Mini 793: Scrubs mafia- GAME OVER

[hp [leaves]]

At Brandi: I'll admit it wasn't the strongest, but explain to me why my reasoning was "crappy."

unvote
vote: Fishy

I like this wagon better than Brandi's.

Any reason why?

Don't develop all this theoretical... stuff... within the game; just play each game.

Read as: You've got me in a corner. Please stop scumhunting.

That post truly deserves a vote.

Unvote, vote inHim

Also Slicey needs to post more.

[inHimshallibe]

Don't develop all this theoretical... stuff... within the game; just play each game.

Read as: You've got me in a corner. Please stop scumhunting.

Once again, throwing something out there while not putting your vote where your mouth is.

If I had to name three potential BGs and be right about two of them, I'd name: DDD, veerus, and Gorrad.

lol yeah that looks quite OMGUS, but I'd say the same if they treated their votes (or lack thereof in DDD and Gorrad's case) toward another player. But there's no way to defend that.

[BrianMcQueso]

There is merit to bandwagonning for the sake of bandwagonning, especially this early. A bandwagon creates pressure on a player which forces reactions from that player. It creates a situation that people in the town must respond to and have an opinion about. It's good for the game.

That being said, I'm not sure which I like less: the case against inHim, or his response to it. They're both pretty bad. I'm gonna sit on Fishy a bit more for the moment.

[inHimshallibe]

That being said, I'm not sure which I like less:

the

case

against

inHim

, or his response to it.

You should pick the one with pretty colors.

[Tzeentch]

Unvote

At Brandi: I'll admit it wasn't the strongest, but explain to me why my reasoning was "crappy."

unvote
vote: Fishy

I like this wagon better than Brandi's.

Any reason why?

Don't develop all this theoretical... stuff... within the game; just play each game.

Read as: You've got me in a corner. Please stop scumhunting.

That post truly deserves a vote.

Firstly, this sentence is a little misleading - it sound like you intended to vote Gorrad, and I did a minor double take when I realised you voted inHim instead.

Regarding inHim's post, if a discussion of mafia theory is relevant to the game at hand, then trying to quell that theory discussion is trying to quell game-relevant discussion, which is a pretty scummy action.

I very much doubt there's a four-man scumgroup, and I definitely don't think the post so early was a "slip". It looked to me like just a throwaway joke. Nonetheless, it's prompted discussion, and preventing that is a bad thing.

The nature of the wagon determines how far the wagon goes. If we get 5 votes and still aren't satisfied, there will be a 6th. If the hunger still isn't gone, there's a lynch.

This worries me. The main purpose of the wagon is to create pressure on a player and gauge their reaction, but it also prompts other discussion and enables us to see how the other players are reacting to the wagon.

As I read this post, inHim seems to consider the wagon to imply an acceptable argument on the person being wagonned (what is it precisely we need to be satisfied about?) - the nature of a bandwagon means that it tends to excite its members into greater suspicion, and if the initial point is as minor as it is here, it's almost impossible for the person being wagonned to defend themselves.

Brian, you're right that wagonning does produce pressure, but it's important to remember that we shouldn't lycnh people because there's pressue on them, but have to look at why the pressure is there. Currently, I'm having trouble seeing a good reason for the pressure.

[hp [leaves]]

That being said, I'm not sure which I like less: the case against inHim, or his response to it. They're both pretty bad. I'm gonna sit on Fishy a bit more for the moment.

Or we pressure both? I like my option better.

[Slicey]

Also Slicey needs to post more.

I do! And I will!

InHim is looking terrible right now. You basically picked a person out of random (Fishy) and decided to BW him, just because he had 2 votes or something in the RVS.

It kind of perplexes me that most of you all are focusing on intent to lynch rather than using bandwagons as an instrument of the game. Does no one understand what I'm getting at with this?

This makes no sense. You're saying we should lynch players based on who has the most amount of votes, not based on how scummy they are? Since when is the game of mafia played like that? And then you're deflecting at the end of Post 73. Mafia theory, in this game, happens to be important in the discussion.

Vote: InHim

I haven't liked a few of Brandi's posts. On the first page she is already determining who is most likely town, based off a couple of posts. How could you be so sure that Gorrad is "most likely" town? That sounds like you're pretty confident. Same with Fishy, who you call "probably town." I also don't like your wording at the end of post 36:

Anyway I don't know what to think of HP. That little 'slip up' isn't enough for a lynch, but should be kept in mind as we progress.

You make it sound like you want to lynch somebody already, only on Page 2. Of course it's not lynch worthy, and anybody that tries to push the issue is most likely scum. hp was just "mad" because my (and when I say my, I don't mean it as I was the leader) four man scumteam in Sushi killed hp, clinching the game for us. In short, I don't really like the wording of that sentence.

FoS: Brandi

Also, you seem to be playing very differently in this game than you did in Past Ages Mafia. Something to keep in mind.

[hp [leaves]]

You make it sound like you want to lynch somebody already, only on Page 2.

Who doesn't want to :d

[Dr. Perry Cox]

Votecount

4 inHimshallibe

(Brandi, veerus, Fishythefish, hp [leaves])

2 Fishythefish

(Furry, BrianMcQueso)

1 Brandi

(Slicey)

1 Debonair Danny DiPietro

(inHimshallibe)

1 Slicey

(Maturin24)

Not voting: Debonair Danny DiPietro, Gorrad, Tzeentch

[Slicey]

Gah, forgot to unvote. But now that I see the votals, I'm not entirely sure I want to put him at L-2 this early.

[inHimshallibe]

It kind of perplexes me that most of you all are focusing on intent to lynch rather than using bandwagons as an instrument of the game. Does no one understand what I'm getting at with this?

This makes no sense. You're saying we should lynch players based on who has the most amount of votes, not based on how scummy they are? Since when is the game of mafia played like that? And then you're deflecting at the end of Post 73. Mafia theory, in this game, happens to be important in the discussion.

Vote: InHim

First of all, things that do not make sense are

not

a scumtell.

Second, when I mentioned the "intent to lynch rather than an instrument..." I probably should have been clearer by saying "a bandwagon's intent to lynch rather than..." Does that make where I'm coming from any clearer? Bandwagons are started because people look scummy - I never meant to imply that bandwagons should necessarily be random.

And I did have a reason to vote Fishy when I joined the bandwagon - I agreed that his reactions to the now-infamous "4 scum" comment were too zealous. I also admit I was being obnoxious about continung the bandwagon, but I'm not apologizing for that part. It is what it is.

And third, I rarely think theoretical discussion is anything more than a scum ploy to participate without scumhunting. Theory might come in handy if you're deciding to not lynch with only four people alive, but besides that, it can distract town from the game.

[Slicey]

Things that don't make sense = bad logic = scumtell

[inHimshallibe]

Things that don't make sense = bad logic

Then say "bad logic" if that's what you mean. The above are not always equal.

[Tzeentch]

Things that don't make sense = bad logic = scumtell

Not all things that don't make sense are necessarily bad logic. What's more, not all bad logic is a scumtell.

What's more, your post is a strawman (which is bad logic, and of the scumtell sort). What he said is this:

It kind of perplexes me that most of you all are focusing on intent to lynch rather than using bandwagons as an instrument of the game.

This could mean a number of things, and I read it as pointing out that the purpose of a bandwagon is to put pressure on the person being wagonned, to see how people justify joining the wagon, how the early voters react to a couple of votes becoming a serious threat, and how undecided people react to this. The lynch is merely an aspect of the wagon, should the various reactions imply that the wagonned person is most likely to be scum.

You reworded it as this:

You're saying we should lynch players based on who has the most amount of votes, not based on how scummy they are?

This is not what inHim said. Maybe it is what he meant, I don't know, but it's definitely not what he said and it's also phrased far more simplistically, which makes it look scummier than it was.

Vote: Slicey

- I find strawmen to be one of the most notable scumtells.

[Brandi]

Slicey: Playing differently, as in making a slightly bigger effort to contribute? Everyone was complaining how I did nothing during that game, so I feel like I need to try harder. I also addressed the issue you FOS'd me for so I'm not going to address it again. ;P

From what it looks like at the moment, InHim is all supportive of wagoning just to wagon, but is against his own wagon, and is being very defensive. He should be supporting it by his own logic.

[Furry]

Finally got internet working *damn comcast giving me a router that died after an hour the first time* so I will get a reread done either tonight or tomorrow.

[Fishythefish]

I suddenly really dislike the wagon I’m on. Slicey’s post is a strawman - I don’t see how InHim’s quote fits with the opinions Slicey ascribes to him.

From what it looks like at the moment, InHim is all supportive of wagoning just to wagon, but is against his own wagon, and is being very defensive. He should be supporting it by his own logic.

This is also not good. Obviously, wagoning just to wagon is one of the those policies with an exception when you are the object of the wagon. This seems like a rather weak attempt to sling a bit of mud in InHim’s direction.
I also dislike Brandi’s habit of calling people protown- this is unhelpful for the town, and potentially buddying or an attempt to look good later after they die. Like others, I also dislike the “bear this in mind” quote- while her explanation is valid, it just feels more like a scum stashing away an excuse to vote than a townie stating an obvious truth.

unvote, vote: Brandi

And third, I rarely think theoretical discussion is anything more than a scum ploy to participate without scumhunting. Theory might come in handy if you're deciding to not lynch with only four people alive, but besides that, it can distract town from the game.

Sometimes it’s relevant. Here, you were excusing/explaining your play by an appeal to theory. If that theory was fabricated, weak or stretched, that reflects badly on you.

[inHimshallibe]

Sometimes it’s relevant. Here, you were excusing/explaining your play by an appeal to theory. If that theory was fabricated, weak or stretched, that reflects badly on you.

Ah, I understand a little more clearly, now.

From what it looks like at the moment, InHim is all supportive of wagoning just to wagon, but is against his own wagon, and is being very defensive. He should be supporting it by his own logic.

I'm not sure whether you're being snarky town or scum here. The post is definitely noted.

[Brandi]

On Brandi:

Labelling me

“probably town” in post 23 doesn’t quite ring true-

I don’t think my first two posts look exceptionally pro-town, and this is possible buddying. Post 36- “Not enough for a lynch, but should be kept in mind”- this is a normal way for the scum to have an argument to come back to. Of course, it’s also true for everything in the game which isn’t lynchworthy. I’d like to know why she didn’t vote for hp at this point.

Well the 'probably town' thing was a gut feeling. Not really based on anything. Isn't buddying only something for scum + scum anyway? If it were a scummy thing to do... why would scum buddy town? I don't quite get that. Also I didn't vote HP cuz I wasn't sure on the whole 4 scum thing, and no one else seemed really sure either so at that point in my mind it could have been a slip and it couldn't have been, I didn't think he needed a bandwagon because what he said was pretty ambiguous and seemed like a not very good reason to base an entire lynch off of.

Also InHim I'm not sure but what are your reasons for pursuing a bandwagon on fishyyy?

I addressed this.

Anyway I don't know what to think of HP. That little 'slip up' isn't enough for a lynch, but should be kept in mind as we progress.

I do NOT like this.

Unvote, Vote: Brandi

whats wrong with what I said? Maybe I don't like the letter G in your name. I should vote you for that.

You're basically saying, straight up, that while you won't push any case against hp now, you're reserving something to use against him later.

A perfect example of which is a scum needing a way to jump onto a wagon later in the game and pulling something from page 2. If you think he's scummy, there's certainly nothing better page 2 on which to base a vote, so vote him! Otherwise, let it go.

Well I just don't think its a good idea to lynch someone over one little thing, if they do more scummy things later on, that might be grounds to lynch them. But it seems like that it wasn't even a slip since everyone is saying a 4 scum group is almost impossible. So its probably not worth bringing up again anyway unless we somehow find out that there are 4 scum.

Addressed this.

YET ON THE VERY NEXT PAGE:

Anyway I don't know what to think of HP. That little 'slip up' isn't enough for a lynch, but should be kept in mind as we progress.

You make it sound like you want to lynch somebody already, only on Page 2. Of course it's not lynch worthy, and anybody that tries to push the issue is most likely scum. hp was just "mad" because my (and when I say my, I don't mean it as I was the leader) four man scumteam in Sushi killed hp, clinching the game for us. In short, I don't really like the wording of that sentence.

FoS: Brandi

Also, you seem to be playing very differently in this game than you did in Past Ages Mafia. Something to keep in mind.

Slicey: Playing differently, as in making a slightly bigger effort to contribute? Everyone was complaining how I did nothing during that game, so I feel like I need to try harder. I also addressed the issue you FOS'd me for so I'm not going to address it again. ;P

So I've addressed this TWICE, practically.

I suddenly really dislike the wagon I’m on. Slicey’s post is a strawman - I don’t see how InHim’s quote fits with the opinions Slicey ascribes to him.

From what it looks like at the moment, InHim is all supportive of wagoning just to wagon, but is against his own wagon, and is being very defensive. He should be supporting it by his own logic.

This is also not good. Obviously, wagoning just to wagon is one of the those policies with an exception when you are the object of the wagon. This seems like a rather weak attempt to sling a bit of mud in InHim’s direction.
I also dislike Brandi’s habit of calling people protown- this is unhelpful for the town, and potentially buddying or an attempt to look good later after they die. Like others, I also dislike the “bear this in mind” quote- while her explanation is valid, it just feels more like a scum stashing away an excuse to vote than a townie stating an obvious truth.

Repeating yourself. Argument of repitition much? Calling it a HABIT? A bit over dramatic don't you think? When in fact I only mentioned that two people were probably [note: probably, not 'obviously'] town based on EARLY -GUT- Feelings. Yet even though I OBVIOUSLY came out and responded to something multiple people were discussing, you felt the need to bring it up as if it had never been said. Trying to gradually push this into the minds of the other townies? Argument of REPETITION much?

And then, inHim, just happens to hop a long and back up fishy, kind of convenient for him, don't you think? Seems like he is just dying to get the wagon off of him.

Also, THIS:

From what it looks like at the moment, InHim is all supportive of wagoning just to wagon, but is against his own wagon, and is being very defensive. He should be supporting it by his own logic.

I'm not sure whether you're being snarky town or scum here. The post is definitely noted.

So, blatantly refusing to address my point and deem my comment as snarky? Pursuing a wagon with NO BASIS whatsoever JUST to pursue it is SCUMMY. To lynch someone you have to have a CASE. So what REALLY made you supportive of Fishy's lynch? Was "to get a reaction, and if he ends up getting lynched, oh well" just a cover? Perhaps Fishy would turn up scum and you, inhim, would look very town to the rest of us because you valiantly pushed against his wagon, even though there was no reasoning behind it. Maybe, just maybe, you'd be given the right to pursue OTHER baseless bandwagons in an attempt to rid us of townies?

Both of you are looking VERY bad right now.

FOS: Fishy

(inHim is still scummier atm than Fishy, so my vote remains on him)

[inHimshallibe]

veerus:

It's Day 1, meh.

I'm not going to add much if there's nothing to be added. That's just more garbage to wade through on a reread, and doesn't help anyone, as far as I'm concerned. I'll do my little thing on the bandwagon.

Maybe I should have made this abundantly clearer, but Day 1 is really the only time I bandwagon "just because." I'm trying to generate a lot of possible information with many bandwagons.

To lynch someone you have to have a CASE.

lol

A bit over dramatic don't you think?

lol

And of course I don't like the wagon on me... That's pretty much the case for anyone, right? (loljester)

No one seems to like my DDD vote.

unvote
vote: Brandi

[Brandi]

And, here we have a classic scummy, OMGUS. Nice job making yourself appear even more scummy than you already are, inHim.

[Brandi]

Also, no one seems to like your vote, eh? So voting something just to fit in with everyone else? Not wanting to think for yourself? Also, saying you always do something in every game does not make it a smart or pro-town thing to do. You are either very very terrible scum, or a VI.

[Fishythefish]

@ Brandi:
I was switching my vote onto you. Seemed an oppurtune moment to tell people why, including my previously made point. And yes, you have addressed both the points I made, but I still find them scummy.

I find it totally bizarre that you think the most likely motive for inHim's pursuing a wagon on me is bussing scum, intending to look good and lynch townies on other days. Why on earth would you think that more likely than scum-inHim trying to push a townie lynch, a much more common and natural scum action? The link you are attempting to create here is very spurious indeed, and looks like nothing more than an excuse to strengthen your suspicions on both inHim and myself.

What is a VI?

[Brandi]

Well, that's fine, keep thinking something is scummy when you're already proven wrong. I'm sure that will get you far. Inhim is definitely acting more scummy than you, and really its just a theory. I can't be sure of anything right now, but that is what it looks like. He could just be trying to push a townie lynch, or he could have been trying to push a scum lynch. And there you go putting words in my mouth again, "most likely motive" yah, because I totally said that. Anyway, I am scumhunting, though, I'm not sure about you.

VI= villiage idiot. Still funny that he thinks I'm telling him to be on his own wagon when in fact I'm simply stating that his baseless wagons are just plain illogical. Wagonning just to wagon, is scummy. His not caring, idiotic "lol" responses just prove that point even more.

[Fishythefish]

And there you go putting words in my mouth again, "most likely motive" yah, because I totally said that.

So what REALLY made you supportive of Fishy's lynch? Was "to get a reaction, and if he ends up getting lynched, oh well" just a cover? Perhaps Fishy would turn up scum and you, inhim, would look very town to the rest of us because you valiantly pushed against his wagon, even though there was no reasoning behind it. Maybe, just maybe, you'd be given the right to pursue OTHER baseless bandwagons in an attempt to rid us of townies?

You are right that you didn't say that explicitly. The above paragraph, however, implies strongly that that is what you think. You ask questions that are in effect rhetorical in order to put forward your own read on the situation. If you didn't think bussing the most likely motive, I can't see why you would write this.

Well, that's fine, keep thinking something is scummy when you're already proven wrong.

There's a big difference between responding to a point and proving it wrong. Just because you give a townie explanation for something doesn't necessarily make it more convincing than the "you are scum" explanation.

Still funny that he thinks I'm telling him to be on his own wagon when in fact I'm simply stating that his baseless wagons are just plain illogical.

I think this post did more than that:

From what it looks like at the moment, InHim is all supportive of wagoning just to wagon, but is against his own wagon, and is being very defensive. He should be supporting it by his own logic.

You are attacking inHim for being defensive (which is a bad attack in itself), and linking it to his bad logic. What I infer from this paragraph is something along the lines of "inHim has less right to defend himself- he supports wagoning for the sake of it", which is not a good sentiment.