Zedork, it allows a person to increase any likely bandwagon faster, contributing toward shortening a day. Cyan has been doing things like posting suspicion toward Suth and voting ikerr and vice versa, which is something a scum might do to enhance the chance of a mislynch (assuming both were town).
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.
Sorry for being inactive. First week of school was rougher than it should have been, no excuse though.
At any rate ikerr sure is looking like our lynch right now. I am not going to put a vote on him just yet, but I will if it becomes nessasary. However, I would first like to hear people flesh out their cases, mainly Axelrod on G&E.
While I am interested in hearing about G&E, he has indeed seem somewhat scummy, I am more interested in Axel actually explaining anything in this game. I went ahead and reviewed his posts and he has thrown doubt on multiple players and never explained anything. Sutherlands vote and unvote with really no reasoning. Attack on passdog he later forgot about. Now G&E with no explantation. This behavior is not very town like, and not very Axel like. Whenever he explains this it is simply he does not have enough time. However, he has been making much longer posts on God Mafia. As a result I am interested in watching Axel in the future.
Why yes! Maintaining suspicon toward both bandwagon targets and switching between them? Doesn't sound scummy at all! (*Rolls eyes*)
I might agree with it being scummy, if not for the fact that I was advocating for Ikerr and Sutherlands to BOTH die today the entire time, since I find them both to be heavily scummy(in addition to what else I feel regarding Sutherlands). Also, I simply don't think that it counts as bandwagon hopping when A)they're clearly the scummiest players in the game right now anyway and especially B)I was the first person to vote Ikerr ever, before anyone else had even noticed him. That's not the behavior of a scum trying to 'just get someone lynched', because it's too noticeable. Also, 1/2 the players in this game have had votes on them by now, and I haven't voted anyone besides these two.
Seriously, I don't get the reason. It's "random" but a basis is also stated which is that ZDS appears to have an understanding of what's going on. ZDS appears to be throwing out wild speculation at this point. Is something he said actually right?
Post #16
Immediate Joke unvote. Appears chummy with ZDS.
Post #46
Speculates we might have another Cop or a reserve Cop. Speculates on the significance of Enchantments vs. Spells.
Post #48
I misread the card in the Graveyard as Giant Strength also. I didn't think it had any significance though. Kind of early to be declaring the need ro "re-read."
Post #70
Speculation about the nature of the mafia vs. the town. Nothing to speak of one way or the other.
Post #72
But here, seems to agrees with ZDS' (poor) logic that suggested that players in Newb #9, which DYH was the Mod. for, might have been more likely to target him during the Night because of his experience.
In fairness, he could simply be agreeing with the idea that Mafia are more likely to target experienced players, but ZDS was specifically suggesting players in Newb #9. And even more specifically that the SK might be from Newb #9.
Which is probably more a point against ZDS than G&E.
Post #79
Suggests mafia might be lurking. Even though the game has only been running for essentially 36 Hours.
Post #102
Defends his position to look at lurkers. Says (Pod) should point his fingers at the people who aren't posting.
Early pointing out of lurkers is slightly scummy.
Post #109
Says random voting can generate useful reactions. This can be true. Not scummy.
Post #127
Defends ZDS spamming as typical of him. Wants someone else to lay out the argument going on between Cyan and ZDS. FOS Sutherlands for no stated reason. Slightly scummy.
Post #191
Vote Sutherlands for saying he was suspicious of ZDS but bandwaggoning Ikerr, and for making many accusations but not substantiating them. I note that G&E himself does not "substantiate" the second part of this accusation.
I won't call it scummy though.
Post #220
Keeps vote on Suth bc he hasn't responded to his points. Fair.
Post #223
Picks up on a Suth hint. Asks directly about it. Fair.
Post#266
Wants Suth to claim. Fair assuming he's still suspicious, which he seems to be. But other are already asking for this too.
Post #346
Still wants Suth to claim. Seems to suggest that if Suth doesn't claim and lives the vig might kill him. Which is what some players are advocating for. So not an original thought here.
Post #407
FOS Cyan, even though he agrees with him? Somewhat scummy.
Post #492
Jumps off Suth (maintaingin the "big" FOS) and onto Ikerr. The only justifiacation given appears to be Ikerr's own statement that he has posted suspicions of (only) 6 players. Again, this is something many other people have already said.
So....
Possibly not as bad as I was remembering it being. There certainly is a lack of original thought here, and a willingness to bandwagon. A few posts I'd characterize as slightly scummy. No post of any real length or depth. The late jump onto Ikerr is highly suspect.
I don't feel like changing my vote, but at this point, with Deadline imminent, I'm also throwing my support behind an Ikerr claim sooner rather than later. Mainly because it will give us more time to evaluate it.
EWP: @SorryGuy. Um, hello Pot?
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.
A)The card in the Graveyard IS Giant Strength, NOT Giant Growth
Reading that PBPA, I agree that G&E has had some scummy posts, most of which were just shameless bandwagon-esque posts. However, it seems like he's tried to participate in the game, and it's not the typical 'bandwagon after lurking alot' play that makes me so suspicious. I guess I'm probably a little lenient with him because I played in Newb 9 as well, and if you read that game, he played the same way in it, almost got lynched, and didn't understand to claim beforehand(it was only a circumstancial comment where he told us that Salubrious was town that made us realize he was the Cop and thus not lynch him)...so I'm willing to give him the 'newb defense', plus he doesn't seem terribly scummy from that PBPA anyway. I'd be happy if he could clean up his play some, but, I don't think he seems particularly scummy right now.
I apologize for this but I might not get a content filled post in untill late tomorrow, I was hoping to read and post today but it doesn't look like I'll finish reading in time to post, and tomorrow I need to go out for most of the morning/afternoon.
Phesw, I was finally able to catch up on the thread now. What a read, I must say. Now, for your regularly scheduled content:
I’m willing to drop my vote on silicon for now Unvote: silicon. However, I’m still watching because when he jumped on the ikerr wagon, he misquoted the vote count by one, and when getting this close to a lynch, 1 vote can make all the difference in the world. Honestly, I still think ikerr has been acting scummy all game. His explanations leave much to be desired. However, with him this close to a lynch, I’m not going to vote until he gets a chance to speak.
Just one quick side note:
@silicon: Would you mind saying how I’m trying to be too much like town? This is more of an academic curiosity than anything else.
It is nice to see that everyone has decided to calm down for the moment and we’ve progressed back into civilized conversation. Just in case anyone is wondering where my suspicions stand at the moment:
(in order):
Sutherlands == ikerr (they are tied at the moment), silicon, ……………….. Fayul (I just don’t have much to go by with her)
Here’s hoping that we can resolve ikerr’s case, for better or for worse, before a time restriction becomes a contributing factor.
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.
Just one quick side note:
@silicon: Would you mind saying how I’m trying to be too much like town? This is more of an academic curiosity than anything else.
I thought I had explained this more clearly than I obviously have. You seem to be doing everything possible to look like town - vote record, keeping stuff straight, filing all the papers, polishing Axel's shoes, etc. This behaviour, while not bad, makes me suspicious, and having never seen you play before, it makes me a bit more suspicious that you could be a new scum trying too hard to be town. Nothing concrete of course, just a small ping on the scumdar.
Oh and looking back I did indeed miss one vote, and I apologize for that (curse your font Xyre :p), however I do still stand by my vote on ikerr.
I gave my rationale. CCi s staying out of random conversation, inserting himself only to give big analyses while staying out of the trenches, trying to direct the town while staying out of the spotlight. That's somewhat scummy behavior, and on day 1 you get so few leads that are as good as this.
Ah, okay, I can see where you're coming from. Obviously, I'm inc
lined to disagree, but I will Unvote for the moment.
I'm rather apathetic about the Ikerr wagon, leaning mildy opposed. Hopefully I'll get a chance to look at the wagonners in a bit.
I over reacted a bit there. Sutherlands is significantly more scummy than Cyan (or anyone else in this game). I didn't like the way he was seizing on one aspect that could have been a simple missunderstanding. I didn't like the way he unvoted because he wasn't getting enough support and went to the more popular wagon.
I still stand by everything I've said on Suther. And still would like answers.
I don't at this point see anything that makes me think that Ikerr is particularily likely to be scum.
*streches* I normally don't like posting a lot of explinations, and with so much to read and explain I r eally dotn feel like it at all atm. I will however give a list of who i see as scummiest undecided most likely town:
I put them in order of how good/bad I feel about them ranging from good at top to worst at the bottom, the exception is the not sure column. I pretty much have no read on anyone in there. Oh and feel free to laugh at this list in the end game if its horribly wrong. Vote: Treigit
Hi guys I'm sorry that I'm leaving at this point when things are getting interesting but I really won't be able to devote my time to Mafia in the coming days.
chamber, could you explain some of this a little further? Mainly the bottum three, at least?
I didn't make any notes the first time through, so I'd need to go through again to build a case. Right now its all just based off the impression I got after reading once. I can say lorans play reminded me of his play in star trek far more then it did in sienfeld. Thats really the only reason he's where he is.
um so yeah, I might post more detail about the bottom three later but not now.
btw, I'm strongly opposed to an ikerr lynch. what other current issues are going on... The vig should do what he wants, don't listen to the town. what else... yeah I can't think of any other current issues atm. Feel free to point me to something I havn't commented on and I will gladly do so.
*streches* I normally don't like posting a lot of explinations, and with so much to read and explain I r eally dotn feel like it at all atm. I will however give a list of who i see as scummiest undecided most likely town:
I put them in order of how good/bad I feel about them ranging from good at top to worst at the bottom, the exception is the not sure column. I pretty much have no read on anyone in there. Oh and feel free to laugh at this list in the end game if its horribly wrong. Vote: Treigit
Chamber...did you just put all the people suspected into the good column for the reason that they were suspected? That just seems dumb...
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.
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.
Sorry, I was having some connection probems over the weekend and wasn't able to catch up. It should be fine now.
Quote from ZeDorkSlipeur »
There was no bandwagon on Cyan or Fayul.
No there wasn't. There was a bit of suspicion with a couple of votes, about where you were before I voted you.
Quote from ZeDorkSlipeur »
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.
Sorry, I remembered wrong about those. However, I did not add to the suspicion brought against SorryGuy, WhytePanther, Matjoeman, atseal, Cyan, or CropCircles, which still shows that I was not spreading suspicion whereever possible.
Quote from arimnaes »
Ah, but don't forget: yours was apparently not "a proper case."
Loran16's initial pbpa of me was essentially: "Look, he has other posts! But that one post that others have pointed out is scummy and voted him for is scummy enough for me to vote him." I'm not sure, but that paraphrase may have a larger word count.
Quote from WhytePanther »
As others have stated, that is a pretty wide range.
I don't see how that as a very wide range of people to be suspicious of. See silicons post 489. He states 6 people he is suspicious of in that post alone. I'd be surprised if most people in this game haven't already posted some form of suspicion against at least 6 people.
Quote from WhytePanther »
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 haven't really been in the position to do anythng else. With this much attention on me, I haven't had the freedom to get involved in other conversations.
Quote from Cyan »
...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.
My first statement of suspicion against Abbey was how he claimed that my obvious joke OMGUS vote on him was seen as a scum tell. I mentioned that at the time. I also stated most of my reasons for being suspicious of Loran when I mentioned them. Passdog's suspicion was criticising his attack of WhytePanther, shortly after he presented it (I did say I was a little generous). How were these not adequate (at least in proportion to the amount of suspicion I was putting them to)?
If the town wants me to claim, I'll do it the next time I'm on.
Can someone create a concise list of ikerr's offenses, because my current impression is that he is being voted for because of one post/vote. I still don't like his wagon at all.
Against Cyan:
- tried to make AG appear scummy for calling people idiots. claimed it wasn't an attack but had the 'unless you're mafia' clause which certainly put the idea that AG might be into peoples heads. indirect attack. See # 62
- attacked MJM for fishing where he was clearly only speculating as much as any other player
- trumped up charge against ikerr
- has expressed support for Sutho wagon but not voted that way thus maintaining interest of town in multiple wagons (#248 and # 252)
- in support of vigging - bloodthirsty. Just seems to want extra deaths
- has attempted to devalue players/arguements/votes by accusing them of some weakness or failing or otherwise belittling them. See #6 where he discredits arimnaes's random vote as vengeful, #110 tone suggests he is beyond reproach/condescending to treigit, #178 calls ZDS sketchy, #400 belittles my vote against him as bitter, recent ad hom at Sutherland.
Haven't had a chance to reread the last hundred posts so I may have more to add later.
AG did, in fact, stipulate that people were idiots. The 'unless you're mafia' bit was meant as more of a heads up to AG, whom I know is very new to the game, having just played in Newb 9 with him/her. After everything that has gone on today, it should be fairly obvious when I'm attacking someone. I was not doing so in this case.
[QUOTE]
- attacked MJM for fishing where he was clearly only speculating as much as any other player
MJM himself later agreed that one of the posts that I was calling him on seemed like fishing.
- trumped up charge against ikerr
Considering that he's at 11 votes now, I'd have to say that the charge(s) against him were not trumped up at all.
- has expressed support for Sutho wagon but not voted that way thus maintaining interest of town in multiple wagons (#248 and # 252)
Incorrect. I did, in fact, switch my vote back from Ikerr to Sutherlands for awhile. When it became apparent that it wasn't going to help, I put it back on Ikerr. As for the posts in question..in 248, I am specifically advocating people lynching Ikerr, nowhere do I 'express support' for Sutherlands lynch. I said that he looked fairly scummy, which he did, but that it was possible that he's a misguided townie. 252 is only a continuation of this.
- in support of vigging - bloodthirsty. Just seems to want extra deaths
Misrepresentation. I am in support of Sutherlands dying today, along with Ikerr being lynched. Initially, I was in favor of the Vig not firing at all(which is probably not going to happen anyway, regardless of how much some of you guys want to ignore statistical facts and act like Vigs don't generally fire every single night), but suggested that Sutherlands should be Vigged IF the Vig was going to fire in the first place. Then Sutherlands continued behavior made me change my mind and advocate that he simply die today period, including me switching to his lynch to try and further this(though I still maintained at the time that Ikerr was very scummy).
- has attempted to devalue players/arguements/votes by accusing them of some weakness or failing or otherwise belittling them. See #6 where he discredits arimnaes's random vote as vengeful, #110 tone suggests he is beyond reproach/condescending to treigit, #178 calls ZDS sketchy, #400 belittles my vote against him as bitter, recent ad hom at Sutherland.
Arimnaes essentially agreed with my statement about his random vote, in his next post.
The point that I made with Treigit was valid. Many people at that point were still random voting, and he was already trying to get a bandwagon on me, with extremely flimsy basis.
ZDS *was* attacking sketchy right then. He had quite a few votes on him at that point, and I felt he was responding poorly to the pressure.
As for post 400, which was a response to post 374(by you), your were initially FOSing me, then, in your own words 'I just remembered my experience with Cyan in Star Trek'. Then you voted me. There is no explanation of a concept of logic there, it looked to me at the time(and still does in fact) that you were voting me because I was scum in some other game, and because you personally suffered from it.
I'm not even going to bother responding to that Ad Hom accusation again.
I too like to know where you (Cyan) get the idea that vigs fire every night. Kenji in RoTK played the vig role very well, and he was not firing this early. His rate of fire increased later in the game only because of the large number of non-Shu players, the relatively low amount of scum nightkills, and the early decimation of the Wei, which gave the Shu more breathing room.
Compare this to High School Mafia, where WOLG as vig decided to start firing right away, hitting town on both of the first two nights. And one of those townies was Azrael.
I disagree. Statistical likelihood is an integral part of Mafia theory. Think about it. When someone claims a given role with a given affiliation, one of the first 'validity checks' is 'How often has that happened in the past, thus, how likely is it to be happening now'. As far as Vig firing, every game that I have read or participated in that had a Vig, they fired at every opportunity, except for Night 0, which obviously goes without saying that they shouldn't because it's just a 100% random shot that is 3-4 times as likely to hit town as mafia. In Sympathy for the Devil Mafia, CP was the Vig and he fired(and died) Night 1. In RotTK Mafia, Kenji fired every single night. Many of the players here were in that game, and never did anyone raise an eyebrow at him vigging, even though he vigged every chance that he got. In Cartoon Mafia, Az used his DayVig on Day 1. In Star Trek Mafia, Rahl also used his DayVig(which was a 1-Shot ability) on Day 1. The same pattern holds true for anywhere that I've played mafia, and in addition to here, I've played on news, wifom, and scum. From every bit of evidence I've ever seen, Vigs always fire, and even 1-Shot Vigs tend to fire as soon as they can. It's not really a decision based on a statistic anyway, it's just something that always seems to happen.
Also, I believe that you're misinterpreting Chambers 'its his job to defend himself' statement, but, we'll see when he clarifies it.
EBWODP:
@Arimnaes: IIRC, In RotTK Mafia, Kenji started firing on either Night 1 or Night 2 at the very latest. That's not exactly what I'd call 'waiting until late in the game'. But, thank you for pointing out High School Mafia as yet another example of a Vig that started firing right away. The debate isn't whether it's correct to start firing immediately, it's whether or not it happens consistently enough that it's advisable to coach the Vig from Day 1. In my opinion, that is definetely the case here.
In Sympathy for the Devil Mafia, CP was the Vig and he fired(and died) Night 1.
Yes, and he hit town.
Quote from Kenji »
n RotTK Mafia, Kenji fired every single night. Many of the players here were in that game, and never did anyone raise an eyebrow at him vigging, even though he vigged every chance that he got.
No he didn't. He didn't start firing until night 3. And I already addressed why repeated vigging was more profitable for the town in that specific game that it is in general.
Quote from Cyan »
In Cartoon Mafia, Az used his DayVig on Day 1.
That game's still in progress, which means I (and more importantly, you) don't even know if he's a vig or not. He could be an SK or a mafia with extra kills, and that's about all I can say, with that game still going.
Quote from Cyan »
In Star Trek Mafia, Rahl also used his DayVig(which was a 1-Shot ability) on Day 1.
Another unique circumstance, which is not at all mirrored here. The reason he fired was because bateleur claimed to be immune to all kills until a certain condition was fulfilled. Rahl vigged him to test that claim.
Quote from Cyan »
The same pattern holds true for anywhere that I've played mafia, and in addition to here, I've played on news, wifom, and scum. From every bit of evidence I've ever seen, Vigs always fire, and even 1-Shot Vigs tend to fire as soon as they can. It's not really a decision based on a statistic anyway, it's just something that always seems to happen.
Well, I can only speak to MTGS examples. And frankly, I think I've debunked most of yours. But consider this: even if it were the norm for vigs to be firing at every opportunity, would that make it good play? (See WOLG's case above for the answer.)
Edit (Just saw Cyan's edit):
Quote from Cyan »
The debate isn't whether it's correct to start firing immediately, it's whether or not it happens consistently enough that it's advisable to coach the Vig from Day 1. In my opinion, that is definetely the case here.
I very much disagree. I think the debate is precisely about whether it's correct to start firing immediately, and I say it is not. It leads to townie deaths far more often that scum ones.
Not to mention that the primary reason you're advocating Sutherlands' death isn't because you think he's scum, but because you don't think we should have to listen to him anymore.
I was responding directly to your post that stated I should defend ikker if I though t he was town.
I do notice an apparent contradiction between these two posts though. You first tell me to defend someone, you then back away from the fact that you are defending anyone when you missinterpret what I said as an accusation. very strange.
I very much disagree. I think the debate is precisely about whether it's correct to start firing immediately, and I say it is not. It leads to townie deaths far more often that scum ones.
Regardless of what you want to debate about, what ZDS and I were discussing, and what has been discussed some previously, was how often Vigs fire. The fact that you don't think that Vigs should start firing immediately has nothing to do with the fact that it happens on a regular basis. As such, again, I think that suggesting a target for the Vig is appropriate for any concerned townie, since multitudes of past games have shown that a Vig is most likely going to fire every night.
Not to mention that the primary reason you're advocating Sutherlands' death isn't because you think he's scum, but because you don't think we should have to listen to him anymore.
I think there is a good possibility that he is scum. For awhile I didn't, but, I have ever since I decided to put my vote back on him(albeit temporarily) and started advocating that the Vig should in fact fire today(as opposed to previously where I said that the Vig shouldn't, but, if he is going to anyway, Sutherlands is a good target). My suspicion that he is scum has actually grown recently, because he has all but vanished ever since he stopped being the center of attention. It's pretty typical for scum whom have narrowly escaped the lynch to start lurking. Sometimes townies do this as well, but IMO, not nearly as often as scum do. Also, you're right, I do think that he should get Vigged because he is a liability. However, as has been stated, if it is concretely proven that he's town(which I doubt, since he doesn't seem like a good investigation target to me), then obviously I would stop advocating that he get Vigged. But considering that there is a good chance that he is scum anyway, vigging him still seems fine to me. It's not only because I 'don't think the town should have to listen to him anymore', though admittedly, that is part of it, and rightly so, in my opinion.
Cyan, I think you're missing the reason why vigs fire so often. They fire often because it allows them to kill someone who THEY feel is supicous without having to convince the majority of the town. If they are to just become a tool of the town it is a far better choice to have them no kill.
Chamber, I can understand if you think that all the scummy traits I (and others) have attributed to Suther are just poor play, but what makes you think he is most likely town? If it is becuase Cyan and I are/were attacking him, realize that that is a tautology (as far as I can see).
On vigs and townies take 32: I would not advocate the vigging of a townie even if all he could say was "**** Treigit" in every post, even if he couldn't vote. However, Sutherlands is not a confirmed townie (I doubt he's town at all, but you knew that), and I can't see a way to confirm him that would be a good play. As for contributing content wise, I don't mean to imply that Sutherlands isn't trying, however, for a suspcious player who's claimed vanilla, they would have to give exceptional content. (If it were CC, instead of Suther in this position, he might be worth the investigation just to know if we can trust his analysis.) If I were vig, I might actually kill someone that I suspected to be town if there was significant evidence against him, no evidence towards him, and I suspected that the town would eventually spend a lynch on him.
Cyan, I think you're missing the reason why vigs fire so often. They fire often because it allows them to kill someone who THEY feel is supicous without having to convince the majority of the town. If they are to just become a tool of the town it is a far better choice to have them no kill.
I think that your argument largely depends on the playskill of the player who is the vig. Sometimes the town might be better off by using the vig as a second lynch as opposed to having them act independantly.
Still waiting for an ikerr claim before my vote goes anywhere.
Sin City: Vig did not fire until the third night, and then only by the town's command.
French: Vig didn't fire until Night 4, and there were two in that game.
Sympathy: CP fired Night 1.
Drawn Together: Vig didn't fire 'til night three.
Douglas Adams: Vig didn't fire until (can't remember exactly but it was a couple nights in)
Star Trek: One vig fired day 1, the other held his fire until death three days in.
RTK: Not 'til day three.
That's mostly off the top of my head, but I think it's enough to prove my point. Cyan, if your going to make statements on statistics, try backing it up. Or at least say something that's true.
I think that your argument largely depends on the playskill of the player who is the vig. Sometimes the town might be better off by using the vig as a second lynch as opposed to having them act independantly.
Still waiting for an ikerr claim before my vote goes anywhere.
You miss my point. If the vig is going to listen to us, it's best not to have him/her kill a townie, and two day 1 lynchs is not a good idea, I dont care what you say. So either the vig will listen to the town, or he/she wont. If he will then directing him to not kill is better then directing him to kill someone. If he wont hes gonna do what he wants anyway. So telling him to kill someone tonight is just bad play.
I disagree. Statistical likelihood is an integral part of Mafia theory. Think about it. When someone claims a given role with a given affiliation, one of the first 'validity checks' is 'How often has that happened in the past, thus, how likely is it to be happening now'.
I disagree. But of course I would. People become too used to patterns, and thinking they are there. This is a specialty game, and as such, general patterns cannot be assumed to exist.
Regardless of what you want to debate about, what ZDS and I were discussing, and what has been discussed some previously, was how often Vigs fire. The fact that you don't think that Vigs should start firing immediately has nothing to do with the fact that it happens on a regular basis. As such, again, I think that suggesting a target for the Vig is appropriate for any concerned townie, since multitudes of past games have shown that a Vig is most likely going to fire every night.
Regardless of what you MAY have been arguing about. The fact remains that you said that the vig should kill me, even though you didn't necessarily believe i was town.
Chamber, I can understand if you think that all the scummy traits I (and others) have attributed to Suther are just poor play, but what makes you think he is most likely town? If it is becuase Cyan and I are/were attacking him, realize that that is a tautology (as far as I can see).
Even if that were the only reason, he has to make a judgement somewhere. The fact that you and Cyan are constantly casting doubt on me and misrepresenting what I say might have given him that impression.
On vigs and townies take 32: I would not advocate the vigging of a townie even if all he could say was "**** Treigit" in every post, even if he couldn't vote. However, Sutherlands is not a confirmed townie (I doubt he's town at all, but you knew that), and I can't see a way to confirm him that would be a good play. As for contributing content wise, I don't mean to imply that Sutherlands isn't trying, however, for a suspcious player who's claimed vanilla, they would have to give exceptional content. (If it were CC, instead of Suther in this position, he might be worth the investigation just to know if we can trust his analysis.) If I were vig, I might actually kill someone that I suspected to be town if there was significant evidence against him, no evidence towards him, and I suspected that the town would eventually spend a lynch on him.
Well that's a very interesting way to get the vig to do what you want. Also, I love that you in the beginning say that you wouldn't support a vig killing of a confirmed townie, and then twist a bunch of things to say that you would kill me if you were the vig. I can't refute what you say, but bravo on your linguistic skills.
Now then, I believe that Cyan is a more likely candidate for scum than Ikerr, and as such, I will unvote Ikerr, Vote Cyan. I will now attempt to lay out my reasoning.
It's not only because I 'don't think the town should have to listen to him anymore', though admittedly, that is part of it, and rightly so, in my opinion.
Actually, I don't believe that I display anti-town sentiment at all. Even if Sutherlands is not mafia(and it's still possible that he is), he is still a liability to the town. He continually throws out random ideas with little to no backing to them, and the town wasted a large part of this day putting votes onto him, only so that he could refuse to claim anyway, and we could decide not to lynch him.
Not only is he devaluing my ideas, but he makes the ludicrous claim that "the town wasted a large part of this day putting votes onto [me]" because I wouldn't claim.
Aside from the fact that he's already told us that he is Vanilla, and that he has not been an asset for the town in even the most remote sense, in fact just the opposite since, as I stated, we've wasted the better part of today focused on him(and even since the pressure lightened off of him some, he really hasn't gotten any better).
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'.
There are some of Cyan's posts lately which have been almost nothing except saying that I don't contribute to the game. And as I have shown, I am not the only one he has done this to.
2. Constantly changing votes on and off of me, claiming different stances the entire time.
3. Contradicting himself
4. Making a conspiracy theory about how I meant exactly what I said
Let's take a look back at the general conversations around that time. Just going by the statements that you made, Sutherlands, your contention the entire time was that ZDS and I were both scum. As such, it stands to reason that when you said 'I believe that you and Cyan are most likely to be scum, and obviously other people do too', you meant exactly that. Obviously now you can say 'oh yeah I was just talking about ZDS'. The point is that, when you look at the conversations as a whole, and especially your posts as a whole, they give lie to that statement. You had been pushing the idea that ZDS and I were both scum for awhile even before that post. You tried to strengthen this by saying that obviously other people agreed with you, and when you got called on that, you casually modified it to 'mean' that you were only referring to ZDS.
Also, when ZDS first tries to clarify whether you mean just him or both of us, you completely dodge the question and try to turn it back around on him by saying 'I don't understand how you think that goes to your innocence'.
(This statement makes perfect sense if you believe that I though I was saying that the people thought that ZDS was scum too. His version is quite a stretch)
5. Using false statistics about vigging to get the vig to kill me at night
[. . .]
That's mostly off the top of my head, but I think it's enough to prove my point. Cyan, if your going to make statements on statistics, try backing it up. Or at least say something that's true.
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'.
Note in this next one, he claims that he is using "[my] exact words"
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.
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.
From Cyan's post about me:
Originally Posted by Cyan [. . .]the supposition that mafioso will put themselves in harm's way to try to bail out another mafioso,[. . .]
Then when I asked when I said this:
As for your 'When did I say this'. You said that I A)ZDS and I went out of our way to fight with each other, so that if one of us died and turned up scum, the other would look less guilty. Later, you said that I was trying to discourage ZDS bandwagon, by using logic, and I was 'using logic' to avoid being seen as attached to ZDS. Disregarding the fact that both of these statements which you made are direct contradictions to each other(in one sentence you say that we're fighting, both being mafia, so that if either of us gets lynched the other looks good, in practically your next breath you change it to me trying to get people NOT to vote ZDS, because I"m a mafioso trying to protect another mafioso. These two theories are 100% mutually exclusive. It is not possible for both of them to be applicable.
I think these are sufficient enough. If anyone needs me to provide examples for 2 and 3, I can and will.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
I am still not happy with this wagon on Ikerr. As far as I can tell it has very little basis in actual scum tells, and after Passdog's request for an actual case, nobody actually managed to provide one (in other words, I second the request). In addition, there are far better candidates for a lynch than ikerr. Here are a couple of my top choices just to name a few:
Hvirflinder (rampant, rampant lurking, i.e. 3 posts this entire game)
Silicon (almost 0 content, and even then only when called for and far past his promise)
Atlseal (bluesoul's incredibly out-of-character actions (when he's town) as well as Atlseal's complete 180 in posting style after I called him on it)
Cyan (just ask and I will go all out on a case against him, but I think it's been pretty well covered)
loran (can't completely remember my case against him but I do remember getting scummy vibes; if necessary, I can go back and find the details)
Seriously guys, there's 5 targets, all of which are far, far better than either Ikerr or Sutherlands as far as I can tell. Honestly, I think my number 1 request right now would be to have somebody state a few good reasons why we should lynch Ikerr over the above. In fact, I am willing to jump on/create a wagon on any of those people, so I'm telling you right now, I will hop onto any of those wagons if they actually get rolling, I will also wagon hop between them to whichever is going the strongest. On the other hand, I will just about flatly refuse to jump on any other wagon unless there is a very strong case backing it. We have a deadline people, let's lynch someone, anyone, who actually has a case against them (unlike any of today's wagons so far).
So anyway, there's my current stance, and I'm willing to create a stronger case against any of them if you guys want, but I'll only be able to find enough time for 1.
P.S. I reserve the right to add or remove to the above list as I see fit if I feel that I have misinterpreted somebody's actions.
When did a wagon on me become fashionable? *Confused*. Everyone seems to have me in their T5 scum right now, tho no one is voting me.
and yes, i want ikerr to claim now 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.
I'm keeping my vote on ikerr at the moment, but I don't feel that with now only 9 votes that he'd be obligated to claim. If he gets back to 10 or 11, then I'd be all for it. I do want to make a few comments on kops' list of possible candidates, because it looks like we've hit another dead end.
Hvirfilvindr (Yay for copy and paste btw) - Yes he's been lurking alot. I looked at his posts again and didn't see anything scummy about what he's said, but the facts that he hasn't said much, or voted at all, are interesting.
Silicon - I would also like to see more content from Silicon as well, I'm having trouble getting a read.
atlseal - I don't see where you are talking about a 180 when you called him on it. Yes, I do see that he was very vocal in his support of a Sutherlands claim. And after your post, he was less so. But that's really the only change I see, and that could be equally your comment and the case against Sutherlands disappearing.
Cyan - Wow, Cyan has been misquoting a lot of people lately. I think it's a little unfair that Cyan is getting attention for acting like he had in previous games where he turned out to be scum, because the goal as scum would be to look like town. A good player should look the same both ways, right? At any rate, he is already getting quite a bit of attention.
loran16 - I don't know where I stand on loran. I am not happy with his pointing a finger at Cyan simply for supporting the two hot bandwagons, when he is certainly not the only one who supported them, and he seems to be about as eager for a ikerr claim as atlseal was for Sutherlands.
Basically kops, if you're surveying who to do your analysis on, I think Silicon or loran would be most interesting to me.
What are you talking about? Hvrifliivrdq is easy to spell.
Quote from WhytePanther »
Basically kops, if you're surveying who to do your analysis on, I think Silicon or loran would be most interesting to me.
Well, analyzing Silicon is usually quite a challenge. At this point in the game, I'll wager it'd be tough to get much on him, even if he is scum. A look at loran would probably be the more fruitfull of those two, and he has been raising my eyebrow a bit.
Besides, a game isn't really started 'til a loran wagon gets going, amirite?
@Sutherlands: The entirety of your basis is my involvement with you. You keep trying to paint it like it's all 'anti-town'. In reality, it is Anti-Sutherlands. To quote Axelrod:
"Sutherland's playstyle is totally OMGUS"
You're clearly not capable of seeing how anyone interacts with anyone else, except that you try to present it that anyone that wants to kill you must be scum.
To address some of your points directly:
Quote from Sutherlands »
I disagree. But of course I would. People become too used to patterns, and thinking they are there. This is a specialty game, and as such, general patterns cannot be assumed to exist.
At it's best, Mafia is a game of logic. Statistics are an extension of logic, and are consistently used in every single mafia game played, even if you don't realize it because it's not labeled as statistics. Also, this being a Specialty game has absolutely nothing to do with this conversation.
Quote from Sutherlands »
Just for the record, I interpreted Chambers' statement the same way that ZDS did.
Just for the record, Chamber later clarified his post, and proved that I was correct in my statement that ZDS(and you apparently) misinterpreted it.
Quote from Sutherlands »
Regardless of what you MAY have been arguing about. The fact remains that you said that the vig should kill me, even though you didn't necessarily believe i was town.
This, as well, has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion that we were having, and has been addressed ad nauseum already in this day. But you're right, I said, and still stand by my statement, that the Vig should kill you tonight. I can't make him obviously, but it's my opinion, and I've presented why I've thought it was accurate. If other people disagree, such is their right. Ultimately, the decision will be completely in the hands of whomever is actually the Vig, all that we can do is provide ideas to him. I really don't get why you're bringing this up again.
Quote from Sutherlands »
Even if that were the only reason, he has to make a judgement somewhere. The fact that you and Cyan are constantly casting doubt on me and misrepresenting what I say might have given him that impression.
If you think that Chamber is actually defending you, you're sorely mistaken. Also, please note that Chamber specifically said that I *always* appear scummy to him, thereby invalidating his own theory of my scumminess.
Quote from Sutherlands »
Well that's a very interesting way to get the vig to do what you want. Also, I love that you in the beginning say that you wouldn't support a vig killing of a confirmed townie, and then twist a bunch of things to say that you would kill me if you were the vig. I can't refute what you say, but bravo on your linguistic skills.
He doesn't twist anything. He(and I as well) stated that he wouldn't support the Vig killing a confirmed townie, no matter what. You are very, very far from being a confirmed townie in anyone's eyes, especially Treigit and myself. Whatever point you're attempting to make here, I'm not sure, but you didn't succeed.
Quote from Sutherlands »
(That was not the reason for Passdog's vote)
If you read the post in question, it absolutely comes across as Passdog voting me out of bitterness.
Quote from Sutherlands »
Not only is he devaluing my ideas, but he makes the ludicrous claim that "the town wasted a large part of this day putting votes onto [me]" because I wouldn't claim.
Please enlighten us, what exactly did putting a bunch of votes on you AND meeting your 'requirements' for claiming, only so that you could not do so at the end, gain/accomplish for the town?
Quote from Sutherlands »
There are some of Cyan's posts lately which have been almost nothing except saying that I don't contribute to the game. And as I have shown, I am not the only one he has done this to.
A)I've spoken on a variety of issues lately, unlike you, whom utterly disappeared once the pressure was on you(at least until I said something about it, at which point you conveniently resurfaced). B)I'm not sure what you're saying that I've 'done to you', but you definetely have not shown any example of my involvement with anyone else in this game. As stated previously, your case is 100% OMGUS.
Quote from Sutherlands »
2. Constantly changing votes on and off of me, claiming different stances the entire time.
I didn't 'constantly change my vote on/off of you'. I was voting Ikerr. I put my vote onto you when you made that big deal about only claiming if CropCircles and I required it(which we did, and you NEVER DID, but somehow no one cares about that). After awhile it seemed like you were town and just very confused, so, I left your lynch and went back to Ikerr. Then, you persisted with all kinds of pointless arguing with ZDS, and your defense as to why you wouldn't claim after your own conditions were met was ridiculous, so, I started actively advocating you dying today and put my vote back on you, hoping it would result in you getting lynched. Eventually it became obvious that this wasn't going to happen, so, I put my vote back on Ikerr, whom I had maintained was still very scummy all throughout dealing with you. And yes, my stance changed. I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, and then your actions caused me to change my mind. Please explain what is wrong with this.
Quote from Sutherlands »
3. Contradicting himself
Please provide examples.
Quote from Sutherlands »
4. Making a conspiracy theory about how I meant exactly what I said
I still contend that you meant exactly what you said at the time, given the context of that conversation and all of the conversation preceeding and following it.
Quote from Sutherlands »
5. Using false statistics about vigging to get the vig to kill me at night
A)I was not trying to get the Vig to kill you, that was not part of the conversation it all. The conversation was purely regarding whether or not Vigs fire early on a regular basis. Even though Arimnaes tried to dismiss all of my examples as 'special circumstances', they are examples nonetheless, and are at least equal to the # of examples that CropCircles provided. To me, even something happening half of the time qualifies as 'on a regular basis'.
Quote from Sutherlands »
Note in this next one, he claims that he is using "[my] exact words"
Sorry, you're right, it wasn't your exact words, word for word. It was still, essentially, repeating what you said, if not verbatim. You are just splitting hairs.
Quote from Sutherlands »
I think these are sufficient enough.
I think that your definition of the word 'sufficient' is highly inadequate. None of the points that you have attempted to make here are remotely valid.
What IS worth noting is that your vote takes Ikerr out of the range where he needs to claim. A vote that was sheer bandwagon by you to begin with, at a time where you desperately needed attention to be on anyone but you, and now that he's under real pressure, you move your vote. You don't even try to say that Ikerr seems any less scummy to you, you're just blatantly trying to derail his bandwagon now, in my opinion.
@Kops: From his initial blatant OMGUS vote on AbbeyGargoyle, to his no-reason vote change to ZDS, to the fact that he later tried to cover for that vote change by saying 'oh yeah it was for pressure to see how he reacted', to his blatant bandwagon vote of Sutherlands, to the fact that his response to anyone's questions of him have been wholly lacking, there is ample reason to be voting for Ikerr. Honestly, multiple PBPAs plus multiple specific question and answer sessions have been done regarding Ikerr..if you can't find the case on him, you're just not looking hard enough.
Certainly, there is far more reason to vote for him than Hvir, Silicon, Loran, or Atlseal. I could see why I would be included there and won't debate it, but, the rest of your list is ridiculously off-base, in my opinion. With Hvir and Silicon, you are basically trying to lurker lynch them. Now, typically, I'm in favor of lurker lynches. But not always on day 1, and especially not when there are legitimately scummy candidates that are worth pursuing. I fail to see how Loran is remotely worth consideration, and even less so Atlseal. You yourself said that Atlseal answered your previous questions appropriately, yet you're still trying to portray him as scummy now. Doesn't make alot of sense to me.
WhytePanther brought up a good point recently, and in light of Sutherlands making a lot more coherant arguments, ikerr is my top suspect at the moment. Ikerr, I think you really do need to claim Vote: ikerr. I will reiterate the same thing that I made about my Sutherlands vote, I'm not going to be keeping this vote on if he doesn't get a chance to claim. If he gets to 12 votes before he gets a chance to claim, you can look for my vote to be dropping off shortly thereafter.
I'm still inclined to believe Cyan's innocence. If people want me to restate why I believe in his innocence I will.
Lastly, could someone please explain to me how my posting style did a one-eighty? All I did was notice that Sutherlands started posting more coherently, and that made me suspect him less than I originally did. I will cede to the point that I'm being as helpful as I can be this game with things like vote records. Being as open and honest as I can be. However, pulling a 180 I have not.
Also, could someone explain why 6 seems to be the magic number when it comes to scummy behavior? I don't like arbitrary numbers like this. I mean, why isn't the number seven? Where do you draw the line with this? Slippery slopes != (or =/= for those that don't know any CS) good thing.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're town and I'm mafia, you've already lost. You just don't know it yet.
I can't see any reason why anyone would put Ikerr beyond 11 votes before he claims.
I don't think that your posting style did a 180. Also, I don't think that anything is wrong, at all, with providing voting records, etc. That kind of thing happens from time to time, and I can't recall a time when someone legitimately received suspicion for it. As I stated previously, whomever accused you of that(Silicon I believe) was just reaching for content to appear more active than he really is. Saying that someone is being suspicious for being helpful is pretty absurd. I agree that there are instances where people have looked like they were helping the town, but in reality weren't doing so, and that is suspicious..but your vote record is a tool that the town can easily use, and it genuinely helpful.
First of all, @cyan: I swear that you are starting to misuse "whom" on purpose, because your use of it in your most recent post is by far the most ludicrously incorrect usage so far...
Anywaaay:
@WP: The 180 I was referring to (note my reference to his style) was the fact that none of atlseal's posts contained any content whatsoever except
for his very first post of the game (which any good mafia player knows is a very townie-like entry, thus its WIFOM) until I pointed this out in my case against him, after which every one of his posts is now quite large, as though he's trying too hard to look like a townie.
@cyan again: Lurker lynching is one thing (usually I'm generally opposed to it), but 3 posts in 15 days is a bit ridiculous (ala Hvir... speaking of which I can't believe I actually tried to type that out the first time).
On silicon, he's not so much of a lurker lynch as a lurker-who-posts-scummily lynch. He promises "more content", produces said content several days late, and when it does come its in the form of a vote and a (iirc) bs reason (though I should double-check this).
Atlseal: see above, with the significant addition of bluesoul's scumminess
Loran: I agree in part, I believe it's time for me to do a full-blown case on him, but a) it will have to wait for tomorrow, or more likely, wednesday, and b) I'm going to try out Puzzle's idea from God mafia and not actually do a PBPA, just a profile case (with examples if necessary).
Finally, I find it rather amusing that out of my list of 5 people, the only person you agreed should be on there was yourself... makes me more than a bit worried.
EWP:
WhytePanther brought up a good point recently, and in light of Sutherlands making a lot more coherant arguments, ikerr is my top suspect at the moment. Ikerr, I think you really do need to claim Vote: ikerr. I will reiterate the same thing that I made about my Sutherlands vote, I'm not going to be keeping this vote on if he doesn't get a chance to claim. If he gets to 12 votes before he gets a chance to claim, you can look for my vote to be dropping off shortly thereafter.
To be honest, this paragraph really doesn't make me feel any better about you. First of all, you lable ikerr as your top suspect while providing 0 reason (if you have done this in a previous point, I will recant that argument, but please point it out, I have trouble keeping straight who has made a case against whom (glares at cyan)). You didn't even reference another person's case. Seriously, this might be somewhat excusable if it is done once, when the bandwagonee is at <7 votes, but at this point (I don't know the exact number of votes he has right now), that's just ridiculous. You even say yourself you want to be sure he has a chance to claim, but if that's the case why vote him preemptively??? This question needs answering. I hope I'm not the only one who feels uncomfortable with that paragraph (cause if I am then my scumdar needs some serious tinkering :P).
Also, could someone explain why 6 seems to be the magic number when it comes to scummy behavior? I don't like arbitrary numbers like this. I mean, why isn't the number seven? Where do you draw the line with this? Slippery slopes != (or =/= for those that don't know any CS) good thing.
??? What the f are you talking about?
I'm still inclined to believe Cyan's innocence. If people want me to restate why I believe in his innocence I will.
Don't, but please point to the post in which you first laid out your case.
The second part of your post could go a long way in explaining your question in the first.
Uh, how? I want ikerr to claim at 10 votes when its 14 to lynch? Thats scummy? Id think 4 to lynch this early in the game is a good time to call for at least a partial claim.
But I'd love for someone to do a PBPA on me. (Also, calling me hypocritical for suspecting Cyan for his suth and ikerr bandwagoning is rather weird, considering i never really bandwagoned Sutherlands, and was early and provided a PBPA explaining my reasons for voting ikerr. And you cant deny that Cyan's ad homs and crazy relentlessness of Sutherlands before settling back into the most obvious current wagon (ikerr) was fishy).
EBWODP, and yes CC, a game without me wagoned on day 1 is a sad game indeed. I don't think ive succeeded on that in any game here on MTGS. :-).
Course, my innocence does make me feel far more comfortable surviving whatever PBPA you bring against me.
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.
Yeah, I forgot, but I meant to ask about that 'magic number 6' bit as well, I have absolutely no idea what you're getting at or trying to ask, there, atlseal.
@Kops: I agree. 3 posts out of 560 total is not acceptable. I really think that Hvir needs prodded, and if that's happened already, he needs replaced. However, I don't think it's a good reason to say that he's suspicious...it's not really lurking at that point, it's just pure game negligence.
I agree that it'd help for you to analyze Loran at least to some extent so that we can all understand better. I just don't see anything outstanding really at all from him.
As for me..I don't think that I've been really scummy(except for maybe the statistics thing, I just didn't do enough research there), but, I can see how some people would. I've had enough arguments etc. with people that it would be pretty silly for me to say 'yeah I haven't done anything suspicious at all this game'. Honestly, most of the players in this game have at least 1-2 suspicious posts this game..the only person that I think is 100% clean so far is WhytePanther. I don't fantasize that I'm right and everyone else is wrong or anything like it, I'm just more assertive/aggressive about some things than most people. It seems like I have this conversation alot(I'm pretty hard on lurkers generally, and I have gameplay ideals that are probably too high for reality, but, sometimes I forget that and it gets the better of me).
EBWODP:
@Loran: It's 13 to lynch, not 14. Just wanted to throw that out there so that no one gets confused. The game started with 26 players, but, as we know Kenji and DYH died Night 0, so, that only leaves 24 people now, thus 13 to lynch. I could see someone trying to stall out until he's 2 votes shy of lynch usually, but, a large portion of the town has stated that Ikerr should claim, and as such, I think it's warranted even though he's only at 10 votes.
cyan I believe you should have a look at 7th ed mafia. *hopes his memory isn't failing him* Anyway in that game (assuming my memory is right) dragyn mage as mafia, also makes a vote spread sheet. Just saying.
No idea where to find that game. Regardless, just because someone does something as scum once doesn't make it normal procedure. Plus, the way atlseal presented it(asking if people wanted it first, etc), really makes it hard for me to believe that he's town.
No idea where to find that game. Regardless, just because someone does something as scum once doesn't make it normal procedure. Plus, the way atlseal presented it(asking if people wanted it first, etc), really makes it hard for me to believe that he's town.
typo? And its on this site, probably on like page 3 or something, but here.
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
At any rate ikerr sure is looking like our lynch right now. I am not going to put a vote on him just yet, but I will if it becomes nessasary. However, I would first like to hear people flesh out their cases, mainly Axelrod on G&E.
While I am interested in hearing about G&E, he has indeed seem somewhat scummy, I am more interested in Axel actually explaining anything in this game. I went ahead and reviewed his posts and he has thrown doubt on multiple players and never explained anything. Sutherlands vote and unvote with really no reasoning. Attack on passdog he later forgot about. Now G&E with no explantation. This behavior is not very town like, and not very Axel like. Whenever he explains this it is simply he does not have enough time. However, he has been making much longer posts on God Mafia. As a result I am interested in watching Axel in the future.
I might agree with it being scummy, if not for the fact that I was advocating for Ikerr and Sutherlands to BOTH die today the entire time, since I find them both to be heavily scummy(in addition to what else I feel regarding Sutherlands). Also, I simply don't think that it counts as bandwagon hopping when A)they're clearly the scummiest players in the game right now anyway and especially B)I was the first person to vote Ikerr ever, before anyone else had even noticed him. That's not the behavior of a scum trying to 'just get someone lynched', because it's too noticeable. Also, 1/2 the players in this game have had votes on them by now, and I haven't voted anyone besides these two.
Post #14
Joke vote. OR WAS IT?
Seriously, I don't get the reason. It's "random" but a basis is also stated which is that ZDS appears to have an understanding of what's going on. ZDS appears to be throwing out wild speculation at this point. Is something he said actually right?
Post #16
Immediate Joke unvote. Appears chummy with ZDS.
Post #46
Speculates we might have another Cop or a reserve Cop. Speculates on the significance of Enchantments vs. Spells.
Post #48
I misread the card in the Graveyard as Giant Strength also. I didn't think it had any significance though. Kind of early to be declaring the need ro "re-read."
Post #70
Speculation about the nature of the mafia vs. the town. Nothing to speak of one way or the other.
Post #72
But here, seems to agrees with ZDS' (poor) logic that suggested that players in Newb #9, which DYH was the Mod. for, might have been more likely to target him during the Night because of his experience.
In fairness, he could simply be agreeing with the idea that Mafia are more likely to target experienced players, but ZDS was specifically suggesting players in Newb #9. And even more specifically that the SK might be from Newb #9.
Which is probably more a point against ZDS than G&E.
Post #79
Suggests mafia might be lurking. Even though the game has only been running for essentially 36 Hours.
Post #102
Defends his position to look at lurkers. Says (Pod) should point his fingers at the people who aren't posting.
Early pointing out of lurkers is slightly scummy.
Post #109
Says random voting can generate useful reactions. This can be true. Not scummy.
Post #127
Defends ZDS spamming as typical of him. Wants someone else to lay out the argument going on between Cyan and ZDS. FOS Sutherlands for no stated reason. Slightly scummy.
Post #191
Vote Sutherlands for saying he was suspicious of ZDS but bandwaggoning Ikerr, and for making many accusations but not substantiating them. I note that G&E himself does not "substantiate" the second part of this accusation.
I won't call it scummy though.
Post #220
Keeps vote on Suth bc he hasn't responded to his points. Fair.
Post #223
Picks up on a Suth hint. Asks directly about it. Fair.
Post#266
Wants Suth to claim. Fair assuming he's still suspicious, which he seems to be. But other are already asking for this too.
Post #346
Still wants Suth to claim. Seems to suggest that if Suth doesn't claim and lives the vig might kill him. Which is what some players are advocating for. So not an original thought here.
Post #407
FOS Cyan, even though he agrees with him? Somewhat scummy.
Post #492
Jumps off Suth (maintaingin the "big" FOS) and onto Ikerr. The only justifiacation given appears to be Ikerr's own statement that he has posted suspicions of (only) 6 players. Again, this is something many other people have already said.
So....
Possibly not as bad as I was remembering it being. There certainly is a lack of original thought here, and a willingness to bandwagon. A few posts I'd characterize as slightly scummy. No post of any real length or depth. The late jump onto Ikerr is highly suspect.
I don't feel like changing my vote, but at this point, with Deadline imminent, I'm also throwing my support behind an Ikerr claim sooner rather than later. Mainly because it will give us more time to evaluate it.
EWP: @SorryGuy. Um, hello Pot?
A)The card in the Graveyard IS Giant Strength, NOT Giant Growth
Reading that PBPA, I agree that G&E has had some scummy posts, most of which were just shameless bandwagon-esque posts. However, it seems like he's tried to participate in the game, and it's not the typical 'bandwagon after lurking alot' play that makes me so suspicious. I guess I'm probably a little lenient with him because I played in Newb 9 as well, and if you read that game, he played the same way in it, almost got lynched, and didn't understand to claim beforehand(it was only a circumstancial comment where he told us that Salubrious was town that made us realize he was the Cop and thus not lynch him)...so I'm willing to give him the 'newb defense', plus he doesn't seem terribly scummy from that PBPA anyway. I'd be happy if he could clean up his play some, but, I don't think he seems particularly scummy right now.
Town/Mafia/Other - 14/6/3
Win/Lose/Tie - 11/12/0
Nk/lynched/Survived - 16/4/3
I’m willing to drop my vote on silicon for now Unvote: silicon. However, I’m still watching because when he jumped on the ikerr wagon, he misquoted the vote count by one, and when getting this close to a lynch, 1 vote can make all the difference in the world. Honestly, I still think ikerr has been acting scummy all game. His explanations leave much to be desired. However, with him this close to a lynch, I’m not going to vote until he gets a chance to speak.
Just one quick side note:
@silicon: Would you mind saying how I’m trying to be too much like town? This is more of an academic curiosity than anything else.
It is nice to see that everyone has decided to calm down for the moment and we’ve progressed back into civilized conversation. Just in case anyone is wondering where my suspicions stand at the moment:
(in order):
Sutherlands == ikerr (they are tied at the moment), silicon, ……………….. Fayul (I just don’t have much to go by with her)
Here’s hoping that we can resolve ikerr’s case, for better or for worse, before a time restriction becomes a contributing factor.
I thought I had explained this more clearly than I obviously have. You seem to be doing everything possible to look like town - vote record, keeping stuff straight, filing all the papers, polishing Axel's shoes, etc. This behaviour, while not bad, makes me suspicious, and having never seen you play before, it makes me a bit more suspicious that you could be a new scum trying too hard to be town. Nothing concrete of course, just a small ping on the scumdar.
Oh and looking back I did indeed miss one vote, and I apologize for that (curse your font Xyre :p), however I do still stand by my vote on ikerr.
Ah, okay, I can see where you're coming from. Obviously, I'm inc
lined to disagree, but I will Unvote for the moment.
I'm rather apathetic about the Ikerr wagon, leaning mildy opposed. Hopefully I'll get a chance to look at the wagonners in a bit.
[The Family]
I over reacted a bit there. Sutherlands is significantly more scummy than Cyan (or anyone else in this game). I didn't like the way he was seizing on one aspect that could have been a simple missunderstanding. I didn't like the way he unvoted because he wasn't getting enough support and went to the more popular wagon.
I still stand by everything I've said on Suther. And still would like answers.
I don't at this point see anything that makes me think that Ikerr is particularily likely to be scum.
town:
8. chamber (replacing KeeperEUSC)
17. Fayul
6. Sutherlands1
looking good:
16. Crippled_Fist
10. Passdog
13. ZeDorkSlipeur
2. Ikerr
18. silicon
not sure:
1. AbbeyGargoyle
3. SorryGuy
4. Jobie (replacing cpol)
7. kops723 (replacing Pod)
14. Matjoeman
22. Axelrod
24. arimnaes
25. Xyre
26. Hvirfilvindr
looking bad:
20. Cyan (but he always reads like scum to me)
21. CropCircles(same as cyan)
9. Good&Evil
5. WhytePanther
scum:
15. atlseal (replacing bluesoul)
11. loran16
23. Treigit
I put them in order of how good/bad I feel about them ranging from good at top to worst at the bottom, the exception is the not sure column. I pretty much have no read on anyone in there. Oh and feel free to laugh at this list in the end game if its horribly wrong. Vote: Treigit
Town/Mafia/Other - 14/6/3
Win/Lose/Tie - 11/12/0
Nk/lynched/Survived - 16/4/3
Please could I be replaced?
I didn't make any notes the first time through, so I'd need to go through again to build a case. Right now its all just based off the impression I got after reading once. I can say lorans play reminded me of his play in star trek far more then it did in sienfeld. Thats really the only reason he's where he is.
um so yeah, I might post more detail about the bottom three later but not now.
btw, I'm strongly opposed to an ikerr lynch. what other current issues are going on... The vig should do what he wants, don't listen to the town. what else... yeah I can't think of any other current issues atm. Feel free to point me to something I havn't commented on and I will gladly do so.
Town/Mafia/Other - 14/6/3
Win/Lose/Tie - 11/12/0
Nk/lynched/Survived - 16/4/3
Chamber...did you just put all the people suspected into the good column for the reason that they were suspected? That just seems dumb...
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
I hadn't actually done that on perpus, funny that it turned out that way though.
Town/Mafia/Other - 14/6/3
Win/Lose/Tie - 11/12/0
Nk/lynched/Survived - 16/4/3
<XylBot> ||| MAFIABOT || sk: LookingforReality (Copycat) |||
<XylBot> ||| MAFIABOT || survivor: matjoeman (Anarchist) |||
<XylBot> ||| MAFIABOT || town: kops (Anarchist) |||
Mafia stats
No there wasn't. There was a bit of suspicion with a couple of votes, about where you were before I voted you.
Sorry, I remembered wrong about those. However, I did not add to the suspicion brought against SorryGuy, WhytePanther, Matjoeman, atseal, Cyan, or CropCircles, which still shows that I was not spreading suspicion whereever possible.
Loran16's initial pbpa of me was essentially: "Look, he has other posts! But that one post that others have pointed out is scummy and voted him for is scummy enough for me to vote him." I'm not sure, but that paraphrase may have a larger word count.
I don't see how that as a very wide range of people to be suspicious of. See silicons post 489. He states 6 people he is suspicious of in that post alone. I'd be surprised if most people in this game haven't already posted some form of suspicion against at least 6 people.
I haven't really been in the position to do anythng else. With this much attention on me, I haven't had the freedom to get involved in other conversations.
My first statement of suspicion against Abbey was how he claimed that my obvious joke OMGUS vote on him was seen as a scum tell. I mentioned that at the time. I also stated most of my reasons for being suspicious of Loran when I mentioned them. Passdog's suspicion was criticising his attack of WhytePanther, shortly after he presented it (I did say I was a little generous). How were these not adequate (at least in proportion to the amount of suspicion I was putting them to)?
If the town wants me to claim, I'll do it the next time I'm on.
Against Cyan:
- tried to make AG appear scummy for calling people idiots. claimed it wasn't an attack but had the 'unless you're mafia' clause which certainly put the idea that AG might be into peoples heads. indirect attack. See # 62
- attacked MJM for fishing where he was clearly only speculating as much as any other player
- trumped up charge against ikerr
- has expressed support for Sutho wagon but not voted that way thus maintaining interest of town in multiple wagons (#248 and # 252)
- in support of vigging - bloodthirsty. Just seems to want extra deaths
- has attempted to devalue players/arguements/votes by accusing them of some weakness or failing or otherwise belittling them. See #6 where he discredits arimnaes's random vote as vengeful, #110 tone suggests he is beyond reproach/condescending to treigit, #178 calls ZDS sketchy, #400 belittles my vote against him as bitter, recent ad hom at Sutherland.
Haven't had a chance to reread the last hundred posts so I may have more to add later.
MJM himself later agreed that one of the posts that I was calling him on seemed like fishing.
Considering that he's at 11 votes now, I'd have to say that the charge(s) against him were not trumped up at all.
Incorrect. I did, in fact, switch my vote back from Ikerr to Sutherlands for awhile. When it became apparent that it wasn't going to help, I put it back on Ikerr. As for the posts in question..in 248, I am specifically advocating people lynching Ikerr, nowhere do I 'express support' for Sutherlands lynch. I said that he looked fairly scummy, which he did, but that it was possible that he's a misguided townie. 252 is only a continuation of this.
Misrepresentation. I am in support of Sutherlands dying today, along with Ikerr being lynched. Initially, I was in favor of the Vig not firing at all(which is probably not going to happen anyway, regardless of how much some of you guys want to ignore statistical facts and act like Vigs don't generally fire every single night), but suggested that Sutherlands should be Vigged IF the Vig was going to fire in the first place. Then Sutherlands continued behavior made me change my mind and advocate that he simply die today period, including me switching to his lynch to try and further this(though I still maintained at the time that Ikerr was very scummy).
Arimnaes essentially agreed with my statement about his random vote, in his next post.
The point that I made with Treigit was valid. Many people at that point were still random voting, and he was already trying to get a bandwagon on me, with extremely flimsy basis.
ZDS *was* attacking sketchy right then. He had quite a few votes on him at that point, and I felt he was responding poorly to the pressure.
As for post 400, which was a response to post 374(by you), your were initially FOSing me, then, in your own words 'I just remembered my experience with Cyan in Star Trek'. Then you voted me. There is no explanation of a concept of logic there, it looked to me at the time(and still does in fact) that you were voting me because I was scum in some other game, and because you personally suffered from it.
I'm not even going to bother responding to that Ad Hom accusation again.
Page 36 vote count - replacement special, part deux
(With 24 alive, it takes 13 to lynch)
Sutherlands (4) - Matjoeman, ikerr, Jobie, Treigit
CropCircles (1) - Fayul
ikerr (10) - Sutherlands, arimnaes, loran16, AbbeyGargoyle, ZeDorkSlipeur, Cyan, Xyre, WhytePanther, silicon, Good&Evil
Fayul (1) - Crippled_Fist
Cyan (1) - Passdog
silicon (1) - kops723
Treigit (1) - chamber
@zedork bis: It's his job to defend himself.
Town/Mafia/Other - 14/6/3
Win/Lose/Tie - 11/12/0
Nk/lynched/Survived - 16/4/3
Compare this to High School Mafia, where WOLG as vig decided to start firing right away, hitting town on both of the first two nights. And one of those townies was Azrael.
Also, I believe that you're misinterpreting Chambers 'its his job to defend himself' statement, but, we'll see when he clarifies it.
EBWODP:
@Arimnaes: IIRC, In RotTK Mafia, Kenji started firing on either Night 1 or Night 2 at the very latest. That's not exactly what I'd call 'waiting until late in the game'. But, thank you for pointing out High School Mafia as yet another example of a Vig that started firing right away. The debate isn't whether it's correct to start firing immediately, it's whether or not it happens consistently enough that it's advisable to coach the Vig from Day 1. In my opinion, that is definetely the case here.
Yes, and he hit town.
No he didn't. He didn't start firing until night 3. And I already addressed why repeated vigging was more profitable for the town in that specific game that it is in general.
That game's still in progress, which means I (and more importantly, you) don't even know if he's a vig or not. He could be an SK or a mafia with extra kills, and that's about all I can say, with that game still going.
Another unique circumstance, which is not at all mirrored here. The reason he fired was because bateleur claimed to be immune to all kills until a certain condition was fulfilled. Rahl vigged him to test that claim.
Well, I can only speak to MTGS examples. And frankly, I think I've debunked most of yours. But consider this: even if it were the norm for vigs to be firing at every opportunity, would that make it good play? (See WOLG's case above for the answer.)
Edit (Just saw Cyan's edit):
I very much disagree. I think the debate is precisely about whether it's correct to start firing immediately, and I say it is not. It leads to townie deaths far more often that scum ones.
Not to mention that the primary reason you're advocating Sutherlands' death isn't because you think he's scum, but because you don't think we should have to listen to him anymore.
I was responding directly to your post that stated I should defend ikker if I though t he was town.
I do notice an apparent contradiction between these two posts though. You first tell me to defend someone, you then back away from the fact that you are defending anyone when you missinterpret what I said as an accusation. very strange.
Town/Mafia/Other - 14/6/3
Win/Lose/Tie - 11/12/0
Nk/lynched/Survived - 16/4/3
Regardless of what you want to debate about, what ZDS and I were discussing, and what has been discussed some previously, was how often Vigs fire. The fact that you don't think that Vigs should start firing immediately has nothing to do with the fact that it happens on a regular basis. As such, again, I think that suggesting a target for the Vig is appropriate for any concerned townie, since multitudes of past games have shown that a Vig is most likely going to fire every night.
I think there is a good possibility that he is scum. For awhile I didn't, but, I have ever since I decided to put my vote back on him(albeit temporarily) and started advocating that the Vig should in fact fire today(as opposed to previously where I said that the Vig shouldn't, but, if he is going to anyway, Sutherlands is a good target). My suspicion that he is scum has actually grown recently, because he has all but vanished ever since he stopped being the center of attention. It's pretty typical for scum whom have narrowly escaped the lynch to start lurking. Sometimes townies do this as well, but IMO, not nearly as often as scum do. Also, you're right, I do think that he should get Vigged because he is a liability. However, as has been stated, if it is concretely proven that he's town(which I doubt, since he doesn't seem like a good investigation target to me), then obviously I would stop advocating that he get Vigged. But considering that there is a good chance that he is scum anyway, vigging him still seems fine to me. It's not only because I 'don't think the town should have to listen to him anymore', though admittedly, that is part of it, and rightly so, in my opinion.
Town/Mafia/Other - 14/6/3
Win/Lose/Tie - 11/12/0
Nk/lynched/Survived - 16/4/3
On vigs and townies take 32: I would not advocate the vigging of a townie even if all he could say was "**** Treigit" in every post, even if he couldn't vote. However, Sutherlands is not a confirmed townie (I doubt he's town at all, but you knew that), and I can't see a way to confirm him that would be a good play. As for contributing content wise, I don't mean to imply that Sutherlands isn't trying, however, for a suspcious player who's claimed vanilla, they would have to give exceptional content. (If it were CC, instead of Suther in this position, he might be worth the investigation just to know if we can trust his analysis.) If I were vig, I might actually kill someone that I suspected to be town if there was significant evidence against him, no evidence towards him, and I suspected that the town would eventually spend a lynch on him.
I think that your argument largely depends on the playskill of the player who is the vig. Sometimes the town might be better off by using the vig as a second lynch as opposed to having them act independantly.
Still waiting for an ikerr claim before my vote goes anywhere.
French: Vig didn't fire until Night 4, and there were two in that game.
Sympathy: CP fired Night 1.
Drawn Together: Vig didn't fire 'til night three.
Douglas Adams: Vig didn't fire until (can't remember exactly but it was a couple nights in)
Star Trek: One vig fired day 1, the other held his fire until death three days in.
RTK: Not 'til day three.
That's mostly off the top of my head, but I think it's enough to prove my point. Cyan, if your going to make statements on statistics, try backing it up. Or at least say something that's true.
[The Family]
You miss my point. If the vig is going to listen to us, it's best not to have him/her kill a townie, and two day 1 lynchs is not a good idea, I dont care what you say. So either the vig will listen to the town, or he/she wont. If he will then directing him to not kill is better then directing him to kill someone. If he wont hes gonna do what he wants anyway. So telling him to kill someone tonight is just bad play.
Town/Mafia/Other - 14/6/3
Win/Lose/Tie - 11/12/0
Nk/lynched/Survived - 16/4/3
Just for the record, I interpreted Chambers' statement the same way that ZDS did.
Regardless of what you MAY have been arguing about. The fact remains that you said that the vig should kill me, even though you didn't necessarily believe i was town.
Even if that were the only reason, he has to make a judgement somewhere. The fact that you and Cyan are constantly casting doubt on me and misrepresenting what I say might have given him that impression.
Well that's a very interesting way to get the vig to do what you want. Also, I love that you in the beginning say that you wouldn't support a vig killing of a confirmed townie, and then twist a bunch of things to say that you would kill me if you were the vig. I can't refute what you say, but bravo on your linguistic skills.
Now then, I believe that Cyan is a more likely candidate for scum than Ikerr, and as such, I will unvote Ikerr, Vote Cyan. I will now attempt to lay out my reasoning.
1. Constantly devaluing others' statements.
(That was not the reason for Passdog's vote)
Not only is he devaluing my ideas, but he makes the ludicrous claim that "the town wasted a large part of this day putting votes onto [me]" because I wouldn't claim.
There are some of Cyan's posts lately which have been almost nothing except saying that I don't contribute to the game. And as I have shown, I am not the only one he has done this to.
3. Contradicting himself
4. Making a conspiracy theory about how I meant exactly what I said
(This statement makes perfect sense if you believe that I though I was saying that the people thought that ZDS was scum too. His version is quite a stretch)
Note in this next one, he claims that he is using "[my] exact words"
From Cyan's post about me:
Originally Posted by Cyan
[. . .]the supposition that mafioso will put themselves in harm's way to try to bail out another mafioso,[. . .]
Then when I asked when I said this:
I think these are sufficient enough. If anyone needs me to provide examples for 2 and 3, I can and will.
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
Hvirflinder (rampant, rampant lurking, i.e. 3 posts this entire game)
Silicon (almost 0 content, and even then only when called for and far past his promise)
Atlseal (bluesoul's incredibly out-of-character actions (when he's town) as well as Atlseal's complete 180 in posting style after I called him on it)
Cyan (just ask and I will go all out on a case against him, but I think it's been pretty well covered)
loran (can't completely remember my case against him but I do remember getting scummy vibes; if necessary, I can go back and find the details)
Seriously guys, there's 5 targets, all of which are far, far better than either Ikerr or Sutherlands as far as I can tell. Honestly, I think my number 1 request right now would be to have somebody state a few good reasons why we should lynch Ikerr over the above. In fact, I am willing to jump on/create a wagon on any of those people, so I'm telling you right now, I will hop onto any of those wagons if they actually get rolling, I will also wagon hop between them to whichever is going the strongest. On the other hand, I will just about flatly refuse to jump on any other wagon unless there is a very strong case backing it. We have a deadline people, let's lynch someone, anyone, who actually has a case against them (unlike any of today's wagons so far).
So anyway, there's my current stance, and I'm willing to create a stronger case against any of them if you guys want, but I'll only be able to find enough time for 1.
P.S. I reserve the right to add or remove to the above list as I see fit if I feel that I have misinterpreted somebody's actions.
and yes, i want ikerr to claim now please.
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
[The Family]
Hvirfilvindr (Yay for copy and paste btw) - Yes he's been lurking alot. I looked at his posts again and didn't see anything scummy about what he's said, but the facts that he hasn't said much, or voted at all, are interesting.
Silicon - I would also like to see more content from Silicon as well, I'm having trouble getting a read.
atlseal - I don't see where you are talking about a 180 when you called him on it. Yes, I do see that he was very vocal in his support of a Sutherlands claim. And after your post, he was less so. But that's really the only change I see, and that could be equally your comment and the case against Sutherlands disappearing.
Cyan - Wow, Cyan has been misquoting a lot of people lately. I think it's a little unfair that Cyan is getting attention for acting like he had in previous games where he turned out to be scum, because the goal as scum would be to look like town. A good player should look the same both ways, right? At any rate, he is already getting quite a bit of attention.
loran16 - I don't know where I stand on loran. I am not happy with his pointing a finger at Cyan simply for supporting the two hot bandwagons, when he is certainly not the only one who supported them, and he seems to be about as eager for a ikerr claim as atlseal was for Sutherlands.
Basically kops, if you're surveying who to do your analysis on, I think Silicon or loran would be most interesting to me.
Well, analyzing Silicon is usually quite a challenge. At this point in the game, I'll wager it'd be tough to get much on him, even if he is scum. A look at loran would probably be the more fruitfull of those two, and he has been raising my eyebrow a bit.
Besides, a game isn't really started 'til a loran wagon gets going, amirite?
[The Family]
"Sutherland's playstyle is totally OMGUS"
You're clearly not capable of seeing how anyone interacts with anyone else, except that you try to present it that anyone that wants to kill you must be scum.
To address some of your points directly:
At it's best, Mafia is a game of logic. Statistics are an extension of logic, and are consistently used in every single mafia game played, even if you don't realize it because it's not labeled as statistics. Also, this being a Specialty game has absolutely nothing to do with this conversation.
Just for the record, Chamber later clarified his post, and proved that I was correct in my statement that ZDS(and you apparently) misinterpreted it.
This, as well, has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion that we were having, and has been addressed ad nauseum already in this day. But you're right, I said, and still stand by my statement, that the Vig should kill you tonight. I can't make him obviously, but it's my opinion, and I've presented why I've thought it was accurate. If other people disagree, such is their right. Ultimately, the decision will be completely in the hands of whomever is actually the Vig, all that we can do is provide ideas to him. I really don't get why you're bringing this up again.
If you think that Chamber is actually defending you, you're sorely mistaken. Also, please note that Chamber specifically said that I *always* appear scummy to him, thereby invalidating his own theory of my scumminess.
He doesn't twist anything. He(and I as well) stated that he wouldn't support the Vig killing a confirmed townie, no matter what. You are very, very far from being a confirmed townie in anyone's eyes, especially Treigit and myself. Whatever point you're attempting to make here, I'm not sure, but you didn't succeed.
If you read the post in question, it absolutely comes across as Passdog voting me out of bitterness.
Please enlighten us, what exactly did putting a bunch of votes on you AND meeting your 'requirements' for claiming, only so that you could not do so at the end, gain/accomplish for the town?
A)I've spoken on a variety of issues lately, unlike you, whom utterly disappeared once the pressure was on you(at least until I said something about it, at which point you conveniently resurfaced). B)I'm not sure what you're saying that I've 'done to you', but you definetely have not shown any example of my involvement with anyone else in this game. As stated previously, your case is 100% OMGUS.
I didn't 'constantly change my vote on/off of you'. I was voting Ikerr. I put my vote onto you when you made that big deal about only claiming if CropCircles and I required it(which we did, and you NEVER DID, but somehow no one cares about that). After awhile it seemed like you were town and just very confused, so, I left your lynch and went back to Ikerr. Then, you persisted with all kinds of pointless arguing with ZDS, and your defense as to why you wouldn't claim after your own conditions were met was ridiculous, so, I started actively advocating you dying today and put my vote back on you, hoping it would result in you getting lynched. Eventually it became obvious that this wasn't going to happen, so, I put my vote back on Ikerr, whom I had maintained was still very scummy all throughout dealing with you. And yes, my stance changed. I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, and then your actions caused me to change my mind. Please explain what is wrong with this.
Please provide examples.
I still contend that you meant exactly what you said at the time, given the context of that conversation and all of the conversation preceeding and following it.
A)I was not trying to get the Vig to kill you, that was not part of the conversation it all. The conversation was purely regarding whether or not Vigs fire early on a regular basis. Even though Arimnaes tried to dismiss all of my examples as 'special circumstances', they are examples nonetheless, and are at least equal to the # of examples that CropCircles provided. To me, even something happening half of the time qualifies as 'on a regular basis'.
Sorry, you're right, it wasn't your exact words, word for word. It was still, essentially, repeating what you said, if not verbatim. You are just splitting hairs.
I think that your definition of the word 'sufficient' is highly inadequate. None of the points that you have attempted to make here are remotely valid.
What IS worth noting is that your vote takes Ikerr out of the range where he needs to claim. A vote that was sheer bandwagon by you to begin with, at a time where you desperately needed attention to be on anyone but you, and now that he's under real pressure, you move your vote. You don't even try to say that Ikerr seems any less scummy to you, you're just blatantly trying to derail his bandwagon now, in my opinion.
@Kops: From his initial blatant OMGUS vote on AbbeyGargoyle, to his no-reason vote change to ZDS, to the fact that he later tried to cover for that vote change by saying 'oh yeah it was for pressure to see how he reacted', to his blatant bandwagon vote of Sutherlands, to the fact that his response to anyone's questions of him have been wholly lacking, there is ample reason to be voting for Ikerr. Honestly, multiple PBPAs plus multiple specific question and answer sessions have been done regarding Ikerr..if you can't find the case on him, you're just not looking hard enough.
Certainly, there is far more reason to vote for him than Hvir, Silicon, Loran, or Atlseal. I could see why I would be included there and won't debate it, but, the rest of your list is ridiculously off-base, in my opinion. With Hvir and Silicon, you are basically trying to lurker lynch them. Now, typically, I'm in favor of lurker lynches. But not always on day 1, and especially not when there are legitimately scummy candidates that are worth pursuing. I fail to see how Loran is remotely worth consideration, and even less so Atlseal. You yourself said that Atlseal answered your previous questions appropriately, yet you're still trying to portray him as scummy now. Doesn't make alot of sense to me.
I'm still inclined to believe Cyan's innocence. If people want me to restate why I believe in his innocence I will.
Lastly, could someone please explain to me how my posting style did a one-eighty? All I did was notice that Sutherlands started posting more coherently, and that made me suspect him less than I originally did. I will cede to the point that I'm being as helpful as I can be this game with things like vote records. Being as open and honest as I can be. However, pulling a 180 I have not.
Also, could someone explain why 6 seems to be the magic number when it comes to scummy behavior? I don't like arbitrary numbers like this. I mean, why isn't the number seven? Where do you draw the line with this? Slippery slopes != (or =/= for those that don't know any CS) good thing.
I don't think that your posting style did a 180. Also, I don't think that anything is wrong, at all, with providing voting records, etc. That kind of thing happens from time to time, and I can't recall a time when someone legitimately received suspicion for it. As I stated previously, whomever accused you of that(Silicon I believe) was just reaching for content to appear more active than he really is. Saying that someone is being suspicious for being helpful is pretty absurd. I agree that there are instances where people have looked like they were helping the town, but in reality weren't doing so, and that is suspicious..but your vote record is a tool that the town can easily use, and it genuinely helpful.
Anywaaay:
@WP: The 180 I was referring to (note my reference to his style) was the fact that none of atlseal's posts contained any content whatsoever except
for his very first post of the game (which any good mafia player knows is a very townie-like entry, thus its WIFOM) until I pointed this out in my case against him, after which every one of his posts is now quite large, as though he's trying too hard to look like a townie.
@cyan again: Lurker lynching is one thing (usually I'm generally opposed to it), but 3 posts in 15 days is a bit ridiculous (ala Hvir... speaking of which I can't believe I actually tried to type that out the first time).
On silicon, he's not so much of a lurker lynch as a lurker-who-posts-scummily lynch. He promises "more content", produces said content several days late, and when it does come its in the form of a vote and a (iirc) bs reason (though I should double-check this).
Atlseal: see above, with the significant addition of bluesoul's scumminess
Loran: I agree in part, I believe it's time for me to do a full-blown case on him, but a) it will have to wait for tomorrow, or more likely, wednesday, and b) I'm going to try out Puzzle's idea from God mafia and not actually do a PBPA, just a profile case (with examples if necessary).
Finally, I find it rather amusing that out of my list of 5 people, the only person you agreed should be on there was yourself... makes me more than a bit worried.
EWP:
To be honest, this paragraph really doesn't make me feel any better about you. First of all, you lable ikerr as your top suspect while providing 0 reason (if you have done this in a previous point, I will recant that argument, but please point it out, I have trouble keeping straight who has made a case against whom (glares at cyan)). You didn't even reference another person's case. Seriously, this might be somewhat excusable if it is done once, when the bandwagonee is at <7 votes, but at this point (I don't know the exact number of votes he has right now), that's just ridiculous. You even say yourself you want to be sure he has a chance to claim, but if that's the case why vote him preemptively??? This question needs answering. I hope I'm not the only one who feels uncomfortable with that paragraph (cause if I am then my scumdar needs some serious tinkering :P).
??? What the f are you talking about?
Don't, but please point to the post in which you first laid out your case.
Uh, how? I want ikerr to claim at 10 votes when its 14 to lynch? Thats scummy? Id think 4 to lynch this early in the game is a good time to call for at least a partial claim.
But I'd love for someone to do a PBPA on me. (Also, calling me hypocritical for suspecting Cyan for his suth and ikerr bandwagoning is rather weird, considering i never really bandwagoned Sutherlands, and was early and provided a PBPA explaining my reasons for voting ikerr. And you cant deny that Cyan's ad homs and crazy relentlessness of Sutherlands before settling back into the most obvious current wagon (ikerr) was fishy).
EBWODP, and yes CC, a game without me wagoned on day 1 is a sad game indeed. I don't think ive succeeded on that in any game here on MTGS. :-).
Course, my innocence does make me feel far more comfortable surviving whatever PBPA you bring against me.
Have fun !
*Eagerly awaits!*
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
@Kops: I agree. 3 posts out of 560 total is not acceptable. I really think that Hvir needs prodded, and if that's happened already, he needs replaced. However, I don't think it's a good reason to say that he's suspicious...it's not really lurking at that point, it's just pure game negligence.
I agree that it'd help for you to analyze Loran at least to some extent so that we can all understand better. I just don't see anything outstanding really at all from him.
As for me..I don't think that I've been really scummy(except for maybe the statistics thing, I just didn't do enough research there), but, I can see how some people would. I've had enough arguments etc. with people that it would be pretty silly for me to say 'yeah I haven't done anything suspicious at all this game'. Honestly, most of the players in this game have at least 1-2 suspicious posts this game..the only person that I think is 100% clean so far is WhytePanther. I don't fantasize that I'm right and everyone else is wrong or anything like it, I'm just more assertive/aggressive about some things than most people. It seems like I have this conversation alot(I'm pretty hard on lurkers generally, and I have gameplay ideals that are probably too high for reality, but, sometimes I forget that and it gets the better of me).
EBWODP:
@Loran: It's 13 to lynch, not 14. Just wanted to throw that out there so that no one gets confused. The game started with 26 players, but, as we know Kenji and DYH died Night 0, so, that only leaves 24 people now, thus 13 to lynch. I could see someone trying to stall out until he's 2 votes shy of lynch usually, but, a large portion of the town has stated that Ikerr should claim, and as such, I think it's warranted even though he's only at 10 votes.
Town/Mafia/Other - 14/6/3
Win/Lose/Tie - 11/12/0
Nk/lynched/Survived - 16/4/3
typo? And its on this site, probably on like page 3 or something, but here.
Town/Mafia/Other - 14/6/3
Win/Lose/Tie - 11/12/0
Nk/lynched/Survived - 16/4/3