playing? If so, why didn't you start playing as well?

No, I didn't. I thought the game started after 4/5 or <insert random percentage> of the people here were needed to confirm to start the game. Add to that that after my first post I went into unexpected V/LA and you get this situation. Nothing more, nothing less.

I've played with MME a couple times before, and this is usually how he plays - doesn't say much, keeps promising to post later, and then gets replaced.

He's a good player when he actually plays though.

As we say in Dutch:
"First throw the plantpot and then the flowers."

Still love you though.

He did post. Are you suggesting he posted without reading the dozen posts already in the thread? What makes you think he doesn't know the game had started?

Because it's the truth. Don't think I'm defending him, I'm just setting stuff straight as I was in a hurry to go out and wanted to confirm asap.

Yeah that's it. For now. I'll be back with a full read tomorrow.

[popsofctown]

Oh, by the way, if you are going to put people's words in quotes, make sure it really

is

what they said, not just your interpretation of it. Or at least make it clear that it's not an actual quote.

Legit complaint. Sorry, I'll try to make it clear, i know it sucks to be misquoted... I thought the exaggeration/parody was clear enough though.

RC is saying that we should assume the worst until better is proven. Ok, sure. The way he discusses it though is

not as curt it should be

though, which gives me a slight scum vibe. I've decided to read this player mostly on meta, because when i read him just like everyone else he consistently slips by, so i might be using poorly explained reasons some this game,

i'll try to be glass man like Korts

as much as possible though.

Can you clarify what mean by the bits I've bolded please? I see Rhinox has already asked about the "poorly explained reasons" so I needn't repeat that.

The first bold is me saying he didn't answer his questions as curtly as he could. It's suspicious, especially in terms of his meta. See, there you go Rhinox, i was warning you there might be questions about the way i evaluate RC and there's already been some.

The second bold is me making metaphors and hoping people keep up. It's cool when they do. Korts said earlier in this game he keeps his thoughts [near-perfect paraphrase] "In-thread instead of in-head", in an attempt to be transparent. So i was saying i'll try to be like that as much as i can.

I don't like the way RedCoyote kicked off the discussion about self-voting then just let it run without commenting further. I also didn't like his buddying up to me in post 51. (I apologise if it was a genuine compliment but I'm wary of such in these games and that one seemed a bit overdone. )

RC's mafia playstyle runs on buddying and sheer Texan moxy

[popsofctown]

Is that how you read the statement, or are you getting something else out of it?

Regardless, I don't think it changes anything, unless pops can tell me that the paragraph in question had any point other than to defend/answer for RC

I wasn't defending or answering for RC. You asked me this:

Pops: Anything you can divine from from the rest of the conversation about sks?what do you think of RC's comments about SK? What do you think about mine? What about OGML's?

You asked me what i thought about RC's comments about SK. I summarized his position, said how i felt about his position, and then mentioned that i thought his answers were slightly scummy. How do you get answered for or defended out of that? I didn't even know, nor do i know now, of any questions you asked RC or any pressure you had on him.

I still regret my declaration about poorly explained reasoning. I should have handled that on a case by case basis and not worried about it. If it's still scummy to you, okay, let it stand.

[bionicchop2]

Rhinox - I missed the part where you directly asked pops about RC. How do you justify jumping on him for 'defending' RC when he was answering your question?

[Vi]

Vote Count:

Korts (L-5) ~ iamausername, OhGodMyLife
Rishi (L-5) ~ RedCoyote, bionicchop2
popsofctown (L-5) ~ Korts, Rhinox

bionicchop2 (L-6) ~ popsofctown,

Rhinox

Rhinox (L-6) ~ Jahudo
RedCoyote (L-6) ~ SpyreX

SpyreX (L-7) ~

bionicchop2

Minimum (L-7)

Not Voting:

Huntress, My Milked Eek, Rishi

First Deadline Review: Feb 14 2009
Current Deadline: Feb 18 2009

[RedCoyote]

RC, no, I thought it was pretty clear pops was making a joke. I actually agree with him that people were talking-about-nothing-like-they're-getting-paid up to that point, and to an extent since then. There's a lot of fluff and theory discussion going on in this thread, and from my experience all theory discussion ever does in games is give scum a nice, cozy place to hide while the real action goes on around them.

Good. I'm glad you said this because I absolutely feel the same way. Despite the fact that I keep bringing up the SK (which, granted, I think is a more worthwhile discussion), I don't particularly think all this discussion about random voting and our own personal experiences and theories about it end up helping the town all that much. It gives people a chance to sound scholarly on the subject of forum mafia and absolutely bores the hell out of me.

That being said, I completely agreed with pops' sarcasm in that post and am glad that there is at least some common ground between us here.

---

Now I was going to be the bigger man and drop this entire SK thing because it seemed to have run its course, but I will gladly continue to talk about why I think it serves the town much better to assume that there is an additional scum (e.g. Serial Killer) than not, Day one or no.

I am not arguing we should discount the possibility of an sk, I am arguing that continually insisting there is more probably an sk is doing nothing to help us find scum today... but I'll let you prove me wrong: How is assuming the worst case scenario that there is an sk going to help us catch scum today? How is talking about the presence of an sk today going to help us catch scum any other day?

For one, in no way am I saying that the SK should be treated any differently than scum insofar as scum is defined in the word "scumhunting". I'm not sitting here saying, "Ok, Rhinox hunts the SK and me and Rishi will look for the mafia team". That's not my intention at all.

Take a look at the role possibilities: Townie Roleblocker, Townie

Watcher

, Townie Doctor, Townie

Jailer

, Mafia Roleblocker, Mafia Doctor, Mafia

Watcher

...

If you are going to tell me with a straight face, based on those role possibilities, that we should assume there isn't an SK, then I absolutely have to snicker.

Lest you think I am starting some big player-Mod WIFOM, there is a perfectly good reason why we should, why every player should, assume there is an SK before we end this day, or any day, until proven otherwise: night actions.

There's no reason why we should be naive about the situation. I think it's very safe to say that it's probable there is an SK, and every townie should play like there is another scum out there.

I don't want to push this situation much further, but suffice to say I think some people (certainly I) would treat the game differently if there are 2 killing parties as opposed to 1.

---

The way he discusses it though is not as curt it should be though, which gives me a slight scum vibe.

Well, I don't know how much more curt I need to say what it is I'm thinking may happen if we assume there is only one killing party instead of two.

---

Also, your jumping to the defense of RC without letting him answer questions directed at him himself, is noted.

What are you talking about? He said I had a scum vibe for cryin' out loud.

Here pops jumps to RC's defense after I asked RC questions, whithout giving RC a chance to answer the questions himself. In the same paragraph, however, its giving him a slight scum vibe. This sounds like fence-sitting, and a bad attempt at distancing.

Defending the idea that we should assume the worst != defending the player.

I interpretted the statement: "RC is saying that we should assume the worst until better is proven. Ok, sure. The way he discusses it though is not as curt it should be though, which gives me a slight scum vibe."

as: "RC is saying that we should assume the worst until better is proven. What's wrong with that? Although, he's discussing it in a way that sounds scummy"

Regardless, I don't think it changes anything

It does, he was defending my idea, not my the player.

Actually, saying he was "defending" this idea is a bit of a stretch. I could just as easily argue he was merely stating I had a valid position that he recognized (and didn't lean one way or the other).

Unvote, Vote: Rhinox

---

So, let's humor RedCoyote for a second and say that we'll be able to tell on Day 1 that there's an SK and, furthermore, that we will be able to distinguish the SK from Mafia. (IMHO, SK is scum - we don't worry about factions until we have some information to build connections.)

Show me one post, one statement, where I made the comment that I wanted to distinguish the two factions and hunt for them separately. Go ahead.

You can't find one? Yeah, because that wasn't what I was saying at all. Refer above, since your question is essentially the same as Rhinox's question. Look at the role line-up.

Are you honestly going to sit here and tell me that you play the game the same way whether there is one or two killing parties?

Look, both of you are taking what I've been saying and blowing it way out of proportion because y'all need a D1 punching bag. There's no secret "SK strat" or anything; There's just that there's going to be a lot of movement going on at night and for both of you to sit there and say, "don't even think about an SK especially on D1" is like you're trying to conceal the possibility more than you should. What if, for some reason, only one kill goes through? Are you still going to say that we shouldn't talk about an SK? When is it "appropriate" to talk about the SK?

---

And as for opinions on self-voting, nobody self-voted in this game, and a given player's opinion on self-voting tends to not change from game to game and is therefore not diagnostic, so I really don't care one way or the other what pops, korts or anyone else has to say on the topic. Its a bunch of noise.

To be fair, I asked Rhinox for this information.

Rhinox, you're completely ignoring Korts. Why?

Is Rhinox the only one guilty of this?

---

I don't like the way RedCoyote kicked off the discussion about self-voting then just let it run without commenting further. I also didn't like his buddying up to me in post 51. (I apologise if it was a genuine compliment but I'm wary of such in these games and that one seemed a bit overdone. )

Mostly because Rhinox didn't say what I wanted him to say. I happen to agree with him in the sense that voting yourself draws unnecessary attention to yourself and unnecessarily away from the game.

I don't think it's enough to vote someone without regard to the context of the game, but I certainly can't say he's wrong. Basically I wanted to hear him say, "There's nothing wrong with self-voting, as long as you vote!" or something along those lines.

But mostly I agreed with you because I think the whole discussion over putting a random vote down or not was getting so theoretical that I was just hoping to move the game along.

---

RC's mafia playstyle runs on buddying and sheer Texan moxy

If that's a compliment then thank you

[Korts]

pops, I'm fairly sure you understood my original point and your insistence on making jokes is a distraction. What I meant was that serious discussion usually roots in non-serious discussion, which may be jokes about random voting reasons. But it's obviously necessary to make these jokes at least marginally mafia-related, if only by virtue of being the reason for a vote, otherwise they will never in a hundred years lead into game-related discussion.

Korts, throwing the book as in, your response seemed to be almost automated. "You have made a move that I consider to be standard-scum-play so here is my standard-response-vote!" It was like you didn't even consider the surroundings of pops' post, or weigh whether or not it really hinted at his alignment, you just went OMG SCUMTELL.

And don't you agree that when there's a clear-cut scumtell (jokingly made or not) early in the game, it deserves pressure? It's just as valid a starting point as anything else in this stage of the game. I tried making it pretty obvious anyway that my reaction was only pseudo-serious.

Regarding Korts vs. Pops, I don't find pops' jokes, or the talk about nothing comment to be scummy, but I'm still uneasy about the WIFOM analysis of bio post: especially the part where he said he was leaning more towards bios comments being indicative of mafia because "it sounded like something he would do as mafia"

If you were uneasy about pops' argument, why don't I remember you having the same feeling about my selective scumhunting comment? It boils down to the same thing. You said that selective scumhunting was a buzzword, like pops said, but that I explained it adequately; yet now you say that pops thoroughly explaining this buzzword makes you uneasy?

i'll try to be glass man like Korts as much as possible though.

Is this a compliment?

OGML FoSing without comment? Especially considering how Rishi called Rhinox out a few minutes before him, I think this is a strange move.

Regarding Korts vs. Pops, I don't find pops' jokes, or the talk about nothing comment to be scummy

Also, any suspicions I have of bio (or RC) for continuing the sk theory discussion are currently being overshadowed by pops 82,

and his riddles

.

Did they become suspicious when you decided you could make up a full case?

Good find. Rhinox's answer leaves quite a bit of room for doubt.

Not a lot of time; will post tomorrow.

FOS Korts

I find this post unnecessary and possibly active lurking. You weren't in danger of being prodded and your activity was not in question. This gives me the impression you weren't participating as much as you felt you should be and needed to pro-actively address it. Not exactly a scum tell, but it has a self-preservation feel to it.

Combine this with the fact you are still on the site right now posting in general discussion and mafia discussion. That is time which could have been used to quickly skim and post something of relevance here.

I pride myself in being as active as possible, but I also pride myself in being thorough and answering all points. Any reading up and posting would've taken more energy than I had; note that it was 9:17 PM at the time of that post and I was preparing to go to sleep. GD and MD don't really require much focus. Satisfied?

OGML, what gives you the feeling that Rhinox was ignoring me? I don't remember having unanswered points toward him.

Red's vote on Rhinox is weakly reasoned; he makes a valid point, but I don't see how that indicates anything at all about Rhinox's alignment.

[iamausername]

On the other hand, what would you expect me to say if I had actually been skimming?

Well, skimming is slightly scummy in and of itself; scum have less reason to pay close attention to every word, because they already know who's town and who's not (minus the possible SK, of course), so they don't have to read into them so much. But my point was that by saying you skimmed, you're basically agreeing that there was no reasonable basis for your interpretation of bionic's post, which seems off to me because I believe there

was

, in fact, reasonable basis for that interpretation.

Apparently jokes are the only appropriate way of starting discussion Korts.

This man is made of straw! It's a straw man!

An extra kill confirms a SK. A single kill leaves us where we are today.

What about no kill?

Ugh. I guess we should stop scumhunting so that we don't uncover more potential slip-ups for the scum.

This man is made of straw! It's a straw man!

On day one, there is nothing to gain for town from discussing the possibility of an SK.

I disagree, using bionic as a springboard here,

I will state again that I have trouble seeing how hunting for an SK would actually differ from hunting for a mafia player on D1.

The town should add an additional scum to all calculations made from this point until we can state with some probability that there is not one around.

But on D1, there's no reason for us to make any calculations about how many scum there are.

RC is saying that we should assume the worst until better is proven. Ok, sure. The way he discusses it though is not as curt it should be though, which gives me a slight scum vibe. I've decided to read this player mostly on meta, because when i read him just like everyone else he consistently slips by, so i might be using poorly explained reasons some this game, i'll try to be glass man like Korts as much as possible though.

So, essentially, you're pre-emptively defending yourself for making crap cases on RedCoyote at some future time here. I'm really struggling to think of a pro-town reason to do that.

Oh, by the way, if you are going to put people's words in quotes, make sure it really is what they said, not just your interpretation of it. Or at least make it clear that it's not an actual quote.

Putting things in quote tags = actual quote.
Putting things in quotation marks = paraphrase.

That's the way I tend to work it.

The first bold is me saying he didn't answer his questions as curtly as he could. It's suspicious, especially in terms of his meta. See, there you go Rhinox, i was warning you there might be questions about the way i evaluate RC and there's already been some.

I'm gonna need to see some sources cited on this meta. Can you show that he tends to answer things more curtly when he's town than when he's scum?

Lest you think I am starting some big player-Mod WIFOM, there is a perfectly good reason why we should, why every player should, assume there is an SK before we end this day, or any day, until proven otherwise: night actions.

Do you think we should be discussing night actions before we end this day?

Unvote, Vote: popsofctown

[Rhinox]

Yes it would be helpful as it would tell us something about the person doing the attacking, and the reactions of those who joined in, or who didn't join in, could also be useful. Although I might have to do a meta read as well before drawing any conclusions.

Partially agree. Agree with learning things about 3rd party participants. Disagree with learning things about the attacker.

Yes, I think they should both be looked at in the same way, i.e. in context, but the conclusions drawn from them might well be different.

That sounds like a cop-out to me. I gave you the context in my hypothetical example.

Does this still apply even though we are out of the RVS?

In a situation where the RVS is over, and I do a re-read and discover a player who was posting during the RVS but never random voted, I would start questioning that player, probably starting with a "Player X, is there a reason why you never random voted anyone?" question.

But regardless, you're non-random vote is no longer interesting to, compared to the rest of the ongoings in the thread.

You asked me what i thought about RC's comments about SK. I summarized his position, said how i felt about his position, and then mentioned that i thought his answers were slightly scummy. How do you get answered for or defended out of that? I didn't even know, nor do i know now, of any questions you asked RC or any pressure you had on him.

I still regret my declaration about poorly explained reasoning. I should have handled that on a case by case basis and not worried about it. If it's still scummy to you, okay, let it stand.

Rhinox - I missed the part where you directly asked pops about RC. How do you justify jumping on him for 'defending' RC when he was answering your question?

...

I'm really playing like a (Village) Idiot this game...

lame, but true excuse: all 4 of my games I'm in got extremely active at the same time, the last couple days, and because of that I've been playing extremely crappy - i.e. not typing things the way I intend them to me, and now blatently forgetting which questions I've asked to which players.

Also, without getting too sentimental, I've been looking forward to this game ever since Vi PMed me the list of pre-ins. This game is pretty much full of great players, and I was looking forward to the opportunity to prove I could run with some of the best mafiascum.net has to offer. The end result is me being a bit off my game, trying too hard, being a bit flustered, and looking like a big idiot.

unvote

with a promise to take a little bit of time to re-read and pull my head out of my ass.

Question for pops though (I'll remember asking this one): If roles were reversed, and someone used that attack on me that I used on you, I would have reacted a little differently, more like "WTF! you just asked me for my opinion on it... what the hell are you talking about?" You seemed like you were willing to give me a pass:

If it's still scummy to you, okay, let it stand.

Why were you so unphased by my obviously contradictory attack and so willing to just let me leave my vote there? ...just seems odd to me...

@RC: you never answered my question, but I'm willing to take the blame for not asking curtly enough (Rhinox likes his new word )

How will this talk about the SK help us catch scum - any scum - today?

I'm not trying to force a distinction between different scumhunting for different types of scum (at least not on D1 when factions are 100% unknown), I just want to know how this sk conversation is going to help you decide who is most likely scum today.

When I look at the list of role possibilities, ironically, it tells me what is possible - NOT what is probable. I'm not a mod, and maybe I don't have a full understanding of how to properly balance a game, and considering this is Vi's first modded game, I don't presume to try to predict what type of mod Vi is, or what roles Vi likes to use and considers balanced. For all I know, this game could be 100% Vanilla... or maybe it contains every single role on the list. You or I don't know, and I want to know how speculating or assuming what is in the setup is going to help you catch the scum today.

I don't want to push this situation much further, but suffice to say I think some people (certainly I) would treat the game differently if there are 2 killing parties as opposed to 1.

So you're assuming 2 killing parties right now... how are you playing D1 any differently than if there was only 1 killing faction?

Are you honestly going to sit here and tell me that you play the game the same way whether there is one or two killing parties?

Question asked toward Rishi, but I would like to answer for myself. I don't play any differently until I know for sure there are multiple killing factions. For example, suppose there are 2 kills tonight. I would deduce that the second kill must have been made my an sk. Then I would be able to look at everyone and try to determine who seems to be playing like an sk. You can't do that on Day 1, so saying we should assume there are two killing factions right now on D1 and play accordingly is silly. To prove my point, suppose I said "MME is playing like I would as SK. He's acting lurky, not providing much content, and trying to both avoid the focus of the town, and not look pro-town so as to not be a nk target. We should lynch MME because I think he's an sk." Would it make any sense to lynch anyone today on the grounds they might be the sk? And to re-ask the question that I think Rishi was trying to ask, how should we play differently today by assuming there is an SK, as opposed to assuming there is not an SK, as opposed to not assuming any factions at all?

If you were uneasy about pops' argument, why don't I remember you having the same feeling about my selective scumhunting comment? It boils down to the same thing. You said that selective scumhunting was a buzzword, like pops said, but that I explained it adequately; yet now you say that pops thoroughly explaining this buzzword makes you uneasy?

Thats an inaccurate representation of my feelings. I didn't think pops was explaining the buzzword, I thought (think) pops was trying to be WIFOMy and divine whether bio's discussion made him more likely scum, town, or sk.

[popsofctown]

...
I'm really playing like a (Village) Idiot this game...

lame, but true excuse: all 4 of my games I'm in got extremely active at the same time, the last couple days, and because of that I've been playing extremely crappy - i.e. not typing things the way I intend them to me, and now blatently forgetting which questions I've asked to which players.

Also, without getting too sentimental, I've been looking forward to this game ever since Vi PMed me the list of pre-ins. This game is pretty much full of great players, and I was looking forward to the opportunity to prove I could run with some of the best mafiascum.net has to offer. The end result is me being a bit off my game, trying too hard, being a bit flustered, and looking like a big idiot.

So, to show you can run with the best, you start massive usage of appeal to emotion? This is so full of ironic phail it makes me laugh.

Question for pops though (I'll remember asking this one): If roles were reversed, and someone used that attack on me that I used on you, I would have reacted a little differently, more like "WTF! you just asked me for my opinion on it... what the hell are you talking about?" You seemed like you were willing to give me a pass:

If it's still scummy to you, okay, let it stand.

Why were you so unphased by my obviously contradictory attack and so willing to just let me leave my vote there? ...just seems odd to me...

I feel quite quoted out of context. The component of the attack that was about me defending RC, that's complete bantha pudu and that doesn't stand. The component about me announcing that i would use RC's meta later on: i agree i probably didn't need to announce that. It's retracted to the highest degree possible on a forum without editing.

Thats an inaccurate representation of my feelings. I didn't think pops was explaining the buzzword, I thought (think) pops

was trying to

be WIFOMy and

divine whether bio's discussion made him more likely scum, town, or sk

.

Pretty unforgivable stuff i've been putting out here, eh?


I noticed everyone got the most pissed about riddles after that last one. It's okay if you guys don't want to simply admit you don't know the answer .

[Rhinox]

So, to show you can run with the best, you start massive usage of appeal to emotion? This is so full of ironic phail it makes me laugh.

Yes, I realize both the irony and the phail. But, its the truth. More ironic phail: This is wifom, but what would be the benefit of saying "oops I'm just a VI who made a scummy mistake?" if I were actually scum. Why wouldn't I just make up some BS about how even though you were answering my question I still found it overly defending RC and scummy (kinda like I did when I forgot I said I didn't find your jokes scummy, and then said I did find them scummy later *facepalm*...)

Oh wait, did I say that out loud?

pssst....

Mod: you forgot to list Prison Guard Jester in your list of potential roles!

Seriously though, I realize the idiotic irony of both my attacks, and my current defense of them. Nothing to do about it now except promise to do better, if you guys don't lynch me... I don't like to just sit around letting other people do all the scum hunting work just sitting in the shadows waiting for a wagon to jump on. I like to throw my vote around a bit in addition to using questions and logic in order to assist myself in determining who should be the best lynch - especially early in the game when there is less to go on than later. Sometimes I place votes just for pressure and reactions based on something I normally wouldn't find lynchable, but that effect is kind of lost when I can't keep straight what I already said I didn't find scummy I'm just off my game here...

I feel quite quoted out of context. The component of the attack that was about me defending RC, that's complete bantha pudu and that doesn't stand. The component about me announcing that i would use RC's meta later on: i agree i probably didn't need to announce that. It's retracted to the highest degree possible on a forum without editing.

Oh, ok... My bad.

Pretty unforgivable stuff i've been putting out here, eh?

Trying to determine bio's allignment = perfectly fine.

Doing so using nothing but wifom = questionable to me.

I noticed everyone got the most pissed about riddles after that last one. It's okay if you guys don't want to simply admit you don't know the answer .

I already admitted I didn't know it

[popsofctown]

some other people won't admit it though.. :tease:

[bionicchop2]

I noticed everyone got the most pissed about riddles after that last one. It's okay if you guys don't want to simply admit you don't know the answer .

I thought it was pretty obvious it was a fish

===============

I'm not trying to force a distinction between different scumhunting for different types of scum (at least not on D1 when factions are 100% unknown), I just want to know how this sk conversation is going to help you decide who is most likely scum today.

Yes, it was directed towards RC, but since this all has basically been generated from my initial question to you, I would like to state my thoughts on in.

For me, mafia is becoming less about direct question / answer (unless you have scum pinned on a specific topic) and more about what happens in the peripheral of the discussion. So, I ask you about SK stuff and we talk a little. Now at this point, I don't really know what others are going to say, but they are going to say something. As you can see, it has evolved into we shouldn't be discussing it / it is a valid discussion. Hidden in there might be the type of scum who likes to attack people for bringing up something that may appear to not be scum hunting or they feel they can spin it into something else. There may also be the type of scum that just go with the flow and agree to whatever more people are agreeing with. The reality is it might gain nothing at this specific time (hell, it might gain nothing ever).

Now it ties in a little to some things you have hinted at (nothing specific I can remember), but if someone knows you are hunting for them, they will hide better. So, mafia thinks everybody is over here focusing on SK they may just let down their guard. I think mafia's natural inclination would be to show the discussion as being anti-town since mafia in the end wants everybody to look suspicious. This leans my initial scum hunting towards those who planted seeds of accusations without actually driving to get others to follow. I see this in Pop's post #40 and Rishi has done a little bit of it (though I am more concerned with what I saw as hypocritical statements by Rishi). It may pan out to be nothing, but it has given me a starting point which is all I need to get entrenched into a game.

==============

I pride myself in being as active as possible, but I also pride myself in being thorough and answering all points. Any reading up and posting would've taken more energy than I had; note that it was 9:17 PM at the time of that post and I was preparing to go to sleep. GD and MD don't really require much focus. Satisfied?

I can see your point and it is valid IMO since it does take more thought and focus to post in a game than elsewhere. It is a pet peeve of mine when people make a post to announce they are going to make a post at some future time. I know MME has done it, but someone already pre-emptively defended him

[popsofctown]

BC's riddling power is greater than thine, Rhinox

[bionicchop2]

I'm out with work meetings all day, I'll try and post something of substance later on / tomorrow.

Strike 1 of failing to live up to self-imposed posting deadlines.

======================

Doing so using nothing but wifom = questionable to me.

You should read Spyrex's signature (follow link). WIFOM is not the world's worst starting point for suspicion - especially if you believe what you quoted OGML as saying in your newbie game (I do) about early game votes requiring far less than later votes.

[Rhinox]

For me, mafia is becoming less about direct question / answer (unless you have scum pinned on a specific topic) and more about what happens in the peripheral of the discussion. So, I ask you about SK stuff and we talk a little. Now at this point, I don't really know what others are going to say, but they are going to say something. As you can see, it has evolved into we shouldn't be discussing it / it is a valid discussion.

Hidden in there might be the type of scum who likes to attack people for bringing up something that may appear to not be scum hunting or they feel they can spin it into something else. There may also be the type of scum that just go with the flow and agree to whatever more people are agreeing with. The reality is it might gain nothing at this specific time (hell, it might gain nothing ever).

Now it ties in a little to some things you have hinted at (nothing specific I can remember),

but if someone knows you are hunting for them, they will hide better. So, mafia thinks everybody is over here focusing on SK they may just let down their guard.

I think mafia's natural inclination would be to show the discussion as being anti-town since mafia in the end wants everybody to look suspicious. This leans my initial scum hunting towards those who planted seeds of accusations without actually driving to get others to follow. I see this in Pop's post #40 and Rishi has done a little bit of it (though I am more concerned with what I saw as hypocritical statements by Rishi). It may pan out to be nothing, but it has given me a starting point which is all I need to get entrenched into a game.

This lets me know just how much I still have to learn... first bolded part I completely agree with. Second bolded part I also completely agree with, but was completely ignorant to that being an obvious extension to my "sk will alter their play if we're focused on him" thoughts...

You should read Spyrex's signature (follow link). WIFOM is not the world's worst starting point for suspicion - especially if you believe what you quoted OGML as saying in your newbie game (I do) about early game votes requiring far less than later votes.

Yeah, I've read that (twice, actually). I more or less agree with it - i have argued in other games that not all WIFOM is bad. But in my judgement (which has understandably become questionable), pops post sounded more like the wifom I should be worried about...

BC's riddling power is greater than thine, Rhinox

I still don't get it "What has mail, never clinking," how does that relate to a fish? p.s. now I feel like not only and idiot, but a retarded idiot...

[SpyreX]

Ahem, I said "try" for a reason. Life has been a bit crazy for me, so unfortunately this game took a back seat.

However, young and old, this is about to change. RIGHT NOW.

(As a starter: Rhinox - the scales of a fish overlap, much like a suit of mail armor).

Now, on to the crux of things:

The SK Debate:

The talk of an SK IS interesting, as most theory discussions are. However, ultimately, as has been said all we can do is prepare for the worst and move on... which we haven't. This leads me to my one major issue with large amounts of theory-centric day 1 talk:

the discussion itself is not finding scum.

Of course we need a jumping point, but more often than not it seems we all get scared of the diving board and refuse to jump.

I've got no plans to do that. Read on, young soldiers, for there will be a vote ahead.

MME, the enigma:

I find it interesting that MME has been brought up so many times about the absence of posting (it wasn't until this point I was mentioned and I'd safely say that Jahudo AND iamusername (and almost OGML AND Rishi as well) are also falling into that bag of "not contributing". So, why this one name versus the others that haven't been posting enough. Hell, bio even called out Korts for a one-liner...but none of the above?

I am not sure what to make of it yet, but something is amiss in this. There is some connection of sorts there.

This leads me to conspiracy theory 1..

Huntress, thy pray has left.

Now, in and of itself, I do not take umbrage with any of the non-conforming random votes (self-voting, not voting, etc). However, by nature they do come under greater scrutiny as they are the first sign of "difference" from the town-norms.

That isn't my problem with Huntress, though. The vote (or absence thereof) doesn't matter, its the fact that the vote itself really appears to be acting as a shield from entering into the discussion.. AND, of course, the fact that Huntress was quick to call out MME for doing the "same thing".

Huntress is playing the cards very close to the vest and, really, I dont like it. I could see the absence of voting as a way to attract SOME attention without, of course, getting enough to get lynched. I dont like it.

Here would be where I placed an FoS if I was so inclined. However, I'm not.

We've got one other major suspect. One that, at this point, I'm happy to vote. Come on down...

Pops, why do you keep hitting me??

Vote: Popsofctown

Why pops? Well, the suspicion meter ran really high after this little gem of a post:

The +'s and -'s were the direct gains from BC's SK discussion, not including the resulting WIFOM assumptions that the player does or does not have that alignment since the action was partakened.

I don't know why Korts is voting me, i thought we were all trying to start discussion. Wasn't he the one saying one can even resort to jokes to get discussion going? I couldn't think of anything funny.

Huntress is being an annoying hairsplitter right now. "i never said i don't want to random vote, i just didn't. I never said I won't random vote, just not right now". Look, Huntress, cheetah thing, i dunno if you're town or scum, but if you keep the conversation around hairsplits i'm going to get confused and screw up the game. I don't know about anyone else's capacities for nonsense, i don't have much. So please, stop it.

Apparently jokes are the only appropriate way of starting discussion Korts. A question for you: A cowboy rides into town on Friday. He stays in town for three days, no more. Then he leaves town on Friday. How is this possible?

Why does this post bother me so much in reading?

1.) The concern over a single vote placed, under the misnomer of "I'm just trying to start discussion."
2.) The callout on huntress raises a flag in the statement "I dunno if you're town or scum". Thats one of those obvious apparents to a town that a scum, in my opinion, uses to try and "blend".
3.) The snipe at Korts. Even if you disagree with Korts, what is the pro-town motive for poking and creating fluff?

Speaking of fluff, the next few posts are just that. Fluff - based around the #3 above. Even in his contentish post: again he posts another jibe at the end (another nice little tidbit of cognitive dissonance... who has posted they hate the "nonsense" yet keeps doing it?)

This has tapered off some in the last couple posts, but again the last two posts were more fluff - and the last AGAIN is only directed towards the riddle itself.

So, yea, my vote can sit here for a good long while.

BUT, I would be remiss if I didn't share all my conspiracy theories:

Watch the salt:

My other major conspiracy theory can be best illustrated in this wonderful example I have concocted for my amusement:

At this point, the active players are actually town. In their attempt to find scum, they have created an Algonquin-style round table where theories and happenstance may be discussed freely. The banter is light and humorous.. until someone spills the salt. Although not a crime in and of itself, it is noticeable enough that everyone else at the table starts giving the perpetrator of the crime the stink eye and the banter becomes darker.

At this point, the others near them start talking about salt and all other salt-related mishaps until the table is dissolved and the saltist is hung for his crimes against humanity and salt-lovers everywhere. Only to find that, of course, he was just a poor fool that spilled the salt.

Who is to blame? Why, the others that inflamed the salt-spite. Watch for them.

(Simple version: The disparity between the actives and the lurkers is startling enough that I am mentioning it so that the lurkers, in fact, start speaking up. Yes, I know the apparent hypocrisy.)

So, there's some words.

[bionicchop2]

me loves me some spyrex posting!

Ahem, I said "try" for a reason. Life has been a bit crazy for me, so unfortunately this game took a back seat.

I will always be here to catch you when trying just isn't enough for me!

I find it interesting that MME has been brought up so many times about the absence of posting (it wasn't until this point I was mentioned and I'd safely say that Jahudo AND iamusername (and almost OGML AND Rishi as well) are also falling into that bag of "not contributing". So, why this one name versus the others that haven't been posting enough. Hell, bio even called out Korts for a one-liner...but none of the above?

I am not sure what to make of it yet, but something is amiss in this. There is some connection of sorts there.

I agree to an extent. I feel MME is the red herring in all of this. I don't think 'activity' is a huge issue yet though. I have commented on those who brought attention to them self by speaking of when they will post. (hmmmm...then scum probably wouldn't post about not posting enough...)


=======


I support the pressure on pops, though not for the jokes/riddles. My suspicion on him would stem from what I mentioned in my post #115.

[Jahudo]

@popsofctown

Sorry, I'll try to make it clear, i know it sucks to be misquoted... I thought the exaggeration/parody was clear enough though.

If it’s an exaggeration do you still think it was an accurate representation to what she was thinking? Where did you get the first part of the interpretation from:

"i never said i don't want to random vote, i just didn't.”

I can’t find her version of saying that.

@RedCoyote

I forget sometimes that I don't have to lecture anyone at MS.

What does this mean? Do you think that someone trying to teach the game while they’re playing means something about themselves?

If you are going to tell me with a straight face, based on those role possibilities, that we should assume there isn't an SK, then I absolutely have to snicker.

Vi probably knows how roles complement each other but we, the players, do not know how Vi decided on the roles. It’s trying to outguess the mod to think that something is a random choice or not, or an obvious choice or not. That’s what I think you are doing here.

@OGML

Korts, throwing the book as in, your response seemed to be almost automated. "You have made a move that I consider to be standard-scum-play so here is my standard-response-vote!" It was like you didn't even consider the surroundings of pops' post, or weigh whether or not it really hinted at his alignment, you just went OMG SCUMTELL.

I don’t think that was a heavy book. Pops made a joke along with his post for the sake of posting. Korts responded with a “Shame” that felt less serious because it did not have a serious explanation to go with the vote and make it more serious than the offense itself. To me, the punishment (vote) fit the offense (joke).

@Rishi

I didn’t say the entire beginning game conversation was about nothing. But, considering we’ve had four pages and some very long posts, there’s a lot less content than it would seem.

You still said there was a whole lot of nothing and you mean content, so do you think people are making mountains out of moth hills (or however the phrase goes) with the suspicions on the first three pages?

@Rhinox

What about my vote makes you call it a "policy vote"?

In a similar vein, saying that you would always vote a self-voter is a policy that might allow you to look past the specific situation in your rationalizing a vote. If you’re not judging as each situation allows itself, it looks like the vote is more important than the tell.

Add in my general dislike of pops WIFOM post analyzing bio

I don’t know what to think of his post analysis but for now I don’t think it’s scummy.

I'm really playing like a (Village) Idiot this game... lame, but true excuse

This just feels unnatural to me because it looks preemptive. I don’t think anyone was questioning your ability in which you would have to explain yourself, so I don’t know why you did. Can you take the heat? Do you think it’s undeserved?

@SpyreX

At this point, the others near them start talking about salt and all other salt-related mishaps

I understand your concern but do you think that salt has already been spilled? I don’t think anyone has undeserved attention on them.

[Rhinox]

In a similar vein, saying that you would always vote a self-voter is a policy that might allow you to look past the specific situation in your rationalizing a vote. If you’re not judging as each situation allows itself, it looks like the vote is more important than the tell.

Not quite sure exactly what you're saying here... can you rephrase for me before I attempt to answer? I don't see a correlation between my policy voting of self voters, and my rationalization (albeit, bad) for voting pops earlier.

This just feels unnatural to me because it looks preemptive. I don’t think anyone was questioning your ability in which you would have to explain yourself, so I don’t know why you did. Can you take the heat? Do you think it’s undeserved?

I don't think its pre-emptive... I've been caught twice being contradictory WRT my vote on pops. The heat is not undeserved... My explanation for it (that I'd been playing like an idiot) was the result of being asked directly about my contradictions... so whats premature about it?

[Vi]

Vote Count:

popsofctown (L-4) ~ Korts,

Rhinox,

iamausername, SpyreX

Rhinox (L-5) ~ Jahudo, RedCoyote
Korts (L-6) ~

iamausername,

OhGodMyLife
Rishi (L-6) ~

RedCoyote,

bionicchop2
bionicchop2 (L-6) ~ popsofctown

RedCoyote (L-7) ~

SpyreX

Minimum (L-7)

Not Voting:

Huntress, My Milked Eek, Rishi, Rhinox

First Deadline Review: Feb 14 2009
Current Deadline: Feb 18 2009

-----

Trying out more vote count experiments; please tell me if I go too far and/or have made it illegible.

Also, the easiest riddles are the ones you've already heard before~

pssst....

Mod: you forgot to list Prison Guard Jester in your list of potential roles!

Actually, the original script for this game included this in the possible Role PMs:

You are Officer _________, one of the night watchmen at Lunais River Prison. You don't know anything really specific about the other officers, and you couldn't care less. You're stuck with a bunch of losers on your shift, and this Mafia garbage is just getting in the way of your life. So they want to do this voting thing where they... what, put you in a cell for a while? Pah. The first time each day that someone votes for you, you MUST OMGUS vote that person back. You must also describe each vote that puts anyone from L-2 to L-1 somehow while using the word "sucks". Last, you must publicly attempt to convince the moderator to modkill someone in the topic at least once during each Day by posting

Modkill: ________

. (The mod will most likely taunt you for your trouble.) The end result of all this is that you live to see the next day; failure to meet these requirements will have you modkilled. (Note: the second requirement may be waived if you do not post in the topic between the L-1 vote and the lynching vote.)

--You are a Townie Jerk. Confirm in-thread.--

I axed it at the last moment for being even more pointless than usual. Though I sorta wanted to see if someone would try to fake it.

[bionicchop2]

If you are tracking unvotes, you missed a few random votes that started on me.

Just the ones since the last vote count.
Similarly, the voting record against RedCoyote will disappear from the next vote count if nobody votes him before then.
~Vi