Mini 873 Plainview Game Over

[MordyS]

Ok, archaebob was looking for more people to weigh in on this foilist13 situation, so I'm about to do that. After a full reread, the thing that stuck out the most to me was;

Taking all this into account though, I can't prove or deduce that MordyS was looking up other players. I found it moderately scummy after Almaster pointed it out, but I concede the point as I can't prove it.

I got caught up, as did archaebob, on the name typo. It was a minor thing (we've all made reading mistakes), but it did indicate, especially coming in the middle of a discussion, that he wasn't doing due diligence to his reading. But on reread, what I noticed more was, "I found it moderately scummy after Almaster pointed it out, but I concede the point as I can't prove it." This is the kind of sneaky, scum-language that drives me nuts where he hedges on either side.

There's another example of this from Muffin (I'll quote Chinaman, who first noted this in post 49):

I would actually venture to say the biggest scumtell so far comes from Muffin who is "inclined to agree" nice and early so if the BW stays strong toward end of deadline, he can say "I said I agreed on p2!". It's an agreement without a vote, HoS, or FoS.

So what does this mean? I don't think this early in the game either of these tells mean that the players are definitively scummy, but it does bother me that they've decided to "lay low." Muffin somewhat mediates this in post 89 (though the OMGUS vote is ridiculous). He's otherwise struck me as participating, though I plan to keep an eye on him in case he tries to buddy/hedge in other places. foilist13, though, seems to have accidently stuck his foot in his mouth on a typo (my name, versus Gammagooey), and then tried to extract himself by, in my view, trying to sneak out of the spotlight. (This is more of a tone thing, I'm not sure I can notate it exactly.)

Did you miss the part where I said I couldn't prove or deduce that he was researching? It cannot be disproved either, and despite the fact that it is far from conclusive evidence, it is something to have somewhere in mind.

Isn't it clear that if you can't prove or disprove this, then it's a null tell? Not to mention that even if we could prove that he researched EVERY SINGLE player before starting play: I think that could easily be Townie play! So I don't know what foilist needs to keep in mind.

Finally, and this is speculative, foilist may have jumbled the names in the first place because any townie is interchangeable with any other townie if you're scum. (I do get a fairly townie read from Gammagooey at the moment.) He is lazily piling onto someone else's case (AlmasterGM), in such a lazy manner that he can't even be bothered to double check which townie he's going after. Not to mention that, unless I'm mistaken (please correct me if I am), foilist still has a vote on me because of this typo. Not in a big rush to correct his mistake.

Unvote

Vote: foilist13

[Muffin]

URATFM = you are a total fucking moron

kirby is a goddamn beast, and i will not stand to hear you or anyone else say otherwise.

[Chinaman]

come to think of it, p89 is full of ridiculousness...in fact, it looks like an entire post attempting to strawman me.

Can you please point out any posts of mine that actually correlate to anything you accused me of doing? In case you don't think you are accusing me of anything, point out where I:

-do you honestly think in a 12-player game, that a silly bandwagon from page 2 is going to stay nice and strong through to the end?

-Then again maybe you'd like this bandwagon to push through to a lynch real quick? Eager to test out your night kill?

-Earlier on you admit to not reading the thread carefully (scumtell) and now the double standards/hypocrisy.

oh and lets not forget

You lambast me for not taking a stance yet all you can put up is a measly fos that has zero impact on the game? We call that hypocrisy where I come from and in my experience the only players who need to create or rely on double standards are scum.

(this is a real gem btw...lol)

So, what were you attempting to do in this post, bread? I pointed out you didn't do any sort of suspicion bold statement and you turn it into hypocrisy based on how you think people should play?

If you can't point out where I did all those things, you WILL get your wish and have me vote. It will be for you btw...so no surprises.

[SpyreX]

Ohh snap, we done had a lot of words. Benmage should have a tear in his eye.

"Killed" is all-inclusive - it could be night-killed, day-killed, mod-killed, or lynched (which is a form of killing). I don't discriminate. It's ironic that you say "semantics blah blah" and then proceed to MAKE a semantics argument - bit of a contradiction, no?

Killed is not all inclusive, or if one will it makes far more sense as a slip of the tongue (there would not have been the same issue if it were "I hope you die in the game soon").

Killed in mafioso language has a fairly specific connotation and using it like you did supports that.

There is no irony. I was stating that this is based on a semantical tell.

The fact that, in conjunction, the case thrown out about reading other players is about as shaky as one could get, well.

And, yes, I hold the "killed" to be more of a scumslip than the case.

[Muffin]

@ Muffin - have I been particularly undiplomatic in this game?

I mean, y'all from 846 have a very specific idea of what kind of player I am, though the truth is I've been trying out different metas for all of my games. I don't think I've been notably abrasive in this game so far, except perhaps in direct response to foilist.

No, I don't think you've been particularly abrasive or undiplomatic. Certainly more cooperative than 846, but then again I have a high threshold for that sort of thing.

[Muffin]

There's another example of this from Muffin (I'll quote Chinaman, who first noted this in post 49):

I would actually venture to say the biggest scumtell so far comes from Muffin who is "inclined to agree" nice and early so if the BW stays strong toward end of deadline, he can say "I said I agreed on p2!". It's an agreement without a vote, HoS, or FoS.

So what does this mean? I don't think this early in the game either of these tells mean that the players are definitively scummy, but it does bother me that they've decided to "lay low." Muffin somewhat mediates this in post 89 (though the OMGUS vote is ridiculous). He's otherwise struck me as participating, though I plan to keep an eye on him in case he tries to buddy/hedge in other places.

Haha... yeah in hindsight it does look rather like an omgus vote. I look at it this way though:

He says I'm laying low and trying not to stick my neck out too far, but only throws a FoS down. No matter what you or I or chinaman or anyone else says or would like to believe,

fossing someone doesn't actually do anything

. It doesn't matter what anyone says because

only votes are counted

.

So when he criticizes me for not taking a stance and purposefully doesn't take one on his own, how can that be anything other than hypocrisy?

The exact same argument he applies to me can be applied to him. "See? I said I agreed when I fossed!". It's an agreement without a vote.

[Chinaman]

So....did you totally ignore my posts that came before Mordy's? I was calling you a liar in case you missed it. Don't worry, there's another one after Mordy's that you can put with the first one that you skipped and respond to both at the same time. I will admit they are talking about the same thing with the 2nd expounded a little bit, but still....

[MordyS]

No matter what you or I or chinaman or anyone else says or would like to believe, fossing someone doesn't actually do anything. It doesn't matter what anyone says because only votes are counted.

This isn't precisely true. Trying to create a good read here has nothing to do with the actual effects of an FoS, only with the perceived effects of an FoS. Which is to say: If Chinaman believes an FoS is more potent than doing nothing at all, he isn't a hypocrite if he makes an FoS but lays into you for doing nothing. If Chinaman, however, agreed that an FoS did nothing, then you'd in fact have a case against him. (Ie: My personal opinions on FoS's, Votes, etc, mean nothing here. All that is important in verifying Chinaman's hypocrisy is whether he is actually at odds with his own beliefs. And as far as I can tell, he is not.)

[Muffin]

Can you please point out any posts of mine that actually correlate to anything you accused me of doing? In case you don't think you are accusing me of anything, point out where I:

-do you honestly think in a 12-player game, that a silly bandwagon from page 2 is going to stay nice and strong through to the end?

Sure, I can point out where you insinuated a bandwagon from page 2 would carry on through to the end of the day. It's right here:

I would actually venture to say the biggest scumtell so far comes from Muffin who is "inclined to agree" nice and early so if the BW stays strong toward end of deadline, he can say "I said I agreed on p2!".

-Earlier on you admit to not reading the thread carefully (scumtell) and now the double standards/hypocrisy.

I can point that out too. That would be here:

so I'm gonna have to go back and look at who exactly did what and when....unless you wanna quote it for me????

As for this one... do you really need me to point out where you attacked me for not taking a stance or for taking a middle ground or whatever you want to call it?

You lambast me for not taking a stance yet all you can put up is a measly fos that has zero impact on the game? We call that hypocrisy where I come from and in my experience the only players who need to create or rely on double standards are scum.

---

So, what were you attempting to do in this post, bread? I pointed out you didn't do any sort of suspicion bold statement and you turn it into hypocrisy based on how you think people should play?

I was trying to expose your bullshit logic and also to explain why I switched my vote to you.

If you can't point out where I did all those things, you WILL get your wish and have me vote. It will be for you btw...so no surprises.

So since I pointed them out, you still gonna vote me?

[Muffin]

So....did you totally ignore my posts that came before Mordy's? I was calling you a liar in case you missed it. Don't worry, there's another one after Mordy's that you can put with the first one that you skipped and respond to both at the same time. I will admit they are talking about the same thing with the 2nd expounded a little bit, but still....

Was this directed at me? You need to start addressing your posts.

[Muffin]

So....did you totally ignore my posts that came before Mordy's? I was calling you a liar in case you missed it. Don't worry, there's another one after Mordy's that you can put with the first one that you skipped and respond to both at the same time. I will admit they are talking about the same thing with the 2nd expounded a little bit, but still....

If it was addressed to me, I assume you're referring to post 99:

Earlier on you admit to not reading the thread carefully (scumtell) and now the double standards/hypocrisy.

Misrepresent much? Here's an

HoS: Muffin

for ya. Oh, and guess what, I don't have to play by your rules now do I? I'll vote when I'm good and ready to and not a moment too soon. Opinions are like assholes remember?.... I think an FoS and the like are just as readable as a vote. To say they aren't is just your opinion, but I will build a case on someone FoS'ing someone else just a quick as if they voted.

Why on earth would I respond to this? First of all you didn't ask me anything. Second of all it can be summed up as "yeah? well I'm playing my way so there!"

What sort of response were you hoping for, exactly?

[Muffin]

No matter what you or I or chinaman or anyone else says or would like to believe, fossing someone doesn't actually do anything. It doesn't matter what anyone says because only votes are counted.

This isn't precisely true. Trying to create a good read here has nothing to do with the actual effects of an FoS, only with the perceived effects of an FoS. Which is to say: If Chinaman believes an FoS is more potent than doing nothing at all, he isn't a hypocrite if he makes an FoS but lays into you for doing nothing. If Chinaman, however, agreed that an FoS did nothing, then you'd in fact have a case against him. (Ie: My personal opinions on FoS's, Votes, etc, mean nothing here. All that is important in verifying Chinaman's hypocrisy is whether he is actually at odds with his own beliefs. And as far as I can tell, he is not.)

..................... well I suppose I see your point. But I still think fossing is retarded. Since it has no effect, it ultimately has no purpose.

Either way, the fact remains that Chinaman has decided his way is the only way, since he thinks I'm scummy for not fossing or using some other kind of bolded statement. Then he gets on my case saying "I don't have to play by your rules, do I?"

So... I have to play by his rules (since not fossing makes me scummy) but he doesn't have to play by mine? Fuck that. That's still hypocrisy right there.

[Chinaman]

Wow, you REALLY like to try and read into things don't you? Question for the first quote you pointed out of mine. Do you know the meaning of the word 'IF'? If you do, then my statement about not "insinuating" anything still stands true. 'IF' is a funny word like that...it's hypothetical.

Second quote of mine that is also a stretch...do you see where I went back on my own? did you see that I immediately posted my thoughts on it after I posted that comment? Did you also miss the part where I was pretty buzzed at the time? Going to make a case out of me drinking and posting? This is classic. You are taking something very much out of context, thus making my thoughts about you trying to strawman ever so more valid.

Last but not least. I am still failing to see where my logic is BS. It is only BS under YOUR assumption that FoS, HoS, and the like mean nothing and only the vote matters. I have stated already that it is YOUR opinion which you are entitled to, but in which doesn't make someone else a hypocrite. You are failing to get that through your head. I called you out for saying you were agreeing with people yet not pointing your own finger or hand or any other sort of bold statement which is easy to find when going back through the thread. THAT is the true purpose of these statements when you want to make it known you find someone's activities suspicious yet don't want to whore out your vote. Bolding them make them easy to find.

I also have a negative view about people who whore out their votes just so they are out there. It lessens the value of the vote. Cheapens it. A vote is a townies ONLY power, so I don't see why it should be thrown around till it has no real meaning. I do have a feeling you will be getting my vote before days end, but I'm not going to cast it out just yet when we still have people who have posted very little. My vote is precious like that. You have my HoS as of now, so that should be enough.

[afatchic]

Okay, so that was a lot of posts, and very few words....

First off, Gamma you can't expect people to post that much. Generally at least once a day is to be expected, over weekends you can expect less. I have been busy all day and just now have a chance to check it (As i normally will only have a chance at night).

Anyways, i don't buy the gamma case one bit. I think it is good to check a few games first. That way you get a feel for what to expect. I somewhat did it for my first game. Rather than starting straight out in a newbie game, i replaced into a 30 page game, to kind of see how it goes, and then be able to try out what i had learned at the end.

I also don't buy the case against AGM. I think he genuinely thought he had a case when posting it. I don't think he was faking that or anything. I do think that it was blown out of proportion and he was attacked a bit hard about it. That was good though since it quickly brought us out of the RVS.

What i dislike the most thus far....
Bob's bandwagon vote on to AGM. It was with terrible reasoning (A 1 liner, imagine that), and just looked scummy to me. He claims that AGM just can't believe that is a good case, thus votes him. Generally, this can be a good reason for a vote. The only problem is, he is voting for someone not pushing a good case on post 40!

Unvote, Vote archaebob

[Chinaman]

muffin p110: I accused you of misrepresenting me...you had nothing to say to that? So you don't mind misrepresenting people or don't feel the need to prove you weren't....

muffin p111: So what's your actual reason for voting me now? Outa curiosity. Is it hypocrisy? I am of the opinion you were over reacting to attention. Especially since I was really the only one giving you any in a negative sense. I merely asked you why you did do something and you blew it up to this. I think your response to the whole thing is emotional and guess who gives emotional responses...that's right, scum do.

[afatchic]

Also, IMO Withholding a vote and placing an FOS or HOS is not Pro-town. It doesn't commit you to a wagon, and it makes it a lot harder to follow your thoughts when looking back through the game at Day 4ish.

By only placing HOS's and FOS's it allows the scum to encourage a mislynch, and then when the player flips town, they can say, well i wasn't voting him or something like that.

So IMO, a player should have a

Vote

down at all times...

[afatchic]

Also, IMO Withholding a vote and placing an FOS or HOS is not Pro-town. It doesn't commit you to a wagon, and it makes it a lot harder to follow your thoughts when looking back through the game at Day 4ish.

By only placing HOS's and FOS's it allows the scum to encourage a mislynch, and then when the player flips town, they can say, well i wasn't voting him or something like that.

So IMO, a player should have a

Vote

down at all times...

[Muffin]

muffin p110: I accused you of misrepresenting me...you had nothing to say to that?

Not really, no. I addressed it in my reply to your other post.

So you don't mind misrepresenting people or don't feel the need to prove you weren't....

muffin p111: So what's your actual reason for voting me now? Outa curiosity.

Well you already know the reason I voted you. The reason it's still on you is because I haven't seen anything else yet that I feel is more deserving of my vote.

You might call my case against you flimsy (and maybe it is) but it's a case nonetheless and it's the best I've got at this early stage in the game.

[Muffin]

Also, IMO Withholding a vote and placing an FOS or HOS is not Pro-town. It doesn't commit you to a wagon, and it makes it a lot harder to follow your thoughts when looking back through the game at Day 4ish.

By only placing HOS's and FOS's it allows the scum to encourage a mislynch, and then when the player flips town, they can say, well i wasn't voting him or something like that.

So IMO, a player should have a

Vote

down at all times...

This.

[Chinaman]

p117: fair enough.

I'm going to go ahead and agree to disagree with you Muffin and afatchic. I will say that trying to get people to cast their votes because you think it's scummy if they don't is more manipulative than helpful for town.

[Benmage]

damn, a vote count would be nice right about now...but its friday....why am i on the computer?....anyway....

Vote Count:
MordyS (1) foilist13
AlmasterGM (2) Gammagooey, SpryeX
Gammagooey (2) peanutman, AlmasterGM
Chinaman (2) cruelty, Muffin
foilist13(2) archaebob, MordyS
archaebob (1) afatchic

Note Voting (2) lexprod, Chinaman

Ohh snap, we done had a lot of words. Benmage should have a tear in his eye.

Nothing I like more than activity. You guys seem like a good bunch and are a pleasure to mod. Keep up the good work.

Sorry if I fall behind in votecounts over the weekend I tend to be busy. Otherwise I should be on top of things.

[Muffin]

Speaking of activity.

I'd like to hear more from lexprod and peanutman.

And by more I mean.... anything.

[afatchic]

Speaking of activity.

I'd like to hear more from lexprod and peanutman.

And by more I mean.... anything.

:O They are in the game?!

[lexprod]

I guess I'm the only one who has stuff to do holloween weekend? See you guys sunday, maybe later this evening. That's my excuse and I'm sticking to it.

[Gammagooey]

I also don't buy the case against AGM. I think he genuinely thought he had a case when posting it. I don't think he was faking that or anything. I do think that it was blown out of proportion and he was attacked a bit hard about it. That was good though since it quickly brought us out of the RVS.

What i dislike the most thus far....
Bob's bandwagon vote on to AGM. It was with terrible reasoning (A 1 liner, imagine that), and just looked scummy to me. He claims that AGM just can't believe that is a good case, thus votes him. Generally, this can be a good reason for a vote. The only problem is, he is voting for someone not pushing a good case on post 40!

Unvote, Vote archaebob

If it was just the first post of AGM that we were discussing, I would probably agree with you, as despite him being wrong, he might have thought he had something at the time.

The problem is that in the post after it, despite a short explanation by myself and having several people tell him that his logic is flawed, he not only continues to push on the case, but goes after Mordy for disagreeing with him based Mordy's explanation for why he doesn't think it would be scummy, which honestly seems like more of a mafia theory argument on what is a good/bad play than a defense or an accusation.

It seems to me that Almaster was trying to get people to follow him with no actual case behind his words, and I'm leaving my vote on him until I get an explanation.