Mini 749 - Antarctic Mafia [Game Over]

[Jazzmyn]

Upon re-reading, I still think that there is scum among Fishythefish, DraketheFake and JereIC, largely due to the vote analysis. Of the three, I find Fishy the most suspicious, not only for the voting pattern and his role in steering the wagons, but also for being so quick to accept Light_Kun's Vig claim and for being so against the idea of having the town direct LK's night kill or no-kill, purporting to prefer to let him choose independently, despite the fact that we need to test Light-Kun's claim since he could just as easily be a SK as a Vig. (And then a couple of weeks later Fishy posted, apropos of nothing and only after the hot light of suspicion had been directed to himself, that 'incidentally', he is no longer in favour of letting LK choose his own kill. That looks to me like Fishy realizing that he needed to backtrack in order to attempt to look more like a townie.)

Netlava's 'case' on JereIC is about a weak a case as I have ever read. While I do find Jere's "kill em' all" idea to be rather bizarre, the rest of Netlava's case is based upon her personal bugaboos about the choice of wording that Jere uses, and I just don't see his word choices as scumtells. As noted above, I do think that there is scum among Fishy, Drake and Jere, but the rationale put forward by Netlava is strange and possibly indicative of scum just trying to manufacture a case on a player who has suspicion directed at him by others.

Looker comes across as useless, and potentially scummy. Why replace into a game if you have no intention of participating meaningfully in the game? It's very annoying and in my (admittedly somewhat limited) experience, it more often turns out that the lurking replacement is scum than town.

In the result, at present I am inclined to vote for Fishy today.

First, however, I would like LK to confirm that he is still in agreement with taking direction from the town as to his night action, including whether or not to take any such action.

Regards,
Jazz

[Light-kun]

I don't really see how my actions are relevant...
Oh, right... death of the town. [/sarcasm] I know this already.

I'm posting nonsense until the town returns. Also, DtF and Fishy for scum. Let's lynch fish, and call it a day.

Side note: The odds I'll die tonight is over 30% at this point... were whole town=100%...

[Jazzmyn]

Light, that's cute but I would like you to confirm specifically whether you will or will not follow town instructions regarding your night action, if any.

Regards,
Jazz

[Fishythefish]

First, however, I would like LK to confirm that he is still in agreement with taking direction from the town as to his night action, including whether or not to take any such action.

"still"- was he ever in agreement?

If L-k will not confirm this, in my mind he is automatically today's lynch.

[Fishythefish]

Last post before I leave.

for being so quick to accept Light_Kun's Vig claim and for being so against the idea of having the town direct LK's night kill or no-kill, purporting to prefer to let him choose independently, despite the fact that we need to test Light-Kun's claim since he could just as easily be a SK as a Vig. (And then a couple of weeks later Fishy posted, apropos of nothing and only after the hot light of suspicion had been directed to himself, that 'incidentally', he is no longer in favour of letting LK choose his own kill. That looks to me like Fishy realizing that he needed to backtrack in order to attempt to look more like a townie.)

1. Do you really believe a SK would go against the town's orders? The main reason I changed my mind was because I think there's a fair chance that, if L-k is SK, he won't be able to follow our orders to no kill.
2. OK, you may think my position was totally wrong, I'm not too bothered about that. But how could a loose cannon of a vig/SK benefit the scum? If I was scum, I'd sure as hell want to know whether he was a vig or a SK. Also, I'd just love him to get lynched. Knowing his target couldn't hurt either.
3. Related to 2, there had been no suggestion that I was scum for my position, though many disagreed with it, apart from a very minor point from Howard. Why would I feel the need to backtrack?

Do you think my voting pattern is more scummy than the other two players?

[JereIC]

Fishy - post 243 on page 10.

L-K - Add me to the list of people who insist on having you follow town's orders. Anything else is anti-town, imo.

[Light-kun]

First, however, I would like LK to confirm that he is still in agreement with taking direction from the town as to his night action, including whether or not to take any such action.

"still"- was he ever in agreement?

If L-k will not confirm this, in my mind he is automatically today's lynch.

This looks scummy. And honestly, if I were to say: "I will do exactly as the town wants," then I'm still not held by some spell that forces me to react in any particular way, right? The only way to confirm vigilante is to have him shoot himself. That is kind of my point Jazz. I know what's best for town, and even if I were to appease you and say, "Of course I'll do what the town wants" then it doesn't mean anything.

Having pointed that out: Whatever 50% of the town wants.

I still say we lynch Fishy.

[Looker]

Is "lurker" the only role you read from my behavior...?

I see you as an actively lurking troll. (I'm not going to take the bait and say anything more so that you can attack me for role fishing.)

A lil jumpy, aren't ya? Whatever, either way I say as long as I'm paying attention and making sense of what's going on I'm doin good. I could see if I was misleading the town or something, all I'm doing is trying to figure everything out.

Looker comes across as useless, and potentially scummy. Why replace into a game if you have no intention of participating meaningfully in the game? It's very annoying and in my (admittedly somewhat limited) experience, it more often turns out that the lurking replacement is scum than town.

And that's exactly it - your "admittedly somewhat limited" experience, which collaborates with your "limited" *as in tunnel-visioned* view on what participation really is. As you've probably noticed, since you've played with me before, I've stopped laying random votes and rambling pointless, irrelevant crap; therefore, I feel as if I'm progressing. You have your opinion; however, it's exactly that.

First, however, I would like LK to confirm that he is still in agreement with taking direction from the town as to his night action, including whether or not to take any such action.

"still"- was he ever in agreement?

If L-k will not confirm this, in my mind he is automatically today's lynch.

This looks scummy. And honestly, if I were to say: "I will do exactly as the town wants," then I'm still not held by some spell that forces me to react in any particular way, right? The only way to confirm vigilante is to have him shoot himself. That is kind of my point Jazz. I know what's best for town, and even if I were to appease you and say, "Of course I'll do what the town wants" then it doesn't mean anything.

Having pointed that out: Whatever 50% of the town wants.

I still say we lynch Fishy.

Okay...if they don't lynch Fishy and they don't lynch you. Say they lynch...me...can't you kill Fishy tonight anyway...?

[Light-kun]

If person A flip scum, I will probably shoot Fishy.

If person A flips town, I won't shoot anyone.

If we lynch fishy, and he's scum, I may/may not shoot pending on what the town asks.

This is subject to change, but based on Fishy's play...I want him lynched. Also, if we lynch fishy and he's scum, I recommend shooting DtF, but that isn't a requirement for Fishy scum.

[DraketheFake]

This looks scummy.

And honestly, if I were to say: "I will do exactly as the town wants," then I'm still not held by some spell that forces me to react in any particular way, right?

The only way to confirm vigilante is to have him shoot himself. That is kind of my point Jazz. I know what's best for town, and even if I were to appease you and say, "Of course I'll do what the town wants" then it doesn't mean anything.

Having pointed that out: Whatever 50% of the town wants.

I still say we lynch Fishy.

I can't imagine a possible motive for you being this wishy-washy about this except that you are not a part of the town.

[Looker]

If person A flip scum, I will probably shoot Fishy.

If person A flips town, I won't shoot anyone.

If we lynch fishy, and he's scum, I may/may not shoot pending on what the town asks.

This is subject to change, but based on Fishy's play...I want him lynched. Also, if we lynch fishy and he's scum, I recommend shooting DtF, but that isn't a requirement for Fishy scum.

And Person A can be substituted with

any

individual or are there particular ones?

This looks scummy.

And honestly, if I were to say: "I will do exactly as the town wants," then I'm still not held by some spell that forces me to react in any particular way, right?

The only way to confirm vigilante is to have him shoot himself. That is kind of my point Jazz. I know what's best for town, and even if I were to appease you and say, "Of course I'll do what the town wants" then it doesn't mean anything.

Having pointed that out: Whatever 50% of the town wants.

I still say we lynch Fishy.

I can't imagine a possible motive for you being this wishy-washy about this except that you are not a part of the town.

He's trying to save himself not only today but tomorrow is what I'm thinking

And I find it kind of funny, I find it kind of sad - the dreams in which I'm dying are the best I've ever had..

DraketheFake - 1 (FishytheFish)
Looker - 1 (HowardRoark)
JereIC - 1 (Netlava)
FishytheFish - 1 (Light-kun)
Light-kun - 1 (DraketheFake)

Not Voting - 4 (Jazzmyn, Nuwen, JereIC, Looker)

9 alive, 5 to lynch.

-Mod

(Vote Count accurate as of Post 534)

[Light-kun]

This looks scummy.

And honestly, if I were to say: "I will do exactly as the town wants," then I'm still not held by some spell that forces me to react in any particular way, right?

The only way to confirm vigilante is to have him shoot himself.

That is kind of my point Jazz. I know what's best for town, and even if I were to appease you and say, "Of course I'll do what the town wants" then it doesn't mean anything.

Having pointed that out: Whatever 50% of the town wants.

I still say we lynch Fishy.

I can't imagine a possible motive for you being this wishy-washy about this except that you are not a part of the town.

More important, not anti town line in italics. Bolded part is proving the stupidity of having a vigilante say I will do X, when there is no way to actually ensure X will happen.

[Light-kun]

EBWOP: It means anyone. If it were a particular person A, then I would have named person A.

[Netlava]

Sorry for my grumpy post in response to people calling my case weak... that is, if you happened to interpret it that way, in which case that's your problem, not mine.

But essentially, I've committed to calling JereIC scum, so I need to follow through and lynch him, am I right?

Why did my comment to Mizz seem insincere?

To me, I don't see myself posting such a long post so nicely to what I felt was a hopeless cause. So it seemed like you were padding your posts.

Why isn't "LK is a troll" a satisfactory conclusion to my observation about his post?

It's not satisfactory because I would accompany such a conclusion with some sort of conclusion about scumminess. Trolling for the sake of trolling would be a strange occurrence in mafia.

How is the present tense more suspicious than the past tense?

Because it's more dramatic, whereas the past tense is more accurate. The present tense suggests that whatever is being referred to is a continuing repeat occurrence. Past tense is like calling it like it is. This specifically applies to that quote I quoted btw.

Why are you uncertain about whether me calling BS on Light is histrionics or not, and what do you mean "[e]specially in context"?

I was suggesting that the rest of your post does not follow. You posted that Light's post is pure BS, an emphatic statement. The rest of your post was drawn up rather weakly. I was expecting a more emphatic follow-up to accompany such an emphatic accusation.

Why wouldn't town weight and consider flaws with that plan (or reject it outright if there's a flaw that's obvious to everyone besides me)? Just in general, huh?

Suggesting yourself as a possible lynch target just seems counterintuitive.

- Netlava thinks L-k is likely SK/scum now, whereas before likely SK. If you think there is more than a very outside chance of L-k being scum, you should say why, because that is a very different thing from him being SK, and it is scummy that you are happy with not lynching him. If I thought L-k was probable SK with a non-negligible chance of mafia, I'd be pressing hard for a lynch.

I think we should wait a day for reasons concerning the town's disadvantaged position atm.

Anyways, I haven't read all the new posts yet. That will occur, possibly tomorrow.

[Looker]

EBWOP: It means anyone. If it were a particular person A, then I would have named person A.

cool

[Jazzmyn]

"still"- was he ever in agreement?

I thought that he was, but looking back in the thread, it could be that I misinterpreted his earlier posts in which he said he would shoot himself if we wanted him to, to mean that he would also follow our instructions with respect to other kills besides himself. (Posts 388 and 468)

Do you really believe a SK would go against the town's orders?

Where do you get from my posts that I think that?

The main reason I changed my mind was because I think there's a fair chance that, if L-k is SK, he won't be able to follow our orders to no kill.

Is there some reason why you didn't post your rationale at the time?

OK, you may think my position was totally wrong, I'm not too bothered about that. But how could a loose cannon of a vig/SK benefit the scum?

I don’t imagine it would, any more than a loose cannon LK here will benefit the town. I’m afraid I don’t understand your point or why you’re asking me the question.

If I was scum, I'd sure as hell want to know whether he was a vig or a SK.

Makes sense. Wouldn't you also want to know if you were town?

I'd just love him to get lynched.

And? Again, it isn’t clear to me what point you’re trying to make.

Knowing his target couldn't hurt either.

Makes sense, but the tradeoff is that as town, we need to be able to test his claim and control his kill or no-kill.

there had been no suggestion that I was scum for my position, though many disagreed with it, apart from a very minor point from Howard. Why would I feel the need to backtrack?

I think it’s more accurate to say that

everyone

who was active in the game at the time disagreed with your position, and I seem to recall that there was also some suggestion that your position was scummy. In addition to Howard’s post to which you refer, Nuwen FoS’ed you for it in her post 392 and Drake’s 399 sounds pretty accusatory as well.

Do you think my voting pattern is more scummy than the other two players?

Yes.

Regards,
Jazz

[Light-kun]

Jaz, what prevents you from voting for the Fish?

Netlava: What do you think of Fish and DtF who are distinctly connected to Jere by Jere himself? If Jere is scum, what of these two?

[Jazzmyn]

Jaz, what prevents you from voting for the Fish?

I just want to figure out the vote count first. I intend to vote for him once I do that.

Regards,
Jazz

[Jazzmyn]

Ahh, it looks like there is just one vote on Fishy at the moment, but I see that he is away until Tuesday, so I am going to hold off on my vote until he returns.

Regards,
Jazz

[Light-kun]

To waste a post proving I was here:

Ok

[JereIC]

To me, I don't see myself posting such a long post so nicely to what I felt was a hopeless cause. So it seemed like you were padding your posts.

Maybe she looked hopeless in hindsight, but at the time I made those posts I thought she was a quick study who just needed some help on how to play effectively.

It's not satisfactory because I would accompany such a conclusion with some sort of conclusion about scumminess. Trolling for the sake of trolling would be a strange occurrence in mafia.

Trolling is anti-town, but not necessarily scummy. Calling it out is the same thing as calling out somebody for lurking or posting conclusions without rationale.

Because it's more dramatic, whereas the past tense is more accurate. The present tense suggests that whatever is being referred to is a continuing repeat occurrence. Past tense is like calling it like it is. This specifically applies to that quote I quoted btw.

I don't mean to be a jackass, but you wrote this paragraph all in the present tense.

I was suggesting that the rest of your post does not follow. You posted that Light's post is pure BS, an emphatic statement. The rest of your post was drawn up rather weakly. I was expecting a more emphatic follow-up to accompany such an emphatic accusation.

Well, if you think my case against LK was weak that's your problem, not mine.

Out of jackass mode, I caught a number of inconsistencies in LK's story, which indicated he was lying, which indicated he was scum. If you think that was a weak case, then you should explain why those inconsistencies weren't such a big deal.

Suggesting yourself as a possible lynch target just seems counterintuitive.

Meaning you were suspicious of the paragraph where I was describing the advantages of plan. That would be where most people could reasonably believe that I was suggesting myself as a lynch target. However, you didn't quote that part. You quoted the part where I pointed out a major flaw in it, and said a townie wouldn't consider "this." Your current explanation doesn't match your previous behavior, so either you were lying then or are lying now.

[Light-kun]

Jere: Do comment again on Fishy. Do you think he is more or less scummy than the last time you posted on him.

[DraketheFake]

You quoted the part where I pointed out a major flaw in it, and said a townie wouldn't consider "this."

Which... makes it odd that you were considering it.

[Looker]

slightly kerflumpled...::gears whirring::...

[Jazzmyn]

You quoted the part where I pointed out a major flaw in it, and said a townie wouldn't consider "this."

Which... makes it odd that you were considering it.

It was Netlava who said a townie wouldn't consider "this", not Jere who said that.

Regards,
Jazz