Newbie #851 (Game Over!)

[iamausername]

-=Vote Count #1=-

AntiSemantic (3) - Signore del Fiori, Pierre Sickle, PorkchopExpress
PorkchopExpress (2) - Spinach, mykonian
Spinach (1) - AntiSemantic

Not Voting (3) - Alviaran, david-villa-7, stands2reason

5 to lynch.

[mykonian]

good news: we made page two.

further, some activity would be great. Post what you think about the fact that AS has 3 votes already, and Porkchops arguments.

[SemanticError]

Everyone is innocent until we have a reason to think otherwise.

Nope.

Unvote. Vote: AntiSemantic

Seriously, taking a quote out of context and semi-bandwagoning with a single word? I hate making retaliation votes, but this kinda calls for it.

Unvote
Vote:PorkchopExpress

On the topic of make vanilla townie "claim", it wasn't really such. Since plain townie is the baseline role -- statistically, even if you don't agree with my storyline/philosophical explanations -- and given how little information we have ONE post into the game, I meant it to be interpreted as a facetious statement along the lines of "I'm innocent and uninteresting", which is what everyone is, IMO, implicitly claiming in the initial portion of a basic game.

You can interpret and over-analyze it as you will. I can't stop you, that's what mafia is about. But I did not intend it as a formal claim, and it shouldn't be taken as such.

[PorkchopExpress]

Everyone is innocent until we have a reason to think otherwise.

Nope.

Unvote. Vote: AntiSemantic

. . . you're going to have to explain a little more than 'nope' and a vote. Why do you disagree with it? What makes people who agree with AS's statement scummy? (I'm assuming you think he's scummy because of the vote, correct me if I'm wrong)

Well, it's a bit of an eyebrow raiser. I don't see it as an effective mentality for a townie which seems susceptible to buddying and blind spots. I'd say the truth of the matter is somewhat reverse: everyone is suspicious, until you have reason to think otherwise. Townies can only trust themselves, and must scrutinise everyone else. Is it necessarily scummy, though? Such thinking could play well for scum (justifying their focus on the highly-lynchable without unneccessary tangles with other harder-to-lynch players), but there are other reasons a player would believe that, and I haven't seen enough of AS' play to say that it's scummy in this instance. As such it warrants pursuit, and I'm finding that more promising.

Seriously, taking a quote out of context and semi-bandwagoning with a single word? I hate making retaliation votes, but this kinda calls for it.

In AS' response we have:

1) Misrepresentation. How exactly did I take you out of context? How is the rest of the post even relevant to what is being discussed?

Here's the extended quote:

@Pierre: Vanilla townie is not really a role claim. These games start with a bunch of townies living their lives, until people start dying. Everyone is innocent until we have a reason to think otherwise. Circles I'm used to, that's the base assumption. I meant it sarcastically, but to be clearer I'll use more smilies next time.

Here's the whole post.Nothing has been taken out of context, you've made a seemingly standalone statement (sibilance!) about Mafia, that I do not agree with and piqued my curiosity. You've tried (poorly) to make that seem scummy.

2) Being against "Semi-bandwagoning" while "Semi-bandwagoning" himself.

3) The preemptive defence against an OMGUS claim.

I'm getting some mild sensations in my scumdar here, AS hasn't responded well to pressure.

@Myk: Mind if I redirect your questions back at you? What do you make of the wagon/s?

@Everyone: What do you make of Pierre describing AS' roleclaim as Misleading? Post here.

[Alviaran]

Bah! I hadn't even noticed it had all been confirmed and started!

Vote: Spinach

Popeye abused this stuff. And the other drugs. But we won't talk about that. Just go with me when I say he was a fake. (And anything but raw spinach is utterly disgusting)

[SemanticError]

Need more people talking. Lurkers, join in!

1) Misrepresentation. How exactly did I take you out of context? How is the rest of the post even relevant to what is being discussed?

My quote was about mafia's storyline. Broken down a bit more it had the structure of:

1) We're all just townsfolk, living in a town.
2) People start dying.
3) Someone must be killing them.
4) Now we have to start looking for clues as to who did it.

This is where we start the game. Storyline-wise, no one has taken any actions since the mob has started hunting. We weren't exactly taking notes beforehand. Therefore, when the game starts we have no evidence collected and thus no reason to point the finger at anyone until they act. Since the not-really-a-claim post was the second one in, I still acted under these assumptions. It was role playing, not intended as a thesis for making decisions,

which is sounds like when you pull it away from the rest of the post.

So yes, it was out of context.

2) Being against "Semi-bandwagoning" while "Semi-bandwagoning" himself.

IMO, the difference between band-wagoning and voting the same way as others lies in whether or not you provide convincing, at least somewhat unique justification for your decision. Which you failed to.

3) The preemptive defence against an OMGUS claim.

If I have any reservations about making a vote, I like to be transparent about them. Just my style.

I'm getting some mild sensations in my scumdar here, AS hasn't responded well to pressure.

I'm not convinced that justifying my actions counts as not "[responding] well to pressure".

And I am entirely aware of the irony of me arguing semantics for the majority of this post.

[Pierre Sickle]

I hereby do stand quite well behind my previous vote for AntiSemantic. It looks like he/she (?) is trying to mislead us and give quite a lot of reasons, JUST at Semi-RvS. By the way, is it frowned upon to start a bandwagon, even if you do have some pretty good reasons, and I am not trying right now to start one mind you.

[Alviaran]

Unvote

Doing this because my attention will be spotty over the weekend and I don't want my vote to be standing when people move out of the random phase.

[iamausername]

-=david-villa-7 and stands2reason have been prodded=-

[stands2reason]

Hello everyone. I thought I would get a PM as soon as the game started.

[stands2reason]

On the topic of make vanilla townie "claim", it wasn't really such. Since plain townie is the baseline role -- statistically, even if you don't agree with my storyline/philosophical explanations -- and given how little information we have ONE post into the game, I meant it to be interpreted as a facetious statement along the lines of "I'm innocent and uninteresting", which is what everyone is, IMO, implicitly claiming in the initial portion of a basic game.

I think either AntiSemantic or PorkchopExpress is scum. I'd lean towards PE, I don't like his accusatory tone.

vote: PorkchopExpress

[SemanticError]

Quick question. I'm unfamiliar with the acronym "RvS". What's it mean?

[Spinach]

Well, it's a bit of an eyebrow raiser. I don't see it as an effective mentality for a townie which seems susceptible to buddying and blind spots. I'd say the truth of the matter is somewhat reverse: everyone is suspicious, until you have reason to think otherwise. Townies can only trust themselves, and must scrutinise everyone else. Is it necessarily scummy, though? Such thinking could play well for scum (justifying their focus on the highly-lynchable without unneccessary tangles with other harder-to-lynch players), but there are other reasons a player would believe that, and I haven't seen enough of AS' play to say that it's scummy in this instance. As such it warrants pursuit, and I'm finding that more promising.

In my opinion: Looking at it either way (Innocent until proven guilty, Guilty until proven innocent) are basically the same thing.
With Guilty until proven innocent, you're thinking everyone is scummy as hell until you see a town tell or a scum tell that makes them even more scummier. So basically, well, say we have a number line, with each number indicating varying levels of suspicion. So, say, 1 would be baseline suspicion, with 2 being being complete scum, and 0 being complete town.
With innocent until proven guilty, you're thinking everyone is town until something proves you otherwise. So baseline would be 0, ultimate suspicion 1, and ultimate town -1.
But in reality, you don't think of anyone with higher or less suspicion either method you use, you're still 1 'number' off for scum/town in both of the situations, you still use the same tells/suspicions etc.

The baseline in which you start at is irrelevant to suspicion,

I say we use something less confusing, such as neutral until proven guilty/innocent.
(I really hope that wasn't too confusing. >_>)

R.V.S.= Random Voting Stage

On the topic of make vanilla townie "claim", it wasn't really such. Since plain townie is the baseline role -- statistically, even if you don't agree with my storyline/philosophical explanations -- and given how little information we have ONE post into the game, I meant it to be interpreted as a facetious statement along the lines of "I'm innocent and uninteresting", which is what everyone is, IMO, implicitly claiming in the initial portion of a basic game.

I think either AntiSemantic or PorkchopExpress is scum. I'd lean towards PE, I don't like his accusatory tone.

vote: PorkchopExpress

Unvote

Stands, you just put Porkchop at L-1 (1 vote to lynch). This means someone could have come along and hammered Pork if they really wanted to. L-1 should be only for people who are ready to be lynched, which is certainly not the case for Porkchop. Discussion should be carried out as long as close to the deadline as possible, and ending D1 4 days in certianly isn't that.

[stands2reason]

alright fine

unvote

[SemanticError]

In my opinion: Looking at it either way (Innocent until proven guilty, Guilty until proven innocent) are basically the same thing.
With Guilty until proven innocent, you're thinking everyone is scummy as hell until you see a town tell or a scum tell that makes them even more scummier. So basically, well, say we have a number line, with each number indicating varying levels of suspicion. So, say, 1 would be baseline suspicion, with 2 being being complete scum, and 0 being complete town.
With innocent until proven guilty, you're thinking everyone is town until something proves you otherwise. So baseline would be 0, ultimate suspicion 1, and ultimate town -1.
But in reality, you don't think of anyone with higher or less suspicion either method you use, you're still 1 'number' off for scum/town in both of the situations, you still use the same tells/suspicions etc.

The baseline in which you start at is irrelevant to suspicion,

I say we use something less confusing, such as neutral until proven guilty/innocent.
(I really hope that wasn't too confusing. >_>)

Long-ish, but not too confusing. It's true, the problem with the word innocent is that it can, in the context of mafia, be opposite either guilty or suspicious. Neutral is a pretty good alternative, or just explicitly saying not suspicious.

That being said, I'm not going to touch the number ideas. The math geek at me would go full out, and come at you with graphs and charts and proofs, oh my.

[iamausername]

-=Signore del Fiori has been prodded. Now seeking a replacement for david-villa-7.=-

[PorkchopExpress]

I hereby do stand quite well behind my previous vote for AntiSemantic. It looks like he/she (?) is trying to mislead us and give quite a lot of reasons, JUST at Semi-RvS. By the way, is it frowned upon to start a bandwagon, even if you do have some pretty good reasons, and I am not trying right now to start one mind you.

What are you trying to do then, exactly?

[iamausername]

-=Einlanzers replaces david-villa-7.=-

[Einlanzers]

Hey guys I'm your other Semi-Experienced player replacing in for david-villa-7.

After a read of the game to this point I see a LOT of pointless arguing over semantics and a lot of swayed voting based off of one persons comment..which is normal in a game with new players, but just a word of caution: Do not do this later in the game. It makes you look very scummy, and distracts from the real scum (unless, of course, you are scum).

I'm not getting a town or a scum read from anyone so far. Everyone is neutral-ish as-of-now.

Things I don't like (AKA find scummy):
1) AntiSemantic's "vanilla town claim" joke in p14.
2) PorkchopExpress's vote without reason (even a joking one) in p22
3) Silly arguing between PCE and AS all over the place.
4) stands2reasons's unvote after an explanation of L-1 and an unvote from Spinach in p38

Things I do like:
How silly you all are arguing over food tastes .

[stands2reason]

4) stands2reasons's unvote after an explanation of L-1

I was told that we didn't have enough to go on, that it wasn't a good idea this close to a lynch. You think I should reinstate it?

[Einlanzers]

stands, I think you should vote as you want to vote, but you need to realize that your vote can have repercussions. If someone would have hammered Porkchop and he would have turned up to be town then you would have had a hand in that.

However, Spinach already took away that possibility by unvoting putting him back at L-2, so 2 people would have had to vote to lynch him. You unvoting doesn't really matter. You just put him at L-3. So if you DO think that he is scum you should vote for him, but DO NOT put someone at L-1 unless you are SURE of it.

That being said I give Spinach +1 town point for prevention of early hammer.

[Pierre Sickle]

My internet just dipped, and am once again confirming my activity. Just in case it DOES fizz out again, please prod me in a PM.

[Pierre Sickle]

I hereby do stand quite well behind my previous vote for AntiSemantic. It looks like he/she (?) is trying to mislead us and give quite a lot of reasons, JUST at Semi-RvS. By the way, is it frowned upon to start a bandwagon, even if you do have some pretty good reasons, and I am not trying right now to start one mind you.

What are you trying to do then, exactly?

Noticed this now, what I am trying to do is give a point. Something simply to consider and take in mind for later, if it does result in a case where AS needs some sort of proof.

But now, your turning me the other way right now. That post in itself sounded awkward. You've just tried to buckle someone trying to help under pressure, though you were initially arguing with AntiSemantic in the first place.

It's still RVS but I'm putting the

FOS: PorkChopExpress

right now, but hey, this is still just a reply to your post.

[iamausername]

-=mykonian has been prodded. Now seeking a replacement for Signore del Fiori.=-

[mykonian]

sorry guys, how much I want to be the action bringing guy, I just couldn't do that this weekend. And neither can I now. School is a little bit in the way, but don't worry, it will only be for a short time.