Mini 962 - Mafia In Murrieta - Over!

[Super Awesome Mega Zord!]

So you think that Gecko's reasoning is good and that Ice is scummy because he's trying to bully the town in to submission? What I did and what Scott did are very different.

I didn't say I agreed with gecko.

I inferred that you did since you voted me for saying his reasons for voting Ice were bad. If you don't think his reasons are good, voting me for thinking the same thing doesn't make any sense.

I didn't vote you for that. I voted you because you attacked Scott for undermining gecko's vote while also undermining gecko's vote.

How are they different?

I'm saying I disagree with his reasoning. Scott isn't saying one way or the other whether he agrees or disagrees with what was said, but just throws his little comments in. They don't tell anyone where he stands on anything.

That's not true. Gecko said ICE's chattiness was scummy, Scott said he knew from experience that ICE is naturally verbose, that shows he disagrees with gecko.

[havingfitz]

Havingfitz, why just an unvote? What isn't random? Are you suspicious of anyone?

There is no one I want to vote for at this time. Does an unvote have to be accompanied by a vote?

Well...for five things...the last five votes don't appear to be random. Do you thing we're still in the RVS? If not...why question me on it? If so, why?

Not yet...the game, IMO, is just starting to get warmed up so I need to look over the last few pages.

[cruelty]

i'm here, i just don't think there's much relevant being said at the moment. it seems like there's a whole bunch of busy-talk that's not really getting us anywhere.

i agree that there's no reak need to unvote jack at L3, but honestly i've played the cautious card in the past so i can't really attack him for that. i do think it's a little odd that he'd unvote and then note that he's a little bit intrigued by jack's comment. like "yeah L3 is dodgy, but he's still a shady character". rings hollow for me.

[JackALope2323]

@ Cruelty: Whole bunch of busy-talk that's not really getting us anywhere? What HAVE you been smoking, man?

@ SAMP: It doesn't SHOW Scott disagrees with Gecko. The only thing it shows is that Scott remembers Ice as being naturally talkative. Scott does not, for one second, say what this means or implies. This is what we're getting on him for. If he had said "I'm used to Ice being a very talkative fellow, so I think Gecko getting on him for talking a lot is a bit misguided.", then I wouldn't be as adamant about this whole thing.

And SAMP, there's more than one way to undermine a vote. There's a logical, reasonable way (I.E. Charter) then there's a quick, sly, not really reasonable way (I.E. Scott) Charter and Scott may have done the same thing, but the quality of their actions differs tremendously.

Your insistence on this isn't helping you on my Scumometer, either.

[SaintKerrigan]

i'm here, i just don't think there's much relevant being said at the moment. it seems like there's a whole bunch of busy-talk that's not really getting us anywhere.

i agree that there's no reak need to unvote jack at L3, but honestly i've played the cautious card in the past so i can't really attack him for that. i do think it's a little odd that he'd unvote and then note that he's a little bit intrigued by jack's comment. like "yeah L3 is dodgy, but he's still a shady character". rings hollow for me.

You lurk around not doing anything, and yet you complain about lack of relavent content? You aren't going to get much done if you sit on your hands and do nothing. So if you really want to see stuff happen, get in the fray.

I presume you've already read my explanations for the Jack unvote, so I won't repeat them again. But I find it odd that, out of everything that's out there, the one thing you talk about is something that didn't have enough suspicion behind it to garner votes. Why did you single this topic out specifically?

[AlmasterGM]

Explain.

If the point of the RVS was just to be funny, why wouldn't we just take turns telling jokes? Most joke votes aren't really funny - I can't remember ever laughing at one. And the reason for that is because the RVS actually exists for the reason Esp is saying - to build pressure and try and make something happen. [/quote]

i'm here, i just don't think there's much relevant being said at the moment. it seems like there's a whole bunch of busy-talk that's not really getting us anywhere.

FoS: cruelty

If nothing is happening, why don't you do something to change that? Moreover, how can you possibly say nothing here is relevant when multiple votes and suspicions are flying around?

[ICEninja]

I definitely think that both fitz and cruelty need to get in this game and spend the 20 minutes to read the 3 and a half pages of content that we have. Seriously, if you can't find something that catches your attention (and cruelty even seemed to imply that he found Kerrigan suspicious, but put no pressure), then you are not paying very much attention.

Both fitz and cruelty were extremely prompt in confirming in to the game, so it isn't as if they aren't capable of paying attention or responding quickly. You 2 need to actually play and not just say there is no content or act like you haven't read anything yet.

[charter]

@SAMP, Jack beat me to it, but the answers are pretty obvious. I don't know how much longer you plan on ignoring everything else to cling to a terrible vote on me, but much longer, and you're going to get bumped up to scum.

Scott didn't say he disagreed with Gecko's vote. Gecko voted because he thinks Ice is going to bully the rest of the town. Scott didn't say one word about that. Scott didn't say whether he agreed with Kerrigan's vote on Gecko. There's no way you can know where he stands on people, like you're claiming to.

I said I disagree with Gecko's vote, and gave my reasons for disagreeing. I'm trying to debate Gecko's vote to try and figure out if he's scum or not, aka, scumhunt. Scott isn't doing that.

There is no one I want to vote for at this time. Does an unvote have to be accompanied by a vote?

It does not. But you didn't accompany it with anything, no questions or comments or anything. It's not good to just unvote and not go anywhere else, it makes it look like you're waiting for stuff to develop before you start participating so you don't have to do any work yourself.

Do you thing we're still in the RVS? If not...why question me on it? If so, why?

I don't think we're still in the RVS. I asked you because you said we weren't but I had no idea why you thought that. You hadn't said anything 'not random' yet.

[charter]

And FOS cruelty for lurking and sliding by.

[Scott Brosius]

Scott didn't say he disagreed with Gecko's vote. Gecko voted because he thinks Ice is going to bully the rest of the town. Scott didn't say one word about that. Scott didn't say whether he agreed with Kerrigan's vote on Gecko. There's no way you can know where he stands on people, like you're claiming to.

Pretty simple inferences to make, but I shall attempt to be clearer.

[havingfitz]

I definitely think that both fitz and cruelty need to get in this game and spend the 20 minutes to read the 3 and a half pages of content that we have.

Seriously, if you can't find something that catches your attention (and cruelty even seemed to imply that he found Kerrigan suspicious, but put no pressure), then you are not paying very much attention.

Both fitz and cruelty were extremely prompt in confirming in to the game, so it isn't as if they aren't capable of paying attention or responding quickly. You 2 need to actually play and not just say there is no content or act like you haven't read anything yet.

So the only thing catching your suspicion is two players who have not posted very much? Well aren't you paying very much attention

And don't bother trying to dictate the amount of posting or content I provide. I generally start off slow while I get to know the players and I don't make it of posting for the sake of posting. If you want to base your D1 suspicions on that...you aren't doing anymore than the people you suspect.

[cruelty]

working, be back later tonight.

i just don't think there's anything inherently worthy of scrutiny thus far. that's not to say i haven't read the thread, i just don't think anything important has been said.

i'll re-read tonight when i have more than 2 minutes, see if i can find something to get up in arms about.

[Super Awesome Mega Zord!]

@ SAMP: It doesn't SHOW Scott disagrees with Gecko. The only thing it shows is that Scott remembers Ice as being naturally talkative. Scott does not, for one second, say what this means or implies.

Okay, tell me, what else could Scott have POSSIBLY meant by that post, other than to disagree with Gecko's point about ICE? Because I honestly cannot see any other reason for him to say that.

And SAMP, there's more than one way to undermine a vote. There's a logical, reasonable way (I.E. Charter) then there's a quick, sly, not really reasonable way (I.E. Scott) Charter and Scott may have done the same thing, but the quality of their actions differs tremendously.

I don't think Scott's way is unreasonable. I've played with ICE before, and my reaction to Gecko's attack on ICE was pretty much the same as Scott's.

@SAMP, Jack beat me to it, but the answers are pretty obvious. I don't know how much longer you plan on ignoring everything else to cling to a terrible vote on me, but much longer, and you're going to get bumped up to scum.

I'm not ignoring everything else. I think you're scummier than everything else. Threatening me certainly won't change that.

Scott didn't say he disagreed with Gecko's vote. Gecko voted because he thinks Ice is going to bully the rest of the town. Scott didn't say one word about that. Scott didn't say whether he agreed with Kerrigan's vote on Gecko. There's no way you can know where he stands on people, like you're claiming to.

I didn't claim to know where he stands on people, I claimed to know where he stands on positions.

I said I disagree with Gecko's vote, and gave my reasons for disagreeing. I'm trying to debate Gecko's vote to try and figure out if he's scum or not, aka, scumhunt. Scott isn't doing that.

When exactly did you debate Gecko's vote? All you really did was say you agreed with Kerrigan that it was bad, that's hardly debating.

[ICEninja]

So the only thing catching your suspicion is two players who have not posted very much? Well aren't you paying very much attention

There's a stark difference between what we're doing. I've commented on a couple of the head butting between players, responded to some attacks on me, and am now putting pressure on you to contribute. Because you haven't done much of that. I understand that some people have slow starts, but nothing is stopping you from asking some questions, pointing out things you notice, and calling people out for making weak votes on people (which is probably all you've done so far, for my vote on you).

I mostly find charter's attack to be town, but having played with town Scott before, I'm definitely finding his play familiar. He throws out one liners about relevant things, and doesn't use a lot of words to say what he's saying. He hasn't been particularly vague about anything so far, nor has he done much to really undermine anyone. Scott was dead right, I post a lot of words, and that doesn't make me scum.

SAMP also seems to be putting forth his argument in a fairly town way. Jack is bringing up good points, and I like him so far. Esp is definitely piquing my interest, and I'm still unsure of how I feel about Kerrigan at the moment.

There is nothing particularly damning yet, but I'm definitely starting to get a feel for a lot of the players. I'll start reading people in ISO soon to see if I can find any trends or evidence to suggest shifty behavior.

[Espeonage]

FoS: Cruelty

You also need to get some opinions.

FoS: gecko

Anyone notice how he shut up now the votes are on him.

[SaintKerrigan]

If the point of the RVS was just to be funny, why wouldn't we just take turns telling jokes? Most joke votes aren't really funny - I can't remember ever laughing at one. And the reason for that is because the RVS actually exists for the reason Esp is saying - to build pressure and try and make something happen.

You're assuming that RVS is treated the same way by all players. This is obviously not the case. Clearly you and Espeonage handle RVS in a way that is different from mine. This is not scummy at all; it's just a difference of opinion.

I generally start off slow while I get to know the players and I don't make it of posting for the sake of posting.

How exactly do you get to know people if not by asking questions about what they've said?

I'm still unsure of how I feel about Kerrigan at the moment.

What makes you uncertain about me?

FoS: gecko Anyone notice how he shut up now the votes are on him.

Yep.

[AlmasterGM]

You're assuming that RVS is treated the same way by all players. This is obviously not the case. Clearly you and Espeonage handle RVS in a way that is different from mine. This is not scummy at all; it's just a difference of opinion.

No. You are wrong.

[JackALope2323]

Really, Almaster? Mind expanding on that, rather than a simple "You're wrong"?

Gecko's sudden muteness concerns me. I think my vote has been solidified, unless he comes back soon with a good counter to all the evidence against him.

Post 110 makes me like Fitz a lot less. Ice is doing a lot more than just poking Fitz and Cruelty to act up, and Fitz knows this. I think he's just grabbing for straws with that post.

Also, Kerrigan's 115 comment on Fitz. That. Times ten.

SAMP: I don't know. But, if Scott was scum, he could say it meant something completely different, since he never specifically said what he meant, if we bring it up later.

AMBIGUITY IS NOT GOOD FOR TOWN. FACT.

And just because you see one person being really scummy doesn't mean you should ignore the other people who are being scummy to lesser degrees.

[thegeckoj]

what i had said was that it was possible ICE was starting out chatty and aggressive so that later in the game if he was scum and still around he could continue to be a bully and refer people to his play earlier in the game. this would be a good ruse to show people that this is how he as always be.

ill admit that this isnt a great reason but i still wanted to put some pressure and figured it would be a good place to start.

i usually only post once or twice a day at most so dont necessarily take my silence for anything unless it lasts more that two days.

SAMP: I don't know. But, if Scott was scum, he could say it meant something completely different, since he never specifically said what he meant, if we bring it up later.

AMBIGUITY IS NOT GOOD FOR TOWN. FACT.

And just because you see one person being really scummy doesn't mean you should ignore the other people who are being scummy to lesser degrees.

i will take a second to completely agree with the last two statements here.

this is exactly what i was trying to do with my little push. i wanted more info from and about ICE and with a vote you can generally derive info not only about the person you are putting pressure on but the way people respond to it.

frankly i havent seen anything to make me move my vote at this pointl. again i will say i am not 100% convinced of ICE's scumminess but with only my vote on him i am not concerned with an accidental lynch.

[cruelty]

FoS: Cruelty

You also need to get some opinions.

i do have an opinion. that there's nothing of particular importance being discussed right now. i've read the thread, re-read (well, re-skimmed) the last couple pages and i'm not convinced there's anything that's worth commenting on, let alone building a case against.

that said, there seems to be a hue and cry for meaninful input, so here's a couple of thoughts.

I'm going to go ahead and unvote, vote Scott. Two posts now where he's subtly undermined someone's vote. First it was after Gecko voted Ice for making long posts. Then it was to Kerrigan when he unvoted Jack to vote Gecko.

@charter (and AGM, who agreed with him)


1: do you think that questioning an L3 unvote is really undermining SK's vote on gecko? for that matter, do you think that the cautiousness is warranted on SK's part?

2: does your disagreement with scott's undermining of gecko's vote mean that you see gecko's vote (which cited chattiness leading to over-aggressiveness leading to the DARK SIDE!!~!) as reasonable?


i mean, i'm not sure why you cite gecko's vote as evidence that scott is undermining votes when you earlier in the post specifically state that you (also) dislike gecko's vote. just seems like you're looking for a reason to attack someone.

i should probably quote scott so we're clear on what charter is calling 'undermining'.

Ice tends to have long posts, at least he did in the last game I played with him.

Seems like a bit of a stretch to unvote someone just because they are at L-3 on D1.

i'm at all sure what the fuss is about here. the first is just an observation based on meta (which i guess is 50/50 in terms of usefulness [ie: do you consider meta a valuable tool or not] but not really undermining), the second is a valid point.

so ya, not particularly thrilled with the line of attack charter has taken (and especially unimpressed with agm piggybacking onto it).

imo that's less about undermining and more about pointing out that ice regularly posts like that (i have no idea if that's true or not).

note: this has nothing to do with scott, i have a null read on him atm.

[ICEninja]

No. You are wrong.

Actually, you are wrong. Kerrigan is exactly right in saying that different people view the RVS in different ways. Some people find it a nice way to start off what can be a fairly intense game in a lighthearted way. They throw out a vote without much of a purpose, and enjoy doing it.

Some people, obviously many of those in this game, find that the point of the RVS is to gauge reactions. I personally agree that this is probably what it is for, but I don't feel that it actually does it. That is why in a majority of games, I tend to introduce myself and ask the questions that I did, and then try to poke at someone's random vote. Jack poked at my random vote, and this action ended the RVS. Almost nothing useful was gained during the RVS, which is almost always the case.

And now the only thing useful gained from the discussion ABOUT the RVS that is already over is that you are extremely narrow minded and are willing to force your opinions on others.

i do have an opinion. that there's nothing of particular importance being discussed right now.

If you feel we aren't discussing anything important, then by all means please direct us in a way that is more helpful in hunting scum. If you feel no one has slipped up and is worth voting for, then make someone slip up.

This is to fitz, too, who seems to only be able to scum hunt after others have done some for you. While I'm definitely not convinced you're scum at this point, there's absolutely no excuse to not ask some questions and poke at cases. If you want to see the discussion go in a certain way, or feel like you need more input from a specific player, then speak up.

We need to get reads on you, too, you know. We can't sit here and wait for you to get a read on everyone else before you say enough for us to get reads on you.

That being said, it is a play style difference and I wont further badger you about your play style. I would, however, like to keep my vote on you until either you give me a reason to take it off, or someone else gives me a better reason to put it on them.

[Espeonage]

I'm not speaking for AGM here but no matter what your stance on RVS it is throught the pressure of having a vote on you that we get information. Jokingly OMGUSing or forming light cases to get people of your back is what causes discussins to start. All of that can be brought back to pressure. That is what I was talking about before. The arguement is different now but and the original dispute has been resolved so I really don't know why we are still going on about this.

[JackALope2323]

@ Gecko: If he starts bullying later in game, then we'll talk about it then. We don't talk about possibilities in Mafia. That'd be WIFOM. We only talk about the evidence currently presented in front of us.

@ Cruelty's #1: I think you misread that. Charter said that SCOTT was undermining Kerrigan's unvote, not that Kerrigan's unvote was undermining anything.

And, once again: The actions may have been similar in intent, but radically different in quality. Scott's undermining of Gecko's vote was sly, subtle, and didn't really tie him down to an opinion. Ergo, ambiguous, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE GETTING ON HIM FOR.

Charter, on the other hand, came straight out and said "Gecko's vote doesn't make sense."

And, once more: As far as I can tell, the first is meant to be undermining without really tying Scott down to the fact that he tried to undermine Gecko.

And I don't see AGM piggy-backing on Charter. =/ He AGREES with Charter, yes. But he has made his own valid points, in post 93.

Hand @ Cruelty

All that combined with the fact that you seem to be providing minimal content and covering it up by trying to claim "that there's nothing of particular importance being discussed right now", (Which I find to be completely wrong, by the way.) isn't making me like you one bit.

Actually

Unvote, Vote Cruelty

Because Gecko sort of kind of redeemed himself in his last post, down to about a 55%, and Cruelty got knocked up to a 65% on my Scumometer.

[wolframnhart]

Vote Count #4

Iceninja - TheGeckoJ
AGM - Cruelty
Jack - Scott Brosius
Havingfitz - Iceninja, Espeonage
TheGekoJ - Saint Kerrigan, AGM
Scott Brosius - Charter
Charter - SAMP
Cruelty - Jack

Not Voting: Magna, Havingfitz

Deadline is May 12th at 12 pm PDT
With 12 alive, it takes 7 to lynch.

[SaintKerrigan]

Mod: What's going on with Magna?

I presume you've already read my explanations for the Jack unvote, so I won't repeat them again. But I find it odd that, out of everything that's out there, the one thing you talk about is something that didn't have enough suspicion behind it to garner votes. Why did you single this topic out specifically?

Cruelty, you didn't answer my question.

the second

is a valid point.

What is a valid point? The idea that Scott's quote was an example of undermining, or that my L-3 stance is scummy? If the latter, please explain why you think that is scummy.

What makes you uncertain about me?

ICEninja, you didn't answer my question either.

No. You are wrong.

How helpful. Anyways, this is starting to turn into a theory debate, in my opinion, so unless you want to try and explain why my opinion on RVS is scummy, I think we should move on.

what i had said was that it was possible ICE was starting out chatty and aggressive so that later in the game if he was scum and still around he could continue to be a bully and refer people to his play earlier in the game. this would be a good ruse to show people that this is how he as always be.

ill admit that this isnt a great reason but i still wanted to put some pressure and figured it would be a good place to start.

frankly i havent seen anything to make me move my vote at this pointl.

So, you admit your reason for voting Ice wasn't very good, and then you claim that you haven't seen anything to make you move your vote. Are you implying that all cases thus far presented are inferior to the one you put on Ice? Because I would strongly beg to differ.

Admitting your reasoning was bad doesn't excuse the fact that the reasoning you used was bad. Nor does claiming that you were voting for pressure. And you claim you can't find anything more suspicious than this bad case you made for Ice. Sorry, but you haven't convinced me to move my vote yet.

@ Jack: Why do you feel that Gecko has redeemed himself?