Mini 414-Anime Mafia | GAME OVAH!

[cuban smoker]

*whistle* Two minutes for embellishment!

How did "players who post a lot are valuable" become "most important player" and "don't ever vote experience players"?

How did "voting for/lynching spectrumvoid is destructive" become "some people should be immune from votes"?

I've been down this path many times. There is little to nothing to work with on day 1. People who talk a lot can be analyzed later. People who don't talk much are harder to figure. So... day 1 should be about posting thoughts, provoking reactions and getting quiet people to talk through old fashioned bandwagoning!

In my experience, this type of panicked reaction on behalf of Skruffs is extra-scummy. I am not accusing yet, but you get a place of honour at the top of my mafiawishlist

Cubs: I know you didn't ask Jack to claim, but you did ask for information about his role. I'd rather Jack not answer your question. Not that what I say matters much in this case. Either way, you draw suspicion on yourself by asking such a question, but I give you the benefit of the doubt.

Vote stays on ubertimmy

[IH]

ubertimmy has been prodded.

"You crazy people, you just ignore and ignore and ignore this voice in your heads. Of course, you people with your crazyness aren't ignoring this lynching business. I guess it's time for a"

-----------------Votecount-------------------------
Skruffs -2- (Thrawn1020, Yamahako)
Cubsfan4ever -1- (AndrewS)
Ubertimmy -2-(Spectrumvoid, Cuban Smoker)
AndrewS -2- (Mert, Jack)


Not voting -7- (ubertimmy,Hemisphere Dancer, Cubsfan4ever, Skruffs )

With 12 alive, it's 7 to lynch!

[Skruffs]

Ahh, I get it.. you were just baiting. Okay. Well, since you said

BIG FOS

I thought that you thought your reasons were

BIG REASONS

.
You reasoned your FOS on (presumablyl)" vote hoping to spectrumvoid who made a good point." to be honest, I wasn't even basing it on spectrumviod's point - I agree it is a good one. But A) you didn't ask me if that's why I was voting her and B) you further explained why voting her was

bad

with this:
"players who post a lot are valuable (either as townie or mafia) and thus voting for/lynching spectrumvoid is destructive"

I agree with your reasoning but let's look at the facts:

The Mod : 9 posts
Skruffs : 9 posts (with this one) : (Thrawn1020, Yamahako)
AndrewS - 8 posts : (Mert, Jack)
Jack : 8 posts
Spectrumvoid : 7 posts, 2 of which were addresses to mod, other five one or two lines worth.
Hemisphere Dancer - 7 posts
yano : 5 posts
MErt : 4 posts
Cuban smoker - 4 posts
thrawn : 4 posts
cubsfan : 3 posts : (AndrewS)
Simenon : 1 post
ubertimmy - 0 posts : (Spectrumvoid, Cuban Smoker)

Funny that I don't see you chastizing anyone else for voting for 'big posters'...

I changed your words around but that was effectively what you were sayign. You were fosing me for voting someone that you didn't want me to vote for, and the reasons you stated for it weren't don't match up with yoru reactions to other people.

You say there's not much to go on on day one, and then chastise people for trying to understand what *is* going on. (re : cubs on jack) Do you want people to talk, or Not?

Yama : Cubs did not ask jack what his role was. You are exaggerating his question. He asked 'what was up' due to jack's vote hopping all over the place. This is a questoin that was on my mind, too - if it wasn't on yours, that's fine, but you're creating a pink elephant where there is not one by makign some sort of taboo about talking about it.

There *are* no post restrictions in this game, it's a *normal* mini, not themed. So Jack is doing all that stuff of his own free will - Is there a reason for it? Who knows...

[Jack]

There *are* no post restrictions in this game, it's a *normal* mini, not themed. So Jack is doing all that stuff of his own free will - Is there a reason for it? Who knows...

It's certainly been more interesting than the first few pages usually are.

[Yamahako]

Yama : Cubs did not ask jack what his role was. You are exaggerating his question. He asked 'what was up' due to jack's vote hopping all over the place. This is a questoin that was on my mind, too - if it wasn't on yours, that's fine, but you're creating a pink elephant where there is not one by makign some sort of taboo about talking about it.

Every good townie should be questioning the motives of strange behavior and posting. So of course the question was on my mind (up until Jack said he didn't have a restriction, which cleared up most of everything) - but what good would the question serve? A Mafia member wouldn't be honest, and a townie shouldn't tell. I'm not making a big deal about his statement, I'm only making a small deal about your defense of his statement

You keep defending him as well, instead of yourself. I guess your thought process is if his question was justified, then your defense of him about my pointing out the fishing-ness of his question is justified?

Seems a bit convoluted to try and defend yourself through him - especially when its you I'm voting for... and not just for that reason. But your defensive behavior is noted.

[Yamahako]

There *are* no post restrictions in this game, it's a *normal* mini, not themed. So Jack is doing all that stuff of his own free will - Is there a reason for it? Who knows...

It's certainly been more interesting than the first few pages usually are.

I think it started things off pretty well actually - doesn't make you town though

[spectrumvoid]

It doesn't mean that players who post a lot are good/not scum. I refer you to open 4 where IH-scum posted the most. I'm sure there're more examples out there. In fact, we shouldn't even be discussing who-and-who shouldn't be lynched strategically... we should just go after the scummies.

mod:

pretty sure SV + cuban smoker do not make 1.

[Skruffs]

Let me get this straight; you had a similar lquestion to cubsfan, but he was suspicious for asking it, because nobody would answer it, truthfully. How do you know that? And wouldn't a lie still be better than nothing at all? Continuing on, you say that askign the question isn't as scummy as someone else defending the guy for asking it. So me saying that someone asking a not-very-suspicious question is not suspicious, makes me scummy... okay. Then, after you vote for me, you think I am scummier still for explaining/defending myself, or in your words "Continuing to defend cubsfan'...

This is all based, apparently on your own preset ideals on what questions are scummy vs not, a set of rules that seems to fluctuate based on teh time of day and how you are feeling. You have contradicted your own words and definitions to the point that I feel that can not defend myself without seeming scummy in your eyes.

"Seems a bit convoluted to try and defend yourself through him - especially when its you I'm voting for... and not just for that reason. But your defensive behavior is noted. "
What are the other reasons? Now I'm curious. I think you are 'fishing' for a bandwagon against me, and I think that's suspicious. Hopefully people will take your own advice toheart and allow you to defend yourself.

[Skruffs]

THank you SV - and no offense meant, but to say that voting you is destructive when other people are voting for other people who are posting more is contradictory and

ridiculous

. You may indeed be an absolute asset to the town BUT that's not a given just because you post a lot.

[cuban smoker]

Skruffs, you have this amusing way of making things more exciting than they are. I'll admit I shouldn't have used the word destructive. You can vote for whoever you want and interesting things may happen. I'm just grumpy because no one else is helping me put pressure on ubertimmy.

[spectrumvoid]

unvote

Ubertimmy has disppeared from his other games, there's no point in putting pressure on him.

[thrawn1020]

With Ubertimmy prodded, there's no point in bandwagoning him until he or his replacement is here. Skruffs, I can't decide whether or not I should be voting you at the moment. You have some posts that are very logical-looking, and some that...well, to put it lightly, are both hard to follow, and useless. There's no point in discussing the "ideal" scum here, because that's only in theory, and you confuse the issue by making the information public.

I was mostly making a half-assed attempt at a joke at Jack's expense, without a desire to follow through. However much it makes the first few pages interesting, it was really annoying! And just to be clear, I'm not claiming information regarding the existence of post restrictions in the game by my vote.

I'm going to throw out an FOS to AndrewS for the little explanation on why a random vote restriction would ruin an endgame. That sort of analysis, as Skruffs' analysis of what stereotypical scum do, is less useful when the information is made public. As an aside, I would argue that scum wouldn't just jump on the bandwagon right away, and if Jack or someone else had a random voting post restriction, he'd probably have moved his vote and have to be convinced to move it back. Regardless, he's claimed not to have a post restriction at this point. That is some information.

Cuban smoker, why are you so interested in pressuring people who aren't here? What's the use? I get it, you can potentially avoid commenting on the discussions here, but as long as the mod knows what is going on and does something about it, we'll have a chance to pressure ubertimmy later.

For the moment, my vote is staying on Skruffs because there isn't a compelling reason to move it elsewhere.

[Skruffs]

Skruffs, I can't decide whether or not I should be voting you at the moment. You have some posts that are very logical-looking, and some that...well, to put it lightly, are both hard to follow, and useless.

Thank you, thrawn. Voting me for being incomprehensible is much more valid a point than some of the others that have been said. I mean I can understand you voting for me for that. I'll endeavor to clean up my posts a bit, I don't notice before I post, but always notice after, that my grammar and dyslexia are getting worse and worse. I should perhaps re-read more.

[Simenon]

BIG FOS: Skruffs

for vote hoping to spectrumvoid who made a good point. I should also note that players who post a lot are valuable (either as townie or mafia) and thus voting for/lynching spectrumvoid is destructive. I would switch my vote to scruffs if I didn't have it squarely pointed at my favourite target.

.

I really don't understand this argument

Vote thrawn1020

I really don't like his fishing for Jack's character or his possible post restriction. It seems like he's trying to get a little too much out in the open that I would care for.
[/b]

[ubertimmy]

Hey, sorry, I forgot this game was in Little Italy and not Coney Island.

vote: cubsfan

[Cubsfan4ever]

Care to offer an explanation?

[ubertimmy]

mmm. not really.

[Skruffs]

welcoem to the game Uber.

[thrawn1020]

cuban smoker wrote:
BIG FOS: Skruffs for vote hoping to spectrumvoid who made a good point. I should also note that players who post a lot are valuable (either as townie or mafia) and thus voting for/lynching spectrumvoid is destructive. I would switch my vote to scruffs if I didn't have it squarely pointed at my favourite target.

I really don't understand this argument

Vote thrawn1020

(Bolded for emphasis) I really don't like his fishing for Jack's character or his possible post restriction. It seems like he's trying to get a little too much out in the open that I would care for.

Well, I don't understand your argument. We've agreed that Jack doesn't have a post restriction a little while ago, and it

seemed

pretty likely that he had something or other until he broke the pattern. I don't know where cuban smoker has his vote currently, but it certainly makes sense to support a lynch on Skruffs without voting when not everyone was in the game.

Whether or not you like the fishing, I didn't receive anything for it, and I backed off once it was clear he didn't have one. Now that everyone is here and there is no scent of a post restriction, and I've apologized, I'm not sure why you decided to vote me over the schizophrenic postings that have been going around.

Unvote, Vote: Simenon

[Yamahako]

cuban smoker wrote:
BIG FOS: Skruffs for vote hoping to spectrumvoid who made a good point. I should also note that players who post a lot are valuable (either as townie or mafia) and thus voting for/lynching spectrumvoid is destructive. I would switch my vote to scruffs if I didn't have it squarely pointed at my favourite target.

I really don't understand this argument

Vote thrawn1020

(Bolded for emphasis) I really don't like his fishing for Jack's character or his possible post restriction. It seems like he's trying to get a little too much out in the open that I would care for.

Well, I don't understand your argument. We've agreed that Jack doesn't have a post restriction a little while ago, and it

seemed

pretty likely that he had something or other until he broke the pattern. I don't know where cuban smoker has his vote currently, but it certainly makes sense to support a lynch on Skruffs without voting when not everyone was in the game.

Whether or not you like the fishing, I didn't receive anything for it, and I backed off once it was clear he didn't have one. Now that everyone is here and there is no scent of a post restriction, and I've apologized, I'm not sure why you decided to vote me over the schizophrenic postings that have been going around.

Unvote, Vote: Simenon

Not that I find Simenon any less perplexing by his vote or attack on you, but OMGUS much?

[thrawn1020]

Seriously, if I just wanted to toss someone under, I'd pick anyone other than simenon. Instead of attempting to provoke conversation, and trying to figure out what he thought, I would just let it go and attack anybody else.

Let me be clear, since running my mouth off earlier with wild speculation on my part didn't seem to go over very well. I don't expect that there will be anything to come of this. That's why I feel comfortable pressuring him directly instead of just taking the time to smear him the next time I post. I am voting him because he's voting me, but it's the reason supplied that made it an obvious next step for me.

[Mert]

I'm not sure I like this culture of calling someone out on putting on a pressure vote. It seems to me a few times during this game that someone has clearly voted to pressure someone into posting more / explaining themselves / whatever and then someone else has come along and demanded an explaination. The moment someone is forced to explaining that their vote is only for pressure, the pressure is dissipated and so less information is gleaned from their reaction.

[Skruffs]

please explain what would be a better environment. Unquestioned bandwagons?

[cuban smoker]

Why, did you see an unquestioned bandwagon go by?! Did I miss it?!

Man I need my fix..

Simeon, by the way I read the thread, a little while ago spectrumvoid made a good simple argument. Shortly afterwards, Skruffs coined "good point" and promptly voted for him without fruther explanation. Ignoring the direction that took us... my argument is simple: players who post a lot help the game regardless of their affiliation by making it more fun as well as providing the town with more information. Lurking and unhelpful posts do not help the town.

Using game theory, you can argue the only people who benefit from lurking are people working against the town, that is the mafia.

[Jack]

I'm not sure I like this culture of calling someone out on putting on a pressure vote. It seems to me a few times during this game that someone has clearly voted to pressure someone into posting more / explaining themselves / whatever and then someone else has come along and demanded an explaination. The moment someone is forced to explaining that their vote is only for pressure, the pressure is dissipated and so less information is gleaned from their reaction.

I agree.