All right, read up. First thing I think I'll do is unvote
Why? Becuase I'm not getting nearly as strong of a scummy feeling anymore. His refusal to claim seems suspect at first, but I unless I'm mistaken (which I'm pretty sure I'm not), we should keep in mind that this is a specialty game, so there's a good chance that not all plays that are normally considered good/bad are considered the same in this game.
Now I'm going to go to sleep, I should give some more content later today.
Well there is some doubt on whether or not Sutherlands should be allowed to not claim, but it has nothing to do with the fact that this is a specialty game. Sure there probably will be some compicated and or unusual stuff in this because it is specialty, but it doesn't warrant changing fundamental mafia play.
Well, this may be a piss poor excuse for lack of analysis but it's truth, my attention is simply too divided right now.
Several people have said things that have raised interest, but I can't go pull them all up at the moment.
I always look with a certain amount of suspicion on people telling the vig. what to do. Unless it's part of some cohesive plan, as opposed to just - shoot X because he seems scummiest to me.
The idea we can direct the SK is laughable.
Cyan I agreed with earlier. I still agree ikerr is worth looking closer at. I might even do it myself one day, but I'm not counting on it. But the whole lynch/vig thing is questionable.
Passdog has raised a few eyebrows too I seem to recall. And why are you raggin on poor Holmes. He wasn't so bad
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Bateleur »
Ambush Krotiq makes me laugh so much. I keep rereading the card and it keeps not having Flash. In what sense is this an ambush again? I just have visions of this huge Krotiq poorly concealed in some bushes, feeling slightly sad that his carefully planned ambushes never seem to work.
Alright, here we go, first with the vote log and my impressions:
Format – Post number. Voter(Wagon vote count): Small reason explaination
NOTE: Random voting, as a whole, ended around post 100 ZDS bandwagon:
14 – G&E (1/13): Random voting phase
16 – G&E Un-vote (0/13): Joking “Oh no!” to ZDS’s vote on G&E
[18 – Loran16: Random voting]*
31 – Pod (1/13): Says ZDS is “trying to hard”
37 – Sutherlands (2/13): What I originally thought was joking, but turned into so much more (the deck fiasco)
113 – CropCircles (3/13): Argues ZDS was using “total WIFOM” about speculation as to why DYH was killed
114 – SorryGuy (4/13): Doesn’t like ZDS spreading doubt among many players
116 – ikerr (5/13) : Didn’t really give any reason here other than ZDS posting a lot
120 – Fayul (6/13): Is comfortable at 6 votes, not so much at 8
142 – bluesoul[who I replace] (7/13): No other explanation than “dude’s crazy”
160 – Loran16 (8/13): After trying to vote a couple times while un-bolded, finally properly votes for ZDS
167 – Loran16 Un-vote (7/13): Just looked at ZDS play earlier in the game, sees this as newbish town
168 – Fayul Un-vote (6/13): Says vote was only for pressure, and un-votes to “placate” AbbeyGargoyle
176 – ikerr un-vote (5/13): Wants to put pressure on someone to provoke discussion [pretty much what Fayul said 8 posts ago]
183 – Sutherlands un-vote (4/13): Agrees with Cyan about ikerr’s recent voting patterns and switches votes over
194 – CropCircles (3/13): Fayul’s bandwagoning was brought to CC’s attention by Crippled_Fist
339 – kops replaces Pod (2/13)
*This attempt at voting was not noticed by the mod because it was not bolded
Also note: I think I missed someone’s vote in the ZDS wagon because I noticed how the mod un-votes for you when you replace a current player (and I replaced bluesoul, who was voting for ZDS at the time), but the vote totals remained correct every time I checked them. If someone voted somewhere that I missed, please let me know so that I can update this.
Sutherlands bandwagon:
21 – silicon (1/13): Random voting phase
38 – ZDS (2/13): Jokingly (I thought) says Sutherlands doesn’t read the mod’s descriptions correctly
86 – ZDS Un-vote (1/13): Random voting phase is over
136 – Matjoeman (2/13): Doesn’t like Sutherlands attempt at connections of Cyan and ZDS
141 – ZDS (3/13): Sutherlands has bad town logic
144 – WhytePanther (4/13): Sutherlands doesn’t like Cyan arguing with ZDS, but is arguing with ZDS himself (vote on hypocritical)
149 – Cyan (5/13): Doesn’t like the Sutherlands “intuition” approach
161 – Treigit (6/13): Sutherlands connected the only two people with a serious vote on him at the time as mafia
176 – ikerr (7/13): Wants to put pressure on someone to provoke discussion [pretty much what Fayul said 8 posts ago]
178 – Cyan un-vote (6/13): ikerr is just bandwagoning now
191 – Good&Evil (7/13): Doesn’t buy Sutherlands “most scummy thing I’ve seen in a long time” excuse for voting for ikerr
241 – Jobie (8/13): Would like to see a claim by now
249 – me (9/13): I’ve stated my reasons twice now, I don’t think I need to state them again
270 – Cyan (10/13): Sutherlands is making no sense in his refusal to claim
293 – Axelrod (11/13): Apparently because of a Sutherlands quote: “There certainly aren't many vanilla cards in magic. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if he put out 4 people with my rolename, just because it's a magic deck”. I’m still not quite sure the reasoning behind this vote
298 – Un-vote Treigit (10/13): He makes it clear here that he still thinks we should lynch Sutherlands, he just wants to make the final vote and take responsibility for any Super Saint-esque ability
309 – Un-vote Axelrod (9/13): Appologizes for his vote saying things are stressful with him in another game
313 – Un-vote Cyan (8/13): Thinks Sutherlands is playing in a very news way, which is making him appear guiltier than he really is
345 – Un-vote ZDS (7/13): He’s moving his vote to ikerr
ikerr bandwagon:
22 – AbbeyGargoyle (1/13): Random voting
122 – Un-vote AbbeyGargoyle (0/13): Random voting over
178 – Cyan (1/13): ikerr is just bandwagoning with no real reasons
183 – Sutherlands (2/13): Agress with Cyan
201 – arminaes (3/13): There’s no real reason given here
210 – Loran16 (4/13): Sees only speculation, fishing, and bandwagoning
215 – AbbeyGargoyle (5/13): Agress with Loran16 and wants to pressure for discussion
270 – Un-vote Cyan (4/13): Moves his vote to Sutherlands for refusing to claim
313 – Cyan (5/13): Moves vote back to ikerr after determining that Sutherlands is just playing a different way than salvation boards are used to
345 – ZDS (6/13): ikerr “Lied about Cyan and Fayul's cases”
Let’s now pull out the people on the bandwagons that were either 4-9th to vote for or 2nd-4th to jump off:
Now, the rest everyone is going to have their own opinion over, but here’s my take on who’s left. I believe ZDS and Cyan are the two players that are making the most sense in this game, so I can count them out. Not to mention, Cyan might need to just show up twice because he really was the first to vote for ikerr. Also, I believe you can remove me because I never would have voted for ZDS in the first place, but I’m not going to argue that you can attribute that to my predecessor. That leaves ikerr, Fayul, and Loran16. I already suspected ikerr a lot due to his voting habits. These are just the numbers to prove it. It’s hard for me to get a gauge on either Fayul or ikerr because they’ve posted so little up to this point. However, something that I didn’t notice before is Loran16. I’m going to be going back later today and reading over his posts again. Although, technically he should probably be in the one group because there was the whole voting thing in the beginning of the game, thus causing him to vote later in the “possible-scum” area on these bandwagons. It still won’t hurt for me to look.
Now that silicon came back and un-voted without much content. I’m looking at him, but reserving judgment until he makes a more meaty post later today.
I’ve got to head out to lunch at the moment, but when I get back, I’ll answer my opinions on all the subjects ZDS brought up.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're town and I'm mafia, you've already lost. You just don't know it yet.
I feel like this is turning into the war in Iraq, and we don't have an exit strategy. Sutherlands isn't going to claim, I'm going to have to live with it, even though I don't like it. The only case against Sutherlands at this point is that he occasionally says things that are contrary to things he has previously said without an explanation. I no longer feel like that's enough for a vote at this time, so Unvote Sutherlands. I am somewhat bothered at the number of people who basically cited the newb defense FOR him, even though he admits to having played multiple times.
So where do we go from here? I don't particularly like the case against ikerr either, at least not since his answer to my question. However, I am interested in hearing what arminaes has come up with.
The one thing that's been bothering me for a while now is Fayul. In post 131, CropCircles defended Fayul's jumping on the ZDS bandwagon, because Fayul's vote was for pressure. That's understandable, we've had pressure votes all over the place since then. But then in his 4 post series starting on 168, Fayul calls CropCircles out for directing the town despite a low post count (and admits to doing that as well), and votes CropCircles. And then not too far from there, in post 194, CropCircles responds to Fayul's post and votes Fayul, and demands an explanation as to why his actions were scummy. Fayul has not provided a response, and hasn't changed his vote since, despite trying to put pressure in both Sutherlands and ikerr in post 258 (his first since that 4 post series). I think this exchange has been overlooked for three reasons. 1) We were all really deep into Sutherlands at this point. 2) The posts were very far apart, and even at max posts per page, seeing them together wasn't likely. And 3) Fayul has been lurking big time. Therefore Vote Fayul because I'd really like to see this explained.
EWP: Thank you for the vote analysis atlseal, I need to give that some deep thought.
In games I've played in that had traditional vigs(admittedly, not a bunch of them, but, at least 5 I think), they always fired every chance they got(except for N0 for obvious reasons). I was working with that basis,and that is all. At this point, it's probably better for the Vig to not fire at all(obviously this could change at some point in the day, but, that's my current thought on it), but, that never seems to happen. If whomever is the Vig is going to fire, it seems like they should at least be guided by the town.
On an unrelated note, Silicon's last post doesn't make me feel good inside. He promised a 'long post after re-reading', but the post that he provided was just a bandwagon unvote, and some logic that is, IMO, utterly nonsensical about why it would be okay to refuse to claim in a specialty game(especially factoring in that Sutherlands has already claimed Vanilla), even though it's generally frowned upon. To me, it seems like he wanted to get off of a bandwagon that clearly isn't going anywhere, but, didn't want it to look like he was bandwagonning in doing so, so he made up a reasoning for it and hoped noone would notice. He doesn't comment on any of the other things that are currently being discussed(Ikerr, Fayul, Night 1 Vigging, etc).
OK, well I guess after that last post, I'm willing to downgrade my vote to an fos, so unvote atlseal, fos atlseal
I'm not longer all that uncomfortable about atlseal himself, but bluesoul's actions can't just be ignored, and he is the main reason that I believe he/they is/are scum. Anyway, the vote didn't achieve the original goal of getting people off suth so it really wasn't doing anything anyway.
@Axel: where did passdog raise any eyebrows? I haven't really seen anything scummy out of him myself. Can you please point this out.
I don't really want my vote sitting idle right now since I think we're already past the 1-week original day thingy, but at the moment I'm really not sure where I want it to be. I'm pretty close to voting silicon though, mostly for the reasons cyan mentioned above. I agree that his last post was not very townie-like, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and see his "more content". If this hasn't happened by the end of the day like he said, I will vote him, likewise if it's anything like the last one.
Alright, since I only have so much time for posts at the moment, first I’m going to do what I said I was going to do in my last post (that is, answer the topics ZDS brought up in his initial post that he’d like to hear my opinions on [I’m sure others would as well]. So, here’s where I stand:
Ikerr bandwagonning: As I stated when I initially suspected him, and is shown by my vote records, he really is the most suspicious bandwagoner out of all the players here. This is what causes me to suspect him so much. If I had two votes, I would also be voting for him, but seeing as I don’t (and you all know my feelings about Sutherlands by now), I can’t do much more than FoS him at the moment. Rest assured, if nothing else major happens and Sutherlands is dead and he’s alive by tomorrow, he’ll be the first player I’m going to be voting for.
Thoughts on vig firing tonight: I’d say if the majority of the town (again, this would be 13 at this point) can agree on who to vig, then the vig should, otherwise I’m going to go by the statistical approach that the vig would be more likely to hurt us than help us at the moment. However, as to how I feel about the firing tonight: as that I do suspect ikerr at almost the same level as Sutherlands, I’d support a vig of him tonight. However, if there is going to be a majority opinion about it, before we go to night, I’d like to give ikerr the same chance to defend himself that would be given to someone about to be lynched.
Fayul not answering to the points made against her by Crippled_Fist and CropCircles: I don’t like this either, and it definitely makes me feel more confident about my initial, though slight, suspicions of Fayul as well. She was kind enough to answer my points, I don’t see why Crippled_Fist and CropCircles should be any different. By addressing any points brought up about oneself, you can put more information out there about where you stand. I’m all for that as it gives information for the town’s use later.
SorryGuy not being helpful: He said he would post later after reading up on the thread a bit. Now, I don’t expect people to consider meaty posts as long as my past two posts have been, but I do expect them to add information about their stances on something. Honestly, to me it doesn’t matter what at the moment, but I like having the information to compare.
@ZDS: I most certainly will post why I think you and Cyan are most likely to be town at the moment. However, I don’t have the time at the moment to pull up the posts that made me think so. Rest assured, it is coming just like everything else I promised I’d post when I got the time.
Is there anything else anyone wants me to go over?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're town and I'm mafia, you've already lost. You just don't know it yet.
As for Cyan and Fayul's cases, you said they were equal to mine. However, the simple fact that they did not grow, while my case did, proves that it is wrong.
I don't agree with this assertion. We can't know what would have happened with those two cases with a little more support. All I know is that they seemed similar at the time, and that was what my statement was based on.
Now, until someone presents a proper case, I don't think I have a choice but to ignore the wagon against me.
I don't believe that the vig should fire unless most of the town is extremely sure that the target is scum, they're killing another claimed vig, or its part of some master plan that guaruntees the town's victory. Otherwise, its just a great way to throw the game away.
Fayul's vote on CropCircles seemed strange to me. What concerns me more is how he ignored my direct question for rational behind it, and is now hiding in the shadows. I would still like to hear this rational.
Silicon needs to say more.
I still feel that Cyan is town. A few of his ideas appear misguided, but nothing comes off as intentionally anti-town, and he has presented a number of good points troughout. In the case of telling the vig to shoot, I feel ZDS comes off looking worse by supporting the case and backing out when Cyan concedes it, but I don't see it as enough to condemn either.
On Loran16: I presented a few points on him earlier, and I am open to continuing the matter. Some of the more interesting points are:
-Hopping on ZDS wagon, while pointing out Sutherlands (in the middle of the two wagons)
-Quickly hopping off and FoSing everyone under suspicion (at the time, Sutherlands, ZDS, and Matjoeman)
-ignoring my initial 'scummy' post to suggest a lurkerhunt, until I had an actual wagon when he does a pbpa that doesn't offer any new points (smacks saying very little by saying a lot) and fervently pushes for my lynch
-demanding that Sutherlands claim despite not being on his wagon or applying pressure to him for any other purpose
I'm also not fond of AbbeyGargoyle, but I have to review his posts to see if its anything other than OMGUS.
If Sutherlands has already answered this question, or one similar enough to it, feel free to ignore this, but if you never intended to make a role-claim, even under immense pressure from other players, why did you bother to make subtle allusions to your role? Why deny being a Legend (which could easily be true), if you weren't going to follow up?
I will have limited access (but still be able to post, hopefully) until Tuesday. There is no need to replace me because I will still have some form of internet access.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Mafia Stats (10-22 Overall) Random Mafia 2 Town MVP '08 MTGS Fantasy Football Overall Champion Best Non-SK Neutral Performance (Individual)
atlseal...you seem to only be taking into account when votes were on each wagon.
But doing so, while enlightening sure, misses some things. For example it was my PBPA of ikerr that really started to get people to switch their votes to ikerr from suth, (despite it being only the 4th vote). And its not like i didnt point out reasons.
Also:
Although, technically he should probably be in the one group because there was the whole voting thing in the beginning of the game, thus causing him to vote later in the “possible-scum” area on these bandwagons. It still won’t hurt for me to look.
While originally ZDS was a random vote, when i actually did vote him i think i did it because i thought he really was scum. So your vote tally should show me on this wagon. (See post 160)
I still think ikerr is the play btw.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Mafia MVP Harry Potter Mafia!
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
Quote from Seppel »
I love Joboman, Poggy, Niv, and Vezok, because, while they may not be the best players, they still try to win. Having fun is the most important thing to a game, but I've learned that if you don't try to win, then you're ruining everyone else's fun.
I gave my rationale. CCi s staying out of random conversation, inserting himself only to give big analyses while staying out of the trenches, trying to direct the town while staying out of the spotlight. That's somewhat scummy behavior, and on day 1 you get so few leads that are as good as this.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Lord, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, the wisdom to know the difference, and a ****ing chainsaw.
Passdog raised eyebrows when he voted WP for showing Sutherlands contradictions.
It is slightly more than that. WP was making perhaps the most sense of anyone posting at the time. There's a certain "townie" feel to his posts which is hard to put in words. Passdog's vote seemingly came out of right field. I was much more in agreement with WP than Passdog. And while it's one thing to criticize someone's logic, it's another step altogether to vote a player because you disagree with their logic.
Then he moved on to Cyan when the WP vote wasn't doing anything. Again, I understand the criticizm of the lynch/vig idea that was being tossed around. But Passdog votes almost solely on that basis, and then uses his experience in Star Trek to justify it.
His what I will call modest defense of ikerr is also noted.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Bateleur »
Ambush Krotiq makes me laugh so much. I keep rereading the card and it keeps not having Flash. In what sense is this an ambush again? I just have visions of this huge Krotiq poorly concealed in some bushes, feeling slightly sad that his carefully planned ambushes never seem to work.
Interesting. I'm pretty sure that this is the first time I've been voted for being scum in some OTHER game. How bitter of you, Passdog.
Just to clarify, for Passdog's sake, even though I already clarified this once already:
I am not saying that whomever is the Vig SHOULD fire tonight. I don't think that they should. I'm saying that, from everything I've ever seen, Vigs seem to fire every single night no matter what, and if the Vig is going to fire anyway, Sutherlands is the best target, in my opinion.
I have already shown why I believe WP's assertions were not correct. Neither of the supposed contradictions were in fact contradictory - one was poor paraphrasing (but the intent was obvious to me at least) and the second was not contradictory but incomplete (an omission).
The assertion that Sutho was being hypocritical was also fallacious - just because he was suspicious of an argument between two players in means suggests that he should not engage in arguments with others - the assertion is absurd and definitely against the nature of Mafia.
While I can see many things wrong with Sutherlands play, the two factors that Whyte Panther raised were blatant attempts to paint Sutho the colour of scum, without resorting to meaningful factual arguments. Both arguments were contrived to make an already unseemly player look more scummy, and neither were fair assessments. Why would a townie make arguments like that? So I voted.
Note I do not defend Sutherlands' arguments but Sutherland himself. I feel Sutherlands play style is very similar to other people who I have seen lynched as town, MD and Holmes are theose that immediately come to mind, and as I have already been bitten twice I am now very wary of attacking the low hanging fruit.
The assertion that Sutho was being hypocritical was also fallacious - just because he was suspicious of an argument between two players by no means suggests that he should not engage in arguments with others - the assertion is absurd and definitely against the nature of Mafia.
On vigging- There is another, perhaps even better time for the vig to fire. When his target has nothing to offer the town and will likely be lynched latter. This saves the town from a night with minimum loss. I'm not advocating that here as I still think Suther is the right lynch.
P-Dog, while I can accept Suther's explanations for either of the misstatements that WP attacked Suther for, you must admit that they were at least contradictions, even if Suther was able to clarify. I admit that the hypocricy charge was trumped up.
Cyan: You are not being voted for because of Star Trek, but because you display anti-town sentiment. Your play in Star Trek is however a metagame issue - I know you are skilled enought to try and pull off scum directing the vig. And I have also seen you display enough mafia knowledge to know that vigging Sutherlands is not a substitute for proper investigation.
Essentially I expected better of you as town and thus assume you to be a good candidate to be scum.
You also have a second strike against you now - trying to pass off a legitimate reason for a vote as 'bitterness' is a little misrepresentative don't you think?
I'll review the rest of Cyan's play to see if there are any other relevant points to be made.
Actually, I don't believe that I display anti-town sentiment at all. Even if Sutherlands is not mafia(and it's still possible that he is), he is still a liability to the town. He continually throws out random ideas with little to no backing to them, and the town wasted a large part of this day putting votes onto him, only so that he could refuse to claim anyway, and we could decide not to lynch him.
Since you felt it appropriate to bring my experience as mafia from star trek into this, I'll go ahead and use that a little to explain why I'm not thrilled with the idea of Sutherlands surviving today. Aside from the fact that he's already told us that he is Vanilla, and that he has not been an asset for the town in even the most remote sense, in fact just the opposite since, as I stated, we've wasted the better part of today focused on him(and even since the pressure lightened off of him some, he really hasn't gotten any better). Aside from these things, the future that I see for Sutherlands is that of a patsy. He's already proven that he is not actually capable of creating a defense for himself...the only reason that he's alive is because CropCircles sided with him as far as claiming, and because there's someone else that we can easily shift our attention to(Ikerr). Assuming that Sutherlands doesn't get killed today, he will be a detractor from the town on a daily basis, and if the mafia ever actually needs to get someone lynched, they'll lean on him. Trek Mafia is a perfect example of this. As a mafia in that game, never for a moment did we consider night killing you, because we knew that we'd be able to use Raf's case against you and get an easy lynch out of it..and that is exactly what happened, at the most crucial moment in the game.
Like I said, I'm perfectly fine with the Vig not firing at all tonight. Personally, I think that letting Sutherlands live is going to end up being a mistake for us, but, I am not one of the few players in this game that I think is experienced enough to trust their own judgment over the will of the town. If the town wants Sutherlands to live, then, I'm willing to admit that I might be wrong in my judgment. That'll have to remain to be seen. But again, all I'm saying is the following: If the Vig is going to fire tonight, I am at least glad that we had this conversation so that he has something to think about, rather than just firing blindly into the mass of players.
I'm flattered that you think that I'm skilled enough to try to direct the Vig even as a mafioso, but, that is simply not the case. You view my sentiment as anti-town. I disagree. Am I against one person that MIGHT be a townsperson? Yes. But only for the sake of the town as a whole.
Lastly, now that you actually bothered to explain it, your vote on me doesn't seem as bitter as it previously did. However, in your last post, all you had to say for voting me as opposed to ZDS was the fact that I was mafia in Trek. If you want to prevent misunderstandings, you should explain yourself better to begin with.
On an unrelated note, to whomever is doing it, viewing the thread from invisible mode is really weak, and makes people heavily suspicious of you if they figure out who it is. I'm honestly surprised that it's not a mafia rule that you have to be Visible while participating in a Mafia game.
You forget one lesson that many also learned from Trek - investigate the suspcious survivors of each day.
Had Raf investigated me you would have been forced to consider me as a target. We ay have lost one cop but there is potential for clearing Sutho yet - as long as we aren't in the same situation at lynch or lose we'll be fine.
Vigging him may be a consideration if no one clears him, or he fails to clear himself - but to suggest it now is irresponsible.
You can couch your reasons for the suggestion in as much town rhetoric as you want but the fact remains that the plan proposed benefited mafia now more than it would town. Saying you have the town's interest at is easy - living by it is something else.
And I apologise for any uncertainty - I thought that my meaning could be reasonably inferred from my post.
Things have been somewhat at a stall lately, and I having been posting too actively because I didn't find much to add to what was being said. For the time being I'll keep my vote on Sutherlands, because IMO he still hasn't cleared up the accusations put forth on him.
In the meantime, I'll also FoS Cyan. While I share his views on Sutherland, I don't think that it's right to rush off to a lynch.
Quote from Cyan »
Even if Sutherlands is not mafia(and it's still possible that he is), he is still a liability to the town. He continually throws out random ideas with little to no backing to them, and the town wasted a large part of this day putting votes onto him, only so that he could refuse to claim anyway, and we could decide not to lynch him.
Losing a townie on day 1 isn't such a bad thing, but it's not a good thing either.
If for some reason we decide that we shouldn't lynch Sutherlands today. (I admit I don't know what that reason might be.) He should be vigged. Pass proposes that he be investigated instead. This strikes me as a horrible plan. Consider:
Vig:
If town, he dies. We lose a vote, and potentially may be at LyoL 1 day earlier. We don't lose any abilities.
If scum, he dies, we've taken out scum, and still have a lynch to use.
Cop:
If town, either our cop comes out or not (either way, the investigation doesn't get us scum):
If he does: we've outed a cop to confirm a vanilla.
If he doesn't: we have no idea whether or not progress has been made. We spend a decent portion of the day debating him, and potentially still misslynch him, or come close only to have the cop come out (see above)
If scum, our (most likely last remaining) cop comes out, we then kill him, resulting in much the same end as vigging in the first place, except minus a cop.
Almost every situation involving a cop investigation results in either nothing happening (including not finding scum) or outing our cop either for a vanilla, or for something our vig can anonomously accomplish.
I'm not saying that vigging is always a good idea (or even generally), but I've recently come to believe the vig's primary job is not to kill scum, but to prevent misslynches (which lead to night and 2 more townie deaths).
If we don't lynch Suther (which is the best play), I obviously advocate his vig. If we do lynch him, at this point, I see no legitimate reason for the vig to fire.
1. I guess you can't help me. I still see no contradiction - only an omission.
Just because Sutherlands left off a name on his second explanation doesn't mean his second statement contradicted the first - in fact it affirmed half of the first. Omission is NOT contradiction. It may be an attempt to further avoid the issue, or could be oversight, or an attempt to retract part by silence (if you don't mention it it didn't happen). Some of those could be scummy or mistakes (my preferred inference) but it remains that it is NOT contradictory.
You have done nothing to change my mind. Instead of quoting text that I have already read (and referred to and shown my interpretation/opinion) how about you show where the contradiction lies? How is it contradictory? I challenge anyone to explain it and show the contradiction.
2. MD and Holmes are players who seemed not to have the firmest grasp of the way mafia is generally played. They (particularly MD) were over defensive, incoherent and utilised tactics that were inconsistent with town philosophies. Sutherlands uses the same tones, makes similar mistakes and displays a comparable lack of awareness of common mafia tactics.
3. Good Posting Crippled Fist. And I apologise for trying to direct investigators - I got a little caught up in the Trek inferences.
My major point is that there are a number of alternatives to vigging Suth now, investigation being only one. I know not what other information will arise Day 2 that may aid in clearing him - it may come however. Vigging any player at this point would be detrimental unless it was a sure fire hit - which constitutes part of my reasoning to vote Cyan. He has said many times he is uncertain as to Suth alignment, yet still advocated his assassination without a chance for the town to have an effective say.
#55 - More setup spec. I find the "town full of vanillas" comment a little odd; I don't remember anyone or anything suggesting that we did have a town full of vanillas.
#176 - Now gives reason for voting ZDS; surprise surprise, it's a reason that lets him vote without actually accusing people of being scummy. Votes Sutherlands for "strange arguments and minor contradictions." Foses loran. Encourages Fayul to make a case against CC. This post is the reason I originally voted ikerr - he jumps directly from one bandwagon to another, retroactively justifying his first vote while getting on the now large Sutherlands bandwagon for dubious reasons. He also foses another player and encourages a case against a fourth. Ikerr seems to be casting his net wide in the hopes of catching a fish, which strongly indicates to me a scum feeling out the early game to find the strongest bandwagon to attach to.
#187 - Pseudo-responds to Cyan's argument against him. I am intrigued by his responses of "Isn't it?" and " I can see how it could be seen that way, but I'm obligated to disagree." One of the best ways to diffuse an argument against you without actually addressing it is to circumvent it by saying, "You have your opinion and I have mine, we just disagree" which seems to be what ikerr is saying here. Also reassures us of how he would and would not act if he were mafia.
#229 - More evasion as well as deflection onto loran (who's the one bringing the case against him.) In regards to Sutherlands, reiterates that "I could present a case against him, but it's all already been said." Minimizes AbbeyGargoyle's reasons for voting him with the statement "I also don't see how the reason you stated voting for me is any different than mine for voting for ZDS," when AG had actually given reasons, including the bandwagoning, whereas ikerr's reasons for voting ZDS were essentially nonexistent.
#330 - Just a few notes:
(Post 123) - Sutherlands was linking Cyan and ZDS, but not Matjoeman. He just said he was also suspicious of MJM.
(Post 134) - Hyperbole. Suth did not state that logic was not conducive to a good argument, he questioned Cyan's specific use of logic.
(Post 165) - Suth never said townies want to lynch other townies, he said that townies want to survive and would want to see someone of an alignment unknown to them get lynch before they see themselves get lynched. Suth was saying he had made himself a likely investigation target, which =/= telling the cop to investigate him.
I find it interesting that ikerr describes the Suth wagon as "more comfortable." I wouldn't think that was a criterion townies would use to evaluate the merit behind a wagon.
#376 - Woe is me, I don't know what I've done to deserve this negative attention. Why are you being mean to me?
#393 - Walking the line on the vigging issue. "The vig should not fire unless most of the town is extremely sure the target is scum." Are you saying we should vig Sutherlands or not? Casting the net again. Dismisses loran's case, says he will ignore his wagon until someone "present's a proper case against him." Well, here you go.
I really want to see how ikerr reacts to arimnaes' msot recent post before making any further decisions about him. I really didn't like him to start off with, and I haven't in a while.
This piece of post #393 renewed my suspicions of him in addition to some of the same reasons arimnaes mentioned (walking the line on the vig mainly):
Quote from ikerr »
I'm also not fond of AbbeyGargoyle, but I have to review his posts to see if its anything other than OMGUS.
This got my attention because I at the time I was the second very vocal person against him that he has mentioned that he is suspicious of (after loran16 who he already tried to deflect attention onto now dismisses). Even though he admits this might just OMGUS, and he will have to reveiw my posts, this feels like he is to cover his ass in case someone made this connection.
My feeling on the vig: A priori I don't like the idea of offing a stupid townie. Scummy play deserves to die, not stupid play. The biggest thing the town needs to decide is if having Sutherlands as an albatross around our neck for the rest of the game during discussion is worth the -1 day til we reach LoLy. My sense is that the more time the scum have to keep up the façade, the more likely the façade is to crack and us catch them, or info roles to catch them, so vig'ing Sutherlands is NOT something I would support, especially night 1.
Sutherlands said that some people were suspicious of me and Cyan. When I asked him who they were, he answered they were the people voting for me. As the discussion went on, Cyan mysteriously disappeared and, in the end, Sutherlands claimed that he had never said that the people voting for me were suspicious of Cyan (oh, wait, he did, at the beginning of this paragraph). There is one possibility in which it would not be a contradiction. It is if he misunderstood my question as "who is suspicious of me ?" rather than understanding it as "who is suspicious of both me and Cyan ?". However, even after all this has been pointed several times, he never went back, which means it is unlikely that it was an error (he has already proven he can correct his errors as soon as he sees them).
1. I guess you can't help me. I still see no contradiction - only an omission.
Just because Sutherlands left off a name on his second explanation doesn't mean his second statement contradicted the first - in fact it affirmed half of the first. Omission is NOT contradiction. It may be an attempt to further avoid the issue, or could be oversight, or an attempt to retract part by silence (if you don't mention it it didn't happen). Some of those could be scummy or mistakes (my preferred inference) but it remains that it is NOT contradictory.
Passdog explains it perfectly. If you go back to that first post and change it to "I believe Cyan and ZDS are suspicious. Obviously other people think ZDS is suspicious, too", then go back and reread the rest of the conversation, it's amazing how much it makes sense.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
#55 - More setup spec. I find the "town full of vanillas" comment a little odd; I don't remember anyone or anything suggesting that we did have a town full of vanillas.
There were a few comments that speculated a large number of vanilla roles due to lack of cards in the graveyard.
#176 - Now gives reason for voting ZDS; surprise surprise, it's a reason that lets him vote without actually accusing people of being scummy. Votes Sutherlands for "strange arguments and minor contradictions." Foses loran. Encourages Fayul to make a case against CC. This post is the reason I originally voted ikerr - he jumps directly from one bandwagon to another, retroactively justifying his first vote while getting on the now large Sutherlands bandwagon for dubious reasons. He also foses another player and encourages a case against a fourth. Ikerr seems to be casting his net wide in the hopes of catching a fish, which strongly indicates to me a scum feeling out the early game to find the strongest bandwagon to attach to.
I've already explained most of this to death. The new point is encouraging Fayul to make a case. I wanted to know how the point that Fayul gave could be used as a solid base to feel confidant that CC was scum. He already presented a case, I was just looking for a bit more depth to see if it was worth pursuing.
Quote from arimnaes »
#187 - Pseudo-responds to Cyan's argument against him. I am intrigued by his responses of "Isn't it?" and " I can see how it could be seen that way, but I'm obligated to disagree." One of the best ways to diffuse an argument against you without actually addressing it is to circumvent it by saying, "You have your opinion and I have mine, we just disagree" which seems to be what ikerr is saying here. Also reassures us of how he would and would not act if he were mafia.
The 'isn't it' was because this vote was placed for similar purposes. It looked like Sutherlands was flailing under the pressure, and I didn't want it to let up right away. I wanted to see how he'd react. The difference was that I felt that Sutherlands was likely scum, while I had no real feelings either way with ZDS. The other comment was because I felt I needed to respond to that point for completeness, and there really was much else I could respond with.
Quote from arimnaes »
#229 - More evasion as well as deflection onto loran (who's the one bringing the case against him.) In regards to Sutherlands, reiterates that "I could present a case against him, but it's all already been said." Minimizes AbbeyGargoyle's reasons for voting him with the statement "I also don't see how the reason you stated voting for me is any different than mine for voting for ZDS," when AG had actually given reasons, including the bandwagoning, whereas ikerr's reasons for voting ZDS were essentially nonexistent.
Could you outline the evasion? I'm not sure which points you are referring to. When AG voted me, he basically listed several suspicions, then stated the final reason was to 'get some more pressure on me and generate some discussion'. My vote on ZDS was for the same reason, but would have lost much of its effectiveness had I stated my suspicions of him (that I had a funny feeling about a couple of his posts), and was in the early building stages of the wagon. These appear very similar to me.
Quote from arimnaes »
#330 - Just a few notes:
(Post 123) - Sutherlands was linking Cyan and ZDS, but not Matjoeman. He just said he was also suspicious of MJM.
(Post 134) - Hyperbole. Suth did not state that logic was not conducive to a good argument, he questioned Cyan's specific use of logic.
(Post 165) - Suth never said townies want to lynch other townies, he said that townies want to survive and would want to see someone of an alignment unknown to them get lynch before they see themselves get lynched. Suth was saying he had made himself a likely investigation target, which =/= telling the cop to investigate him.
I find it interesting that ikerr describes the Suth wagon as "more comfortable." I wouldn't think that was a criterion townies would use to evaluate the merit behind a wagon.
(Post 123)- The wording of the post was ambiguous, and it opened the door for further linking attempts including MJM.
(Post 134)- The quotations around 'logic' and how it separates the comments from the speaker make it sound like a broader shot.
(Post 165)- That's the way I read the comment. He didn't say he was the most likely target, he said that the player who leads the lynch is most likely to be investigated. This seems like an attempt to have lead any remaining investigative roles.
So, you're saying that not being comfortable on the wagon doesn't mean you should get off it? I felt more comfortable in the sense that I was happier with his lynch than I was/would have been on the other wagons.
Quote from arimnaes »
#376 - Woe is me, I don't know what I've done to deserve this negative attention. Why are you being mean to me?
I'm sorry, but I was getting kind of sick of the shots that really couldn't be defended against.
Quote from arimnaes »
#393 - Walking the line on the vigging issue. "The vig should not fire unless most of the town is extremely sure the target is scum." Are you saying we should vig Sutherlands or not? Casting the net again. Dismisses loran's case, says he will ignore his wagon until someone "present's a proper case against him." Well, here you go.
I'm saying the vig should not fire! I thought I made that clear, but apparently I did not. As much as I believe Sutherlands is our best lynch at the moment, I am not sure enough that he is scum to risk a misfire. I wasn't 'casting the net again', I was trying to weigh in on current matters and help you all get a read on my views on certain players, should I be lynched today. I don't feel that Loran16's intial pbpa of me was all that strong, or raised points outside of the post that got me all this attention. It is also difficult to get into the discussion if I'm constantly on the defensive, and anything I say would probably be used against me. When the points start to degrade into 'he's scummy', what alternative do I have.
[FONT=Georgia]
Quote from [FONT=Verdana »
ZeDorkSlipeur
[/FONT]
Quote from [FONT=Verdana »
]
[FONT=Georgia]Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you had voted for either Cyan or Fayul in the same manner that you voted me, it would have done nothing but cast a bad light on you. It's easy to say "what if ?" ; but in fact we can not assume that a random person "could" have added support to one of these cases, only you could have. If you had, you would have had to be a firestarter, much like CropCircles : A third vote with no justification on someone can not spawn more votes. [/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia]However, you have, until then, failed to prove your ability to play the role of the firestarter.[/FONT]
Support can be added just by volume. I think that we can agree that we don't know what would have happened had I jumped on their wagons in the same manner, nor could we know for certain what would have happened had I not jumped on yours. This is why the only thing I'm basing my assertion that the wagons were in a similar state on is my feelings about them at the time they were current.[/font]
The fact that Passdog 'explained it perfectly' is exactly why people shouldn't answer questions that aren't directed at them. Passdog came up with an excuse that you like, so, you're just latching onto it and hoping for the best.
Also, the point is not whether or not your statement would have made sense if it said 'obviously other people agree agree that ZDS is scummy too'. The point is that that is not what you said. Anyone can post whatever they want, and later say 'Oh what I meant was this'(or actually, in this case, you just let someone else say it for you). The point is that what you said was that you think that we both are scummy, and obviously other people agree too. Which is a lie. People seem to be conveniently forgetting that, at that point in the conversation, you were doing everything in your power to show everyone that ZDS and I were both scum. Considering that context, it makes alot more sense to assume that you meant what you said in the first place, and are now just trying to backpedal. Regardless of that speculation, you blatantly misrepresented the ideas of the town at the time to try to make your own case look better. It's not an omission, nor a contradiction, it is a flat-out lie, which you tried to 'amend' later to make yourself look better.
Just for the record, posts and situations like this are why I am perfectly happy, personally, with the idea of Sutherlands not surviving today, one way or another.
@Ikerr: It seems like you directly contradict yourself, there. You say that you got onto the Sutherland's wagon because it was already going strong, and you just wanted to add a little pressure to it. Then later, you say that, when you pointed them out, my and Fayul's 'wagon'(the votes on us really never constituted a wagon to begin with) were in a 'similar state'. Anyone that has read the thread can see that this is flatly untrue.
Also, the difference between your vote on ZDS and AG's vote on you is that AG stated at the time that it was partially to generate suspicion, and you tried to fallback on this excuse later after you came under attack, which makes your reasoning seem ridiculously phony. Also, it very much seems like you're trying to spread suspicion whereever possible. You've been on 2 of the 3 larger wagons so far, and the 3rd was a wagon on yourself, so, that doesn't help you any. You've also tried to put suspicion on basically anyone that has had a single vote. I don't think that you adequately answered Arimnaes' PBPA at all. If anything, I think you look worse now than you did previously. The overall theme of your responses seems to be 'Everyone is just picking on me'. A)If that's true, you probably did something to bring attention upon yourself(Which you did) and B)trying to appeal to people's emotions, instead of applying logic, is so weak.
The fact that Passdog 'explained it perfectly' is exactly why people shouldn't answer questions that aren't directed at them. Passdog came up with an excuse that you like, so, you're just latching onto it and hoping for the best.
Also, the point is not whether or not your statement would have made sense if it said 'obviously other people agree agree that ZDS is scummy too'. The point is that that is not what you said. Anyone can post whatever they want, and later say 'Oh what I meant was this'(or actually, in this case, you just let someone else say it for you). The point is that what you said was that you think that we both are scummy, and obviously other people agree too. Which is a lie. People seem to be conveniently forgetting that, at that point in the conversation, you were doing everything in your power to show everyone that ZDS and I were both scum. Considering that context, it makes alot more sense to assume that you meant what you said in the first place, and are now just trying to backpedal. Regardless of that speculation, you blatantly misrepresented the ideas of the town at the time to try to make your own case look better. It's not an omission, nor a contradiction, it is a flat-out lie, which you tried to 'amend' later to make yourself look better.
Just for the record, posts and situations like this are why I am perfectly happy, personally, with the idea of Sutherlands not surviving today, one way or another.
No, Passdog came out with what I have been trying to say all along, and have said.
ZDS in post 146 — Sure, they believe I'm scum, but do they believe Cyan to be scum too ?
Suthie in post 151 — I don't understand how you think that goes to your innocence...
I said that becuase I wasn't sure what he was trying to get at with this. What I was trying to say was that they believe that ZDS is scum, and he came back with "but what about Cyan?" This is why I was confused and thus the "..." Then in post 154 I clarify what I was trying to say "What I was TRYING to get at was that obviously other people believe that YOU are scum."
After that I don't know why the conversation continued. I left off a name in a sentence and in post 154 clarified what I was saying.
Yep, it does. However it is not what you said, and the rest of the conversation is entirely based on this first post. We can only read what you write, we do not have telepathic powers thanks to which we can read your mind. When you say "[you] believe that [me] and Cyan are most likely to be scum, and obviously other people do too", what we read is "[you] believe that [me] and Cyan are most likely to be scum, and obviously other people do too", not "[you] believe Cyan and [me] are suspicious. Obviously other people think [I am] suspicious, too". I can understand it was an honest error ; you did not write what you meant, you misread, whatever. It happens.
So, now, let's do this conversation again, as it was meant to be done.
Who are these people who obviously believe that me and Cyan are most likely to be scum (or at least did at the time) ?
Very well. Note: If this had been your quote from the conversation, it would have gone quite differently, since I wouldn't have assumed "believ[ing] that" was believe that you were scum.
"Well, me. But I meant that obviously a lot of people thought that you were scum."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
So, in the end, what you are trying to say is that Cyan should not even have been mentionned in post 141, or at least that you forgot you had mentionned him in post 141 ?
He should have been mentioned in the first part, then in the second part I should have explicitly called you out.
Okay, fine :). You did mention Cyan however. Are there people who thought he was scum, regardless of wether or not they think the same for me ?"I'm not sure, but I would venture a guess to say "yes". Especially since people are voting for him"
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
No, Passdog came out with what I have been trying to say all along, and have said.
ZDS in post 146 — Sure, they believe I'm scum, but do they believe Cyan to be scum too ?
Suthie in post 151 — I don't understand how you think that goes to your innocence...
I said that becuase I wasn't sure what he was trying to get at with this. What I was trying to say was that they believe that ZDS is scum, and he came back with "but what about Cyan?" This is why I was confused and thus the "..." Then in post 154 I clarify what I was trying to say "What I was TRYING to get at was that obviously other people believe that YOU are scum."
After that I don't know why the conversation continued. I left off a name in a sentence and in post 154 clarified what I was saying.
Let's take a look back at the general conversations around that time. Just going by the statements that you made, Sutherlands, your contention the entire time was that ZDS and I were both scum. As such, it stands to reason that when you said 'I believe that you and Cyan are most likely to be scum, and obviously other people do too', you meant exactly that. Obviously now you can say 'oh yeah I was just talking about ZDS'. The point is that, when you look at the conversations as a whole, and especially your posts as a whole, they give lie to that statement. You had been pushing the idea that ZDS and I were both scum for awhile even before that post. You tried to strengthen this by saying that obviously other people agreed with you, and when you got called on that, you casually modified it to 'mean' that you were only referring to ZDS.
Even in that post, you go so far as to try to cast a negative light on us by saying that, even if we're not mafia, we'd still try to get the other killed just so that we don't get lynched that day. Which is filled with so much flawed logic that I don't even know where to begin.
Also, when ZDS first tries to clarify whether you mean just him or both of us, you completely dodge the question and try to turn it back around on him by saying 'I don't understand how you think that goes to your innocence'. What's interesting is that he never tried to use it to prove his own innocence, he was simply trying to get you to clarify something. Something which, if we're to believe you now, that you only meant ZDS with that statement, you would have said so at the time. Even in post 154, where you (sort of) drop the notion that people agree that we're both scum, you still try to keep it, because you say 'I could be wrong or right about that'(paraphrase), even though you are obviously wrong. Also, in post 156, Treigit asks you quite specifically to provide examples of distancing, and explain why they are distancing, and not general disagreement. You responded to other parts of this post, yet conveniently, completely ignored this part. You also ignored it when other people asked you to explain this as well. Because of all of this, I stand by the opinion that you meant it when you said, initially, 'I think that ZDS and Cyan are most likely to be scum and obviously other people do too'. Lastly, you're oversimplifying it by saying 'I left a name off of a sentence'. You didn't leave off a name, you left off 1/2 of the latter part of the sentence, if you're to be believed. Of course, I don't believe you anyway, but, that's not the point. I had a vote or two on me at the time and ZDS had been under some pressure. It's fairly obvious that you were trying to bring more pressure onto both of us, not just ZDS. When this failed, instead of trying to explain it, you tried to just ignore it and hope it would go away, including trying to change the obvious meaning of the statement in question here. Hell, in the post that you just made you are giving the lie to your own 'stance' right now because you're still asserting that people thought we were both scum. In my mind, you sir, have been caught in a lie, and don't know what to do about it.
I cannot understand your continual insistence here that you meant one thing, when the tone of the post in question, and multiple other posts by you, make it fairly clear that you meant something else entirely(meant exactly what the post in question said to begin with). The fact that you keep clinging to this is extremely suspicious to me. At first I thought you were just confused or misguided or something. But your continual stubbornness and contradiction here makes it seem like something else. Unvote Ikerr, Vote Sutherlands
Let's take a look back at the general conversations around that time. Just going by the statements that you made, Sutherlands, your contention the entire time was that ZDS and I were both scum. As such, it stands to reason that when you said 'I believe that you and Cyan are most likely to be scum, and obviously other people do too', you meant exactly that.
First part is true, second part isn't. Around that time I believed that you and ZDS were both scum, in cahoots, and was trying to show people that. However, whatever you want to believe, the truth is that I meant only ZDS in the last part of that sentence. Your contention that I obviously meant "exactly that" is ludicrous. I am capable of talking on more than one point at a time, and putting words in the mouth of the town would not get me anywhere.
Obviously now you can say 'oh yeah I was just talking about ZDS'. The point is that, when you look at the conversations as a whole, and especially your posts as a whole, they give lie to that statement.
No, they don't. In fact they push towards the exact statement that I was trying to convey there. That is, that you and ZDS are scum, and that people agreed that ZDS was.
You had been pushing the idea that ZDS and I were both scum for awhile even before that post. You tried to strengthen this by saying that obviously other people agreed with you, and when you got called on that, you casually modified it to 'mean' that you were only referring to ZDS.
No, there was no "casual modification", but I love your use of words to appeal to the masses.
Even in that post, you go so far as to try to cast a negative light on us by saying that, even if we're not mafia, we'd still try to get the other killed just so that we don't get lynched that day. Which is filled with so much flawed logic that I don't even know where to begin.
Also, when ZDS first tries to clarify whether you mean just him or both of us, you completely dodge the question and try to turn it back around on him by saying 'I don't understand how you think that goes to your innocence'. What's interesting is that he never tried to use it to prove his own innocence, he was simply trying to get you to clarify something.
Yeah, the thing is, I didn't understand where he was going with this statement. Why didn't I understand? Because I ONLY MEANT ZDS IN THE SECOND HALF OF THE POST. The conversation is perfectly understandable if you see that I believe that is what i said.
Something which, if we're to believe you now, that you only meant ZDS with that statement, you would have said so at the time. Even in post 154, where you (sort of) drop the notion that people agree that we're both scum, you still try to keep it, because you say 'I could be wrong or right about that'(paraphrase), even though you are obviously wrong.
No, I'm not obviously wrong, unless you can read the minds of everyone else in this game. That was simply a matter of semantics for me not being wrong, and in that specific post I clarify what I was saying. I even use all-caps on two words to specify exactly what I meant.
Also, in post 156, Treigit asks you quite specifically to provide examples of distancing, and explain why they are distancing, and not general disagreement. You responded to other parts of this post, yet conveniently, completely ignored this part. You also ignored it when other people asked you to explain this as well.
I didn't answer it at that time, because I wasn't ready to. I believe I answered it later in the thread, though, but I'll have to go back and look.
Because of all of this, I stand by the opinion that you meant it when you said, initially, 'I think that ZDS and Cyan are most likely to be scum and obviously other people do too'.
Unfortunately for you, it's not a matter of opinion.
Lastly, you're oversimplifying it by saying 'I left a name off of a sentence'. You didn't leave off a name, you left off 1/2 of the latter part of the sentence, if you're to be believed.
Now you're getting into semantics. First off, you're saying I left off a half of a half of a sentence. That's not very much. Second off, the only thing that should have been changed is that the understood "you and Cyan" should have been "you".
Of course, I don't believe you anyway, but, that's not the point. I had a vote or two on me at the time and ZDS had been under some pressure. It's fairly obvious that you were trying to bring more pressure onto both of us, not just ZDS. When this failed, instead of trying to explain it, you tried to just ignore it and hope it would go away, including trying to change the obvious meaning of the statement in question here.
Hell, in the post that you just made you are giving the lie to your own 'stance' right now because you're still asserting that people thought we were both scum. In my mind, you sir, have been caught in a lie, and don't know what to do about it.
No, and you are misrepresenting both what I said and what ZDS said.
ZDS said: "Are there people who thought he was scum, regardless of wether or not they think the same for me ?"
This is the question i was answering. Note it makes a clear distinction between whether people thought you were both scum, or whether there are people who think YOU are scum. And like I said, given that people were voting for you, I would think that it's obvious that someone thought you were scum.
I cannot understand your continual insistence here that you meant one thing, when the tone of the post in question, and multiple other posts by you, make it fairly clear that you meant something else entirely(meant exactly what the post in question said to begin with). The fact that you keep clinging to this is extremely suspicious to me. At first I thought you were just confused or misguided or something. But your continual stubbornness and contradiction here makes it seem like something else. Unvote Ikerr, Vote Sutherlands
My "continual insistence" that i meant something is driven by the fact that it is what I meant. Amazing logic. You say that it is clear that I meant something entirely different, when there are people who don't really understand why you thought what you did in the beginning. You used to think I was a misguided townie, but now I'm mafia? Interesting.
Here's my assessment: I do not think that ZDS is mafia. I agree with others that he is probably just a townie. I believe I was reading the situation wrong in the beginning of the game, and that Cyan is in fact mafia. I believe that Cyan and also Treigit are mafia. Not because they are attacking me, but because of the WAY they are attacking me. They are misrepresenting things that I say, not failing, but actively refusing to see things any way that would show I am a townie. I believe they are mafia more than I believe ikerr is mafia. however, I still believe that ikerr is mafia.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
So..now that your attempts to link me with ZDS failed, and your attempt to keep pressure on him also failed(and backfired magnificently to the extent that you, yourself, ended up far closer to being lynched), you're ready to move on. Well, sort of. Now, it's just myself and someone else that must be mafia. It's only coincidence that it's just the two people most opposed to you right now, right? And also that you're 'more sure' that either of us is scum, yet mysteriously, aren't voting either of us.
Like I said before, regardless of what you say now, the context and content of all of your posts at the time of the post in question(Post 141), paint a very, very different picture. You can claim that this is not true until you're blue in the face, but anyone can read it all and form their own impression, which, I imagine, will be similar to what I've already determined.
Also, something I wanted to comment on specifically:
Quote from Sutherlands »
They are misrepresenting things that I say, not failing, but actively refusing to see things any way that would show I am a townie
I'd say that the person misrepresenting what you say is you. Certainly, you have alot to gain out of that, where as I really don't. As for the latter part of that, the point is that your play throughout this game doesn't give anyone any reason to grant you any credibility, and in fact, the things that you've said are so suspect that people should(and clearly do) doubt everything that you've said.
Sutherlands. It's been two hours, have you found the place where you answered me? Because I haven't. What specifically gave you the impression that ZDS and Cyan were distancing as opposed to specifically disagreeing? I know, you though someone else had said something that MJM said. You can reattribute that, and we won't call you on that.
Also, would you please tell us when, and why you changed your mind on ZDS's alignment?
Also, how do you continue to insist that "The person who leads a lynch on mafia is most likely to be investigated." And, "The person who leads a lynch on a townie is most likely to be investigated." Even if we assume one of these to be true, how does it follow that you must therefore not be scum?
That's good. Now we can stop "roleplaying". This question is not a "flash-back" question : Why did you did not answer in the same manner at the time ? What in the formulation of my original question makes you think it did not have the same meaning than the remake of this question ?
Because I didn't understand where the confusion was coming from. I thought you were trying to clear yourself with the whole "what about Cyan" thing. Like I said, I thought that I had clearly written that obviously people thought that YOU were mafia.
The fact is, you wrote something, and what you wrote has a certain meaning. It is possible that did not use the right formulation for what you intended to mean, but the point is, we can not know if it is the case. You can not give a tangible, rationnal proof. So, it's up to us to believe you or to not believe you. No amount of "I originally meant [whatever]" will change this.
Well, you are correct that you must either believe or not believe me. As for the truth of the matter, I know it and it will either be shown to you when I die or at the end of the game, whichever comes first.
— The fact that you were trying to link him and me at the time, and that it is/was so convenient to show us both as scum. — The fact that you did not clarify all this sooner, even though it was clear that it was causing confusion. (There are other things, but they are not directly linked to this).
When what you write does not bear the meaning you want to give it, it is impossible to not misrepresent you. You ought to recognize that.
Those aren't the quotes that I was saying were trying to misrepresent me. I understand how someone can get what you are believing out of what was said. One of my points is that Cyan is actively refusing to believe the other side.
So..now that your attempts to link me with ZDS failed, and your attempt to keep pressure on him also failed(and backfired magnificently to the extent that you, yourself, ended up far closer to being lynched), you're ready to move on. Well, sort of. Now, it's just myself and someone else that must be mafia. It's only coincidence that it's just the two people most opposed to you right now, right? And also that you're 'more sure' that either of us is scum, yet mysteriously, aren't voting either of us.
Dang... you caught me. That's it. I just decided I'd clear ZDS even though I'm mafia and he's not. That way when he doesn't get lynched for awhile, I can show that I supported him! Or not. The reason I'm not voting for you or treigit, is that not many people are voting for you or treigit right now.
Something I should have added at the end of my last post: I will vote for any of these 3 people currently: ikerr, Cyan, and treigit. If one of the last two gains more support than ikerr, I will switch my vote.
Like I said before, regardless of what you say now, the context and content of all of your posts at the time of the post in question(Post 141), paint a very, very different picture. You can claim that this is not true until you're blue in the face, but anyone can read it all and form their own impression, which, I imagine, will be similar to what I've already determined.
Some people have already formed their opinions, and as I've said before, some of these are very different from yours. So I guess you really are just imagining things.
Also, something I wanted to comment on specifically:
I'd say that the person misrepresenting what you say is you. Certainly, you have alot to gain out of that, where as I really don't. As for the latter part of that, the point is that your play throughout this game doesn't give anyone any reason to grant you any credibility, and in fact, the things that you've said are so suspect that people should(and clearly do) doubt everything that you've said.
You don't have anything to gain about misrepresenting what I say? Well that's all nice and good if you're a townie, but if you're a mafia, then that's completely false. As for the latter part of that, my play throughout the game does in fact grant me credibility, as far as being a townie goes, which is why a lot of people have stopped voting for me.
Sutherlands. It's been two hours, have you found the place where you answered me?
No, see, when I said I didn't have time, that's because I didn't have time. I've been in a meeting for the last two hours, so sorry I couldn't find that post.
Because I haven't. What specifically gave you the impression that ZDS and Cyan were distancing as opposed to specifically disagreeing? I know, you though someone else had said something that MJM said. You can reattribute that, and we won't call you on that.
Again, I'll post on this tonight when I have more time.
Also, how do you continue to insist that "The person who leads a lynch on mafia is most likely to be investigated." And, "The person who leads a lynch on a townie is most likely to be investigated." Even if we assume one of these to be true, how does it follow that you must therefore not be scum?
How could I not insist those? They're saying the same thing, except that the outcome of the revelation of the lynch is different. If we assume those are true, it follows that I'm probably not scum, because I would likely be investigated, found out, and lynched.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
On an unrelated note, to whoever is doing it, viewing the thread from invisible mode is really weak, and makes people heavily suspicious of you if they figure out who it is. I'm honestly surprised that it's not a mafia rule that you have to be Visible while participating in a Mafia game.
I agree with the sentiment; correction in bold
Now, more importantly:
Absolutely nothing Cyan has said leads me to any indication that Sutherlands is scum. Cyan is essentially making up intentions that he really can't have any idea that Sutherlands really had (such as attempting to create more pressure on Cyan himself... which he has no idea is really true). If anything, I am leaning more towards Cyan being scum himself, but I'm really not yet convinced enough, as this is the first point against him. However, fos cyan.
Secondly, as promised vote silicon
Waiting on this "content".
No, see, when I said I didn't have time, that's because I didn't have time. I've been in a meeting for the last two hours, so sorry I couldn't find that post.
Again, I'll post on this tonight when I have more time.
No problem, take your time. If you can't find it, (Though I've asked several times, so it must be there.) feel free to write the answer now.
His behavior and responses. Certain things still grate on me, like what he said about vigs, though.
Specifically- I did ask when too right? It's easy to say "oh, his behavior changed my mind," but forum games give us a great tool. The ability to site exact things. Please, show the post or posts that were the turning point, and explain why. (BTW, you're being evasive again.)
How could I not insist those? They're saying the same thing, except that the outcome of the revelation of the lynch is different. If we assume those are true, it follows that I'm probably not scum, because I would likely be investigated, found out, and lynched.
Most- How can A and B, assuming they're mutually exclusive, (IE you cannot be responsible for Both a townie and a mafia getting lynched in the same day.) both be "greatest in degree"? Why are either/ both of these likely to be investigated?
Oh, and Cyan, I do think that you're grasping at straws abit with your case (which is odd since there are so many great angles of attack). It is conceivable that he meant: "I think cyan and ZDS are most likely to be mafia together, obviously the majority of the town (meaning 8 people at it's Xenith) feel the same [same meaning that ZDS, not cyan is scum] way." It's a stretch, but give it up. I'm perfectly willing to grant someone a take back on a post (within reason) or to allow someone to clarify that one of my points was meant as Joke, and thus drop that point. I'm even willing to do it a couple of times. Of course with sutherlands, that still leaves a hefy load to work with.
I fail to see why someone that, from all evidence, has yet to say anything truthful or even logical, and that flatly refused to claim, should be given the benefit of the doubt. Of course he's going to say, now, that he meant something else. I'd like to see some actual evidence of this, not just Sutherlands saying 'because I said so'.
I've already done that. But I don't think that you can just ignore the rest of the conversation, or at least the tone of it. Throughout that conversation, Sutherlands continued to assert that we were both scum. Until other people starting calling him on it. He seemed to simply ignore their questions regarding it(such as Treigit's), and eventually just dropped me from the equation entirely. Except that now, he says that he thought that I was scum all along. To me, that just doesn't add up. If he really thought that, he wouldn't have avoided talking about it when people queried him on it. It wouldn't surprise me if he was just trying to fabricate a relationship with ZDS and myself to make a stronger case against ZDS, which is why he could never answer any questions when people tried to get details on why he thought that said relationship exists.
It's true that your direct conversation with him, in that regard, doesn't make alot of sense. But then, honestly, basically nothing that he has said all game, in my opinion, has really made any sense, so, I fail to see why that would be any different. From the supposition that mafioso will put themselves in harm's way to try to bail out another mafioso, to the 'theory' that a townie will willingly lynch another townie, just because it means that they won't get lynched that day, to paranoid rantings that seem to incriminate anyone that ever has any real suspicions of him. Just based on what he's stated so far in this thread, in my mind, nothing he says is credible. As such, I fail to see why people should just all of a sudden believe him that the statement 'I think that ZDS and Cyan are most likely to be scum, and obviously other people do to' can magically mean 'I think that ZDS and Cyan are most likely to be scummy, and obviously other people think that ZDS is scummy as well'. It's not the same statement, at all. There is no way to logically determine that he means the latter when he stated the former, especially considering everything else that he was saying at the time.
I don't understand anything behind the ZDS, Ikerr, or Sutherlands debacle. Cyan always acts this way, so I can't get a read on him, but I'd say it's possible he'd be scum, based on my experience.
[. . .]the supposition that mafioso will put themselves in harm's way to try to bail out another mafioso,[. . .]
Man Cyan, your posts have gotten really dumb as of late, but this particular thing caught my eye. When did I ever say that? Also, i love your accusation that me thinking that you and treigit are mafia is a paranoid conspiracy theory. There are other people that have said things about me too, how come I didn't include them? It's because they're not bending what I say to try to appeal to the fear of the town.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
You missed my vote on Fayul (in the same post I unvoted Sutherlands). I'm also not happy with his response, because he is still doing the same thing that he is accusing CC of.
I feel it's somewhat ironic that I've just recently started watching the last season of The Apprentice, because Sutherlands is quickly becoming our Brent. We can't seem to get anything done because we never stop talking about him.
The reason I'm not voting for you or treigit, is that not many people are voting for you or treigit right now.
Something I should have added at the end of my last post: I will vote for any of these 3 people currently: ikerr, Cyan, and treigit. If one of the last two gains more support than ikerr, I will switch my vote.
So Sutherlands' choices for the lynch are the person with the most votes on them (aside from himself) currently, or the two people who are making the best cases against him. That seems really bad. I know he's said it was a matter of the way he was being attacked, but the only thing I see Sutherlands doing to defend himself is saying that we've misinterpreted what he's said (he has to start wondering about his posting style if this is honestly happening that often), and WIFOM.
You don't have anything to gain about misrepresenting what I say? Well that's all nice and good if you're a townie, but if you're a mafia, then that's completely false. As for the latter part of that, my play throughout the game does in fact grant me credibility, as far as being a townie goes, which is why a lot of people have stopped voting for me.
Really? Let's break down all of your unvotes.
Cyan unvoted you on two occasions, once because he was switching his vote to ikerr, whom he believed to be a more probable target at the time. The second time he unvoted you, he did so on the basis that you were acting newbish. Of course, he's back on you now, but neither of those were based on your logic.
Treigit unvoted you once because he specifically wanted to place the last vote. He has also revoted you.
Axelrod didn't say much when he voted or unvoted you, he explained why he voted in 312, but not why he unvoted, which seemed to be a reaction to: (because he quoted this when he did unvoted you)
Quote from Sutherlands »
That's a very beautiful post there, axelrod. I appreciate all the thought you put into that, and the effort is simply amazing.
11 by my count, only 2 more!
ZDS unvoted you because he too moved his vote to ikerr. At the time he did it, he still beleived you were potentially scum, and supported vigging you.
Silicon unvoted you because you no longer gave him a scummy feeling, and agreeing that there may be a potential reason for you not to claim. That's one.
I unvoted you to change my vote to Fayul. I was still bothered by what you were saying at the time, but moreso by Fayul's statements on my reread, and his infrequency of posts, and lack of content (which he said was his case against CC)
So of the four of us who have unvoted and not revoted you, it seems only one did so because of your play. That doesn't seem to support your argument that people have unvoted you based on your good play and credibility. This seems to be another example of where you are describing what you want the will of the town to be.
I'm not voting you yet, but you have for the third game in a row ive played with you (both you were scum) struck my scummeter. You're pursuit of Sutherlands while voting iKerr was cute, and now you conveniently place a lot of comments pursuing and arguing about sutherlands until you finally think youve said enough to get back on his wagon. You seem way too overeager on a lynch for sutherlands.
I'd like to do another analysis of IKerr, whose still my main suspect, but i just moved back into Duke (the better Carolina school :-P), so my time is limited right now.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Mafia MVP Harry Potter Mafia!
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
Quote from Seppel »
I love Joboman, Poggy, Niv, and Vezok, because, while they may not be the best players, they still try to win. Having fun is the most important thing to a game, but I've learned that if you don't try to win, then you're ruining everyone else's fun.
Man Cyan, your posts have gotten really dumb as of late, but this particular thing caught my eye. When did I ever say that? Also, i love your accusation that me thinking that you and treigit are mafia is a paranoid conspiracy theory. There are other people that have said things about me too, how come I didn't include them? It's because they're not bending what I say to try to appeal to the fear of the town.
Good to see that you've moved onto attacking me personally, now.
I didn't say that you lash out against everyone that says anything about you. Just everyone that speaks out against you strongly. See, that(unlike the examples that you have tried to provide) is an example of 'misinterpretation'. Where I specifically say one thing, and you try to change it and make it into something else. No one ever misinterpreted you, but you're trying to do it to me now. Interestingly, such 'misinterpretation' was one of the reasons that you decided that I must be scum.
Quote from Cyan »
[. . .]the supposition that mafioso will put themselves in harm's way to try to bail out another mafioso,[. . .]
As for your 'When did I say this'. You said that I A)ZDS and I went out of our way to fight with each other, so that if one of us died and turned up scum, the other would look less guilty. Later, you said that I was trying to discourage ZDS bandwagon, by using logic, and I was 'using logic' to avoid being seen as attached to ZDS. Disregarding the fact that both of these statements which you made are direct contradictions to each other(in one sentence you say that we're fighting, both being mafia, so that if either of us gets lynched the other looks good, in practically your next breath you change it to me trying to get people NOT to vote ZDS, because I"m a mafioso trying to protect another mafioso. These two theories are 100% mutually exclusive. It is not possible for both of them to be applicable.
Nevermind that fact that rarely, if ever, does a mafioso put any effort into preventing the lynch of another mafioso. They might not encourage it, but, they don't try to stop it, because if they fail, it virtually guarantees that they get lynched next. Just another example of a theory that you
@Loran: Like I told Passdog previously, I think that Sutherlands needs to die as soon as possible. It's possible that he's town, but, I don't care. Having already told us that he's Vanilla, he is of absolutely no use to the town. Nothing that he says is credible nor really worth consideration. Every idea that he puts forth ends up getting discussed to ridiculous length and ultimately dismissed, while he tries to just claim that we didn't understand what he was trying to say in the first place. He is a liability to the town, and it would simply be better for the town and the game as a whole if he were not alive anymore. As such, I put my vote back on him, in hopes that it will make a difference to this end. I still think that Ikerr is just as suspicious as always, but, Sutherlands is such a drain that assisting his death however I can has become my first priority. If I was 100% sure that he is town, I guess I'd just suck it up and deal with him being a constant distraction. But, this is not the case. I still think that it's highly possible that he's scum. For awhile, I just thought that he was confused, but, all of this nonsense about Post 141 and his continued behavior have caused me to revisit this and change my mind. So, as such, I moved my vote back, in hopes that he will get lynched. Honestly, I would prefer to lynch someone that I'm more sure of, such as Ikerr, and see Sutherlands get Vigged..but since I cannot make that happen, but I can assist him getting lynched by putting my vote on him, that's what I've done.
Wow, now you're back to "I'm almost sure he's scum"? Talk about switching roles quickly. Also, as for misrepresentation, you very much did that in your last few posts. Saying
"As for your 'When did I say this'. You said that I A)ZDS and I went out of our way to fight with each other, so that if one of us died and turned up scum, the other would look less guilty. Later, you said that I was trying to discourage ZDS bandwagon, by using logic, and I was 'using logic' to avoid being seen as attached to ZDS. Disregarding the fact that both of these statements which you made are direct contradictions to each other(in one sentence you say that we're fighting, both being mafia, so that if either of us gets lynched the other looks good, in practically your next breath you change it to me trying to get people NOT to vote ZDS, because I"m a mafioso trying to protect another mafioso. These two theories are 100% mutually exclusive. It is not possible for both of them to be applicable. "
It's not even an accurate picture of what happened, and putting words in my mouth that "mafioso will put themselves in harm's way to try to bail out another mafioso" is just plain ludicrous. That's not close to what I said, and is very misrepresentative.
Also, this part
"I think that Sutherlands needs to die as soon as possible. It's possible that he's town, but, I don't care. Having already told us that he's Vanilla, he is of absolutely no use to the town. Nothing that he says is credible nor really worth consideration. Every idea that he puts forth ends up getting discussed to ridiculous length and ultimately dismissed, while he tries to just claim that we didn't understand what he was trying to say in the first place. He is a liability to the town, and it would simply be better for the town and the game as a whole if he were not alive anymore."
is very much an appeal to emotion, and very much an ad-hominim attack. You're ignoring what is going on, saying "i don't care about the facts, he's a bad person and needs to be lynched."
Nevermind the fact that you already suggested wasting a vig kill on me. THESE are reasons why I think you're mafia. If you were attacking someone else this way, I would still think that. So all these conspiracy theories that I'm attacking "the next person with the most votes and the 2 people who have brought cases against me" is just that... a conspiracy theory. It has about as much merit in truth as your "i think you really said what you meant to say" argument.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
So of the four of us who have unvoted and not revoted you, it seems only one did so because of your play. That doesn't seem to support your argument that people have unvoted you based on your good play and credibility. This seems to be another example of where you are describing what you want the will of the town to be.
Again, I didn't say good play. I said "credibility as a townie". You can take that to mean people think I'm a townie. Cyan unvoted me because I didn't seem like a mafia, just a "noobish townie" or whatever. Axelrod's vote didn't seem like it counted for much, since it was there for all of 2 seconds (not actual time). So if you don't count the vote that wasn't really a vote, then 2/3 people that unvoted me did so because of my "credibility".
Post on stuff I have been putting of forthcoming
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
unvote
Why? Becuase I'm not getting nearly as strong of a scummy feeling anymore. His refusal to claim seems suspect at first, but I unless I'm mistaken (which I'm pretty sure I'm not), we should keep in mind that this is a specialty game, so there's a good chance that not all plays that are normally considered good/bad are considered the same in this game.
Now I'm going to go to sleep, I should give some more content later today.
<XylBot> ||| MAFIABOT || sk: LookingforReality (Copycat) |||
<XylBot> ||| MAFIABOT || survivor: matjoeman (Anarchist) |||
<XylBot> ||| MAFIABOT || town: kops (Anarchist) |||
Mafia stats
Several people have said things that have raised interest, but I can't go pull them all up at the moment.
I always look with a certain amount of suspicion on people telling the vig. what to do. Unless it's part of some cohesive plan, as opposed to just - shoot X because he seems scummiest to me.
The idea we can direct the SK is laughable.
Cyan I agreed with earlier. I still agree ikerr is worth looking closer at. I might even do it myself one day, but I'm not counting on it. But the whole lynch/vig thing is questionable.
Passdog has raised a few eyebrows too I seem to recall. And why are you raggin on poor Holmes. He wasn't so bad
Format – Post number. Voter(Wagon vote count): Small reason explaination
NOTE: Random voting, as a whole, ended around post 100
ZDS bandwagon:
14 – G&E (1/13): Random voting phase
16 – G&E Un-vote (0/13): Joking “Oh no!” to ZDS’s vote on G&E
[18 – Loran16: Random voting]*
31 – Pod (1/13): Says ZDS is “trying to hard”
37 – Sutherlands (2/13): What I originally thought was joking, but turned into so much more (the deck fiasco)
113 – CropCircles (3/13): Argues ZDS was using “total WIFOM” about speculation as to why DYH was killed
114 – SorryGuy (4/13): Doesn’t like ZDS spreading doubt among many players
116 – ikerr (5/13) : Didn’t really give any reason here other than ZDS posting a lot
120 – Fayul (6/13): Is comfortable at 6 votes, not so much at 8
142 – bluesoul[who I replace] (7/13): No other explanation than “dude’s crazy”
160 – Loran16 (8/13): After trying to vote a couple times while un-bolded, finally properly votes for ZDS
167 – Loran16 Un-vote (7/13): Just looked at ZDS play earlier in the game, sees this as newbish town
168 – Fayul Un-vote (6/13): Says vote was only for pressure, and un-votes to “placate” AbbeyGargoyle
176 – ikerr un-vote (5/13): Wants to put pressure on someone to provoke discussion [pretty much what Fayul said 8 posts ago]
183 – Sutherlands un-vote (4/13): Agrees with Cyan about ikerr’s recent voting patterns and switches votes over
194 – CropCircles (3/13): Fayul’s bandwagoning was brought to CC’s attention by Crippled_Fist
339 – kops replaces Pod (2/13)
*This attempt at voting was not noticed by the mod because it was not bolded
Also note: I think I missed someone’s vote in the ZDS wagon because I noticed how the mod un-votes for you when you replace a current player (and I replaced bluesoul, who was voting for ZDS at the time), but the vote totals remained correct every time I checked them. If someone voted somewhere that I missed, please let me know so that I can update this.
Sutherlands bandwagon:
21 – silicon (1/13): Random voting phase
38 – ZDS (2/13): Jokingly (I thought) says Sutherlands doesn’t read the mod’s descriptions correctly
86 – ZDS Un-vote (1/13): Random voting phase is over
136 – Matjoeman (2/13): Doesn’t like Sutherlands attempt at connections of Cyan and ZDS
141 – ZDS (3/13): Sutherlands has bad town logic
144 – WhytePanther (4/13): Sutherlands doesn’t like Cyan arguing with ZDS, but is arguing with ZDS himself (vote on hypocritical)
149 – Cyan (5/13): Doesn’t like the Sutherlands “intuition” approach
161 – Treigit (6/13): Sutherlands connected the only two people with a serious vote on him at the time as mafia
176 – ikerr (7/13): Wants to put pressure on someone to provoke discussion [pretty much what Fayul said 8 posts ago]
178 – Cyan un-vote (6/13): ikerr is just bandwagoning now
191 – Good&Evil (7/13): Doesn’t buy Sutherlands “most scummy thing I’ve seen in a long time” excuse for voting for ikerr
241 – Jobie (8/13): Would like to see a claim by now
249 – me (9/13): I’ve stated my reasons twice now, I don’t think I need to state them again
270 – Cyan (10/13): Sutherlands is making no sense in his refusal to claim
293 – Axelrod (11/13): Apparently because of a Sutherlands quote: “There certainly aren't many vanilla cards in magic. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if he put out 4 people with my rolename, just because it's a magic deck”. I’m still not quite sure the reasoning behind this vote
298 – Un-vote Treigit (10/13): He makes it clear here that he still thinks we should lynch Sutherlands, he just wants to make the final vote and take responsibility for any Super Saint-esque ability
309 – Un-vote Axelrod (9/13): Appologizes for his vote saying things are stressful with him in another game
313 – Un-vote Cyan (8/13): Thinks Sutherlands is playing in a very news way, which is making him appear guiltier than he really is
345 – Un-vote ZDS (7/13): He’s moving his vote to ikerr
ikerr bandwagon:
22 – AbbeyGargoyle (1/13): Random voting
122 – Un-vote AbbeyGargoyle (0/13): Random voting over
178 – Cyan (1/13): ikerr is just bandwagoning with no real reasons
183 – Sutherlands (2/13): Agress with Cyan
201 – arminaes (3/13): There’s no real reason given here
210 – Loran16 (4/13): Sees only speculation, fishing, and bandwagoning
215 – AbbeyGargoyle (5/13): Agress with Loran16 and wants to pressure for discussion
270 – Un-vote Cyan (4/13): Moves his vote to Sutherlands for refusing to claim
313 – Cyan (5/13): Moves vote back to ikerr after determining that Sutherlands is just playing a different way than salvation boards are used to
345 – ZDS (6/13): ikerr “Lied about Cyan and Fayul's cases”
Let’s now pull out the people on the bandwagons that were either 4-9th to vote for or 2nd-4th to jump off:
ZDS wagon:
On: SorryGuy, ikerr, Fayul, bluesoul, Loran16
Off: Fayul, ikerr, Sutherlands
Sutherlands:
On: WhytePanther, Cyan, Treigit, ikerr, Good&Evil, Jobie, and me
Off: Axelrod, Cyan, ZDS
ikerr:
On: Loran16, AbbeyGargoyle, Cyan, ZeDorkSlipeur
Now, let’s rank the names on these lists in order:
- Ikerr (3)
- Cyan (3)
- Fayul (2)
- bluesoul|me (2)
- Loran16 (2)
- ZeDorkSlipeur (2)
- SorryGuy (1)- Sutherlands (1)- WhytePanther (1)- Treigit (1)- Good&Evil (1)- Jobie (1)- Axelrod (1)- AbbeyGargoyle (1)Now, the rest everyone is going to have their own opinion over, but here’s my take on who’s left. I believe ZDS and Cyan are the two players that are making the most sense in this game, so I can count them out. Not to mention, Cyan might need to just show up twice because he really was the first to vote for ikerr. Also, I believe you can remove me because I never would have voted for ZDS in the first place, but I’m not going to argue that you can attribute that to my predecessor. That leaves ikerr, Fayul, and Loran16. I already suspected ikerr a lot due to his voting habits. These are just the numbers to prove it. It’s hard for me to get a gauge on either Fayul or ikerr because they’ve posted so little up to this point. However, something that I didn’t notice before is Loran16. I’m going to be going back later today and reading over his posts again. Although, technically he should probably be in the one group because there was the whole voting thing in the beginning of the game, thus causing him to vote later in the “possible-scum” area on these bandwagons. It still won’t hurt for me to look.
Now that silicon came back and un-voted without much content. I’m looking at him, but reserving judgment until he makes a more meaty post later today.
I’ve got to head out to lunch at the moment, but when I get back, I’ll answer my opinions on all the subjects ZDS brought up.
So where do we go from here? I don't particularly like the case against ikerr either, at least not since his answer to my question. However, I am interested in hearing what arminaes has come up with.
The one thing that's been bothering me for a while now is Fayul. In post 131, CropCircles defended Fayul's jumping on the ZDS bandwagon, because Fayul's vote was for pressure. That's understandable, we've had pressure votes all over the place since then. But then in his 4 post series starting on 168, Fayul calls CropCircles out for directing the town despite a low post count (and admits to doing that as well), and votes CropCircles. And then not too far from there, in post 194, CropCircles responds to Fayul's post and votes Fayul, and demands an explanation as to why his actions were scummy. Fayul has not provided a response, and hasn't changed his vote since, despite trying to put pressure in both Sutherlands and ikerr in post 258 (his first since that 4 post series). I think this exchange has been overlooked for three reasons. 1) We were all really deep into Sutherlands at this point. 2) The posts were very far apart, and even at max posts per page, seeing them together wasn't likely. And 3) Fayul has been lurking big time. Therefore Vote Fayul because I'd really like to see this explained.
EWP: Thank you for the vote analysis atlseal, I need to give that some deep thought.
On an unrelated note, Silicon's last post doesn't make me feel good inside. He promised a 'long post after re-reading', but the post that he provided was just a bandwagon unvote, and some logic that is, IMO, utterly nonsensical about why it would be okay to refuse to claim in a specialty game(especially factoring in that Sutherlands has already claimed Vanilla), even though it's generally frowned upon. To me, it seems like he wanted to get off of a bandwagon that clearly isn't going anywhere, but, didn't want it to look like he was bandwagonning in doing so, so he made up a reasoning for it and hoped noone would notice. He doesn't comment on any of the other things that are currently being discussed(Ikerr, Fayul, Night 1 Vigging, etc).
unvote atlseal, fos atlseal
I'm not longer all that uncomfortable about atlseal himself, but bluesoul's actions can't just be ignored, and he is the main reason that I believe he/they is/are scum. Anyway, the vote didn't achieve the original goal of getting people off suth so it really wasn't doing anything anyway.
@Axel: where did passdog raise any eyebrows? I haven't really seen anything scummy out of him myself. Can you please point this out.
I don't really want my vote sitting idle right now since I think we're already past the 1-week original day thingy, but at the moment I'm really not sure where I want it to be. I'm pretty close to voting silicon though, mostly for the reasons cyan mentioned above. I agree that his last post was not very townie-like, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and see his "more content". If this hasn't happened by the end of the day like he said, I will vote him, likewise if it's anything like the last one.
Ikerr bandwagonning: As I stated when I initially suspected him, and is shown by my vote records, he really is the most suspicious bandwagoner out of all the players here. This is what causes me to suspect him so much. If I had two votes, I would also be voting for him, but seeing as I don’t (and you all know my feelings about Sutherlands by now), I can’t do much more than FoS him at the moment. Rest assured, if nothing else major happens and Sutherlands is dead and he’s alive by tomorrow, he’ll be the first player I’m going to be voting for.
Thoughts on vig firing tonight: I’d say if the majority of the town (again, this would be 13 at this point) can agree on who to vig, then the vig should, otherwise I’m going to go by the statistical approach that the vig would be more likely to hurt us than help us at the moment. However, as to how I feel about the firing tonight: as that I do suspect ikerr at almost the same level as Sutherlands, I’d support a vig of him tonight. However, if there is going to be a majority opinion about it, before we go to night, I’d like to give ikerr the same chance to defend himself that would be given to someone about to be lynched.
Fayul not answering to the points made against her by Crippled_Fist and CropCircles: I don’t like this either, and it definitely makes me feel more confident about my initial, though slight, suspicions of Fayul as well. She was kind enough to answer my points, I don’t see why Crippled_Fist and CropCircles should be any different. By addressing any points brought up about oneself, you can put more information out there about where you stand. I’m all for that as it gives information for the town’s use later.
SorryGuy not being helpful: He said he would post later after reading up on the thread a bit. Now, I don’t expect people to consider meaty posts as long as my past two posts have been, but I do expect them to add information about their stances on something. Honestly, to me it doesn’t matter what at the moment, but I like having the information to compare.
@ZDS: I most certainly will post why I think you and Cyan are most likely to be town at the moment. However, I don’t have the time at the moment to pull up the posts that made me think so. Rest assured, it is coming just like everything else I promised I’d post when I got the time.
Is there anything else anyone wants me to go over?
I don't agree with this assertion. We can't know what would have happened with those two cases with a little more support. All I know is that they seemed similar at the time, and that was what my statement was based on.
Now, until someone presents a proper case, I don't think I have a choice but to ignore the wagon against me.
I don't believe that the vig should fire unless most of the town is extremely sure that the target is scum, they're killing another claimed vig, or its part of some master plan that guaruntees the town's victory. Otherwise, its just a great way to throw the game away.
Fayul's vote on CropCircles seemed strange to me. What concerns me more is how he ignored my direct question for rational behind it, and is now hiding in the shadows. I would still like to hear this rational.
Silicon needs to say more.
I still feel that Cyan is town. A few of his ideas appear misguided, but nothing comes off as intentionally anti-town, and he has presented a number of good points troughout. In the case of telling the vig to shoot, I feel ZDS comes off looking worse by supporting the case and backing out when Cyan concedes it, but I don't see it as enough to condemn either.
On Loran16: I presented a few points on him earlier, and I am open to continuing the matter. Some of the more interesting points are:
-Hopping on ZDS wagon, while pointing out Sutherlands (in the middle of the two wagons)
-Quickly hopping off and FoSing everyone under suspicion (at the time, Sutherlands, ZDS, and Matjoeman)
-ignoring my initial 'scummy' post to suggest a lurkerhunt, until I had an actual wagon when he does a pbpa that doesn't offer any new points (smacks saying very little by saying a lot) and fervently pushes for my lynch
-demanding that Sutherlands claim despite not being on his wagon or applying pressure to him for any other purpose
I'm also not fond of AbbeyGargoyle, but I have to review his posts to see if its anything other than OMGUS.
Passdog raised eyebrows when he voted WP for showing Sutherlands contradictions.
<XylBot> ||| MAFIABOT || sk: LookingforReality (Copycat) |||
<XylBot> ||| MAFIABOT || survivor: matjoeman (Anarchist) |||
<XylBot> ||| MAFIABOT || town: kops (Anarchist) |||
Mafia stats
Random Mafia 2 Town MVP
'08 MTGS Fantasy Football Overall Champion
Best Non-SK Neutral Performance (Individual)
But doing so, while enlightening sure, misses some things. For example it was my PBPA of ikerr that really started to get people to switch their votes to ikerr from suth, (despite it being only the 4th vote). And its not like i didnt point out reasons.
Also:
While originally ZDS was a random vote, when i actually did vote him i think i did it because i thought he really was scum. So your vote tally should show me on this wagon. (See post 160)
I still think ikerr is the play btw.
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
It is slightly more than that. WP was making perhaps the most sense of anyone posting at the time. There's a certain "townie" feel to his posts which is hard to put in words. Passdog's vote seemingly came out of right field. I was much more in agreement with WP than Passdog. And while it's one thing to criticize someone's logic, it's another step altogether to vote a player because you disagree with their logic.
Then he moved on to Cyan when the WP vote wasn't doing anything. Again, I understand the criticizm of the lynch/vig idea that was being tossed around. But Passdog votes almost solely on that basis, and then uses his experience in Star Trek to justify it.
His what I will call modest defense of ikerr is also noted.
Just to clarify, for Passdog's sake, even though I already clarified this once already:
I am not saying that whomever is the Vig SHOULD fire tonight. I don't think that they should. I'm saying that, from everything I've ever seen, Vigs seem to fire every single night no matter what, and if the Vig is going to fire anyway, Sutherlands is the best target, in my opinion.
The assertion that Sutho was being hypocritical was also fallacious - just because he was suspicious of an argument between two players in means suggests that he should not engage in arguments with others - the assertion is absurd and definitely against the nature of Mafia.
While I can see many things wrong with Sutherlands play, the two factors that Whyte Panther raised were blatant attempts to paint Sutho the colour of scum, without resorting to meaningful factual arguments. Both arguments were contrived to make an already unseemly player look more scummy, and neither were fair assessments. Why would a townie make arguments like that? So I voted.
Note I do not defend Sutherlands' arguments but Sutherland himself. I feel Sutherlands play style is very similar to other people who I have seen lynched as town, MD and Holmes are theose that immediately come to mind, and as I have already been bitten twice I am now very wary of attacking the low hanging fruit.
Why is it a problem that I vote outside the norm?
P-Dog, while I can accept Suther's explanations for either of the misstatements that WP attacked Suther for, you must admit that they were at least contradictions, even if Suther was able to clarify. I admit that the hypocricy charge was trumped up.
Cyan: You are not being voted for because of Star Trek, but because you display anti-town sentiment. Your play in Star Trek is however a metagame issue - I know you are skilled enought to try and pull off scum directing the vig. And I have also seen you display enough mafia knowledge to know that vigging Sutherlands is not a substitute for proper investigation.
Essentially I expected better of you as town and thus assume you to be a good candidate to be scum.
You also have a second strike against you now - trying to pass off a legitimate reason for a vote as 'bitterness' is a little misrepresentative don't you think?
I'll review the rest of Cyan's play to see if there are any other relevant points to be made.
Since you felt it appropriate to bring my experience as mafia from star trek into this, I'll go ahead and use that a little to explain why I'm not thrilled with the idea of Sutherlands surviving today. Aside from the fact that he's already told us that he is Vanilla, and that he has not been an asset for the town in even the most remote sense, in fact just the opposite since, as I stated, we've wasted the better part of today focused on him(and even since the pressure lightened off of him some, he really hasn't gotten any better). Aside from these things, the future that I see for Sutherlands is that of a patsy. He's already proven that he is not actually capable of creating a defense for himself...the only reason that he's alive is because CropCircles sided with him as far as claiming, and because there's someone else that we can easily shift our attention to(Ikerr). Assuming that Sutherlands doesn't get killed today, he will be a detractor from the town on a daily basis, and if the mafia ever actually needs to get someone lynched, they'll lean on him. Trek Mafia is a perfect example of this. As a mafia in that game, never for a moment did we consider night killing you, because we knew that we'd be able to use Raf's case against you and get an easy lynch out of it..and that is exactly what happened, at the most crucial moment in the game.
Like I said, I'm perfectly fine with the Vig not firing at all tonight. Personally, I think that letting Sutherlands live is going to end up being a mistake for us, but, I am not one of the few players in this game that I think is experienced enough to trust their own judgment over the will of the town. If the town wants Sutherlands to live, then, I'm willing to admit that I might be wrong in my judgment. That'll have to remain to be seen. But again, all I'm saying is the following: If the Vig is going to fire tonight, I am at least glad that we had this conversation so that he has something to think about, rather than just firing blindly into the mass of players.
I'm flattered that you think that I'm skilled enough to try to direct the Vig even as a mafioso, but, that is simply not the case. You view my sentiment as anti-town. I disagree. Am I against one person that MIGHT be a townsperson? Yes. But only for the sake of the town as a whole.
Lastly, now that you actually bothered to explain it, your vote on me doesn't seem as bitter as it previously did. However, in your last post, all you had to say for voting me as opposed to ZDS was the fact that I was mafia in Trek. If you want to prevent misunderstandings, you should explain yourself better to begin with.
On an unrelated note, to whomever is doing it, viewing the thread from invisible mode is really weak, and makes people heavily suspicious of you if they figure out who it is. I'm honestly surprised that it's not a mafia rule that you have to be Visible while participating in a Mafia game.
Had Raf investigated me you would have been forced to consider me as a target. We ay have lost one cop but there is potential for clearing Sutho yet - as long as we aren't in the same situation at lynch or lose we'll be fine.
Vigging him may be a consideration if no one clears him, or he fails to clear himself - but to suggest it now is irresponsible.
You can couch your reasons for the suggestion in as much town rhetoric as you want but the fact remains that the plan proposed benefited mafia now more than it would town. Saying you have the town's interest at is easy - living by it is something else.
And I apologise for any uncertainty - I thought that my meaning could be reasonably inferred from my post.
In the meantime, I'll also FoS Cyan. While I share his views on Sutherland, I don't think that it's right to rush off to a lynch.
Losing a townie on day 1 isn't such a bad thing, but it's not a good thing either.
Vig:
If town, he dies. We lose a vote, and potentially may be at LyoL 1 day earlier. We don't lose any abilities.
If scum, he dies, we've taken out scum, and still have a lynch to use.
Cop:
If town, either our cop comes out or not (either way, the investigation doesn't get us scum):
If he does: we've outed a cop to confirm a vanilla.
If he doesn't: we have no idea whether or not progress has been made. We spend a decent portion of the day debating him, and potentially still misslynch him, or come close only to have the cop come out (see above)
If scum, our (most likely last remaining) cop comes out, we then kill him, resulting in much the same end as vigging in the first place, except minus a cop.
Almost every situation involving a cop investigation results in either nothing happening (including not finding scum) or outing our cop either for a vanilla, or for something our vig can anonomously accomplish.
I'm not saying that vigging is always a good idea (or even generally), but I've recently come to believe the vig's primary job is not to kill scum, but to prevent misslynches (which lead to night and 2 more townie deaths).
If we don't lynch Suther (which is the best play), I obviously advocate his vig. If we do lynch him, at this point, I see no legitimate reason for the vig to fire.
Just because Sutherlands left off a name on his second explanation doesn't mean his second statement contradicted the first - in fact it affirmed half of the first. Omission is NOT contradiction. It may be an attempt to further avoid the issue, or could be oversight, or an attempt to retract part by silence (if you don't mention it it didn't happen). Some of those could be scummy or mistakes (my preferred inference) but it remains that it is NOT contradictory.
You have done nothing to change my mind. Instead of quoting text that I have already read (and referred to and shown my interpretation/opinion) how about you show where the contradiction lies? How is it contradictory? I challenge anyone to explain it and show the contradiction.
2. MD and Holmes are players who seemed not to have the firmest grasp of the way mafia is generally played. They (particularly MD) were over defensive, incoherent and utilised tactics that were inconsistent with town philosophies. Sutherlands uses the same tones, makes similar mistakes and displays a comparable lack of awareness of common mafia tactics.
3. Good Posting Crippled Fist. And I apologise for trying to direct investigators - I got a little caught up in the Trek inferences.
My major point is that there are a number of alternatives to vigging Suth now, investigation being only one. I know not what other information will arise Day 2 that may aid in clearing him - it may come however. Vigging any player at this point would be detrimental unless it was a sure fire hit - which constitutes part of my reasoning to vote Cyan. He has said many times he is uncertain as to Suth alignment, yet still advocated his assassination without a chance for the town to have an effective say.
#44 - Essentially random vote, setup spec.
#55 - More setup spec. I find the "town full of vanillas" comment a little odd; I don't remember anyone or anything suggesting that we did have a town full of vanillas.
#58 - Response to Fayul. Still more setup spec.
#116 - zomg bandwagon
#176 - Now gives reason for voting ZDS; surprise surprise, it's a reason that lets him vote without actually accusing people of being scummy. Votes Sutherlands for "strange arguments and minor contradictions." Foses loran. Encourages Fayul to make a case against CC. This post is the reason I originally voted ikerr - he jumps directly from one bandwagon to another, retroactively justifying his first vote while getting on the now large Sutherlands bandwagon for dubious reasons. He also foses another player and encourages a case against a fourth. Ikerr seems to be casting his net wide in the hopes of catching a fish, which strongly indicates to me a scum feeling out the early game to find the strongest bandwagon to attach to.
#187 - Pseudo-responds to Cyan's argument against him. I am intrigued by his responses of "Isn't it?" and " I can see how it could be seen that way, but I'm obligated to disagree." One of the best ways to diffuse an argument against you without actually addressing it is to circumvent it by saying, "You have your opinion and I have mine, we just disagree" which seems to be what ikerr is saying here. Also reassures us of how he would and would not act if he were mafia.
#229 - More evasion as well as deflection onto loran (who's the one bringing the case against him.) In regards to Sutherlands, reiterates that "I could present a case against him, but it's all already been said." Minimizes AbbeyGargoyle's reasons for voting him with the statement "I also don't see how the reason you stated voting for me is any different than mine for voting for ZDS," when AG had actually given reasons, including the bandwagoning, whereas ikerr's reasons for voting ZDS were essentially nonexistent.
#330 - Just a few notes:
(Post 123) - Sutherlands was linking Cyan and ZDS, but not Matjoeman. He just said he was also suspicious of MJM.
(Post 134) - Hyperbole. Suth did not state that logic was not conducive to a good argument, he questioned Cyan's specific use of logic.
(Post 165) - Suth never said townies want to lynch other townies, he said that townies want to survive and would want to see someone of an alignment unknown to them get lynch before they see themselves get lynched. Suth was saying he had made himself a likely investigation target, which =/= telling the cop to investigate him.
I find it interesting that ikerr describes the Suth wagon as "more comfortable." I wouldn't think that was a criterion townies would use to evaluate the merit behind a wagon.
#376 - Woe is me, I don't know what I've done to deserve this negative attention. Why are you being mean to me?
#393 - Walking the line on the vigging issue. "The vig should not fire unless most of the town is extremely sure the target is scum." Are you saying we should vig Sutherlands or not? Casting the net again. Dismisses loran's case, says he will ignore his wagon until someone "present's a proper case against him." Well, here you go.
This piece of post #393 renewed my suspicions of him in addition to some of the same reasons arimnaes mentioned (walking the line on the vig mainly):
This got my attention because I at the time I was the second very vocal person against him that he has mentioned that he is suspicious of (after loran16 who he already tried to deflect attention onto now dismisses). Even though he admits this might just OMGUS, and he will have to reveiw my posts, this feels like he is to cover his ass in case someone made this connection.
My feeling on the vig: A priori I don't like the idea of offing a stupid townie. Scummy play deserves to die, not stupid play. The biggest thing the town needs to decide is if having Sutherlands as an albatross around our neck for the rest of the game during discussion is worth the -1 day til we reach LoLy. My sense is that the more time the scum have to keep up the façade, the more likely the façade is to crack and us catch them, or info roles to catch them, so vig'ing Sutherlands is NOT something I would support, especially night 1.
Passdog explains it perfectly. If you go back to that first post and change it to "I believe Cyan and ZDS are suspicious. Obviously other people think ZDS is suspicious, too", then go back and reread the rest of the conversation, it's amazing how much it makes sense.
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
Alright.
There were a few comments that speculated a large number of vanilla roles due to lack of cards in the graveyard.
Okay.
zomg!
I've already explained most of this to death. The new point is encouraging Fayul to make a case. I wanted to know how the point that Fayul gave could be used as a solid base to feel confidant that CC was scum. He already presented a case, I was just looking for a bit more depth to see if it was worth pursuing.
The 'isn't it' was because this vote was placed for similar purposes. It looked like Sutherlands was flailing under the pressure, and I didn't want it to let up right away. I wanted to see how he'd react. The difference was that I felt that Sutherlands was likely scum, while I had no real feelings either way with ZDS. The other comment was because I felt I needed to respond to that point for completeness, and there really was much else I could respond with.
Could you outline the evasion? I'm not sure which points you are referring to. When AG voted me, he basically listed several suspicions, then stated the final reason was to 'get some more pressure on me and generate some discussion'. My vote on ZDS was for the same reason, but would have lost much of its effectiveness had I stated my suspicions of him (that I had a funny feeling about a couple of his posts), and was in the early building stages of the wagon. These appear very similar to me.
(Post 123)- The wording of the post was ambiguous, and it opened the door for further linking attempts including MJM.
(Post 134)- The quotations around 'logic' and how it separates the comments from the speaker make it sound like a broader shot.
(Post 165)- That's the way I read the comment. He didn't say he was the most likely target, he said that the player who leads the lynch is most likely to be investigated. This seems like an attempt to have lead any remaining investigative roles.
So, you're saying that not being comfortable on the wagon doesn't mean you should get off it? I felt more comfortable in the sense that I was happier with his lynch than I was/would have been on the other wagons.
I'm sorry, but I was getting kind of sick of the shots that really couldn't be defended against.
I'm saying the vig should not fire! I thought I made that clear, but apparently I did not. As much as I believe Sutherlands is our best lynch at the moment, I am not sure enough that he is scum to risk a misfire. I wasn't 'casting the net again', I was trying to weigh in on current matters and help you all get a read on my views on certain players, should I be lynched today. I don't feel that Loran16's intial pbpa of me was all that strong, or raised points outside of the post that got me all this attention. It is also difficult to get into the discussion if I'm constantly on the defensive, and anything I say would probably be used against me. When the points start to degrade into 'he's scummy', what alternative do I have.
[FONT=Georgia] [/FONT]
Support can be added just by volume. I think that we can agree that we don't know what would have happened had I jumped on their wagons in the same manner, nor could we know for certain what would have happened had I not jumped on yours. This is why the only thing I'm basing my assertion that the wagons were in a similar state on is my feelings about them at the time they were current.[/font]
The fact that Passdog 'explained it perfectly' is exactly why people shouldn't answer questions that aren't directed at them. Passdog came up with an excuse that you like, so, you're just latching onto it and hoping for the best.
Also, the point is not whether or not your statement would have made sense if it said 'obviously other people agree agree that ZDS is scummy too'. The point is that that is not what you said. Anyone can post whatever they want, and later say 'Oh what I meant was this'(or actually, in this case, you just let someone else say it for you). The point is that what you said was that you think that we both are scummy, and obviously other people agree too. Which is a lie. People seem to be conveniently forgetting that, at that point in the conversation, you were doing everything in your power to show everyone that ZDS and I were both scum. Considering that context, it makes alot more sense to assume that you meant what you said in the first place, and are now just trying to backpedal. Regardless of that speculation, you blatantly misrepresented the ideas of the town at the time to try to make your own case look better. It's not an omission, nor a contradiction, it is a flat-out lie, which you tried to 'amend' later to make yourself look better.
Just for the record, posts and situations like this are why I am perfectly happy, personally, with the idea of Sutherlands not surviving today, one way or another.
Also, the difference between your vote on ZDS and AG's vote on you is that AG stated at the time that it was partially to generate suspicion, and you tried to fallback on this excuse later after you came under attack, which makes your reasoning seem ridiculously phony. Also, it very much seems like you're trying to spread suspicion whereever possible. You've been on 2 of the 3 larger wagons so far, and the 3rd was a wagon on yourself, so, that doesn't help you any. You've also tried to put suspicion on basically anyone that has had a single vote. I don't think that you adequately answered Arimnaes' PBPA at all. If anything, I think you look worse now than you did previously. The overall theme of your responses seems to be 'Everyone is just picking on me'. A)If that's true, you probably did something to bring attention upon yourself(Which you did) and B)trying to appeal to people's emotions, instead of applying logic, is so weak.
Vote Stands.
ZDS: That's what 'Preview Post' is really for.
ZDS in post 146 — Sure, they believe I'm scum, but do they believe Cyan to be scum too ?
Suthie in post 151 — I don't understand how you think that goes to your innocence...
I said that becuase I wasn't sure what he was trying to get at with this. What I was trying to say was that they believe that ZDS is scum, and he came back with "but what about Cyan?" This is why I was confused and thus the "..." Then in post 154 I clarify what I was trying to say "What I was TRYING to get at was that obviously other people believe that YOU are scum."
After that I don't know why the conversation continued. I left off a name in a sentence and in post 154 clarified what I was saying.
Very well. Note: If this had been your quote from the conversation, it would have gone quite differently, since I wouldn't have assumed "believ[ing] that" was believe that you were scum.
"Well, me. But I meant that obviously a lot of people thought that you were scum."
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
He should have been mentioned in the first part, then in the second part I should have explicitly called you out.
Okay, fine :). You did mention Cyan however. Are there people who thought he was scum, regardless of wether or not they think the same for me ?"I'm not sure, but I would venture a guess to say "yes". Especially since people are voting for him"
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
Let's take a look back at the general conversations around that time. Just going by the statements that you made, Sutherlands, your contention the entire time was that ZDS and I were both scum. As such, it stands to reason that when you said 'I believe that you and Cyan are most likely to be scum, and obviously other people do too', you meant exactly that. Obviously now you can say 'oh yeah I was just talking about ZDS'. The point is that, when you look at the conversations as a whole, and especially your posts as a whole, they give lie to that statement. You had been pushing the idea that ZDS and I were both scum for awhile even before that post. You tried to strengthen this by saying that obviously other people agreed with you, and when you got called on that, you casually modified it to 'mean' that you were only referring to ZDS.
Even in that post, you go so far as to try to cast a negative light on us by saying that, even if we're not mafia, we'd still try to get the other killed just so that we don't get lynched that day. Which is filled with so much flawed logic that I don't even know where to begin.
Also, when ZDS first tries to clarify whether you mean just him or both of us, you completely dodge the question and try to turn it back around on him by saying 'I don't understand how you think that goes to your innocence'. What's interesting is that he never tried to use it to prove his own innocence, he was simply trying to get you to clarify something. Something which, if we're to believe you now, that you only meant ZDS with that statement, you would have said so at the time. Even in post 154, where you (sort of) drop the notion that people agree that we're both scum, you still try to keep it, because you say 'I could be wrong or right about that'(paraphrase), even though you are obviously wrong. Also, in post 156, Treigit asks you quite specifically to provide examples of distancing, and explain why they are distancing, and not general disagreement. You responded to other parts of this post, yet conveniently, completely ignored this part. You also ignored it when other people asked you to explain this as well. Because of all of this, I stand by the opinion that you meant it when you said, initially, 'I think that ZDS and Cyan are most likely to be scum and obviously other people do too'. Lastly, you're oversimplifying it by saying 'I left a name off of a sentence'. You didn't leave off a name, you left off 1/2 of the latter part of the sentence, if you're to be believed. Of course, I don't believe you anyway, but, that's not the point. I had a vote or two on me at the time and ZDS had been under some pressure. It's fairly obvious that you were trying to bring more pressure onto both of us, not just ZDS. When this failed, instead of trying to explain it, you tried to just ignore it and hope it would go away, including trying to change the obvious meaning of the statement in question here. Hell, in the post that you just made you are giving the lie to your own 'stance' right now because you're still asserting that people thought we were both scum. In my mind, you sir, have been caught in a lie, and don't know what to do about it.
I cannot understand your continual insistence here that you meant one thing, when the tone of the post in question, and multiple other posts by you, make it fairly clear that you meant something else entirely(meant exactly what the post in question said to begin with). The fact that you keep clinging to this is extremely suspicious to me. At first I thought you were just confused or misguided or something. But your continual stubbornness and contradiction here makes it seem like something else. Unvote Ikerr, Vote Sutherlands
No, they don't. In fact they push towards the exact statement that I was trying to convey there. That is, that you and ZDS are scum, and that people agreed that ZDS was.
No, there was no "casual modification", but I love your use of words to appeal to the masses.
Which post are you talking about?
Yeah, the thing is, I didn't understand where he was going with this statement. Why didn't I understand? Because I ONLY MEANT ZDS IN THE SECOND HALF OF THE POST. The conversation is perfectly understandable if you see that I believe that is what i said.
No, I'm not obviously wrong, unless you can read the minds of everyone else in this game. That was simply a matter of semantics for me not being wrong, and in that specific post I clarify what I was saying. I even use all-caps on two words to specify exactly what I meant.
I didn't answer it at that time, because I wasn't ready to. I believe I answered it later in the thread, though, but I'll have to go back and look.
Unfortunately for you, it's not a matter of opinion.
Now you're getting into semantics. First off, you're saying I left off a half of a half of a sentence. That's not very much. Second off, the only thing that should have been changed is that the understood "you and Cyan" should have been "you".
Yes, OBV that's correct.:rolleyes:
No, and you are misrepresenting both what I said and what ZDS said.
ZDS said: "Are there people who thought he was scum, regardless of wether or not they think the same for me ?"
This is the question i was answering. Note it makes a clear distinction between whether people thought you were both scum, or whether there are people who think YOU are scum. And like I said, given that people were voting for you, I would think that it's obvious that someone thought you were scum.
My "continual insistence" that i meant something is driven by the fact that it is what I meant. Amazing logic. You say that it is clear that I meant something entirely different, when there are people who don't really understand why you thought what you did in the beginning. You used to think I was a misguided townie, but now I'm mafia? Interesting.
Here's my assessment: I do not think that ZDS is mafia. I agree with others that he is probably just a townie. I believe I was reading the situation wrong in the beginning of the game, and that Cyan is in fact mafia. I believe that Cyan and also Treigit are mafia. Not because they are attacking me, but because of the WAY they are attacking me. They are misrepresenting things that I say, not failing, but actively refusing to see things any way that would show I am a townie. I believe they are mafia more than I believe ikerr is mafia. however, I still believe that ikerr is mafia.
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
Like I said before, regardless of what you say now, the context and content of all of your posts at the time of the post in question(Post 141), paint a very, very different picture. You can claim that this is not true until you're blue in the face, but anyone can read it all and form their own impression, which, I imagine, will be similar to what I've already determined.
Also, something I wanted to comment on specifically:
I'd say that the person misrepresenting what you say is you. Certainly, you have alot to gain out of that, where as I really don't. As for the latter part of that, the point is that your play throughout this game doesn't give anyone any reason to grant you any credibility, and in fact, the things that you've said are so suspect that people should(and clearly do) doubt everything that you've said.
Also, would you please tell us when, and why you changed your mind on ZDS's alignment?
Also, how do you continue to insist that "The person who leads a lynch on mafia is most likely to be investigated." And, "The person who leads a lynch on a townie is most likely to be investigated." Even if we assume one of these to be true, how does it follow that you must therefore not be scum?
Well, you are correct that you must either believe or not believe me. As for the truth of the matter, I know it and it will either be shown to you when I die or at the end of the game, whichever comes first.
Those aren't the quotes that I was saying were trying to misrepresent me. I understand how someone can get what you are believing out of what was said. One of my points is that Cyan is actively refusing to believe the other side.
Dang... you caught me. That's it. I just decided I'd clear ZDS even though I'm mafia and he's not. That way when he doesn't get lynched for awhile, I can show that I supported him! Or not. The reason I'm not voting for you or treigit, is that not many people are voting for you or treigit right now.
Something I should have added at the end of my last post: I will vote for any of these 3 people currently: ikerr, Cyan, and treigit. If one of the last two gains more support than ikerr, I will switch my vote.
Some people have already formed their opinions, and as I've said before, some of these are very different from yours. So I guess you really are just imagining things.
You don't have anything to gain about misrepresenting what I say? Well that's all nice and good if you're a townie, but if you're a mafia, then that's completely false. As for the latter part of that, my play throughout the game does in fact grant me credibility, as far as being a townie goes, which is why a lot of people have stopped voting for me.
No, see, when I said I didn't have time, that's because I didn't have time. I've been in a meeting for the last two hours, so sorry I couldn't find that post.
Again, I'll post on this tonight when I have more time.
His behavior and responses. Certain things still grate on me, like what he said about vigs, though.
How could I not insist those? They're saying the same thing, except that the outcome of the revelation of the lynch is different. If we assume those are true, it follows that I'm probably not scum, because I would likely be investigated, found out, and lynched.
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
I agree with the sentiment; correction in bold
Now, more importantly:
Absolutely nothing Cyan has said leads me to any indication that Sutherlands is scum. Cyan is essentially making up intentions that he really can't have any idea that Sutherlands really had (such as attempting to create more pressure on Cyan himself... which he has no idea is really true). If anything, I am leaning more towards Cyan being scum himself, but I'm really not yet convinced enough, as this is the first point against him. However, fos cyan.
Secondly, as promised
vote silicon
Waiting on this "content".
Most- How can A and B, assuming they're mutually exclusive, (IE you cannot be responsible for Both a townie and a mafia getting lynched in the same day.) both be "greatest in degree"? Why are either/ both of these likely to be investigated?
Oh, and Cyan, I do think that you're grasping at straws abit with your case (which is odd since there are so many great angles of attack). It is conceivable that he meant: "I think cyan and ZDS are most likely to be mafia together, obviously the majority of the town (meaning 8 people at it's Xenith) feel the same [same meaning that ZDS, not cyan is scum] way." It's a stretch, but give it up. I'm perfectly willing to grant someone a take back on a post (within reason) or to allow someone to clarify that one of my points was meant as Joke, and thus drop that point. I'm even willing to do it a couple of times. Of course with sutherlands, that still leaves a hefy load to work with.
(With 24 alive, it takes 13 to lynch)
Sutherlands (7) - Matjoeman, Treigit, ikerr, Good&Evil, Jobie, atlseal, Cyan
CropCircles (1) - Fayul
ikerr (5) - Sutherlands, arimnaes, loran16, AbbeyGargoyle, ZeDorkSlipeur
Fayul (2) - Crippled_Fist, CropCircles
Cyan (1) - Passdog
silicon (1) - kops723
It's true that your direct conversation with him, in that regard, doesn't make alot of sense. But then, honestly, basically nothing that he has said all game, in my opinion, has really made any sense, so, I fail to see why that would be any different. From the supposition that mafioso will put themselves in harm's way to try to bail out another mafioso, to the 'theory' that a townie will willingly lynch another townie, just because it means that they won't get lynched that day, to paranoid rantings that seem to incriminate anyone that ever has any real suspicions of him. Just based on what he's stated so far in this thread, in my mind, nothing he says is credible. As such, I fail to see why people should just all of a sudden believe him that the statement 'I think that ZDS and Cyan are most likely to be scum, and obviously other people do to' can magically mean 'I think that ZDS and Cyan are most likely to be scummy, and obviously other people think that ZDS is scummy as well'. It's not the same statement, at all. There is no way to logically determine that he means the latter when he stated the former, especially considering everything else that he was saying at the time.
Experiments Series: #5 (Courtly Intrigue Mafia) | #4 (Drunken Tracker) | #3 (Big Red Button) - coming soon | #2 (Pope Mafia) | #1 (Iso's Inflammable Mafia)
Mini Games: MTGS Mafia Redux II (Invitational, Evil Mirror Universe) | Unreal City
Old Games (bad): The Greenwood Affair | Blood Moon Mafia
Man Cyan, your posts have gotten really dumb as of late, but this particular thing caught my eye. When did I ever say that? Also, i love your accusation that me thinking that you and treigit are mafia is a paranoid conspiracy theory. There are other people that have said things about me too, how come I didn't include them? It's because they're not bending what I say to try to appeal to the fear of the town.
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
You missed my vote on Fayul (in the same post I unvoted Sutherlands). I'm also not happy with his response, because he is still doing the same thing that he is accusing CC of.
I feel it's somewhat ironic that I've just recently started watching the last season of The Apprentice, because Sutherlands is quickly becoming our Brent. We can't seem to get anything done because we never stop talking about him.
So Sutherlands' choices for the lynch are the person with the most votes on them (aside from himself) currently, or the two people who are making the best cases against him. That seems really bad. I know he's said it was a matter of the way he was being attacked, but the only thing I see Sutherlands doing to defend himself is saying that we've misinterpreted what he's said (he has to start wondering about his posting style if this is honestly happening that often), and WIFOM.
Really? Let's break down all of your unvotes.
Cyan unvoted you on two occasions, once because he was switching his vote to ikerr, whom he believed to be a more probable target at the time. The second time he unvoted you, he did so on the basis that you were acting newbish. Of course, he's back on you now, but neither of those were based on your logic.
Treigit unvoted you once because he specifically wanted to place the last vote. He has also revoted you.
Axelrod didn't say much when he voted or unvoted you, he explained why he voted in 312, but not why he unvoted, which seemed to be a reaction to: (because he quoted this when he did unvoted you)
ZDS unvoted you because he too moved his vote to ikerr. At the time he did it, he still beleived you were potentially scum, and supported vigging you.
Silicon unvoted you because you no longer gave him a scummy feeling, and agreeing that there may be a potential reason for you not to claim. That's one.
I unvoted you to change my vote to Fayul. I was still bothered by what you were saying at the time, but moreso by Fayul's statements on my reread, and his infrequency of posts, and lack of content (which he said was his case against CC)
So of the four of us who have unvoted and not revoted you, it seems only one did so because of your play. That doesn't seem to support your argument that people have unvoted you based on your good play and credibility. This seems to be another example of where you are describing what you want the will of the town to be.
I'm not voting you yet, but you have for the third game in a row ive played with you (both you were scum) struck my scummeter. You're pursuit of Sutherlands while voting iKerr was cute, and now you conveniently place a lot of comments pursuing and arguing about sutherlands until you finally think youve said enough to get back on his wagon. You seem way too overeager on a lynch for sutherlands.
I'd like to do another analysis of IKerr, whose still my main suspect, but i just moved back into Duke (the better Carolina school :-P), so my time is limited right now.
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
Good to see that you've moved onto attacking me personally, now.
I didn't say that you lash out against everyone that says anything about you. Just everyone that speaks out against you strongly. See, that(unlike the examples that you have tried to provide) is an example of 'misinterpretation'. Where I specifically say one thing, and you try to change it and make it into something else. No one ever misinterpreted you, but you're trying to do it to me now. Interestingly, such 'misinterpretation' was one of the reasons that you decided that I must be scum.
As for your 'When did I say this'. You said that I A)ZDS and I went out of our way to fight with each other, so that if one of us died and turned up scum, the other would look less guilty. Later, you said that I was trying to discourage ZDS bandwagon, by using logic, and I was 'using logic' to avoid being seen as attached to ZDS. Disregarding the fact that both of these statements which you made are direct contradictions to each other(in one sentence you say that we're fighting, both being mafia, so that if either of us gets lynched the other looks good, in practically your next breath you change it to me trying to get people NOT to vote ZDS, because I"m a mafioso trying to protect another mafioso. These two theories are 100% mutually exclusive. It is not possible for both of them to be applicable.
Nevermind that fact that rarely, if ever, does a mafioso put any effort into preventing the lynch of another mafioso. They might not encourage it, but, they don't try to stop it, because if they fail, it virtually guarantees that they get lynched next. Just another example of a theory that you
@Loran: Like I told Passdog previously, I think that Sutherlands needs to die as soon as possible. It's possible that he's town, but, I don't care. Having already told us that he's Vanilla, he is of absolutely no use to the town. Nothing that he says is credible nor really worth consideration. Every idea that he puts forth ends up getting discussed to ridiculous length and ultimately dismissed, while he tries to just claim that we didn't understand what he was trying to say in the first place. He is a liability to the town, and it would simply be better for the town and the game as a whole if he were not alive anymore. As such, I put my vote back on him, in hopes that it will make a difference to this end. I still think that Ikerr is just as suspicious as always, but, Sutherlands is such a drain that assisting his death however I can has become my first priority. If I was 100% sure that he is town, I guess I'd just suck it up and deal with him being a constant distraction. But, this is not the case. I still think that it's highly possible that he's scum. For awhile, I just thought that he was confused, but, all of this nonsense about Post 141 and his continued behavior have caused me to revisit this and change my mind. So, as such, I moved my vote back, in hopes that he will get lynched. Honestly, I would prefer to lynch someone that I'm more sure of, such as Ikerr, and see Sutherlands get Vigged..but since I cannot make that happen, but I can assist him getting lynched by putting my vote on him, that's what I've done.
"As for your 'When did I say this'. You said that I A)ZDS and I went out of our way to fight with each other, so that if one of us died and turned up scum, the other would look less guilty. Later, you said that I was trying to discourage ZDS bandwagon, by using logic, and I was 'using logic' to avoid being seen as attached to ZDS. Disregarding the fact that both of these statements which you made are direct contradictions to each other(in one sentence you say that we're fighting, both being mafia, so that if either of us gets lynched the other looks good, in practically your next breath you change it to me trying to get people NOT to vote ZDS, because I"m a mafioso trying to protect another mafioso. These two theories are 100% mutually exclusive. It is not possible for both of them to be applicable. "
It's not even an accurate picture of what happened, and putting words in my mouth that "mafioso will put themselves in harm's way to try to bail out another mafioso" is just plain ludicrous. That's not close to what I said, and is very misrepresentative.
Also, this part
"I think that Sutherlands needs to die as soon as possible. It's possible that he's town, but, I don't care. Having already told us that he's Vanilla, he is of absolutely no use to the town. Nothing that he says is credible nor really worth consideration. Every idea that he puts forth ends up getting discussed to ridiculous length and ultimately dismissed, while he tries to just claim that we didn't understand what he was trying to say in the first place. He is a liability to the town, and it would simply be better for the town and the game as a whole if he were not alive anymore."
is very much an appeal to emotion, and very much an ad-hominim attack. You're ignoring what is going on, saying "i don't care about the facts, he's a bad person and needs to be lynched."
Nevermind the fact that you already suggested wasting a vig kill on me. THESE are reasons why I think you're mafia. If you were attacking someone else this way, I would still think that. So all these conspiracy theories that I'm attacking "the next person with the most votes and the 2 people who have brought cases against me" is just that... a conspiracy theory. It has about as much merit in truth as your "i think you really said what you meant to say" argument.
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
Again, I didn't say good play. I said "credibility as a townie". You can take that to mean people think I'm a townie. Cyan unvoted me because I didn't seem like a mafia, just a "noobish townie" or whatever. Axelrod's vote didn't seem like it counted for much, since it was there for all of 2 seconds (not actual time). So if you don't count the vote that wasn't really a vote, then 2/3 people that unvoted me did so because of my "credibility".
Post on stuff I have been putting of forthcoming
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)