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
[QUOTE]
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.
How is it not an accurate portrayal of what happened? One minute, you were sipporting the theory that ZDS and I were both mafia and 'fighting with each other' in order to 'distance ourselves from each other so that if one of us got lynched the other would look better'. This is not supposition, those are your exact words. Then, in the same post, you also put forth the theory, again word for word, that I went out of my way to defend ZDS and try to make his wagon fall apart. You also state that I use logic to do so, in a manner that implies that using logic is a BAD thing, when in fact, logic is the #1 tool that a townie has available to them. So no, I am not misrepresenting you now, nor have I ever. But now in particular, I am providing examples for you using your exact words. I don't have to infer anything, nor worry that you're just supposedly not saying what you mean again. I used your exact statements for my analysis.
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."
A)It is absolutely not an 'appeal to emotion'. It is a logical assertation that you staying alive is a liability for the town, and as such, should not happen. Please explain where any emotion is involved. Furthermore, it seems that you don't know what Ad Hominem' means, even though someone has already been over this with you once. For this to be Ad-Hom, I would have to have stated something along the lines of 'Sutherlands is an idiot, and as such, we should not listen to what he said'. What I said was:
Quote from Cyan »
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...
This is not Ad-Hom. If anything, it is a statement of reality, because nothing that you have said so far has been of benefit to the town..we've wasted countless days now dealing with a bunch of theories, put for by you, that were obviously faulty in the first place.
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.
The Vig killing you is not a waste, in my opinion, at all. As I said previously, I went back and forth on you being mafia for awhile, but as of right now, I'm fairly confident that you are in fact scum. But it doesn't matter. Even if you're not scum, you are enough of a liability, in my mind, that you should be removed.
Lastly, you're right, the theories that you tried to just attack the people with the most votes and the 2 latest people to bring cases against you do, in fact, have as much merit as my theory that you meant exactly what you said. 'As much merit' being ample amounts, of course.
Also, I see that you have managed to make yet another post without providing Treigit any of the examples/evidence that he has requested from you. I wonder why that is, exactly.
Hi everyone. I've been really tired as of late, so I'm going to be getting to sleep earlier than normal tonight. However, my little bit of input at the moment: let us not forget about silicon stating that he would give a more detailed post in his "mod-prodded" response. However, it's been over a day now since his last post. FoS silicon until he can give some reasonable input. I'm going to be typing up a decent-sized post tomorrow morning.
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.
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".
I'm willing to disregard Axelrod's unvote from this process, because he didn't say a whole lot the unvote at the time, or since (however, it would be nice to hear from him on the topic again, or any topic really). I assume you're not talking about me being one of those 2/3 people. I've conceeded Silicon in this argument, and that leaves ZDS, who has said in post 434 that he still thinks you are suspicious, although perhaps not as much as before. I don't feel it's fair to include Cyan in your list of who beleives you are town, because he's both voting for you again, and he's said recently that he's not really sure if you're town or not. Treigit's vote is not actually on you at this point (his unvote in 298 seems to not have been counted, unless Perma-vote actually IS a game mechanic), but he has stated that not only does he want you lynched, but he specifically wants to be the last vote in doing so just incase.
EWP: atlseal has made a good point about silicon's lack of posting. It seems to me there might be a few other people in need of a prod as well, KeeperEUSC comes to mind. I'll double check and post again.
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.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.)
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.
[quote=Sutherlands;/comments/10509142]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
How is it not an accurate portrayal of what happened? One minute, you were sipporting the theory that ZDS and I were both mafia and 'fighting with each other' in order to 'distance ourselves from each other so that if one of us got lynched the other would look better'. This is not supposition, those are your exact words. Then, in the same post, you also put forth the theory, again word for word, that I went out of my way to defend ZDS and try to make his wagon fall apart. You also state that I use logic to do so, in a manner that implies that using logic is a BAD thing, when in fact, logic is the #1 tool that a townie has available to them. So no, I am not misrepresenting you now, nor have I ever. But now in particular, I am providing examples for you using your exact words. I don't have to infer anything, nor worry that you're just supposedly not saying what you mean again. I used your exact statements for my analysis.
A)It is absolutely not an 'appeal to emotion'. It is a logical assertation that you staying alive is a liability for the town, and as such, should not happen. Please explain where any emotion is involved. Furthermore, it seems that you don't know what Ad Hominem' means, even though someone has already been over this with you once. For this to be Ad-Hom, I would have to have stated something along the lines of 'Sutherlands is an idiot, and as such, we should not listen to what he said'. What I said was:
This is not Ad-Hom. If anything, it is a statement of reality, because nothing that you have said so far has been of benefit to the town..we've wasted countless days now dealing with a bunch of theories, put for by you, that were obviously faulty in the first place.
The Vig killing you is not a waste, in my opinion, at all. As I said previously, I went back and forth on you being mafia for awhile, but as of right now, I'm fairly confident that you are in fact scum. But it doesn't matter. Even if you're not scum, you are enough of a liability, in my mind, that you should be removed.
Lastly, you're right, the theories that you tried to just attack the people with the most votes and the 2 latest people to bring cases against you do, in fact, have as much merit as my theory that you meant exactly what you said. 'As much merit' being ample amounts, of course.
Also, I see that you have managed to make yet another post without providing Treigit any of the examples/evidence that he has requested from you. I wonder why that is, exactly.
It's interesting that you're already trying to start a real bandwagon against me, and for a post that MJM himself(the only person that I really 'attacked' in it) seems to agree was justified. A little eager, are we?
@ZDS:
We weren't arguing. I was simply stating that it's foolhardy to underestimate the other players in the game, and that there is absolutely no benefit to the town when one person calls another an 'idiot', but that the mafia does benefit from this. That's all. If I had to classify that statement, I'd call it an explanation to AG, not an attack on him/her.
Honestly, it's not as though I'm shy about attacking people, and it's not as though I try to downplay it when I do. I called MJM out for fishing, that's true(and again, he himself said that one of the posts I was referring to was somewhat fishy, and that we're past the random speculation stage, so, apparently that calling out was with merit), and it was obvious that I called him out. But, I wasn't attacking AG, I was simply trying to explain something to him/her.
Well, you seemed a little blunt when you explained that to AG, which is why I (and others, like Treigit) saw it as an attack or an argument. That said, don't worry, I already got the "don't call people idiots" part ; it was simply not the part of the post I wanted to comment on ;).
I'm willing to disregard Axelrod's unvote from this process, because he didn't say a whole lot the unvote at the time, or since (however, it would be nice to hear from him on the topic again, or any topic really). I assume you're not talking about me being one of those 2/3 people. I've conceeded Silicon in this argument, and that leaves ZDS, who has said in post 434 that he still thinks you are suspicious, although perhaps not as much as before. I don't feel it's fair to include Cyan in your list of who beleives you are town, because he's both voting for you again, and he's said recently that he's not really sure if you're town or not. Treigit's vote is not actually on you at this point (his unvote in 298 seems to not have been counted, unless Perma-vote actually IS a game mechanic), but he has stated that not only does he want you lynched, but he specifically wants to be the last vote in doing so just incase.
Both ZDS and Cyan at one point said that they didn't believe I was scum.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
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.)
I'm not trying to be. Honestly, sensing someone's attitude can't necessarily be summed up in one post, but I'll give a few.
245 is good, then in 413 and 418 he actually opens his mind as opposed to the close-minded "lynch Sutherlands" of Cyan.
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?
They are only mutually exclusive in the fact that only one can happen at a time. They are not mutually exclusive in truth (ie, if one is true, the other can still be true). The person who is suspicious, who has been trying to get people to wagon, is suspicious, and thus likely for a cop (or also a vig).
How is it not an accurate portrayal of what happened? One minute, you were sipporting the theory that ZDS and I were both mafia and 'fighting with each other' in order to 'distance ourselves from each other so that if one of us got lynched the other would look better'. This is not supposition, those are your exact words. Then, in the same post, you also put forth the theory, again word for word, that I went out of my way to defend ZDS and try to make his wagon fall apart. You also state that I use logic to do so, in a manner that implies that using logic is a BAD thing, when in fact, logic is the #1 tool that a townie has available to them. So no, I am not misrepresenting you now, nor have I ever. But now in particular, I am providing examples for you using your exact words. I don't have to infer anything, nor worry that you're just supposedly not saying what you mean again. I used your exact statements for my analysis.
No, first of "fighting with each other" is not a quote, at least not from that post. Where is this "again word for word" because you don't use any words from that post except "distance ourselves from each other so that if one of us got lynched the other would look better". The manner I said that you used logic was in fact, not implying that it was a bad thing. Instead I was trying to show that you didn't "want to say [you] thinks well of [ZDS]." (That actually is an exact quote.)
A)It is absolutely not an 'appeal to emotion'. It is a logical assertation that you staying alive is a liability for the town, and as such, should not happen. Please explain where any emotion is involved. Furthermore, it seems that you don't know what Ad Hominem' means, even though someone has already been over this with you once. For this to be Ad-Hom, I would have to have stated something along the lines of 'Sutherlands is an idiot, and as such, we should not listen to what he said'. What I said was:
You are saying my arguments aren't credible, whereas a lot of the town has said (or at least the vocal part) has said you are either 1) Wrong 2) Scum, or 3) Grasping at straws... even if they think that I am scum! When you can't get the people who agree with you to agree with you, that's saying something.
This is not Ad-Hom. If anything, it is a statement of reality, because nothing that you have said so far has been of benefit to the town..we've wasted countless days now dealing with a bunch of theories, put for by you, that were obviously faulty in the first place.
No, it is not a statement of reality, it is an attack on my character. Saying I am not credible and that I am worthless to the town. Whereas not only can some people actually agree with the points that I'm making, but I'm making quite a bit of discussion.
The Vig killing you is not a waste, in my opinion, at all. As I said previously, I went back and forth on you being mafia for awhile, but as of right now, I'm fairly confident that you are in fact scum. But it doesn't matter. Even if you're not scum, you are enough of a liability, in my mind, that you should be removed.
Yes, you did go back and forth quite a bit. Also, I think most people would agree that trying to get the vig to kill a townie is detrimental to the town, no matter who the townie is.
Lastly, you're right, the theories that you tried to just attack the people with the most votes and the 2 latest people to bring cases against you do, in fact, have as much merit as my theory that you meant exactly what you said. 'As much merit' being ample amounts, of course.
I think you misunderstand the meaning of ample to be "look at me I'm making stuff up"
Also, I see that you have managed to make yet another post without providing Treigit any of the examples/evidence that he has requested from you. I wonder why that is, exactly.
Yes, in fact that is because AS I SAID IN MY POST, my next post was going to address that.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
I can't find it either, and honestly after looking through the posts again, I think most of it was because I misattributed the MJM to ZDS. After that:
Which post? And why with your missatribution did it make them seem scummy?
And then Cyan starts to defend ZDS.
Yes, but you were suspicious of them before the defense started. Why?
I'm not trying to be. Honestly, sensing someone's attitude can't necessarily be summed up in one post, but I'll give a few.
245 is good, then in 413 and 418 he actually opens his mind as opposed to the close-minded "lynch Sutherlands" of Cyan.
K
They are only mutually exclusive in the fact that only one can happen at a time. They are not mutually exclusive in truth (ie, if one is true, the other can still be true). The person who is suspicious, who has been trying to get people to wagon, is suspicious, and thus likely for a cop (or also a vig).
But you argued repeatedly that it was the result that would make someone suspicious, not the activity. So, your reasoning is that you can't be scum because you are behaving in a suspicious way?
I'm willing to disregard Axelrod's unvote from this process, because he didn't say a whole lot the unvote at the time, or since (however, it would be nice to hear from him on the topic again, or any topic really).
It would, indeed, be nice. One day, I hope to be able to satisfy. But (as Viggo said) it is not this day.
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.
No, first of "fighting with each other" is not a quote, at least not from that post. Where is this "again word for word" because you don't use any words from that post except "distance ourselves from each other so that if one of us got lynched the other would look better". The manner I said that you used logic was in fact, not implying that it was a bad thing. Instead I was trying to show that you didn't "want to say [you] thinks well of [ZDS]." (That actually is an exact quote.)
Oh okay, you're right, you didn't say 'fighting'. First you said arguing, then you said 'oh I mean trying to create tension between each other'. Both of which, for the intent and purpose of mafia, are fighting. Also, you were clearly implying that my use of logic was a bad thing, because you were using it as an example to justify your suspicion of me.
You are saying my arguments aren't credible, whereas a lot of the town has said (or at least the vocal part) has said you are either 1) Wrong 2) Scum, or 3) Grasping at straws... even if they think that I am scum! When you can't get the people who agree with you to agree with you, that's saying something.
Whether or not the town agrees with me has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not your arguments are credible. Do you see anyone saying that you are credible? No. In fact, the only other people that has commented directly on that aspect(WhytePanther) agreed that you're not credible.
No, it is not a statement of reality, it is an attack on my character. Saying I am not credible and that I am worthless to the town. Whereas not only can some people actually agree with the points that I'm making, but I'm making quite a bit of discussion.
It is not an 'attack on your character'. Nowhere do I slight you, personally, in any fashion. I speak only of your role/performance in this game, and the statements that I make are valid. And I never said that you don't make alot of discussion. Just the opposite, I said flatly that you make too much discussion, none of which ends up actually mattering at all.
Yes, you did go back and forth quite a bit. Also, I think most people would agree that trying to get the vig to kill a townie is detrimental to the town, no matter who the townie is.
Your idea of 'detrimental to the town' is too basic, it would seem. You could use to read up on some games, also. MD has been lynched multiple times for essentially no reason other than his personality, and Magician of Thought gets vigged or lynched on a regular basis because his idea of playing a game of mafia is to, basically, only post when he is prodded by the Mod to do so, and even then his content contribution is non-existent. Please note that I'm not comparing you to either of them, simply using them as examples to illustrate why I think that you need to study up on what exactly is/is not 'detrimental to the town'. Your behavior in this game is far more 'detrimental to the town' than anything else so far.
Why Mod-Prod CropCircles? I'm pretty sure that he posted like yesterday, and has more posts than alot of other guys.
I double checked it again, CC hasn't posted on this thread in a little over 2 days. I do see however that he has posted on another game in the search. And a few of us are still waiting on his comments on the Fayul case.
One should not Vig a townie because they dislike his posting/playing style. One should vig a player because they think that the player has nothing more to add (content or ability wise), are not worth an investigation, and will likely be lynched by the town at some point anyway. If we were to stumble on someone (a Mafia power role or SK for instance) that poses a more immediate threat to the town than Suther, then I would recomend his vig for these reasons. As it is, I recomend his lynch for roughly the same reasons. (Not to mention a conviction that he is anti town.)
Then you can agree that we have no way to know wether or not these feelings truly were the one you had at the time ? And that you have absolutely no way to prove their truthfulness ?
What I'm asking is that you go back and read their wagons objectively, to see that my feelings weren't so off-base.
Quote from Cyan »
@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.
The vote in question is mine on ZDS, not on Sutherlands. I know that you or Fayul never really had wagons on you, I am just using that word for lack of a better term.
Quote from Cyan »
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.
The quote with my ZDS vote was implying it was for responses. I didn't want to belittle my own vote by saying that it was just for pressure and would be removed if he got anywhere near a lynch.
Quote from Cyan »
Also, it very much seems like you're trying to spread suspicion whereever possible.
List of people I've posted suspicions of: AbbeyGargoyle, Loran16, ZeDorkSlipeur, Sutherlands, Fayul, Passdog.
List of people I haven't: SorryGuy, Jobie, WhytePanther, kops723, KeeperEUSC, Good&Evil, Matjoeman, atlseal, Crippled_Fist, silicon, Cyan, CropCircles, Axelrod, Treigit, arimnaes, Xyre, Hvirfilvindr.
Thats 6:17. I don't think the evidance supports that I've been spreading around suspicion whereever possible. (These lists were done by memory, please don't shoot me if I missed one or two).
Quote from Cyan »
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.
Two wagons isn't a large enough sample size for this to be an important point.
Quote from Cyan »
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.
A) I can't deny that I did something to bring this attention to myself.
B) The only emotional content I have added has been in my more recent posts. I am sorry, but I am human and can't always keep my emotions out of my posts. I will try harder to keep them out.
Only people others have stated suspicions of, before you did. Great.
IIRC, I was one of the first, if not the first to put suspicion on loran16, and I think I was the first to question Fayul on his case on CropCircles, if you consider that as casting suspicion (I was being a little generous on that list).
Okay, I read the beginning of the game from the very first post to when you vote me. And guess what ? There was no bandwagon on Cyan or Fayul. Each of them had one or two votes on them, and none of them was attracting more attention than any other, non-me player (and of course they were attracting much less attention than me).
The first to put suspicion on Loran16 is Pod (now Kops). You are second, but only after Pod had already stated his suspicions twice.
The first to question Fayul on his case on CC was Loran16, and you were second, but you asked to Fayul exactly the same thing Loran16 had asked.
Interestingly, all this happened in post 176, the post which attracted attention toward you in the first place (*points to arimnaes's PBPA*).
Thank you for doing you best to appear more scummy to my eyes :). Vote stands.
Hey! I did the first PBPA on ikerr! (*Grumbles about not getting credit * :-P)
Meanwhile, Cyan is seeming really really scummy in my eyes. Statements like this:
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...
which are clearly ad homs, just show how really bad his case on sutherlands is. For god sakes, he even denies that's an ad hom! Meanwhile his whole case on suth seems just to be based on sutherland's reactions flailing about.
I'm sooo close to switching to voting Cyan at this point (I'm voting ikerr), cuz his actions in this matter do not say "townie" to me.
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.
This is ridiculous. Here is the dictionary definition of the term Ad Hominem:
ad ho‧mi‧nem /ɑd ˈhoʊmɪˌnɛm; Eng. æd ˈhɒmənəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ahd hoh-mi-nem; Eng. ad hom-uh-nuhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
Latin. 1.appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason. 2.attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.
For those of you that insist this is the case, please provide an example of where I A)appealed to anyone's emotions, instead of their intellect or reason, or B)attacked Sutherlands character, instead of his arguments. Saying that everything that Sutherlands says/has said so far is not worth consideration is not an attack on his character, it is the truth. Can you cite one example of an idea that he has put forth, or even a response to someone else's idea, that was even remotely logical or worth pursuing further? I doubt it.
Cyan is looking increasing scummy with this persistant diatribe on Sutherlands. This in particular caught my eye:
Quote from Cyan »
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.
Lets see... what's wrong with these statements?
1) You should care that he could be town. It's why there would be risk in vigging him.
2) Nothing that he says is credible or worth consideration... to you. Not to the whole town.
3) Like any other vanilla, he is most definitely of use to the town. He counts against the mafia win condition, and he contributes to discussion (or at least to generating it.)
I'm not saying he's definitely town, but the reasons you've presented for vigging him are terrible. Whether this stems from emotion or scummy intent I'm not yet certain.
Preview Edit: Ah, something else from Cyan worth disecting.
Quote from Cyan »
For those of you that insist this is the case, please provide an example of where I A)appealed to anyone's emotions, instead of their intellect or reason, or B)attacked Sutherlands character, instead of his arguments. Saying that everything that Sutherlands says/has said so far is not worth consideration is not an attack on his character, it is the truth.
Clearly you're appealing to something other than logic if you're saying "I don't care if Sutherlands is town, he just needs to die." You're inciting people to support his vigging on the basis that you don't like him.
Saying that everything Sutherlands says is not worth consideration is not exactly an attack on his character, but it is an ad hominem (screw dictionary.com.) You not logically deconstructing his arguments, you are saying "This guy's dumb/erratic/useless, we shouldn't listen to anything he says." Which precludes ANY consideration of his ideas in future, regardless of their actual merit.
If I had my way, we'd be lynching ikerr today (but you all already knew that.) I don't think we should be vigging, this early. By killing off people we see as scummy this early, we have a much greater chance of being wrong than right, and we lose any discussion we might have generated from a wagon on them. I prefer to sit on the vig ability until we have more information and better targets. Aggressive vigging sometimes wins games (See: ROTK Mafia), but it often just gives the scum extra kills and makes it harder for the town to win (See: Random 2 and High School Mafia.)
So, even though I see Cyan as the second most scummy player (after ikerr, of course), I would not support his vigging. Or anyone else's, for that matter.
Quote from loran16 »
Hey! I did the first PBPA on ikerr! (*Grumbles about not getting credit * :-P)
Ah, but don't forget: yours was apparently not "a proper case."
Nothing that he has said SO FAR has been worth real discussion or merit. I would say that makes it logically sound to conclude that this is going to continue. Sure, it's magically possible that, all of a sudden, he will stop promoting ridiculous ideas that have no basis and stop seeing conspiracy theories in everyone that actively speaks out against him. It is possible, but, logically, we have no reason to assume that this will occur. The evidence that we have makes it seem much more likely that he will just continue with his silly notions like 'a townie will help another townie get lynched because it means that they personally will survive the day'.
To speak on something directly:
Quote from Arimnaes »
Lets see... what's wrong with these statements?
1) You should care that he could be town. It's why there would be risk in vigging him.
It doesn't matter that he's town. If he doesn't die today, one of the following is virtually guaranteed to happen: A)We will simply lynch him later, because every time he posts anything that is not just a response to an attack on him(and sometimes even then), someone calls him on it and he ends up getting a bunch of votes. This is only worsened by the fact that, chances are, the mafia is not going to kill him because they'll just be able to use this to their advantage later. Or, B)someone will waste an investigation on him and determine his actual alignment and we'll act accordingly. Except that, if 'act accordingly' means 'leave him alive', then we will still have to deal with his ridiculous notions every time he puts them forth,. This is more of a detriment to the town, especially since we're on Day 1, than just killing him and being done with it. Does losing a townie hurt the town? By technical standards, yes. But in this case, it is worth that loss.
2) Nothing that he says is credible or worth consideration... to you. Not to the whole town.[/QUOTE]
As stated previously, please provide even ONE example of an idea that he has put forth that actually made sense, or that was even remotely plausible enough that it was worth further discussion.
3) Like any other vanilla, he is most definitely of use to the town. He counts against the mafia win condition, and he contributes to discussion (or at least to generating it.)
The SK counts against the mafia win condition, does that mean he should stay alive? I doubt it. Why? Because his continued survival is detrimental to the town. Obviously in that case it's more cut and dry, as the SK has an anti-town agenda. But, can you provide an example of how Sutherlands continued existence could possibly benefit the town?
If some of you think this mentality is scummy, that's unfortunate. It's not unexpected, because people always want to mistakenly associate aggressive play in mafia as scummy behavior. If what you're saying, as far as Vigging, is correct, then a Vig should almost never fire. But this is obviously not the case. Vigs fire on a constant, practically nightly, basis. It is not unreasonable for me to want Sutherlands to get vigged today. He is still one of the game's scummiest players. He was, at one point, at 11 votes, and refused to claim, and luckily got away with it because CropCircles backed him on it. If that hadn't happened, it's fairly likely that he would have been lynched for refusing to claim.
EBWODP:
Lastly, you can't expect me to feel alot of sympathy when you want to twist the term Ad Hominem away from what it ACTUALLY means to fit what you WANT it to mean. I said that my attack on him is not Ad Hom, and provided logical reasoning(in the definition of the term itself), as to why my statement is correct. Saying 'screw dictionary.com' or 'we're not using this definition' as a rebuttal to that is absurd.
It doesn't matter that he's town. If he doesn't die today, one of the following is virtually guaranteed to happen: A)We will simply lynch him later, because every time he posts anything that is not just a response to an attack on him(and sometimes even then), someone calls him on it and he ends up getting a bunch of votes. This is only worsened by the fact that, chances are, the mafia is not going to kill him because they'll just be able to use this to their advantage later.
I agree that, if he's not mafia, the mafia is not likely to kill him. Does that mean we should? No.
And once again, you're dismissing out of hand the possibility that he will ever contribute anything useful, which is foolish and shortsighted. Not to mention that even if he never contributed anything useful, it wouldn't make him a good vig target.
Quote from Cyan »
Or, B)someone will waste an investigation on him and determine his actual alignment and we'll act accordingly. Except that, if 'act accordingly' means 'leave him alive', then we will still have to deal with his ridiculous notions every time he puts them forth,. This is more of a detriment to the town, especially since we're on Day 1, than just killing him and being done with it. Does losing a townie hurt the town? By technical standards, yes. But in this case, it is worth that loss.
No, it's really, really not. It is not a detriment to the town, though it is perhaps a detriment to you since you seem to harbor such intense personal dislike for him.
An investigation on him, while likely not advisable at this point, would not be a waste. I'm not what brought you to that conclusion.
Yet again you're decrying everything he has posted and will ever post as "ridiculous notions."
Quote from Cyan »
As stated previously, please provide even ONE example of an idea that he has put forth that actually made sense, or that was even remotely plausible enough that it was worth further discussion.
Okay. I'll dig some up the next time I reread, which should be later today when I reexamine your play this game.
Quote from Cyan »
The SK counts against the mafia win condition, does that mean he should stay alive? I doubt it. Why? Because his continued survival is detrimental to the town. Obviously in that case it's more cut and dry, as the SK has an anti-town agenda. But, can you provide an example of how Sutherlands continued existence could possibly benefit the town?
Blatant, ridiculous hyperbole. Likening a townie Sutherlands to a serial killer in terms of detriment to the town is like comparing overeating to shooting yourself in the head in terms of detriment to one's health. The SK, as you say, has an anti-town agenda as well as a nightkill. Sutherlands, if he's town, has a pro-town agenda and the ability to annoy you with his existence. His continued existence, if nothing else, keeps the mafia from victory. That by itself is enough. And regardless of your repeated dismissal of him, he can and will contribute to discussion.
Quote from Cyan »
If some of you think this mentality is scummy, that's unfortunate. It's not unexpected, because people always want to mistakenly associate aggressive play in mafia as scummy behavior.
What you're advocating is not aggressive play. It is, no offense meant, stupid play. As in, play that is bad for the town. You've said you "don't care whether he's town or not," you just want his blood because you dislike him and you think he's not contributing positively.
Quote from Cyan »
If what you're saying, as far as Vigging, is correct, then a Vig should almost never fire. But this is obviously not the case. Vigs fire on a constant, practically nightly, basis.
THEY DO NOT. At least, they should not. A vig who fires on a nightly basis is a trigger-happy moron who will lose the game for the town. They are, for all extents and purposes, well-intentioned serial killers, accelerating the game, limiting discussion, and bringing the mafia win closer, faster. Because, the plain, hard, fact of the matter is that we as a town have very little idea so far of who is mafia and who is not. All we have to go on right now is one day of discussion, where we don't yet know anyone's alignment. Which means the chances of a vig's intuition being accurate enough to start pegging scum are very, very small.
Quote from Cyan »
It is not unreasonable for me to want Sutherlands to get vigged today. He is still one of the game's scummiest players.
Obviously I disagree with you about how scummy he is, but that's not even my main issue, here. What you're advocating is not even the vig firing at suspected scum, you're arguing he should fire at people because you think the quality of their ideas is poor.
Quote from Cyan »
He was, at one point, at 11 votes, and refused to claim, and luckily got away with it because CropCircles backed him on it. If that hadn't happened, it's fairly likely that he would have been lynched for refusing to claim.
I've already stated why, having claimed vanilla town, refusing to name claim doesn't really make him much more likely to be scum. Nice jab at CC, by the way.
Quote from Cyan »
Lastly, you can't expect me to feel alot of sympathy when you want to twist the term Ad Hominem away from what it ACTUALLY means to fit what you WANT it to mean. I said that my attack on him is not Ad Hom, and provided logical reasoning(in the definition of the term itself), as to why my statement is correct. Saying 'screw dictionary.com' or 'we're not using this definition' as a rebuttal to that is absurd.
No, it is you who is twisting, here. You are using a narrow definition of ad hominem to try to qualify your jibes as being based in logic, or "common sense." Attacking all of a person's ideas as being stupid and senseless, rather than addressing and debunking them logically, is no better than attacking the person himself as being stupid and senseless.
Good morning everyone (at least for me). I'm going to be going over the thread now to answer ZDS's question about what made me think both he and Cyan were town. Although, for the moment, I'm going to do something I know you all probably never expected from me. Unvote: Sutherlands, Vote: silicon. I just think that his failure to post a more "meaty" post like he said he would (especially given I think he's had two days now to which he said he would have it within one day).
I said I would only be moving my vote if something more scummy happened, and this is definitely it.
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.
Alright, my reasons for thinking that both ZDS and Cyan are the most likely to be town at this point:
1) This one is total WIFOM, but I still think it bears mentioning. They have been two of the most active posters in this game.
2) In post 118, Cyan mentions (correctly) that the ZDS bandwaggon is moving quite quickly for the only stuff really against him at that point is that he posts a lot.
3) In the entire deck fiasco, ZDS was of the sound mind and body to ask the mod to clarify about the "deck on the table"
4) As far as I've been able to tell, ZDS and Cyan have answered all points against them
5) When it looked like Sutherlands was going to be lynched and was refusing to claim, ZDS posted this:
Quote from ZDS »
Suthie, at the very least, even if you believe your claim will not save you, take your chance and make it so that we don't have to lynch you for using Archetypal Mafia Behaviour™. Not doing so will significantly shorten the day (obv.), which will probably help the mafia much more than knowing your role, not to mention that, anyway, your role will be known*if you die, so by not claiming, you are doing the town a huge DISSERVICE !
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.
@ZDS: Even though you treat posting a lot as just that. I tend to attribute a small amount of towniness to it basically by the fact that if you are posting twice as much information as the next person, there's twice as much out there to get you called on or to slip up in, if mafia. It's not the major reason I suspect both of you are town, but it is a small contributing factor, nonetheless.
As for Cyan, I haven't had the time recently to read the most recent posts (past couple days or so). I'm hoping that tonight I'll have some time to not only read up on the most recent posts, but to also make my vote record up-to-date.
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.
Alright, I give up. I'm not going to keep harping on about Sutherlands, when clearly I'm in the minority. I stick by my viewpoint, but, obviously I can't force it on anyone, and I can't make whomever is the Vig pull the trigger. It's my opinion that Sutherlands is going to be an issue on a daily basis and inevitably get lynched, and that some of you guys are being hopelessly optimistic by thinking that he's miraculously going to start actually saying things that make sense. Time will tell. I've already put myself on the line enough to try and make people see reason, and it's clearly not happening, and I'm not willing to sacrifice myself any further. So, for now, that's that.
Nothing that Ikerr has said lately has made me any more confident than I was when I voted him in the first place. Just the opposite, in fact. Unvote Sutherlands, Vote Ikerr
On an unrelated note, Arimnaes, I wasn't trying to take a jab at CC at all.
But you argued repeatedly that it was the result that would make someone suspicious, not the activity. So, your reasoning is that you can't be scum because you are behaving in a suspicious way?
No, my reasoning is that the person in question can't be scum because they are behaving in a way that will get them inspected.
Sure, it's magically possible that, all of a sudden, he will stop promoting ridiculous ideas that have no basis and stop seeing conspiracy theories in everyone that actively speaks out against him.
THIS RIGHT HERE. This is not logic, you are dismissing what I say because points the finger at you and treigit. Treigit has started not misattributing me, but you.. you have not. You have not answered my accusations, and instead you ignore them, touting them as "conspiracy theories".
It doesn't matter that he's town. If he doesn't die today, one of the following is virtually guaranteed to happen: A)We will simply lynch him later, because every time he posts anything that is not just a response to an attack on him(and sometimes even then), someone calls him on it and he ends up getting a bunch of votes. This is only worsened by the fact that, chances are, the mafia is not going to kill him because they'll just be able to use this to their advantage later. Or, B)someone will waste an investigation on him and determine his actual alignment and we'll act accordingly. Except that, if 'act accordingly' means 'leave him alive', then we will still have to deal with his ridiculous notions every time he puts them forth,. This is more of a detriment to the town, especially since we're on Day 1, than just killing him and being done with it. Does losing a townie hurt the town? By technical standards, yes. But in this case, it is worth that loss.
This whole paragraph, as other people have said, has absolutely no logic in it. You're simply appealing to emotion. I don't think a townie would try to get another townie lynched because of the reasons you state.
As stated previously, please provide even ONE example of an idea that he has put forth that actually made sense, or that was even remotely plausible enough that it was worth further discussion.
How about the idea that you are scum? Yeah... that's a good one.
Lastly, you can't expect me to feel alot of sympathy when you want to twist the term Ad Hominem away from what it ACTUALLY means to fit what you WANT it to mean. I said that my attack on him is not Ad Hom, and provided logical reasoning(in the definition of the term itself), as to why my statement is correct. Saying 'screw dictionary.com' or 'we're not using this definition' as a rebuttal to that is absurd.
No one is twisting what it means except you. You are not appealing to logic, you are just saying that nothing I say is worth anything. That's an ad hom. Why? Because you're attacking my credibility, you're not attacking the argument. Oh, and simply saying "it's not worth discussing" is not attacking the argument. Sorry.
Alright, I give up. I'm not going to keep harping on about Sutherlands, when clearly I'm in the minority. I stick by my viewpoint, but, obviously I can't force it on anyone, and I can't make whomever is the Vig pull the trigger. It's my opinion that Sutherlands is going to be an issue on a daily basis and inevitably get lynched, and that some of you guys are being hopelessly optimistic by thinking that he's miraculously going to start actually saying things that make sense. Time will tell. I've already put myself on the line enough to try and make people see reason, and it's clearly not happening, and I'm not willing to sacrifice myself any further. So, for now, that's that.
Or maybe I already have, and you're one of the few that doesn't see that because you don't want to.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
Just so everyone knows. . . I am going out of town to see my son. I will be checking the thread fairly regularly. I will be out of the loop for the better part of Saturday and likely all day Sunday. The next time, after that, that I check the game state, I will likely set a deadline. I do not like to do this, but as I stated before, this game will be fast-paced as it is unfair for the other people on the hosting lists for this game to drag too long.
On that note, I will review the activity in the thread and determine which players need prodded and send all necessary prods. Thanks for helping me keep on top of these things.
Wow, I didn't think I'd be doing this, but Unvote Sutherlands (I did it before, but it wasn't counted. If Permavote is a game mechanic, would you let us know?)Vote Cyan. I'm really not liking what I've seen from him recently.
Sutherland, I'm still not letting you off the hook, and I still would like some specifics answered. Please explain what specifically from ZDS and Cyan (and misattributed MJM posts) made you think they were faking their disagreement. You're not trying to convince me that they are scum. You're trying to convince me that you had a reason to believe they were scum.
Alright, I'm kinda out of the loop here. In light of the fairly imminent deadline, I'm going out on a limb and will Vote Ikerr, mostly for post 459. It seems like targetting six people on day 1 is doing too much (like my criticism of Loran in Seinfeld, attacking that many people isn't very townish).
List of people I've posted suspicions of: AbbeyGargoyle, Loran16, ZeDorkSlipeur, Sutherlands, Fayul, Passdog.
List of people I haven't: SorryGuy, Jobie, WhytePanther, kops723, KeeperEUSC, Good&Evil, Matjoeman, atlseal, Crippled_Fist, silicon, Cyan, CropCircles, Axelrod, Treigit, arimnaes, Xyre, Hvirfilvindr.
Thats 6:17. I don't think the evidance supports that I've been spreading around suspicion whereever possible. (These lists were done by memory, please don't shoot me if I missed one or two).
As others have stated, that is a pretty wide range. And most of those were from the very early part of the game. You state that you were early to point out Loran and Fayul, but the problem I see with it is not only did you do that, you hit both of them in the same post as you voted Sutherlands. That post wasn't suspicious just because of your Sutherlands vote.
So basically, I'm agreeing with Xyre here. My other problem with you is that since the business about the early switched vote, you've only really shown up to defend yourself, and have made very few points about what others have done after you voted Sutherlands.
I think that what is most telling is the manner in which you tried to aim suspicion at the people, and also, the people themselves. ZDS and Sutherlands is understandable(well, ZDS would be, if not for the sheer scumminess of that vote itself), and Fayul somewhat...but Abbey, Loran, and Passdog? There's absolutely no basis there, and I don't even really remember you providing adequate analysis for why you were suspicious of them to begin with.
I am frightened at the possibility that Sutherlands might live and never be confirmed by anything. His entire style is very much OMGUS. This may be the same point that some other people have made, but with one Cop down he may never be "clear." And if he's not mafia, the mafia will never kill him. The town could be looking at a big fat unknown for the entire rest of the game who's style is totally attacking everyone who attacks him. This, I know from experience, is not necessarily a scummy thing. But it sure isn't helpful.
I'm not saying I think he's scum. But I sure don't get a "townie" vibe from him either. The best thing I can say about him is that he actually stuck to not claiming his Card in the face of heavy criticism. That would be a fairly sophisticated gambit for a scum, imo. (either you'd have to be a really stupid mafia or a really smart one if you know what I mean). But I can't remember seeing anyone refuse like that. Closest might have been Hawkeye7 in Trek and he was town.
Quote from loran »
i just moved back into Duke (the better Carolina school :-P),
I missed this too. I will enjoy watching Duke lose this year.
Quote from ZDS »
This is the same with Sutherlands. Wonder why he never answered to Treigit ? Because he did not see Treigit's question in the first place. He was so certain he had written one thing, he did not realize he had in fact written something else. Sutherlands had his own theory of what was said. He saw penises where there were vaginas.
Funniest statement in this thread.
So then Cyan basically goes ballistic against Sutherlands. People get on Cyan for going over the top, and Cyan backs down. Hmmm.
I think I'd rather break out of the pack at this point. Someone I haven't cared for most of the game and who hasn't really attracted any attention:
Vote: Good & Evil
I don't have time to justify this, but I promise to do so by tomorrow.
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.
I don't think you were attacking me, so I don't mean this defensively, but, I will explain my decision to back down a little more.
It seemed apparent that no one actively participating in that conversation was agreeing with what I had to say, and the argument didn't seem to be gaining new ground either(by which I mean, the same things were being said over and over, to the point that we were arguing semantics over the term Ad Hominem). I thought about it, and realized that, if I'm right, this situation is going to rear it's head again tomorrow or the next day, and hopefully by that point people will be view the situation differently. If I'm wrong and Sutherlands magically becomes a real player in this game, instead of just bandwagoning what everyone else says in his defense with a little 'Bad Mafia Theory 101' on the side, then, that's obviously fine as well. Either way, it's not going to hurt me any personally, but continuing as I was going was quickly becoming a waste of time, and a frustrating one at that, and I actively try to avoid any kind of emotional response(s). None of this is to say that I've changed my mind about Sutherlands in the slightest, because I haven't. But, there's nothing that I can directly do about it, beyond what I've done already, and that obviously didn't work. The productive decision seemed to be to move onto someone else.
I do think that Treigit's attempt to bail out of holding the same stance as I do was interesting, since he basically just switched to the person most under pressure right then(me) so that he could get away from a viewpoint that people clearly disagreed with. Or at least, that was the impression that I got.
One should vig a player because they think that the player has nothing more to add (content or ability wise),
This stuck out to me. I'm sorry to say it but any living townie has content to add, mostly because they have the power of vote. Losing this because the vig "decides they have nothing more to add" is a stupid move for the vig.
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)
Sorry for not posting later on the other day, but I don't have much time, and the little I do have is being spent catching up on all the new posts in both games that I'm in.
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).
Please don't misquote me. I never promised a long post, I promised a post with content, and I delivered a small post with content. A 'bandwagon unvote'? I'm sorry I thought I actually gave a reason, oh wait, I did, you just skipped over it and went onto a slightly related topic, and took that as my reasoning. Just in case you're wondering, I'll post an overview of my vote on sutherlands:
1) random voted him
2) didn't like the way he was posting, so I kept my vote on him
3) after finally catching up on the thread, I unvoted him because his posting had improved, and I was no longer sensing scum from him.
As for my views on other subjects:
Vigging (in general, not just night 1): I've always believed that vigilantes should only fire if they are pretty darn sure that they will be hitting scum, and that they shouldn't fire randomly. Here is no exception.
Fayul - eh, keeping an eye on her. Can't really say anything else.
Ikerr - definately interesting, and I think it would be good to pressure him, and to that end I will vote Ikerr
other players who have aroused my suspicions: Most notibly are Cyan and Treigit, from their fairly recent posts. Sutherlands has not completely gone off my scumdar either. Another player that has been pinging my scumdar very slightly is atleseal, but the only reason he is is that I've never seen him play before and he seems to be almost too townish right now.
Ikerr already has 8(or possibly 9) votes without yours. I don't think you can play the 'vote for pressure' card and have it be applicable when the person is already under plenty of pressure and when your vote isn't going to change that amount of pressure. Just seems like you're trying to get onto his bandwagon with an appropriate reason, and instead are using the #1 bandwagonning reason this game.(Aside: Seriously, I've never seen the excuse 'vote for pressure' used so much, so early in a game..just because it's generally an accepted, if not great, reason for voting doesn't mean that it's not suspicious when people keep using it as an excuse). I won't even pretend to understand how someone can seem 'too townish'. Also, silicon, you say that you're keeping an eye on Fayul..why?
Ikerr already has 8(or possibly 9) votes without yours. I don't think you can play the 'vote for pressure' card and have it be applicable when the person is already under plenty of pressure and when your vote isn't going to change that amount of pressure. Just seems like you're trying to get onto his bandwagon with an appropriate reason, and instead are using the #1 bandwagonning reason this game.(Aside: Seriously, I've never seen the excuse 'vote for pressure' used so much, so early in a game..just because it's generally an accepted, if not great, reason for voting doesn't mean that it's not suspicious when people keep using it as an excuse). I won't even pretend to understand how someone can seem 'too townish'. Also, silicon, you say that you're keeping an eye on Fayul..why?
Ikerr has 8 votes with mine, I wouldn't say that halfway to a lynch is 'plenty' of pressure. As to why I'm keeping an eye on Fayul, do you really have to ask? And as to the 'too townish' thing perhaps I worded that poorly. He's doing so much to seem like town, that it raises my suspicion.
I only want(ed) the Vig to fire if Sutherlands is the target. I changed my mind because I read back through his stuff and decided..everything that I already explained and people decided to dismiss.
@Silicon: It's 9 votes with yours, which isn't really that important. It's the 'pressure' vote reasoning that I find suspicious, when adding a vote at that point(unless it's the vote that forces a claim) doesn't add any pressure at all. Also, I wouldn't have asked about Fayul if I didn't want you to answer. I see what you're saying about atlseall, though I don't agree. Could you provide some examples of what you mean?
After prodding, KeeperEUSC has asked to be replaced. I have sent a PM to chamber. I will not impose a deadline as long as there is an empty slot in the game.
Page 34 vote count - replacement special (With 24 alive, it takes 13 to lynch)
It's ridiculous that we're not even 2 weeks into this game and 4 people will have been replaced now. Not trying to say anything against you, LJustus, just that it's woefully irresponsible of the people that are seeking replacement to have signed up for a game and then just bail on it almost immediately.
Both Whyte_Panther and Good&Evil reacted to that post I pulled up and switched their votes to Ikerr.
Quote from Xyre »
Alright, I'm kinda out of the loop here. In light of the fairly imminent deadline, I'm going out on a limb and will Vote Ikerr, mostly for post 459. It seems like targetting six people on day 1 is doing too much (like my criticism of Loran in Seinfeld, attacking that many people isn't very townish).
As others have stated, that is a pretty wide range. And most of those were from the very early part of the game. You state that you were early to point out Loran and Fayul, but the problem I see with it is not only did you do that, you hit both of them in the same post as you voted Sutherlands. That post wasn't suspicious just because of your Sutherlands vote.
So basically, I'm agreeing with Xyre here. My other problem with you is that since the business about the early switched vote, you've only really shown up to defend yourself, and have made very few points about what others have done after you voted Sutherlands.
Unvote Fayul, Vote Ikerr.
Here are their posts. Incidentally, G&E's post was quoting this by Ikerr, which has formed the basis for the wagon:
Quote from Ikerr post 459 »
List of people I've posted suspicions of: AbbeyGargoyle, Loran16, ZeDorkSlipeur, Sutherlands, Fayul, Passdog.
List of people I haven't: SorryGuy, Jobie, WhytePanther, kops723, KeeperEUSC, Good&Evil, Matjoeman, atlseal, Crippled_Fist, silicon, Cyan, CropCircles, Axelrod, Treigit, arimnaes, Xyre, Hvirfilvindr.
Thats 6:17. I don't think the evidance supports that I've been spreading around suspicion whereever possible. (These lists were done by memory, please don't shoot me if I missed one or two).
I see what you mean. I think that G&E's post is suspicious there, but, I know that this is G&E's like 2nd game of mafia ever(his first being newb 9 which just ended, where he almost didn't claim cop before getting lynched because he thought that people wouldn't believe him..), so, I'm willing to give him a little leeway. I don't think that playing a specialty game as your 2nd game ever is a great idea, but, that's a different story.
Because of the way he explains it, I don't see anything wrong w/ WP's post.
I just LOVE how cyan has switched his vote back to the other possible bandwagonee reluctantly. Not suspicous at all!*end sarcasm*
Okay ikerr, i think its claiming time. Name and Role Claim please.
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.
You mean the bandwagon that I was the first person to vote for, and maintained suspicious against (him) all throughout switching back to Sutherlands?
Why yes! Maintaining suspicon toward both bandwagon targets and switching between them? Doesn't sound scummy at all! (*Rolls eyes*)
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.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
How is it not an accurate portrayal of what happened? One minute, you were sipporting the theory that ZDS and I were both mafia and 'fighting with each other' in order to 'distance ourselves from each other so that if one of us got lynched the other would look better'. This is not supposition, those are your exact words. Then, in the same post, you also put forth the theory, again word for word, that I went out of my way to defend ZDS and try to make his wagon fall apart. You also state that I use logic to do so, in a manner that implies that using logic is a BAD thing, when in fact, logic is the #1 tool that a townie has available to them. So no, I am not misrepresenting you now, nor have I ever. But now in particular, I am providing examples for you using your exact words. I don't have to infer anything, nor worry that you're just supposedly not saying what you mean again. I used your exact statements for my analysis.
A)It is absolutely not an 'appeal to emotion'. It is a logical assertation that you staying alive is a liability for the town, and as such, should not happen. Please explain where any emotion is involved. Furthermore, it seems that you don't know what Ad Hominem' means, even though someone has already been over this with you once. For this to be Ad-Hom, I would have to have stated something along the lines of 'Sutherlands is an idiot, and as such, we should not listen to what he said'. What I said was:
This is not Ad-Hom. If anything, it is a statement of reality, because nothing that you have said so far has been of benefit to the town..we've wasted countless days now dealing with a bunch of theories, put for by you, that were obviously faulty in the first place.
The Vig killing you is not a waste, in my opinion, at all. As I said previously, I went back and forth on you being mafia for awhile, but as of right now, I'm fairly confident that you are in fact scum. But it doesn't matter. Even if you're not scum, you are enough of a liability, in my mind, that you should be removed.
Lastly, you're right, the theories that you tried to just attack the people with the most votes and the 2 latest people to bring cases against you do, in fact, have as much merit as my theory that you meant exactly what you said. 'As much merit' being ample amounts, of course.
Also, I see that you have managed to make yet another post without providing Treigit any of the examples/evidence that he has requested from you. I wonder why that is, exactly.
You said
But if you want to attack that part of the wording of my argument, I don't care, it's not vital.
I'm willing to disregard Axelrod's unvote from this process, because he didn't say a whole lot the unvote at the time, or since (however, it would be nice to hear from him on the topic again, or any topic really). I assume you're not talking about me being one of those 2/3 people. I've conceeded Silicon in this argument, and that leaves ZDS, who has said in post 434 that he still thinks you are suspicious, although perhaps not as much as before. I don't feel it's fair to include Cyan in your list of who beleives you are town, because he's both voting for you again, and he's said recently that he's not really sure if you're town or not. Treigit's vote is not actually on you at this point (his unvote in 298 seems to not have been counted, unless Perma-vote actually IS a game mechanic), but he has stated that not only does he want you lynched, but he specifically wants to be the last vote in doing so just incase.
EWP: atlseal has made a good point about silicon's lack of posting. It seems to me there might be a few other people in need of a prod as well, KeeperEUSC comes to mind. I'll double check and post again.
Mod Prod: KeeperEUSC and CropCircles. SorryGuy is pretty close to needing one as well.
As long as you understand that I'm not necessarily saying it's for "good play" but rather not looking like scum.
Both ZDS and Cyan at one point said that they didn't believe I was scum.
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
Here's my actual post.
I can't find it either, and honestly after looking through the posts again, I think most of it was because I misattributed the MJM to ZDS. After that:
And then Cyan starts to defend ZDS.
I'm not trying to be. Honestly, sensing someone's attitude can't necessarily be summed up in one post, but I'll give a few.
245 is good, then in 413 and 418 he actually opens his mind as opposed to the close-minded "lynch Sutherlands" of Cyan.
They are only mutually exclusive in the fact that only one can happen at a time. They are not mutually exclusive in truth (ie, if one is true, the other can still be true). The person who is suspicious, who has been trying to get people to wagon, is suspicious, and thus likely for a cop (or also a vig).
No, first of "fighting with each other" is not a quote, at least not from that post. Where is this "again word for word" because you don't use any words from that post except "distance ourselves from each other so that if one of us got lynched the other would look better". The manner I said that you used logic was in fact, not implying that it was a bad thing. Instead I was trying to show that you didn't "want to say [you] thinks well of [ZDS]." (That actually is an exact quote.)
You are saying my arguments aren't credible, whereas a lot of the town has said (or at least the vocal part) has said you are either 1) Wrong 2) Scum, or 3) Grasping at straws... even if they think that I am scum! When you can't get the people who agree with you to agree with you, that's saying something.
No, it is not a statement of reality, it is an attack on my character. Saying I am not credible and that I am worthless to the town. Whereas not only can some people actually agree with the points that I'm making, but I'm making quite a bit of discussion.
Yes, you did go back and forth quite a bit. Also, I think most people would agree that trying to get the vig to kill a townie is detrimental to the town, no matter who the townie is.
I think you misunderstand the meaning of ample to be "look at me I'm making stuff up"
Yes, in fact that is because AS I SAID IN MY POST, my next post was going to address that.
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
(I also wanted the Post/Posts that cleared ZDS for you.)
Yes, but you were suspicious of them before the defense started. Why?
K
But you argued repeatedly that it was the result that would make someone suspicious, not the activity. So, your reasoning is that you can't be scum because you are behaving in a suspicious way?
It would, indeed, be nice. One day, I hope to be able to satisfy. But (as Viggo said) it is not this day.
Oh okay, you're right, you didn't say 'fighting'. First you said arguing, then you said 'oh I mean trying to create tension between each other'. Both of which, for the intent and purpose of mafia, are fighting. Also, you were clearly implying that my use of logic was a bad thing, because you were using it as an example to justify your suspicion of me.
Whether or not the town agrees with me has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not your arguments are credible. Do you see anyone saying that you are credible? No. In fact, the only other people that has commented directly on that aspect(WhytePanther) agreed that you're not credible.
It is not an 'attack on your character'. Nowhere do I slight you, personally, in any fashion. I speak only of your role/performance in this game, and the statements that I make are valid. And I never said that you don't make alot of discussion. Just the opposite, I said flatly that you make too much discussion, none of which ends up actually mattering at all.
Your idea of 'detrimental to the town' is too basic, it would seem. You could use to read up on some games, also. MD has been lynched multiple times for essentially no reason other than his personality, and Magician of Thought gets vigged or lynched on a regular basis because his idea of playing a game of mafia is to, basically, only post when he is prodded by the Mod to do so, and even then his content contribution is non-existent. Please note that I'm not comparing you to either of them, simply using them as examples to illustrate why I think that you need to study up on what exactly is/is not 'detrimental to the town'. Your behavior in this game is far more 'detrimental to the town' than anything else so far.
I double checked it again, CC hasn't posted on this thread in a little over 2 days. I do see however that he has posted on another game in the search. And a few of us are still waiting on his comments on the Fayul case.
What I'm asking is that you go back and read their wagons objectively, to see that my feelings weren't so off-base.
The vote in question is mine on ZDS, not on Sutherlands. I know that you or Fayul never really had wagons on you, I am just using that word for lack of a better term.
The quote with my ZDS vote was implying it was for responses. I didn't want to belittle my own vote by saying that it was just for pressure and would be removed if he got anywhere near a lynch.
List of people I've posted suspicions of: AbbeyGargoyle, Loran16, ZeDorkSlipeur, Sutherlands, Fayul, Passdog.
List of people I haven't: SorryGuy, Jobie, WhytePanther, kops723, KeeperEUSC, Good&Evil, Matjoeman, atlseal, Crippled_Fist, silicon, Cyan, CropCircles, Axelrod, Treigit, arimnaes, Xyre, Hvirfilvindr.
Thats 6:17. I don't think the evidance supports that I've been spreading around suspicion whereever possible. (These lists were done by memory, please don't shoot me if I missed one or two).
Two wagons isn't a large enough sample size for this to be an important point.
A) I can't deny that I did something to bring this attention to myself.
B) The only emotional content I have added has been in my more recent posts. I am sorry, but I am human and can't always keep my emotions out of my posts. I will try harder to keep them out.
IIRC, I was one of the first, if not the first to put suspicion on loran16, and I think I was the first to question Fayul on his case on CropCircles, if you consider that as casting suspicion (I was being a little generous on that list).
Hey! I did the first PBPA on ikerr! (*Grumbles about not getting credit * :-P)
Meanwhile, Cyan is seeming really really scummy in my eyes. Statements like this:
which are clearly ad homs, just show how really bad his case on sutherlands is. For god sakes, he even denies that's an ad hom! Meanwhile his whole case on suth seems just to be based on sutherland's reactions flailing about.
I'm sooo close to switching to voting Cyan at this point (I'm voting ikerr), cuz his actions in this matter do not say "townie" to me.
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
ad ho‧mi‧nem /ɑd ˈhoʊmɪˌnɛm; Eng. æd ˈhɒmənəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ahd hoh-mi-nem; Eng. ad hom-uh-nuhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
Latin. 1.appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason. 2.attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.
For those of you that insist this is the case, please provide an example of where I A)appealed to anyone's emotions, instead of their intellect or reason, or B)attacked Sutherlands character, instead of his arguments. Saying that everything that Sutherlands says/has said so far is not worth consideration is not an attack on his character, it is the truth. Can you cite one example of an idea that he has put forth, or even a response to someone else's idea, that was even remotely logical or worth pursuing further? I doubt it.
Lets see... what's wrong with these statements?
1) You should care that he could be town. It's why there would be risk in vigging him.
2) Nothing that he says is credible or worth consideration... to you. Not to the whole town.
3) Like any other vanilla, he is most definitely of use to the town. He counts against the mafia win condition, and he contributes to discussion (or at least to generating it.)
I'm not saying he's definitely town, but the reasons you've presented for vigging him are terrible. Whether this stems from emotion or scummy intent I'm not yet certain.
Preview Edit: Ah, something else from Cyan worth disecting.
Clearly you're appealing to something other than logic if you're saying "I don't care if Sutherlands is town, he just needs to die." You're inciting people to support his vigging on the basis that you don't like him.
Saying that everything Sutherlands says is not worth consideration is not exactly an attack on his character, but it is an ad hominem (screw dictionary.com.) You not logically deconstructing his arguments, you are saying "This guy's dumb/erratic/useless, we shouldn't listen to anything he says." Which precludes ANY consideration of his ideas in future, regardless of their actual merit.
If I had my way, we'd be lynching ikerr today (but you all already knew that.) I don't think we should be vigging, this early. By killing off people we see as scummy this early, we have a much greater chance of being wrong than right, and we lose any discussion we might have generated from a wagon on them. I prefer to sit on the vig ability until we have more information and better targets. Aggressive vigging sometimes wins games (See: ROTK Mafia), but it often just gives the scum extra kills and makes it harder for the town to win (See: Random 2 and High School Mafia.)
So, even though I see Cyan as the second most scummy player (after ikerr, of course), I would not support his vigging. Or anyone else's, for that matter.
Ah, but don't forget: yours was apparently not "a proper case."
To speak on something directly:
It doesn't matter that he's town. If he doesn't die today, one of the following is virtually guaranteed to happen: A)We will simply lynch him later, because every time he posts anything that is not just a response to an attack on him(and sometimes even then), someone calls him on it and he ends up getting a bunch of votes. This is only worsened by the fact that, chances are, the mafia is not going to kill him because they'll just be able to use this to their advantage later. Or, B)someone will waste an investigation on him and determine his actual alignment and we'll act accordingly. Except that, if 'act accordingly' means 'leave him alive', then we will still have to deal with his ridiculous notions every time he puts them forth,. This is more of a detriment to the town, especially since we're on Day 1, than just killing him and being done with it. Does losing a townie hurt the town? By technical standards, yes. But in this case, it is worth that loss.
2) Nothing that he says is credible or worth consideration... to you. Not to the whole town.[/QUOTE]
As stated previously, please provide even ONE example of an idea that he has put forth that actually made sense, or that was even remotely plausible enough that it was worth further discussion.
The SK counts against the mafia win condition, does that mean he should stay alive? I doubt it. Why? Because his continued survival is detrimental to the town. Obviously in that case it's more cut and dry, as the SK has an anti-town agenda. But, can you provide an example of how Sutherlands continued existence could possibly benefit the town?
If some of you think this mentality is scummy, that's unfortunate. It's not unexpected, because people always want to mistakenly associate aggressive play in mafia as scummy behavior. If what you're saying, as far as Vigging, is correct, then a Vig should almost never fire. But this is obviously not the case. Vigs fire on a constant, practically nightly, basis. It is not unreasonable for me to want Sutherlands to get vigged today. He is still one of the game's scummiest players. He was, at one point, at 11 votes, and refused to claim, and luckily got away with it because CropCircles backed him on it. If that hadn't happened, it's fairly likely that he would have been lynched for refusing to claim.
EBWODP:
Lastly, you can't expect me to feel alot of sympathy when you want to twist the term Ad Hominem away from what it ACTUALLY means to fit what you WANT it to mean. I said that my attack on him is not Ad Hom, and provided logical reasoning(in the definition of the term itself), as to why my statement is correct. Saying 'screw dictionary.com' or 'we're not using this definition' as a rebuttal to that is absurd.
And once again, you're dismissing out of hand the possibility that he will ever contribute anything useful, which is foolish and shortsighted. Not to mention that even if he never contributed anything useful, it wouldn't make him a good vig target.
No, it's really, really not. It is not a detriment to the town, though it is perhaps a detriment to you since you seem to harbor such intense personal dislike for him.
An investigation on him, while likely not advisable at this point, would not be a waste. I'm not what brought you to that conclusion.
Yet again you're decrying everything he has posted and will ever post as "ridiculous notions."
Okay. I'll dig some up the next time I reread, which should be later today when I reexamine your play this game.
Blatant, ridiculous hyperbole. Likening a townie Sutherlands to a serial killer in terms of detriment to the town is like comparing overeating to shooting yourself in the head in terms of detriment to one's health. The SK, as you say, has an anti-town agenda as well as a nightkill. Sutherlands, if he's town, has a pro-town agenda and the ability to annoy you with his existence. His continued existence, if nothing else, keeps the mafia from victory. That by itself is enough. And regardless of your repeated dismissal of him, he can and will contribute to discussion.
What you're advocating is not aggressive play. It is, no offense meant, stupid play. As in, play that is bad for the town. You've said you "don't care whether he's town or not," you just want his blood because you dislike him and you think he's not contributing positively.
THEY DO NOT. At least, they should not. A vig who fires on a nightly basis is a trigger-happy moron who will lose the game for the town. They are, for all extents and purposes, well-intentioned serial killers, accelerating the game, limiting discussion, and bringing the mafia win closer, faster. Because, the plain, hard, fact of the matter is that we as a town have very little idea so far of who is mafia and who is not. All we have to go on right now is one day of discussion, where we don't yet know anyone's alignment. Which means the chances of a vig's intuition being accurate enough to start pegging scum are very, very small.
Obviously I disagree with you about how scummy he is, but that's not even my main issue, here. What you're advocating is not even the vig firing at suspected scum, you're arguing he should fire at people because you think the quality of their ideas is poor.
I've already stated why, having claimed vanilla town, refusing to name claim doesn't really make him much more likely to be scum. Nice jab at CC, by the way.
No, it is you who is twisting, here. You are using a narrow definition of ad hominem to try to qualify your jibes as being based in logic, or "common sense." Attacking all of a person's ideas as being stupid and senseless, rather than addressing and debunking them logically, is no better than attacking the person himself as being stupid and senseless.
I said I would only be moving my vote if something more scummy happened, and this is definitely it.
Alright, my reasons for thinking that both ZDS and Cyan are the most likely to be town at this point:
1) This one is total WIFOM, but I still think it bears mentioning. They have been two of the most active posters in this game.
2) In post 118, Cyan mentions (correctly) that the ZDS bandwaggon is moving quite quickly for the only stuff really against him at that point is that he posts a lot.
3) In the entire deck fiasco, ZDS was of the sound mind and body to ask the mod to clarify about the "deck on the table"
4) As far as I've been able to tell, ZDS and Cyan have answered all points against them
5) When it looked like Sutherlands was going to be lynched and was refusing to claim, ZDS posted this:
Benalish Hero?
As for Cyan, I haven't had the time recently to read the most recent posts (past couple days or so). I'm hoping that tonight I'll have some time to not only read up on the most recent posts, but to also make my vote record up-to-date.
Nothing that Ikerr has said lately has made me any more confident than I was when I voted him in the first place. Just the opposite, in fact. Unvote Sutherlands, Vote Ikerr
On an unrelated note, Arimnaes, I wasn't trying to take a jab at CC at all.
I think 110 and 111
No, my reasoning is that the person in question can't be scum because they are behaving in a way that will get them inspected.
THIS RIGHT HERE. This is not logic, you are dismissing what I say because points the finger at you and treigit. Treigit has started not misattributing me, but you.. you have not. You have not answered my accusations, and instead you ignore them, touting them as "conspiracy theories".
Once again, that's not what I said, so I would really appreciate it if you would quit lying about me.
To speak on something directly:
This whole paragraph, as other people have said, has absolutely no logic in it. You're simply appealing to emotion. I don't think a townie would try to get another townie lynched because of the reasons you state.
How about the idea that you are scum? Yeah... that's a good one.
No one is twisting what it means except you. You are not appealing to logic, you are just saying that nothing I say is worth anything. That's an ad hom. Why? Because you're attacking my credibility, you're not attacking the argument. Oh, and simply saying "it's not worth discussing" is not attacking the argument. Sorry.
Or maybe I already have, and you're one of the few that doesn't see that because you don't want to.
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
(With 24 alive, it takes 13 to lynch)
Sutherlands (5) - Matjoeman, Treigit, ikerr, Good&Evil, Jobie
CropCircles (1) - Fayul
ikerr (6) - Sutherlands, arimnaes, loran16, AbbeyGargoyle, ZeDorkSlipeur, Cyan
Fayul (3) - Crippled_Fist, CropCircles, WhytePanther
Cyan (1) - Passdog
silicon (2) - kops723, atleseal
Just so everyone knows. . . I am going out of town to see my son. I will be checking the thread fairly regularly. I will be out of the loop for the better part of Saturday and likely all day Sunday. The next time, after that, that I check the game state, I will likely set a deadline. I do not like to do this, but as I stated before, this game will be fast-paced as it is unfair for the other people on the hosting lists for this game to drag too long.
On that note, I will review the activity in the thread and determine which players need prodded and send all necessary prods. Thanks for helping me keep on top of these things.
Sutherland, I'm still not letting you off the hook, and I still would like some specifics answered. Please explain what specifically from ZDS and Cyan (and misattributed MJM posts) made you think they were faking their disagreement. You're not trying to convince me that they are scum. You're trying to convince me that you had a reason to believe they were scum.
More latter, back to work.
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
As others have stated, that is a pretty wide range. And most of those were from the very early part of the game. You state that you were early to point out Loran and Fayul, but the problem I see with it is not only did you do that, you hit both of them in the same post as you voted Sutherlands. That post wasn't suspicious just because of your Sutherlands vote.
So basically, I'm agreeing with Xyre here. My other problem with you is that since the business about the early switched vote, you've only really shown up to defend yourself, and have made very few points about what others have done after you voted Sutherlands.
Unvote Fayul, Vote Ikerr.
I am frightened at the possibility that Sutherlands might live and never be confirmed by anything. His entire style is very much OMGUS. This may be the same point that some other people have made, but with one Cop down he may never be "clear." And if he's not mafia, the mafia will never kill him. The town could be looking at a big fat unknown for the entire rest of the game who's style is totally attacking everyone who attacks him. This, I know from experience, is not necessarily a scummy thing. But it sure isn't helpful.
I'm not saying I think he's scum. But I sure don't get a "townie" vibe from him either. The best thing I can say about him is that he actually stuck to not claiming his Card in the face of heavy criticism. That would be a fairly sophisticated gambit for a scum, imo. (either you'd have to be a really stupid mafia or a really smart one if you know what I mean). But I can't remember seeing anyone refuse like that. Closest might have been Hawkeye7 in Trek and he was town.
I missed this too. I will enjoy watching Duke lose this year.
Funniest statement in this thread.
So then Cyan basically goes ballistic against Sutherlands. People get on Cyan for going over the top, and Cyan backs down. Hmmm.
I think I'd rather break out of the pack at this point. Someone I haven't cared for most of the game and who hasn't really attracted any attention:
Vote: Good & Evil
I don't have time to justify this, but I promise to do so by tomorrow.
It seemed apparent that no one actively participating in that conversation was agreeing with what I had to say, and the argument didn't seem to be gaining new ground either(by which I mean, the same things were being said over and over, to the point that we were arguing semantics over the term Ad Hominem). I thought about it, and realized that, if I'm right, this situation is going to rear it's head again tomorrow or the next day, and hopefully by that point people will be view the situation differently. If I'm wrong and Sutherlands magically becomes a real player in this game, instead of just bandwagoning what everyone else says in his defense with a little 'Bad Mafia Theory 101' on the side, then, that's obviously fine as well. Either way, it's not going to hurt me any personally, but continuing as I was going was quickly becoming a waste of time, and a frustrating one at that, and I actively try to avoid any kind of emotional response(s). None of this is to say that I've changed my mind about Sutherlands in the slightest, because I haven't. But, there's nothing that I can directly do about it, beyond what I've done already, and that obviously didn't work. The productive decision seemed to be to move onto someone else.
I do think that Treigit's attempt to bail out of holding the same stance as I do was interesting, since he basically just switched to the person most under pressure right then(me) so that he could get away from a viewpoint that people clearly disagreed with. Or at least, that was the impression that I got.
This stuck out to me. I'm sorry to say it but any living townie has content to add, mostly because they have the power of vote. Losing this because the vig "decides they have nothing more to add" is a stupid move for the vig.
Random Mafia 2 Town MVP
'08 MTGS Fantasy Football Overall Champion
Best Non-SK Neutral Performance (Individual)
Please don't misquote me. I never promised a long post, I promised a post with content, and I delivered a small post with content. A 'bandwagon unvote'? I'm sorry I thought I actually gave a reason, oh wait, I did, you just skipped over it and went onto a slightly related topic, and took that as my reasoning. Just in case you're wondering, I'll post an overview of my vote on sutherlands:
1) random voted him
2) didn't like the way he was posting, so I kept my vote on him
3) after finally catching up on the thread, I unvoted him because his posting had improved, and I was no longer sensing scum from him.
As for my views on other subjects:
Vigging (in general, not just night 1): I've always believed that vigilantes should only fire if they are pretty darn sure that they will be hitting scum, and that they shouldn't fire randomly. Here is no exception.
Fayul - eh, keeping an eye on her. Can't really say anything else.
Ikerr - definately interesting, and I think it would be good to pressure him, and to that end I will vote Ikerr
other players who have aroused my suspicions: Most notibly are Cyan and Treigit, from their fairly recent posts. Sutherlands has not completely gone off my scumdar either. Another player that has been pinging my scumdar very slightly is atleseal, but the only reason he is is that I've never seen him play before and he seems to be almost too townish right now.
Ikerr has 8 votes with mine, I wouldn't say that halfway to a lynch is 'plenty' of pressure. As to why I'm keeping an eye on Fayul, do you really have to ask? And as to the 'too townish' thing perhaps I worded that poorly. He's doing so much to seem like town, that it raises my suspicion.
That sure is scary!
Unvote Sutherlands (though keeping a big Fos on him), vote Ikerr
@Silicon: It's 9 votes with yours, which isn't really that important. It's the 'pressure' vote reasoning that I find suspicious, when adding a vote at that point(unless it's the vote that forces a claim) doesn't add any pressure at all. Also, I wouldn't have asked about Fayul if I didn't want you to answer. I see what you're saying about atlseall, though I don't agree. Could you provide some examples of what you mean?
Wonderful, I've started a pseudo-bandwagon.
Has Ikerr claimed yet?
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
Page 34 vote count - replacement special
(With 24 alive, it takes 13 to lynch)
Sutherlands (3) - Matjoeman, ikerr, Jobie
CropCircles (1) - Fayul
ikerr (10) - Sutherlands, arimnaes, loran16, AbbeyGargoyle, ZeDorkSlipeur, Cyan, Xyre, WhytePanther, silicon, Good&Evil
Fayul (2) - Crippled_Fist, CropCircles
Cyan (2) - Passdog, Treigit
silicon (2) - kops723, atleseal
Good&Evil (1) - Axelrod
What do you mean about a pseudo-bandwagon, Xyre?
Here are their posts. Incidentally, G&E's post was quoting this by Ikerr, which has formed the basis for the wagon:
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
Because of the way he explains it, I don't see anything wrong w/ WP's post.
Okay ikerr, i think its claiming time. Name and Role Claim please.
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
Why yes! Maintaining suspicon toward both bandwagon targets and switching between them? Doesn't sound scummy at all! (*Rolls eyes*)
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity