Mafia 88- Return to New Catania- Game Over!

[Natirasha]

Vote: Natirasha

Also, see sig.

[killa seven]

hey guys.

[xyzzy]

>.>

Read my role, didn't think to /confirm. Sorry.

Will start reading/place vote in a bit.

[Der Hammer]

Vote: Natirasha

Also, see sig.

Explain yourself

[Battle Mage]

vote: no lynch

obvscum

Don't like this. Although the random voting stage isn't particularly vital, it can often help jumpstart conversation, get reactions going, etc. This vote provides no information to the town that can be discussed later, such as voting patterns, etc. In addition, it provides very little discussion or reacting by itself, while votes on a player can help create reactions, and start conversation.

In fact, I find that depriving the town of information, even information this small, to be somewhat scummy. Although it's more definately not a solid case, it's a start, and I feel that this has more potential to get the conversation going than simply ignoring it and random voting. Therefore,

Vote: Hoopla

Unvote, Vote: GeorgeCarlin

Well done buddy. You just disproved your own argument. If voting No-Lynch didnt provoke discussion, YOU WOULDNT HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING IT. If voting no-lynch didnt illicit reactions, YOU WOULDNT HAVE VOTED FOR HOOPLA.

He left a trap, and you fell right into it.

BM

First off, he disproved nothing. The point was that vote couln't be used later for any reason, and that it seemed hoopla didn't want to start a discussion, as it would draw attention to him.

This is clearly incorrect. If he didnt want to start a discussion, why would he vote No-Lynch? Unless you really think he was expecting people to go along with it?? 0.o
If he didnt want to draw attention to himself, why would he vote No-Lynch? He did the most controversial thing, which, in my experience, means he is very unlikely to be scum. However, those attacking him are pinging my scumdar quite significantly.

Secondly, I always have issues trusting the guy who jumps on the first dude who tries to make a point about something. Also the fact people seemed to start voting Hoopla, which shows he might be able to convince people who to vote for. Seems like someone a Mafia would want to get rid of, under the assumption he himself isn't Mafia.

Lol, i dont really see your point here. So you're saying that, if he isnt scum, those people attacking GC are probably scum? Lol, seems a fair enough assumption-its the assumption i made about Hoopla and GC.

I would say vote for you, cause if you are Mafia I doubt Carlin is, at least not in the same factin you are, again assuming there are more then 1. Don't get me wrong though, if you are town it doesn't show if he is one way or another. I don't see him as suspicious, so even if you get lynched and flip town, I wouldn't encourage anyone to vote Carlin yet, not until he does something incriminating.

I'll give you some words of defense though.

Rofl. I think you're floundering mate. If you wanna vote me, stop tying yourself up in knots, and do it! But you're gonna need a better reason than "he's picking on GC".

BM

[Battle Mage]

IGMEOY:Hoopla

Because I hate the "I'm going to do something scummy so I can jump on the first person who calls me on it to "encourage conversatin"" gambit. I've seen town people do it too often lately to really consider it a scumtell anymore, so I'm notgoing to vote you for it, but it never accomplishes anything and just makes day 1 muddy.

Ftr, this is incorrect. I've done it before and outted scumbags. the best example is ongoing, but if you want, i can hook out a completed one?

BM

[Battle Mage]

Also,

FOS:Seraphim

for falling into BM's trap.

Seriously, he voted for a legitimate reason, and then backtracked just to stop from getting FOS'd by BM?

The reason was not legitimate. If you think it was, i suggest you read the first 2 pages again. You're better than this.

FoS: Yos

BM

[Battle Mage]

Vote: Natirasha

Also, see sig.

Explain yourself

?

BM

[OhGodMyLife]

His join date is November 2008 though...are you really truly thinking nub scum or are you stirring the pot? He didn't really sound like a true nub to me.

Level of noobness had nothing to do with it. This isn't the road to rome, we don't have to mollycoddle anybody here.

But I like how you're practically coaching him into playing the newb card to defend himself.

[Shanba]

Quick random voting stage ftw.

Because I hate the "I'm going to do something scummy so I can jump on the first person who calls me on it to "encourage conversatin"" gambit. I've seen town people do it too often lately to really consider it a scumtell anymore, so I'm notgoing to vote you for it, but it never accomplishes anything and just makes day 1 muddy.

Honestly, I really doubt this was the gambit he was pulling. Most likely, he was just random voting and decided to pick no lynch.

Stranger things have happened.

Otoh, I completely agree with you about Seraphim. Not that his vote was legitimate, as such, but I dislike his reactions to the whole thing. He just seems uncomfortable, and it's definitely scummy that he bowed to BM's pressure so easily.

Vote: Seraphim

OGML: again, I read it differently to you. I don't see at all how that equates to Ectomancer coaching him to use the newb card.

[Battle Mage]

Don't worry Seraphim! I will protect you from this tirade of abuse!


...


Shanba smells.

BM

[Der Hammer]

I have a strong feeling Panda is mafia.

[Hoopla]

IGMEOY:Hoopla

Because I hate the "I'm going to do something scummy so I can jump on the first person who calls me on it to "encourage conversatin"" gambit. I've seen town people do it too often lately to really consider it a scumtell anymore, so I'm notgoing to vote you for it, but it never accomplishes anything and just makes day 1 muddy.

Ordinarily I wouldn't jump on people for calling me on it, but the reason he gave wasn't the reason why it's 'scummy', and contradicted his argument. A good way to break down a group is getting many peoples' thoughts on one thing. These reactions can be directly measured as personal bias, other suspicions and information isn't present in the game yet.

After a while the game will go off on many different tangents, and when assessing who is most likely to be scum, you're addressing posts that are in response to different events and can become more subjective and prone to misrepresentantion.

I think it accomplishes something.

[Yosarian2]

Also,

FOS:Seraphim

for falling into BM's trap.

Seriously, he voted for a legitimate reason, and then backtracked just to stop from getting FOS'd by BM?

The reason was not legitimate. If you think it was, i suggest you read the first 2 pages again. You're better than this.

FoS: Yos

BM

Looked like he was voting Hoopla because of Hoopla's vote on George Carlin; specifically, because he thought Hoopla was trying to stop George Carlin from talking about the no-lynch thing. Is that why Hoopla was voting? Eh, probably not, although he didn't give any details. But that's irrelevent; Seraphim made a non-random vote for an actual reason, then backed down after a tiny amount of pressure, basically just one FOS from you.

[Battle Mage]

Also,

FOS:Seraphim

for falling into BM's trap.

Seriously, he voted for a legitimate reason, and then backtracked just to stop from getting FOS'd by BM?

The reason was not legitimate. If you think it was, i suggest you read the first 2 pages again. You're better than this.

FoS: Yos

BM

Looked like he was voting Hoopla because of Hoopla's vote on George Carlin; specifically, because he thought Hoopla was trying to stop George Carlin from talking about the no-lynch thing. Is that why Hoopla was voting? Eh, probably not, although he didn't give any details. But that's irrelevent; Seraphim made a non-random vote for an actual reason, then backed down after a tiny amount of pressure, basically just one FOS from you.

But as you just admitted yourself, the reason was not legitimate, because Hoopla did not make any discernible attempt to kill conversation about his move. He merely responded in the way any townie would when confronted with scummy play.

BM

[Ectomancer]

Oddly enough, I agree with BM. GC undermined his own argument in the process of writing it.

Yeah, but is that actually scummy?

The flaw in his reasoning could have been an honest mistake, but there's also a good possibility it wasn't (its very easy for scum to jump on a standard anti town tell such as voting no lynch), and its light years better than a random vote. The random voting stage does exactly zero for forward momentum.

His join date is November 2008 though...are you really truly thinking nub scum or are you stirring the pot? He didn't really sound like a true nub to me.

Level of noobness had nothing to do with it. This isn't the road to rome, we don't have to mollycoddle anybody here.

But I like how you're practically coaching him into playing the newb card to defend himself.

My assumption is of your point of reference from my own perspective then, because in

my

experience, jumping on a page 1 standard anti-town tell and making a mess of it isn't something that an

experienced player

would do, regardless of alignment. Town would jump on to stimulate conversation, scum would do the same, but

neither

would expect to do more than get things going. Either alignment is just as interested in getting the game going as the other.
Let's look at your "The flaw in his reasoning" comment.


I disagree with the strawman argument that GC disproved his own case. He did not say that a no-lynch vote would

not

generate discussion, in fact, he said it

would

.
What his point is as I read it, is that Hoopla made a move that revealed no alignment information.
That point is correct.
That does not just apply to Hoopla, it also applies to the entire mafia theory discussion regarding voting no lynch on page 1. The side that someone chooses is not indicative of alignment in my experience, so that any case we eventually get to will be via a tangent on the discussion of said theory.

At this point, I am most suspicious of the following group of people and not necessarily in this order:

1: Hoopla - for using what apparently has become a rather common method of starting a game, and then voting for the player that began chasing after it,

when the ploy fails entirely if everyone ignores it

. Additional suspicion for creating the false statement that GC was contradicting himself.
2: BattleMage and OhGodMyLife - for going along with the thought that there was a flaw with GC's reasoning at face value. I dont think either one of you actually examined the statements and the points that were being made. If you did, follow up with the logic, rather than perpetuating the idea that GC made a mistake, without any backing.

@BM - Sobeahero is correcting the false statement you are perpetuating. While jumping on GC might not merit a vote from him, your taking the reigns of a wagon and spurring it along by ignoring the content of the paragraphs that were actually written, and arriving at an attack on GC by way of ignoring that content, is a perfectly good reason to vote you should he decide to do so.

I dont agree with Yos2's fos on Seraphim, or Shanba's vote on him. The way I read it, he voted Hoopla for first trying to generate discussion, then slamming down a vote on the first player to disagree with the move. At this point, when votes are used more as statements, or for pressure, than to actually lynch someone, I would have been more suspicious if he

didn't

unvote.
If you follow the chain of events, he didn't unvote after the FOS, he unvoted after

BM apologized for being too hasty and withdrew the FOS

.

[Battle Mage]

Large post but a few issues Ecto:

1. You claim that content has been ignored. Yet, you do not deign to state what this content is. If you choose to do so, it might give your comments some credibility, and heaven forbid, give me the chance to respond!
2. Seraphim took his vote off before i withdrew the FoS. What do you hope to achieve by lying?
3. Is it a coincidence that you claim to be suspicious of anybody who is putting pressure on GC?

BM

[militant]

Vote: Natirasha

Also, see sig.

Explain yourself

?

BM

I think what Der Hammer meant was "what motivated you to vote yourself?" although I could be mistaken.

[Battle Mage]

Vote: Natirasha

Also, see sig.

Explain yourself

?

BM

I think what Der Hammer meant was "what motivated you to vote yourself?" although I could be mistaken.

Perhaps. It just seems like a rather silly question, and the tone in which it was asked indicates that Nat should have something to 'answer for'...

BM

[Yosarian2]

Large post but a few issues Ecto:

1. You claim that content has been ignored. Yet, you do not deign to state what this content is. If you choose to do so, it might give your comments some credibility, and heaven forbid, give me the chance to respond!

Umm...yeah, he did...

What his point is as I read it, is that Hoopla made a move that revealed no alignment information.
That point is correct.

[Ectomancer]

Just as I was about to berate you for not reading the game properly, to my chagrin I found that you had made your retracted fos a

conditional

statement. That would make it impossible for you to retract your fos before the vote was removed. What I saw was the bolded section.
Still doesnt' alter my opinion on that matter. That addresses #2.

Take your vote off my buddy Hoopla now, and

i'll retract my FoS and apologise for being too quick to judge you. Very Happy

Now, as turnabout is fair play, you now get to go back and read GC's statements thoroughly for the answer to #1. You can even find the answer to #1 in my posts as I addressed that issue there. Both questions were already answered. If you can't find the answers, ask them again later after you've put in the effort.

As for #3, attacking people for false arguments is quite a bit different than defending their target. Trying to distract from the argument being made by presenting a different one? Go back and get the answer for #1, and see why your question #3 is based upon a false premise.

[Yosarian2]

But as you just admitted yourself, the reason was not legitimate, because Hoopla did not make any discernible attempt to kill conversation about his move. He merely responded in the way any townie would when confronted with scummy play.

BM

I still need you to explan how George Carlin's play there was scummy, btw.

But to the point, I probably shouldn't have used the word "legitimate" there, since that's irrelevent; just take out the word legitimate and replace it with "non-random", the effect is the same.

[Sobeahero]

vote: no lynch

obvscum

Don't like this. Although the random voting stage isn't particularly vital, it can often help jumpstart conversation, get reactions going, etc. This vote provides no information to the town that can be discussed later, such as voting patterns, etc. In addition, it provides very little discussion or reacting by itself, while votes on a player can help create reactions, and start conversation.

In fact, I find that depriving the town of information, even information this small, to be somewhat scummy. Although it's more definately not a solid case, it's a start, and I feel that this has more potential to get the conversation going than simply ignoring it and random voting. Therefore,

Vote: Hoopla

Unvote, Vote: GeorgeCarlin

Well done buddy. You just disproved your own argument. If voting No-Lynch didnt provoke discussion, YOU WOULDNT HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING IT. If voting no-lynch didnt illicit reactions, YOU WOULDNT HAVE VOTED FOR HOOPLA.

He left a trap, and you fell right into it.

BM

First off, he disproved nothing. The point was that vote couln't be used later for any reason, and that it seemed hoopla didn't want to start a discussion, as it would draw attention to him.

This is clearly incorrect. If he didnt want to start a discussion, why would he vote No-Lynch? Unless you really think he was expecting people to go along with it?? 0.o
If he didnt want to draw attention to himself, why would he vote No-Lynch? He did the most controversial thing, which, in my experience, means he is very unlikely to be scum. However, those attacking him are pinging my scumdar quite significantly.

Secondly, I always have issues trusting the guy who jumps on the first dude who tries to make a point about something. Also the fact people seemed to start voting Hoopla, which shows he might be able to convince people who to vote for. Seems like someone a Mafia would want to get rid of, under the assumption he himself isn't Mafia.

Lol, i dont really see your point here. So you're saying that, if he isnt scum, those people attacking GC are probably scum? Lol, seems a fair enough assumption-its the assumption i made about Hoopla and GC.

I would say vote for you, cause if you are Mafia I doubt Carlin is, at least not in the same factin you are, again assuming there are more then 1. Don't get me wrong though, if you are town it doesn't show if he is one way or another. I don't see him as suspicious, so even if you get lynched and flip town, I wouldn't encourage anyone to vote Carlin yet, not until he does something incriminating.

I'll give you some words of defense though.

Rofl. I think you're floundering mate. If you wanna vote me, stop tying yourself up in knots, and do it! But you're gonna need a better reason than "he's picking on GC".

BM

Voting No lynch doesn't seem all that controversial to me, as its easy to see why one wouldn't want to take the chance of lynching town. I'd assume he voted no Lynch and hoped people would pass right over his post and not pay it much mind. AFter all, he did vote, which makes it look like he's doing something.

And thats a good summary, if GC isn't scum, one of the ones voting for him probably is. Though most likely it would be the one who lead teh assault against him, since anyone the town is willing to listen to could prove to be bad for the Mafia if he rallys them behind that person. Basically Scum already have a reason to want him dead. :p

And my reason is more then he's picking on GC, my reason is GC would be a good target for scum to eliminate if he's town. So basically I'm deciding if he's more likely to be town, or if you are. I'm much more inclined to lynch you though, since that will at least show GC isn't aligned with you. Though sadly if you flip town we effectively learn nothing.

Though at the same time, if GC flips town we learn nothing, but if he flips scum we at least know you two aren't aligned.

Can't seem to think of any other potential lynches that could lead to some kind of information, but I didn't feel like putting all the focus of it onto GC like it had been going.

Though between the two of you, I think I'll vote you. :p

unvote

vote

Battle mage

[Sobeahero]

And on the Der Hammer thing, I think he was just being a butt. :p

[Hoopla]

I disagree with the strawman argument that GC disproved his own case. He did not say that a no-lynch vote would

not

generate discussion, in fact, he said it

would

.

What his point is as I read it, is that Hoopla made a move that revealed no alignment information.
That point is correct.

He says a no lynch vote is useless if nobody reacts to it (which you also reference later in your post). This does disarm his argument, as he does respond, and so do several other players. A random vote is also useless if nobody reacts to it.

The bolded point you can use on any of the first page random votes. If you disagree, link me to a game where a random vote does reveal alignment information.

1: Hoopla - for using what apparently has become a rather common method of starting a game, and then voting for the player that began chasing after it,

when the ploy fails entirely if everyone ignores it

. Additional suspicion for creating the false statement that GC was contradicting himself.

If the 'ploy' fails, then it's just one wasted post. I've never seen a game where a no lynch vote has been ignored - please show me one. My retaliation further validated the purpose for my no lynch vote.