|
Post by abstain on Aug 29, 2013 5:23:47 GMT -5
What outrageous opinions? I don't think thinking (I'm sure I can phrase this better) that Bill or F/G are particularly good candidates for scum is outrageous. Has colby posted today anyway? In any case, today is a good chance to attempt to either help clear one person of being scum or help make them scummier, I'm not saying its definite but its a good look into it. Why would scum bus another member on Day 2. Beggars belief. IF they survive long enough they'll be lynched because they haven't died yet. Wait, different teams? AFAIK, Mafia, Town, THird Party, PFK. Not very many teams. Pleo could be convinced that the moon is going to explode tomorrow, doesn't make it any less likely. That's a silly line of reasoning there. Someone else thinks X so that must be true? I'd also be happy with a vote on Cookies, seemed to me to put a lazy vote on sept, Colby I'm also happy to vote, scummy as all get out. Texcat is always pretty scummy so not much can be done there, give her a day before I make a proper decision. Though I'm leaning town because I like what she has done so far (even with her scummitude). Finally, patricia seems lost, so I'm marking her down as possible townie unless thats how she plays. There are other I'm not commenting on, but going into tomorrow, the people I want to put pressure on are as follows: Bill, Dizzy, Colby and F/G for a post he//she made in the thread above, This is the post I was referring to. Colby asked in the night thread about the "scummy as all get out" and I found the "always" to be outrageous from someone I thought I had never played with. I find it odd that you are voting BillMc over "scummy as all get out" Colby. (Of course, I happen to think that Colby is non-scum. Colby, Cookies, and I were all tied for lynch yesterday. If one of us was scum, the scum could easily find a way to break the tie in favor of town. But we saw no attempt to break the tie.) I said earlier that night that I was voting Bill for the post. I wanted to get through Bill, COlby and F/G today, but shit happens. Ties are a vicious beast, wouldn't surpise me if scum stayed away from it. Day 1 especially when the pressure is on not to lose another member. Yeah, forgot my name was different here. Sorry about that.
|
|
|
Post by Silver Jan on Aug 29, 2013 5:48:23 GMT -5
Maybe I'm missing something, or just need to Occam's Razor it up in here, but why are we certain bill's "slip" was genuine? I mean, in a game with flavor like this and nonstandard faction names, I can totally see someone pretending to misunderstand the flavor as a way to clear themselves of being in that faction. Heck, I can see myself doing it in his position. I'm not trying to be sarcastic here or anything, I'm just not sure if I'm brain-farting some little thing that made it obvious he really meant it. The way Bill said it just made me think he was neither Scum nor Town but a 3rd Party or a SK. On this board both of those are just as likely to killed as scum are so it makes me think that he isn't scum.
|
|
|
Post by Pleonast on Aug 29, 2013 10:41:16 GMT -5
Vote: Vote: BillMCFor the uncorrupted thing and also to see what he flips, because F/G was on him early. He flips mafia, I'm likely wrong on F/G being mafia. Grumble. I don't like this. Like correct me if I'm wrong But none of us - as in we the town - know who each other are. And FG's posts don't strike me as all that scummy - He's attacking bill for bill's perceived lack of awareness which given how things are going is understandable. I also do not like abstain's vote on Bill. I'm fairly sure Bill is not town, and fairly sure they are not scum, either. That means they are not a lynch target, unless someone can make a case that they're a win stealer. I think abstain's vote is a subtle attempt for scum to get us to mislynch while maintaining plausible deniability by voting for non-town. vote abstain for voting for a likely third-party. Aside from a formatted vote, what observations/analysis has Swammer/Septimus provided so far? He's totally MIA today so far, and there's not much to look at from Day 1 either. I will say however that the word wall on Kid V is pretty compelling at this point. Categorizing votes on a Scummy Mahaloth as bandwagon votes certainly catches my eye. I'm almost ready to vote swammer for their difficult to read posts. Maybe to Tomorrow. I'm also not unhappy to see a KidV lynch. They've been acting purely defensively, without contributing much in the way of finding scum. Very similar to Meeko in that regard. Maybe I'm missing something, or just need to Occam's Razor it up in here, but why are we certain bill's "slip" was genuine? I mean, in a game with flavor like this and nonstandard faction names, I can totally see someone pretending to misunderstand the flavor as a way to clear themselves of being in that faction. Heck, I can see myself doing it in his position. I'm not trying to be sarcastic here or anything, I'm just not sure if I'm brain-farting some little thing that made it obvious he really meant it. There's always a first. But I haven't seen a slip like that made intentionally. Especially because in this group, any indication that a player is not town usually results in a swift death by lynch or Vig. I think we've finally evolved to the point where third-parties are not immediately killed, but that would not've been obvious when the slip was made. So while we can't be certain of Bill's alignment, I think it's clear what the most probable answer is: neither town nor scum. Exactly Tex, I kind of think we had a whole cluster of a bunch of town on the line yesterday, and scum was just sitting there laughing at us, until Silver Jan and I pushed it towards Mahaloth. Otherwise why wasn't the tie broken earlier in the day. This is a rather self-serving statement. Yes, you do get a little not-scum credit for boosting Mahaloth to a two-vote lead, but really only silverjan gets a full share. Your post here feels a lot like riding their coattails. I find it interesting that TWO people are making cases against my vote on Peeker, whom I unvoted before they made the cases. Unvoting does not remove the suspicious nature of the original vote.
|
|
|
Post by sinjin on Aug 29, 2013 10:44:46 GMT -5
I find it odd that you are voting BillMc over "scummy as all get out" Colby. (Of course, I happen to think that Colby is non-scum. Colby, Cookies, and I were all tied for lynch yesterday. If one of us was scum, the scum could easily find a way to break the tie in favor of town. But we saw no attempt to break the tie.) This is driving me crazy. It is NOT inconceivable that scum would NOT attempt to break the tie. In fact, breaking the tie has led scum to be caught in the past, which would make them less likely to attempt it. I keep coming back to this post by Colby11 on day one. The more I read it the more it sounds like a post made to the wrong board: Vote: Colby11
|
|
|
Post by Silver Jan on Aug 29, 2013 11:07:12 GMT -5
I find it odd that you are voting BillMc over "scummy as all get out" Colby. (Of course, I happen to think that Colby is non-scum. Colby, Cookies, and I were all tied for lynch yesterday. If one of us was scum, the scum could easily find a way to break the tie in favor of town. But we saw no attempt to break the tie.) This is driving me crazy. It is NOT inconceivable that scum would NOT attempt to break the tie. In fact, breaking the tie has led scum to be caught in the past, which would make them less likely to attempt it. I keep coming back to this post by Colby11 on day one. The more I read it the more it sounds like a post made to the wrong board: Vote: Colby11Interesting, so by default Abstain would be scum and perhaps Paranioa too and Paranoia was bussing gis scum buddy. Could it be that simple?
|
|
|
Post by Silver Jan on Aug 29, 2013 11:07:48 GMT -5
*his, shouldn't type in the dark.
|
|
|
Post by Paranoia on Aug 29, 2013 11:09:11 GMT -5
Can we get a vote count?
|
|
|
Post by Paranoia on Aug 29, 2013 11:11:49 GMT -5
I find it odd that you are voting BillMc over "scummy as all get out" Colby. (Of course, I happen to think that Colby is non-scum. Colby, Cookies, and I were all tied for lynch yesterday. If one of us was scum, the scum could easily find a way to break the tie in favor of town. But we saw no attempt to break the tie.) This is driving me crazy. It is NOT inconceivable that scum would NOT attempt to break the tie. In fact, breaking the tie has led scum to be caught in the past, which would make them less likely to attempt it. I keep coming back to this post by Colby11 on day one. The more I read it the more it sounds like a post made to the wrong board: Vote: Colby11It feels more like he was asking for more people to talk in thread to me, actually. He even said 'nothing seems very pinging to me' in there, so it feels more like 'hey I don't have any suspects right now'. Got anything else?
|
|
|
Post by Paranoia on Aug 29, 2013 11:26:59 GMT -5
Actually I'll Do a Vote Tally
KidV (4): Paranoia, Swammer, silverjan, cookies Abstain (3): texcat, colby, Pleonast BillMC (2): F&G, abstain Colby (1): SisC, Sinjin Cookies (1): Patricia Paranoia (1): KidV
Abstaining (5): BillMC, Jaade, Meeko, scathach, dizzymrslizzy
I believe with these votes KidV would be lynched at the end of day, which if the day start post is to believe, would end on Friday, August 30th at 2:00 PM Eastern, which would mean little more than a day left in the, erm, day.
|
|
|
Post by patricia on Aug 29, 2013 11:54:04 GMT -5
Actually I'll Do a Vote TallyKidV (4): Paranoia, Swammer, silverjan, cookies Abstain (3): texcat, colby, Pleonast BillMC (2): F&G, abstain Colby (1): SisC, Sinjin Cookies (1): Patricia Paranoia (1): KidV Abstaining (5): BillMC, Jaade, Meeko, scathach, dizzymrslizzy I believe with these votes KidV would be lynched at the end of day, which if the day start post is to believe, would end on Friday, August 30th at 2:00 PM Eastern, which would mean little more than a day left in the, erm, day. Thanks for the vote count - It looks like Colby has two votes No one else see Cookies as scummy - I do see some of the points for voting KidV - the main one is he isn't scum hunting and worried more about votes on him. The new case of Colby makes some sense but I don't think he would use the words no one is pinging me on the scum board but hey if I'm wrong I'm sure several of you will point that out. I do think Bill is 3rd Party but I don't see need to lynch him - yet. Mostly, I hate to waste my vote, so with that being said and a football game tonight (so I'm not sure when I will get back to the boards) I'm changing my vote to Vote: Kid V
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Aug 29, 2013 12:14:47 GMT -5
I hate "wasted vote" arguments SO MUCH. If you don't think the vote leader(s) are scummy, don't vote for them. It's possible all of Town are wrong, after all -- it's happened before, and it'll happen again.
|
|
|
Post by Silver Jan on Aug 29, 2013 12:19:38 GMT -5
patricia, I think you need to unvote first.
|
|
|
Post by Paranoia on Aug 29, 2013 12:27:50 GMT -5
She does, because as day one proved, it won't count unless you unvote first.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Aug 29, 2013 12:35:58 GMT -5
I hate "wasted vote" arguments SO MUCH. If you don't think the vote leader(s) are scummy, don't vote for them. It's possible all of Town are wrong, after all -- it's happened before, and it'll happen again. Though you can't really blame her for being worried about such things when people classify one-off votes as 'lazy', suspicious, etc. I would also rather people vote with their suspicions regardless of what anyone else is doing, but that is not the only perspective that players have.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Aug 29, 2013 12:38:45 GMT -5
NETA and of course scummies do indeed make strategic lazy one-off votes, and there is really no way for the average Townie to tell the difference. So those other perspectives have their strategic place as well.
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Aug 29, 2013 12:44:51 GMT -5
I have no argument with either of those statements, cookies, but I don't think they necessarily invalidate my comment.
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Aug 29, 2013 13:02:47 GMT -5
I wasn't trying to invalidate it. Just stating the obvious that this game can be complex and there is usually a perfectly good reason behind peoples pet peeves and policies.
|
|
|
Post by Pleonast on Aug 29, 2013 14:03:16 GMT -5
Which simply highlights my pet peeve with single-voting: it forces players to make bad votes.
|
|
Meeko
FGM
I raccoon it's time to play Mafia
Posts: 2,474
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Meeko on Aug 29, 2013 14:11:31 GMT -5
I'm also not unhappy to see a KidV lynch. They've been acting purely defensively, without contributing much in the way of finding scum. Very similar to Meeko in that regard. I find it interesting that TWO people are making cases against my vote on Peeker, whom I unvoted before they made the cases. Unvoting does not remove the suspicious nature of the original vote. I was unaware that I was acting any differently. Tell me again why your opinion is superior? By "suspicious nature" you mean the opportunistic turn you took, by filling in the blanks of an obvious, now moot, lurker lynch vote? So much for your opinion being superior. I can see you are back to the same old Pleonast ..... New and improved with opportunism. Didn't you have a claim coming up? Let me help you with that... Vote: Pleonast
|
|
|
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Aug 29, 2013 14:22:12 GMT -5
Obvious as you thought it might have been, Meeko, lynch the lurker is yet another strategy that is short on accountability. Put some skin in the game already and vote your suspicions, not your policies.
You apparently have a policy to vote for someone if they jokingly ask you to. You apparently have a policy to vote for people who don't show up for the game. You apparently have a policy to vote for people to prod them to make good on past promises.
Nowhere in those policy votes have you provided the rest of us with any insight into who you actually find suspicious or why.
|
|
|
Post by Pleonast on Aug 29, 2013 14:30:42 GMT -5
I'm also not unhappy to see a KidV lynch. They've been acting purely defensively, without contributing much in the way of finding scum. Very similar to Meeko in that regard. Unvoting does not remove the suspicious nature of the original vote. I was unaware that I was acting any differently. Tell me again why your opinion is superior? By "suspicious nature" you mean the opportunistic turn you took, by filling in the blanks of an obvious, now moot, lurker lynch vote? So much for your opinion being superior. I can see you are back to the same old Pleonast ..... New and improved with opportunism. Didn't you have a claim coming up? Let me help you with that... Vote: PleonastMy opinion is not superior and I never claim it to be. I filled in the blank because there was a blank. What else was I to do? The point of mafia is to deduce others' motivations. Stated reasons are a starting point. If there's no stated reasons, well, what's left to do but fill in the blank? If your vote on peeker was to lynch the lurker, then why didn't you say so? What's the point of not telling us? You leave open the possibility that's not a lynch-the-lurker. Especially because that's an obvious reason and low-risk to state. So why didn't you use that? If you can't be bothered to state your reasoning, you shouldn't complain when others incorrectly infer your motives. For a player as paranoid as you, it's very surprising how paranoia-inducing your play is. Anyway, I've already stated that I'll do a full claim at the end of the Day. Your vote for me is another one of your lazy votes, designed to avoid accountability.
|
|
|
Post by Pleonast on Aug 29, 2013 14:32:34 GMT -5
Obvious as you thought it might have been, Meeko, lynch the lurker is yet another strategy that is short on accountability. Put some skin in the game already and vote your suspicions, not your policies. You apparently have a policy to vote for someone if they jokingly ask you to. You apparently have a policy to vote for people who don't show up for the game. You apparently have a policy to vote for people to prod them to make good on past promises. Nowhere in those policy votes have you provided the rest of us with any insight into who you actually find suspicious or why. I didn't see this before I posted. It's scary how much in agreement with Cookies I am sometimes.
|
|
Meeko
FGM
I raccoon it's time to play Mafia
Posts: 2,474
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Meeko on Aug 29, 2013 15:16:17 GMT -5
Obvious as you thought it might have been, Meeko, lynch the lurker is yet another strategy that is short on accountability. Put some skin in the game already and vote your suspicions, not your policies. You apparently have a policy to vote for someone if they jokingly ask you to. You apparently have a policy to vote for people who don't show up for the game. You apparently have a policy to vote for people to prod them to make good on past promises. Nowhere in those policy votes have you provided the rest of us with any insight into who you actually find suspicious or why. The phrase was "Please Sir, may I have another", I don't that here.
|
|
Meeko
FGM
I raccoon it's time to play Mafia
Posts: 2,474
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Meeko on Aug 29, 2013 15:16:52 GMT -5
Which simply highlights my pet peeve with single-voting: it forces players to make bad votes. Please elaborate.
|
|
|
Post by FruitAndGarbage on Aug 29, 2013 15:25:16 GMT -5
Hoo-ee. Yesterday, there were a few people I was kind of shrugging my shoulders at going "Maybe this is anti-town play"; today, I'd like to lynch half the game all at once. Some dudes what stand out to me and why (sorted by position on the playerlist):
billmc: I feel like I've pretty clearly lined out what bothers me about bill, and as the day's gone on, those suspicions have only been cemented. He only responds to half the things presented to him, but argues emphatically and β and this is the big one for me β emotionally. It feels like someone playing anti-town but trying to seem town by cherrypicking what to hit on in his posts and only bringing up what makes him look best and other players look worst, as opposed to mentioning everything salient. Emotionality is a good way to change minds without backing it with substance: nobody wants to push a case too hard on someone offended about being suspected. I'm not really sold one way or the other on his slip (or "slip"): I can see him being scum or third party or even unobservant town based on it, but his play makes me think the worst.
sinjin: Just to be clear, I don't particularly suspect him yet. I'm just inherently suspicious of replacers because a) they have fewer posts and interactions to get a read from and b) in the various places I've played before, scum are more likely to replace out than town (because they puss out because playing scum is haaard). So far his play's been contributory and everything, but part of me wants to keep an eye on him on principle.
Meeko: I'm having a hard time verbalizing what bugs me about Meeko's play so far, but... I guess it's that he's focusing too much on very specific, minor things. Something comes up and he tunnels in on it to the exclusion of other more relevant events and situations. That's a pretty good way to distract people when the town's getting too close to being right, in my experience, so it makes me a little nervous. I mean, the fact that he's dropped a vote on Pleo for next to no reason just smacks of redirection to me. Plus, as has been pointed out, we don't really know anything about any of his suspicions on anyone! Scum love to not have suspicions they can be held accountable for lategame. The town's vote is its best weapon and the scum's voting record is their biggest weakness. Taking the punch out of those tools is anti-town, even if it's not intended to be so.
colby11: Pretty much everything I said yesterday, but moreso. My suspicions are somewhat mitigated by his vote on abstain (in that at least he's voting and making a case), but only somewhat because the vote feels a lot like "I'm voting for you because you suspect me".
abstain: Scattershot suspicions with all-over-the-place justification. It feels like he's just throwing things out in the hope that something will stick and we'll all start focusing on that. What really gets to me is the dichotomy he's trying to set up between me and bill: if one of us is lynched and flips town, he wants to see the other one go down because OBVIOUSLY we're not coaligned. It makes me suspect that possibly he knows neither of us is scum and wants to tie the town to another mislynch down the line; if I weren't in a position to know I was town, I might even suspect the three of us were scum and thought bill or I was doomed today and was thus trying to save one of us at least. He's my current number three suspect behind bill and KidV, because I can see his play being "overzealous but confused townie" more than theirs, but I feel like all of them have been playing against town one way or another.
KidVermicious: C'man. C'maaan! You said yesterday what amounted to "Oh I just don't have anything to contribute day one and I never will get off my back", but your day 2 play has been exactly the same! All you've done is respond to (not even refute!) accusations leveled against you and scoff at your main accuser. You gotta contribute something, man. I am becoming increasingly convinced that whether or not you're actually scum, you're definitely not pro- or neutral-town. I'ma Unvote: billmc and Vote: KidV; I have a hard time believing this'll go badly.
|
|
|
Post by Jaade on Aug 29, 2013 15:29:05 GMT -5
Grumble. I don't like this. Like correct me if I'm wrong But none of us - as in we the town - know who each other are. And FG's posts don't strike me as all that scummy - He's attacking bill for bill's perceived lack of awareness which given how things are going is understandable. I also do not like abstain's vote on Bill. I'm fairly sure Bill is not town, and fairly sure they are not scum, either. That means they are not a lynch target, unless someone can make a case that they're a win stealer. I think abstain's vote is a subtle attempt for scum to get us to mislynch while maintaining plausible deniability by voting for non-town. ] vote abstain for voting for a likely third-party. Aside from a formatted vote, what observations/analysis has Swammer/Septimus provided so far? He's totally MIA today so far, and there's not much to look at from Day 1 either. I will say however that the word wall on Kid V is pretty compelling at this point. Categorizing votes on a Scummy Mahaloth as bandwagon votes certainly catches my eye. I'm almost ready to vote swammer for their difficult to read posts. Maybe to Tomorrow. I'm also not unhappy to see a KidV lynch. They've been acting purely defensively, without contributing much in the way of finding scum. Very similar to Meeko in that regard. Maybe I'm missing something, or just need to Occam's Razor it up in here, but why are we certain bill's "slip" was genuine? I mean, in a game with flavor like this and nonstandard faction names, I can totally see someone pretending to misunderstand the flavor as a way to clear themselves of being in that faction. Heck, I can see myself doing it in his position. I'm not trying to be sarcastic here or anything, I'm just not sure if I'm brain-farting some little thing that made it obvious he really meant it. There's always a first. But I haven't seen a slip like that made intentionally. Especially because in this group, any indication that a player is not town usually results in a swift death by lynch or Vig. I think we've finally evolved to the point where third-parties are not immediately killed, but that would not've been obvious when the slip was made. So while we can't be certain of Bill's alignment, I think it's clear what the most probable answer is: neither town nor scum. Exactly Tex, I kind of think we had a whole cluster of a bunch of town on the line yesterday, and scum was just sitting there laughing at us, until Silver Jan and I pushed it towards Mahaloth. Otherwise why wasn't the tie broken earlier in the day. This is a rather self-serving statement. Yes, you do get a little not-scum credit for boosting Mahaloth to a two-vote lead, but really only silverjan gets a full share. Your post here feels a lot like riding their coattails. I find it interesting that TWO people are making cases against my vote on Peeker, whom I unvoted before they made the cases. Unvoting does not remove the suspicious nature of the original vote. Pleonast has said nearly everything I wanted to say after catching up on the thread. I also thought Dizzy's post seemed to be trying too hard to scream that she was Town and taking credit for something that maybe wasn't so genuine. On the other hand, I haven't gotten a scummy vibe from any of her other posts yet. Colby's post doesn't look like it belonged on a different board to me. He said no one seemed very scummy (paraphrased). Why would he say that on the scum board? I don't see many cryptic posts on the scum boards. I felt more like he might be a lover role, as someone else mentioned. I am not happy that swammerdami hasn't returned since his last post, especially since it doesn't give us any info. I don't believe putting down words is enough when those words are just this side of nonsensical. Vote: swammerdami
|
|
|
Post by sinjin on Aug 29, 2013 15:47:36 GMT -5
To those who don't see what I see in Colby's post:
1) Colby's first post was 1.5 saying he wasn't going to speculate about the set-up, then he speculated about the set-up, ok. His second post was 1.51, which is quoted above. There were 46 posts in between times (yes a lot of them were silly, especially the rv (random vote) ones, but still 46 posts.
2) Scum are usually looking for power roles and excuses to vote for others, so they would be looking for those things to "ping" them.
3) What loop would a town player be out of. We don't have a loop. And we don't usually beg people to communicate with us.
|
|
|
Post by Jaade on Aug 29, 2013 15:58:55 GMT -5
Thanks, sinjin. That is more succinct. I plan to go back and re-read his posts after a birthday celebration I'm headed out to now.
|
|
|
Post by Paranoia on Aug 29, 2013 16:34:56 GMT -5
To those who don't see what I see in Colby's post: 1) Colby's first post was 1.5 saying he wasn't going to speculate about the set-up, then he speculated about the set-up, ok. His second post was 1.51, which is quoted above. There were 46 posts in between times (yes a lot of them were silly, especially the rv (random vote) ones, but still 46 posts. 2) Scum are usually looking for power roles and excuses to vote for others, so they would be looking for those things to "ping" them. 3) What loop would a town player be out of. We don't have a loop. And we don't usually beg people to communicate with us. In context he appeared confused about why Abstain was voting me - hence him asking about the "negative feelings" comment. From that post I believe he was asking Abstain if he had any deeper reason to be voting me. Maybe it's just difference in interpretation, but that post on it's own doesn't really ping me at all, and there's still the simple fact he, as scum, would have little reason to support texcats case on Mahaloth.
|
|
|
Post by swammerdami on Aug 29, 2013 16:51:53 GMT -5
In the "suspect" post Colby's speech is his normal. No slip -- no mispost.
"Bussing" mahaloth? No way! Well explained vote was Key to bandwagon.
Colby is not scum. I would rather suspect those who "suspect" Colby.
|
|