@DYH: I wasn't really talking about you. I just think that people need to settle down. Having a negative attitude is essentially always viewed as scummy, often for good reason. As much as I'd like to think that all of the people acting poorly are scum and everyone else is town, this is unlikely. Townies acting like scum do the rest of the town a disservice. And in this game, with the overall player level, there's no excuse for it.
I'm still suspicious of Xyre and Loran, for earlier transgressions. I've added atlseal and alx to that list, because of recent events. Atlseal for reasons already stated, alx because of the fact that he(from the way he explains it) went out of his way to reference a statement I made in another game as scum, but was only compelled to FoS me for it, seems suspect. Plus, he was also scum in that game, and the statement he referenced(doubting people's claims based upon their character being an extremely minor one) is a fairly commonplace one. On top of that, he gives the impression that he look hard to find examples of such from me as town, when in reality, he didn't look at all, he remembered something that happened in a game where we were both scum. It all seems fairly misleading to me.
1) I was the second person to vote for ZDS. Hardly a wagon at that point in time.
If by "second," you mean "fourth," then okay. Or are you not even paying attention to your own vote counts (see #114)?
2) You're saying that me posting vote counts is scummy??
Where did I say that? I said it's "unusual," especially since you've gone to the point of *editing* posts to include them. Whether it's scummy or not is up for question, but it's certainly not typical behavior.
It's amusing that you always lash out whenever you get attacked in Mafia games. This is why I always like pressing you so much - I'm guaranteed to get a reaction
Your inability to say what you mean to say (or so do you claim),
???? I havent' said anything accidentally. I may have joked once or twice, which i think you're talking about, but i'm pretty sure i intended to say it. Not sure where you're going here.
your flip-floping about Xyre
Ive addressed this "flipflopping", which it wasnt before. And as i said before, after reviewing the xyre wagon again, i thought that while vampyr's vote wasn't particularly worthwhile (thus excusing xyre's vote), cyan's was perfectly fine imo, and thus xyre's retaliation was not.
Other suspects have come up, and xyre isnt really on my radar at the moment, thus why i eventually unvoted, but i dont see what's wrong for voting for someone when it appeared to me they were OMGUSing.
, your voting record (especially the reasons given for those votes). I'm too lazy to look for other points (yet).
What's wrong with my voting record?
My first serious vote was Xyre. My 2nd was CP iirc. my third was grak, for a reason that i may revisit soon (see my above posts). My fourth was you for....well we've gone over this before.
I fail to see what's wrong with my voting pattern. So do please go back and find what's wrong with my posts.
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 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 looked over the first quarter of the thread, especially some of the banter between loran and Grakthis. While Grakthis' behavior I can excuse, loran has struck me through this game as rather odd. His vote on me still makes little sense, despite repeated explanations of my vote on Cyan (which he says was his primary motivation, citing "retaliation"), and overall he's been playing rather poorly. He's also played several large wagons (CP, ZDS, Grak*) with reckless abandon, which also bothers me. I think a PBPA on loran (at least for the second half) may be in order. I'll start looking at his posts in depth.
I looked over the first quarter of the thread, especially some of the banter between loran and Grakthis. While Grakthis' behavior I can excuse, loran has struck me through this game as rather odd. His vote on me still makes little sense, despite repeated explanations of my vote on Cyan (which he says was his primary motivation, citing "retaliation"), and overall he's been playing rather poorly. He's also played several large wagons (CP, ZDS, Grak*) with reckless abandon, which also bothers me. I think a PBPA on loran (at least for the second half) may be in order. I'll start looking at his posts in depth.
Like i said, originally my vote on you was because you seemed to retaliate on both vampyr and cyan, a pattern that i didnt find townie.
Upon closer inspection, i agreed that the vote against vampyr was actually justified.
But i'll welcome a pbpa.
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.
Where did I say that? I said it's "unusual," especially since you've gone to the point of *editing* posts to include them. Whether it's scummy or not is up for question, but it's certainly not typical behavior.
You listed it as a reason that I'm scummy. So is it or not?
It's amusing that you always lash out whenever you get attacked in Mafia games. This is why I always like pressing you so much - I'm guaranteed to get a reaction
Yes, well I almost specifically said something about it in my post, but whatever.
But its not helpful for the town. Statements like that in response to loaded biassed hypocritical PBPAs are scummy as hell, grak or not. And those pbpas are bad and inaccurate.
I never said that I agreed with how he plays or his tone. I never said that I supported it. If you read Xyre's post, he ponders aloud whether Grak's insistance that only he knows that he is a townie and his generally being an unhelpful, condescending and arrogant dick is just how is. That is how he has played as long as I have played with him regardless of alignment.
???
If ZDS dies tonight, and the partner is in danger of being lynched tomorrow, or on any other day, all he needs to do is say "I am ZDS' mason partner". Unless counterclaimed by a suicidal scum, he should be OK at this point.
Yeah, I realized that about 5 minutes after I posted it. :(.
What about your call on Xyre for fishing ? It's pretty hard to read "care to fish ? vote Xyre" as "Xyre, you shouldn't do this. —Your dear friend who cares about you, Loran the sixteenth".
[quote]
Notice how after that post with the vote, i dont mention it again till i unvote. As i said, it wasn't a vote to wagon, just a vote sending a message "don't fish".
Everything.
— The vote on Xyre : Weak vote on a quickly growing wagon. The "I didn't find Xyre scummy until then" line gives you way too much room to fall back if/when the wagon dies.
Not going to bother with this anymore.
— The vote on Carrion Pigeons : Voting for a multi-voter on day 1…*yeah right.
Do you learn anything? If cp was acting scummy, which he was, him being a multivoter and all doesnt mean jack! He is not confirmed. Seriously.
— The vote on Grakthis : What's so scummy about his "PBPA" ?
Well, besides the fact that it uses loaded words to make his point against someone for using loaded words; LOOK AT HIS REACTION TO SUTHERLANDS! Oh, I'm townie, therefore when I'm doing it, i have the town's interests at heart.
HOW DOES THAT NOT STRIKE YOU AS WRONG?!!!
This is the one vote where i'm still of the belief that i may go back to it, seriously man, go read the exchanges between me, grathkis sutherlands, and occasionally xyre. How could you have anything wrong with the vote? Not to mention that it doesn't follow your bandwagoning theory, as no one else voted him. HMMM!
— The vote on me : Superb wagonning. Couldn't do it better.
Like i said, i wanted to hear your response, it didnt convince me, so i voted you. Nothing more about this. Only reason my vote was the last on the wagon was because i waited for your response to axel's accusation to actually place my vote on, (otherwise I'd have been the 4th vote and not the 9th).
Seriously though, go read the grathkis stuff again. I'm shocked that you can try brining that against me.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Mafia MVP Harry Potter Mafia!
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
Quote from Seppel »
I love Joboman, Poggy, Niv, and Vezok, because, while they may not be the best players, they still try to win. Having fun is the most important thing to a game, but I've learned that if you don't try to win, then you're ruining everyone else's fun.
EBWODP, the first part should bein a quote, and the first quote is my response.
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.
@Alx2 : just realized I missed your #264. I kind of didn't see it when scrolling through the page (it's black on black). To answer it (a bit late), the only time I've changed my mind was about Xyre (I went from "very interested to see what he would answer to the accusation" to "these people defending him are doing so in an incredibly scummy way"). Where exactly is the other flipflopping ? As far as my votes being convenient go, what did you mean exactly ?
Well, I see no need to put pressure on you further with the mason claim and all, so I guess that request for clarification is actually you putting pressure on me. Fair enough. I had it coming.
To clarify, the below is does not necessarily represent my current view, I'm merely explaining my views at the time I made the case.
Flip-flopping:
1. Bringing up the flavor discussion and withdrawing from it in the next post (but the ending of that post leaves a hook to continue the discussion)
2. Voting Xyre, then chiding his defenders for wishing to gain "townie points"
3. Unvoting Xyre, then continuing to argue with Xyre, then voting Loran for attacking Xyre.
Convenient voting:
1. Voting Xyre immediately upon being asked a loaded question by RafK. If he answers that question in a satisfactory manner - you can quickly unvote. If not, voila, you're already on the wagon!
2. Voting Loran just as the Xyre wagon was sort-of falling apart also struck me as politically motivated.
I find this claim thoroughly unlikely. It's hard to believe that two such minor characters would even be in the game, and the whole 'it takes 2 less votes to lynch me' doesn't really make alot of sense. What is the flavor there? I'm also not impressed with how ZDS didn't originally state his role, no matter how obvious it might have seemed, but immediately 'confirmed' Loran's guess of it.
Lastly, the way that atlseal just ate it up also seems dubious.
Wow... I am voting for you, right?
*checks*
Whew. Good thing. I was almost dissapointed in myself for a minute.
I mean, clearly, with 25 (right?) players in this game I can totally see how the designer would be able to come up with 25 roles without using obscure characters from the movies.
Quote from Spoon »
So, once more I say. This is NOT a justification for your comments as far as the rest of the town is concerned, as we do not possess the same information you do, and it’s extremely illogical to assume otherwise.
Yes. And if you'd read what I posted, you'd see that *I* said that.
Amazing what happens when you actually read my posts.
Quote from Spoon »
I’d ask you not to speak down to us, please. Well, I would, if I hadn’t already done the same to you. I still believe this is an extremely silly justification, but calling it “retardspeak” was definitely over the line and into Canada. Apologies for that, I’ll keep my ad homs to myself.
K. Sounds good to me. I just wanted to be clear on what was and was not acceptable.
Quote from Xyre »
And Grak, you missed my question. I want you to answer me again: if I say spoon boy isn't in the game, am I spoon boy?
Man... if I didn't have enough proof that you're not even reading my posts, I have it now.
I did, in fact, answer your question. Maybe you should go back and re-read my posts till you find it. Then maybe you actually would know what I said.
Quote from Alex2 »
Ah, the dreaded "scum FOS, protown players vote" argument. You are out of vogue. This generalization is normally considered too beaten up to be used even in newbie games.
Besides, you know full well votes are NOT everything that makes a paper trail. See post 335 not too long ago in this very game.
You're right... it's not "scum" vs "town" it's "cowards" vs "leaders." Scum are often cowardly, but it's a coward tell, not a scum tell.
Either way, cowards FOS instead of voting.
Quote from Abbey »
I never said that I agreed with how he plays or his tone. I never said that I supported it. If you read Xyre's post, he ponders aloud whether Grak's insistance that only he knows that he is a townie and his generally being an unhelpful, condescending and arrogant dick is just how is. That is how he has played as long as I have played with him regardless of alignment.
You, of all people, can't completely discredit the effectiveness of what I do.
Dislike it all you want, but I get results.
Also, I have been well behaved this game so far. So, no u
A more general note on the game: The last 2 posts from Fadeblue have read as strongly townie to me. Very authentic, honest and thought out. I'll need to review the content for accuracy (on the surface, he had a few logical statements I didn't agree with), but call it a vibe based on experience.
Also, good lord, I've been working on this reply for like 3 hours. Damn customers always wanting help
Oh look, in the PPE, I see more stuff to respond to
Quote from Loran »
Well, besides the fact that it uses loaded words to make his point against someone for using loaded words; LOOK AT HIS REACTION TO SUTHERLANDS! Oh, I'm townie, therefore when I'm doing it, i have the town's interests at heart.
HOW DOES THAT NOT STRIKE YOU AS WRONG?!!!
This is the one vote where i'm still of the belief that i may go back to it, seriously man, go read the exchanges between me, grathkis sutherlands, and occasionally xyre. How could you have anything wrong with the vote? Not to mention that it doesn't follow your bandwagoning theory, as no one else voted him. HMMM!
Whew. Good thing. I was almost dissapointed in myself for a minute.
I mean, clearly, with 25 (right?) players in this game I can totally see how the designer would be able to come up with 25 roles without using obscure characters from the movies.
Yes. And if you'd read what I posted, you'd see that *I* said that.
Amazing what happens when you actually read my posts.
K. Sounds good to me. I just wanted to be clear on what was and was not acceptable.
Man... if I didn't have enough proof that you're not even reading my posts, I have it now.
I did, in fact, answer your question. Maybe you should go back and re-read my posts till you find it. Then maybe you actually would know what I said.
You're right... it's not "scum" vs "town" it's "cowards" vs "leaders." Scum are often cowardly, but it's a coward tell, not a scum tell.
Either way, cowards FOS instead of voting.
You, of all people, can't completely discredit the effectiveness of what I do.
Dislike it all you want, but I get results.
Also, I have been well behaved this game so far. So, no u
A more general note on the game: The last 2 posts from Fadeblue have read as strongly townie to me. Very authentic, honest and thought out. I'll need to review the content for accuracy (on the surface, he had a few logical statements I didn't agree with), but call it a vibe based on experience.
Also, good lord, I've been working on this reply for like 3 hours. Damn customers always wanting help
Oh look, in the PPE, I see more stuff to respond to
Posting a pbpa using loaded words (in a pbpa accusing another of using them no less), then being completely unhelpful and sarcastic in response to accusations of this is scummy, as its not responding to the accusations in the first place. Its useless talking that did nothing but a. confuse others and b. direct attention away from the fact that the pbpa was crap to begin with. It is definitely not protown(read: helpful to the town) behavior (by your own admittance) and i think i can fairly call it scummy.
Also, this isnt tings, and as much as i love joking, sarcasm is hardly a useful thing here.
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 going to start with 72. While there are other loran posts before that, the majority of them are arguing with Grakthis and the like, and no matter how cute it is for Grak to call him "Lauren", it doesn't help much. So...
72: Defends me (ironic) against accusations of defensiveness and whatnot.
75: I love this post in that it's a perfect representation of how dumb the wagon on me was. Nothing new.
88: Unvotes me. Mildly amusing considering he's one of my biggest proponents at the time.
92: Asks Spoon to check something with respect to his blue votes.
98: Asks Az for a vote count, probably to check the Spoon thing.
158: Now it gets interesting. OMGUS votes me for my Cyan vote. Of course, he doesn't say anything about the rationale for my vote... he just calls it OMGUS and uses that as justification. This is interesting - OMGUS has a very negative connotation, and it could be a scum tactic to hide behind OMGUS to justify a flimsy vote. And that's what this vote really is: flimsy as hell.
164: Here's where he has to stand up to the argument that he's bandwagonning on little evidence. He does argue effectively that he isn't wagon hopping, but he still doesn't really provide a validation for the vote other than "retaliatory voting". If he had, you know, read my post, he'd realize that it was never retaliatory and instead that my vote was based on sound mafia logic.
169: Defends his original vote for "being first", which I can understand. What I don't get is why he just shrugs me off. This looks rather vicious, especially considering I'm the guy he's calling scummy.
172: Explains his vote again, saying I was being "seemingly retaliatory". So now I'm not even retaliatory, just "seemingly" so. Interesting. Other than that, he responds to my taunt, which was based on my frustration with his ludicrous rationale.
179: Swings his attention onto ZDS (nothing new - CP had already done such). Defends my pseudo-fish as not justifying a wagon. I'm sad he missed my taunt in 174 - I really wanted to show him how idiotic he was acting. Ah well.
181: Admits that his original vote wasn't really justified (nice!). Still stands by his second (damn!).
185: This is interesting - he admits that the Vampyr vote was justified. He stands by the Cyan vote. It may just me, but does this strike anyone as him trying to backtrack to stop people from looking at him?
192: Says he doesn't understand why Hvir's now a person of interest.
200: Votes CP for his aggressive approach to Hvir.
209: Tells Vampyr to go reread his "reasoning" before focusing on him for voting me.
222: Blows Vampyr off because he apparently didn't read Loran's posts. He then points out that while CP has a rather townie role, he's acting rather scummy.
260: This post reminds me of a cartoon from homestarrunner.com. It's a strong bad email in which he's talking about radio, and at one point, Homestar says something about "Cut it out about the fish already!"
I dunno, that's just how some of loran's posts make me feel.
301: Responds to Grakthis and Hvirfilvindr. I don't understand quite what the point with ZDS is about, but he makes one of those, too, and votes for him.
305: Points out Grak's hypocrisy. Responds to Atl's rather unimportant comment.
317: Unvotes ZDS the claimed mason. Argues that ZDS has been anything but subtle.
319: Argues that knowing the other mason isn't important at the moment.
326: And again. This interests me, because after how much loran jabbed at him, one might think he'd want ZDS to be confirmed by someone else. It's almost like he's... relenting? This doesn't make sense to me.
380: More bantering with ZDS. He still is backing off his vote on me, which bothers me. While he's still standing behind it, he's also saying he unvoted me because I wasn't on his radar. This seems inconsistent to me, like he's both protecting and disowning his actions simultaneously.
Now for all his posts made since I started this pbpa.
384: Still both defending and rejecting his vote. Not making me feel any better about him.
389: Defends his original fish vote and its context. This doesn't make much sense - if you wanted to say "don't fish", why the vote?
He then says nothing in response to ZDS' new argument that he gave himself wiggle room by trying to appear impartial while piledriving me. Next he argues that CP's role doesn't justify CP's actions, then points out how idiotic Grak has been at times, then tries to justify his bandwagonning.
I agree with him on the CP and Grak things to some extent. I take CP's claim/ability with a grain of salt, looking at his actions in context. While I know it's nigh-unheard of that a multivoter would be scum, I want to see what happens and until then, am willing to give CP the benefit of the doubt. I also think that Grak has been relying on crap-logic too much and isn't looking too good to me.
However, his first and last justification to me are pure crap. He did vote for me with reckless abandon and bandwagonned ZDS, which are both rather scummy reactions.
Overall impression: First of all, this guy posts a lot, and often with no real reason. The pirate thing especially sticks out to me.
While not all of loran's votes/bandwagons have been unjustified, there are a few that stick out. Both of his votes on me have been rather poorly upheld by him, and his argumentation for the second one especially has been choppy and irrational. It's almost as if he didn't even read my original justification for the vote. And I don't think I'm alone in thinking that his persistence in trying to get me for that vote was not a townie response.
The wagon on ZDS, in my opinion, was rather poorly executed and even more poorly reasoned through. If anything, his wagon on ZDS reeks of vindictiveness, which to me looks quite hypocritical in light of his accusations against me. But what interests me is that at one point, he's almost kind to ZDS, when he's nearing a lynch (326). It's almost as if he doesn't actually want to lynch ZDS. It sounds crazy, but maybe, just maybe, this entire thing was an act? I don't know... putting 326 and the posts around them in context with the rest of loran's posts is difficult.
However, loran, you've really not shown me you're working in the town's best interest, and I could easily see CP and Grak being town and you being scum trying to get them. I don't know about the ZDS thing, but it doesn't make you look any good at all.
Vote Loran.
@ Grakthis: I did read your response. I wanted to see if you answered it in the same way. But forget it, it's no longer important, I suppose.
Posting a pbpa using loaded words (in a pbpa accusing another of using them no less), then being completely unhelpful and sarcastic in response to accusations of this is scummy, as its not responding to the accusations in the first place. Its useless talking that did nothing but a. confuse others and b. direct attention away from the fact that the pbpa was crap to begin with. It is definitely not protown(read: helpful to the town) behavior (by your own admittance) and i think i can fairly call it scummy.
Also, this isnt tings, and as much as i love joking, sarcasm is hardly a useful thing here.
First of all, you keep saying PBPA and it was nothing close to a PBPA.
Second of all, I have been posting opinions, analysis and thougts in EVERY POST. No where have I just been unhelpful and sarcastic.
Third of all, I can't really respond to accusations that it's scummy until someone makes a case that it's scummy.
Fourth, don't call my analysis crap unless you're willing to back it up. Also, calling things crap without actually making a case for it, *is* grade A scum tactic. This is also known as LINK AND PROVE OR STFU.
The only way to form a paper trail is with votes. Mr. Alx's poor reasoning for his casting suspicion wasn't what attracted my attention so much as the fact that instead of voting, he took away Mr. Cyan's "townie point" and fosed him.
Okay… wait, what does that have to do with Fadeblue ?
Simply that that's the same reason I threw some dust on Mr. Fade. He made a brief statement of why he thought Mr. Sutherlands was the scummiest player in the game, but then took no action in that regard.
Simply that that's the same reason I threw some dust on Mr. Fade. He made a brief statement of why he thought Mr. Sutherlands was the scummiest player in the game, but then took no action in that regard.
Incorrect. I never stated Sutherlands was the scummiest player in the game. I simply said he was scummier than ZDS, and a better candidate for a lynch.
Whew. Good thing. I was almost dissapointed in myself for a minute.
I mean, clearly, with 25 (right?) players in this game I can totally see how the designer would be able to come up with 25 roles without using obscure characters from the movies.
This logic might be valid if I didn't know, with absolute certainty, that there are at least two non-Matrix characters that Az tied into the story for this game. This is a big part of why I doubt ZDS claim. There is no reason to use such ridiculously obscure characters as the ones ZDS mentioned when you're already bringing in characters from outside of the original genre.
This logic might be valid if I didn't know, with absolute certainty, that there are at least two non-Matrix characters that Az tied into the story for this game. This is a big part of why I doubt ZDS claim. There is no reason to use such ridiculously obscure characters as the ones ZDS mentioned when you're already bringing in characters from outside of the original genre.
Why would you come out and say this in the face of little-to-no pressure? Do you realize what you've done?
This logic might be valid if I didn't know, with absolute certainty, that there are at least two non-Matrix characters that Az tied into the story for this game. This is a big part of why I doubt ZDS claim. There is no reason to use such ridiculously obscure characters as the ones ZDS mentioned when you're already bringing in characters from outside of the original genre.
I'm going to treat this as a mason claim. This is not fishing. I am not a requesting information, not pushing Cyan for clarification or explanation. I'm merely pointing out that AS FAR AS MY VIEW OF THE GAME IS CONCERNED, from this point on, Cyan is a claimed mason. There is no need for Cyan to confirm or deny this. That's all. I shall now reread with that in mind.
DYH: No idea what you're talking about. I didn't really want it to go that way, but, I feel like there is a good chance that the presence of non-matrix roles makes such an insubstantial claim as ZDS' role highly unlikely.
@Alx: I'm not claiming a masonry, and don't want pressure put on ZDS based upon the misconception that I am. That's not to say that I believe him, because I don't, but it's not because I'm a mason, because I'm not.
DYH: No idea what you're talking about. I didn't really want it to go that way, but, I feel like there is a good chance that the presence of non-matrix roles makes such an insubstantial claim as ZDS' role highly unlikely.
I disagree. It only makes the claim slightly less likely, rather than highly unlikely. I don't believe that Az would take only significant Matrix characters (and no minor ones) and then jump completely outside of the Matrix realm for the rest of the characters.
The characters that ZDS claimed can barely even be considered 'minor'. In the entire Matrix mythos, they have 2 minutes of screen time, and are never even referenced by name. It simply doesn't make sense to me for them to be included, especially as masons. Tank & Dozer would make infinite more sense as masons, or 'the twins' that work for the Merovingian. Such an obscure claim already seemed unlikely to me, especially when you factor in that not all of the characters are from The Matrix.
I mean, honestly, when you're trying to come up with roles/names, and you've already set the precedent for including characters from other mythos, why would you include such minor, pointless roles? It doesn't make any sense. ZDS is getting a pass because he claimed mason.(well, after Loran threw out the idea, ZDS ran with it, which is inconsistent with his statement that he 'was just nameclaiming'..if such was the case, he wouldn't suggested that we could figure out his role, nor would he have confirmed it immediately after Loran suggested that). ZDS claim stinks, but he's getting the benefit of the doubt anyway. If he'd claimed that rolename with any other role, I highly suspect we'd be bantering idly now while waiting for the lynch vote to be cast. I'm fine with not lynching ZDS today, because this situation is likely to work itself out later..but I was pressed for why I don't believe him, and I've answered.
Something I forgot. This post by Alx rubs me the wrong way. I didn't claim anything like a masonry, and it comes across to me as though alx is trying to set me up to take a fall here. There is one other possibility as to what he was trying to do, which involves him being town, but hopefully he's not so transparent. I think that this, along with the earlier things that I mentioned, make alx worth looking into.
I'm going to treat this as a mason claim. This is not fishing. I am not a requesting information, not pushing Cyan for clarification or explanation. I'm merely pointing out that AS FAR AS MY VIEW OF THE GAME IS CONCERNED, from this point on, Cyan is a claimed mason. There is no need for Cyan to confirm or deny this. That's all. I shall now reread with that in mind.
Huh... I wonder if there are any other roles besides masons in mafia that have knowledge of the characters of other players in the game....
Quote from Cyan »
The characters that ZDS claimed can barely even be considered 'minor'. In the entire Matrix mythos, they have 2 minutes of screen time, and are never even referenced by name. It simply doesn't make sense to me for them to be included, especially as masons. Tank & Dozer would make infinite more sense as masons, or 'the twins' that work for the Merovingian. Such an obscure claim already seemed unlikely to me, especially when you factor in that not all of the characters are from The Matrix.
1) Azrael is likely to include one or more improbable roles in this game. Possibly way more.
2) I am not disagreeing with you about outside roles, BUT, their presence does not preclude obscure roles from the movie
3) Tank and Dozer are dead when this story starts. That obv doens't make it impossible for them to be included, but I would call them significantly less likely than a minor character who has a chance of actually being alive in this plot line.
Personally, if I were designing a 25 person matrix game, I would start running out of "likely" characters at about 10-15. After that, everyone becomes improbable or from outside source material.
Why are Tank & Dozer dead when this story starts? Keeping in mind that that was just an example, I don't see anything in the Storyline from the first post that would indicate this.
I doubt that all of the characters that die in the movies are not in this story, considering that would be..most of the characters. And Azrael clearly isn't following exactly to the core storyline, considering that he made up his own storyline to go with this game. You stating that Tank and Dozer are dead really confuses me.
Centuries later, when version 2.0 was abolished and its memory all but forgotten, not long after a tenuous peace was at last achieved between man and machine...
The game is set after the events of the trilogy and the alliance between the robots and men.
Okay, so from what I'm gathering, the current topic of discussion is setup speculation and the odds of ZDS' claim being true? Can we move onto something that actually has relevance to what we might do today? I'm still happy to be looking at loran, who seems like a popular target, or at arim. I'm going to have to do some looking into that.
Also, Suth, I'm pretty sure you've counted my votes wrong, but I'll make it easy for you. Unvote, Unvote, Unvote.
What?! Look at the initial post; he is dead. Deceased. Kaputt. Indefinitely horizontal. In mafia games, you see, people are occasionally "killed off," and when that sad event occurs, he or she is no longer allowed to post, on account of rigor mortis and what-have-you.
'Welcome to Mafia Salvation', it said, 'Population: 3,660.' And someone, they never figured out who, had painted on the sign in red letters: '1,831 to lynch.'
Neo
Morpheus
Trinity
Agent Smith
Cypher
Apoc
Dozer
Tank
Mouse
the Oracle
Switch
Agent Brown
Agent Jones
the Architect
the Merovingian
Persephone
the Twins (2)
Agent Johnson
Seraph
Zee
Captain Ballard
Agent Jackson
the Keymaker
Commander Lock
Agent Thompson
Link
Niobe
Councillor West
Rama-Kandra
Ghost
Cas
Councillor Hamann
Captain Mifune
There's 34 roles there, pulled straight from the wiki. There's around 6 that are so insignificant that they don't have their own wiki article. The role that ZDS claimed wasn't even significant enough to be mentioned. Now, does that mean that ZDS was lying? No. It's possible that Az put those roles in to make sure we weren't dependent on the setup. But Cyan has a point, there are much more likely roles in there for masons. But also, how many of those characters died during the movies? Those may or may not be present in this game... according to the scenario, they won't be. I'd be willing to ask that ZDS bring out his partner, depending on what the rest of the town thinks (obv). What's the worst that could happen? I see no scenario in which this wouldn't help the town.
(But then again, I'm always willing to lynch Grakthis ;))
@CP: That's the way the mod had them... but they're correct now ;). As for loran, right now I don't really think he's likely to be scum.
One of my current issues with the claim, completely aside from role obscurity, is the "takes 2 votes less than normal to lynch me" thing. Apparently this is true for both of them (same role PM). It's not like a 2-man Mason team is so overwhelmingly powerful in a 24 player game that they need this "drawback" to make it fair. And it's not like they have an obvious character based reason for it - they weren't even really characters. So, it's...inelegant.
And of course the fact that they supposedly got the same role PM at all is questionable. This isn't DoTA Mafia where the people who got the same role PMs all had the same role. These are supposedly 2 separately named roles.
That said, there are certainly other people to look at.
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.
DO NOT keep speculating about which roles are or aren't significant enough to be included in this game, because all that does is give indications to the Mafia of who is a significant character and who isn't. While that doesn't give them information about abilities, it's still more than we need to be giving them at this point.
I am going to say right now that my character is NOT in Sutherlands' list. I am doing this so that we can end this discussion and move away from the "minor vs. major" argument and prevent any extra leaks of information. I feel this is necessary because Sutherlands posted that list, which means that people's reactions to it may unnecessarily reveal information. Now PLEASE, no more speculating over which characters Az has included in the game. Just ignore the whole issue.
(Of course, you can still discuss the likelihood of ZDS' claim based on issues *other than* role obscurity.)
Well we already know that there are roles both on and off that list, and I wasn't trying to say we should lynch ZDS based upon his role obscurity... but if you're mafia trying to fake a role... you usually pick an obscure one. Anyway, a masonry that takes less votes to lynch them than it does someone else?
Well we already know that there are roles both on and off that list, and I wasn't trying to say we should lynch ZDS based upon his role obscurity...
I'm not accusing you of doing so. I'm simply trying to prevent anyone else from involuntarily giving free information to the Mafia by talking about that list.
Let me repeat to everyone: DO NOT COMMENT ON WHETHER YOU ARE A "MAJOR" OR "MINOR" CHARACTER. IT IS NOT RELEVANT.
but if you're mafia trying to fake a role... you usually pick an obscure one.
While true, it is insufficient evidence.
Anyway, a masonry that takes less votes to lynch them than it does someone else?
DO NOT keep speculating about which roles are or aren't significant enough to be included in this game, because all that does is give indications to the Mafia of who is a significant character and who isn't. While that doesn't give them information about abilities, it's still more than we need to be giving them at this point.
I am going to say right now that my character is NOT in Sutherlands' list. I am doing this so that we can end this discussion and move away from the "minor vs. major" argument and prevent any extra leaks of information. I feel this is necessary because Sutherlands posted that list, which means that people's reactions to it may unnecessarily reveal information. Now PLEASE, no more speculating over which characters Az has included in the game. Just ignore the whole issue.
(Of course, you can still discuss the likelihood of ZDS' claim based on issues *other than* role obscurity.)
That was unnecessarily dramatic.
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.
Before i start, the pirate thing is something you might wanna read. In court mafia, arim was a scum who was a pirate. One player had a role indicating a pirate might be scum. So howd arim play it? By pretending he had a PR that made him have to talk like a pirate. So when lj said that he wouldnt pretend to have a "Mr." PR as scum, i joked around and made a pirate joke. I was at work. I was bored. :-P
326: And again. This interests me, because after how much loran jabbed at him, one might think he'd want ZDS to be confirmed by someone else. It's almost like he's... relenting? This doesn't make sense to me.
See, this is a problem with someone having an opinion pretty strongly before they do a pbpa, and its why you don't understand this. I say NO to ZDS answering axel's 2nd question because his claim already was good, and why are we giving the scum extra info? Notice in 310 i ask for a partial role claim. Why a partial claim? Because ZDS being a mason means that he's not the lynch for today.
So why would we need to know the answer to axel's 2nd question? How does that help us if ZDS isn't the play? The answer: It doesn't. As such, i argued against zds exposing such info, and i'm glad he didn't.
Furthermore, we dont' need to know the 2nd mason, as its day 1. The thing is that a claimed mason with 100% confirmance is NOT the play on day 1. in a couple of days, if we haven't hit scum, we can start inquiring, especially if zds either has done something scummy or night actions attract our notice. But for now, this info is only helpful to the scum. worst comes to worst, we wagon the 2nd mason and he comes out. But most likely the situation occurs where the 2nd mason remains safe confirmable when the time comes.
Cyan was using the game in question to make an example of why you can lynch a scummy mason claim on day 1. Read the game in question....there's no comparison. Still, shouldnt talk about it any more than that.
380: More bantering with ZDS. He still is backing off his vote on me, which bothers me. While he's still standing behind it, he's also saying he unvoted me because I wasn't on his radar. This seems inconsistent to me, like he's both protecting and disowning his actions simultaneously.
My opinions do change over time. Like i said, i first voted you for what seemed to me like retaliatory voting on two people. After my reveiew of the case on you (see post 179), i saw that vamp's vote was crud. However, as i'm someone who likes to see how people are playing compared to previous games and etc, i thought cyan's vote was justifiable and that a retaliatory vote, which was what it was, was scummy.
Also the prodding has to do with the fact that a. i hate lurkers, and b. every time i see a vote count his random vote is till on me. That annoys me.
Now for all his posts made since I started this pbpa.
384: Still both defending and rejecting his vote. Not making me feel any better about him.
389: Defends his original fish vote and its context. This doesn't make much sense - if you wanted to say "don't fish", why the vote?
He then says nothing in response to ZDS' new argument that he gave himself wiggle room by trying to appear impartial while piledriving me. Next he argues that CP's role doesn't justify CP's actions, then points out how idiotic Grak has been at times, then tries to justify his bandwagonning.
I agree with him on the CP and Grak things to some extent. I take CP's claim/ability with a grain of salt, looking at his actions in context. While I know it's nigh-unheard of that a multivoter would be scum, I want to see what happens and until then, am willing to give CP the benefit of the doubt. I also think that Grak has been relying on crap-logic too much and isn't looking too good to me.
However, his first and last justification to me are pure crap. He did vote for me with reckless abandon and bandwagonned ZDS, which are both rather scummy reactions.
Reckless abandon? Sounds fun! But i've already defended my vote there, so i dont feel like arguing with loaded language (hey it comes up again!).
And like i said to ZDS, i didn't bandwagon zds. I unvoted (it was grak) where i couldve placed the 6th vote, but instead waited to hear ZDS' response (as despite his attacks on me, i hadnt really been finding him that scummy before the alx and axel pbpas). His response was simply that:
hey of course i noticed the vote counts that wasnt strange at all! and look you all wagoned me despite 2 people bringing cases agaisnt me, that's so suspicious!
That's not a defense. Err well, correction, that's a sutherlands' style defense (i think suth has it trademarked but he normally follows it up with a refusal to claim).
As such, i voted him, and it ended up being the 9th vote (putting him at -2 if he's not lying). It was NOT bandwagoning.
Overall impression: First of all, this guy posts a lot, and often with no real reason. The pirate thing especially sticks out to me.
Get a sense of humor my friend. Lighten up. Tis a game, yes? I like to have fun when i'm bored! ARRRR :-P
While not all of loran's votes/bandwagons have been unjustified, there are a few that stick out. Both of his votes on me have been rather poorly upheld by him, and his argumentation for the second one especially has been choppy and irrational. It's almost as if he didn't even read my original justification for the vote. And I don't think I'm alone in thinking that his persistence in trying to get me for that vote was not a townie response.
The wagon on ZDS, in my opinion, was rather poorly executed and even more poorly reasoned through. If anything, his wagon on ZDS reeks of vindictiveness, which to me looks quite hypocritical in light of his accusations against me.
Vindictiveness? Here's my wagon on zds.
1. Unvote after axel brings it up and mention i want to hear his response
2. Vote zds after a "too fast bandwagon" defense. Ask for name claim.
3. Ask ZDS to partial role claim.
4. Unvote after mason claim.
How's that vindictive? Maybe if i was doing what cyan is doing i'd be vindictive, but i cant see the vindictiveness there.
But what interests me is that at one point, he's almost kind to ZDS, when he's nearing a lynch (326). It's almost as if he doesn't actually want to lynch ZDS. It sounds crazy, but maybe, just maybe, this entire thing was an act? I don't know... putting 326 and the posts around them in context with the rest of loran's posts is difficult.
I explained this before. First of all, he had already claimed mason at this point...and at that point, you don't want him spilling any extra info to the scum. Like i said up there, it wasn't necessary. If you can't understand that then you've already decided in your head that i'm scum and nothing i say will convince you.
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.
Before i start, the pirate thing is something you might wanna read. In court mafia, arim was a scum who was a pirate. One player had a role indicating a pirate might be scum. So howd arim play it? By pretending he had a PR that made him have to talk like a pirate. So when lj said that he wouldnt pretend to have a "Mr." PR as scum, i joked around and made a pirate joke. I was at work. I was bored. :-P
I know this. What made it bothersome for me was the fact that had to keep explaining it to people.
See, this is a problem with someone having an opinion pretty strongly before they do a pbpa, and its why you don't understand this. I say NO to ZDS answering axel's 2nd question because his claim already was good, and why are we giving the scum extra info? Notice in 310 i ask for a partial role claim. Why a partial claim? Because ZDS being a mason means that he's not the lynch for today.
Ok.
And another thing - I didn't have an opinion coming into it. It was some of your posts that led me to my final conclusion.
So why would we need to know the answer to axel's 2nd question? How does that help us if ZDS isn't the play? The answer: It doesn't. As such, i argued against zds exposing such info, and i'm glad he didn't.
Ok.
Furthermore, we dont' need to know the 2nd mason, as its day 1. The thing is that a claimed mason with 100% confirmance is NOT the play on day 1. in a couple of days, if we haven't hit scum, we can start inquiring, especially if zds either has done something scummy or night actions attract our notice. But for now, this info is only helpful to the scum. worst comes to worst, we wagon the 2nd mason and he comes out. But most likely the situation occurs where the 2nd mason remains safe confirmable when the time comes.
Ok. I wasn't arguing with you on that note.
Cyan was using the game in question to make an example of why you can lynch a scummy mason claim on day 1. Read the game in question....there's no comparison. Still, shouldnt talk about it any more than that.
My opinions do change over time. Like i said, i first voted you for what seemed to me like retaliatory voting on two people. After my reveiew of the case on you (see post 179), i saw that vamp's vote was crud. However, as i'm someone who likes to see how people are playing compared to previous games and etc, i thought cyan's vote was justifiable and that a retaliatory vote, which was what it was, was scummy.
How was it retaliatory? Is there something wrong with my rationalization that makes "retaliation" the only feasible conclusion to you?
Also the prodding has to do with the fact that a. i hate lurkers, and b. every time i see a vote count his random vote is till on me. That annoys me.
I think you're missing something here. When I PBPA, I do it on EVERY relevant post. I wasn't criticizing you so much as expressing how painful it is to have to PBPA such posts for the sake of consistency. I wish you wouldn't double and triple post so much, but other than that, I'm not complaining.
Reckless abandon? Sounds fun! But i've already defended my vote there, so i dont feel like arguing with loaded language (hey it comes up again!).
Nice job with the subtle accusation. Reckless abandon to me is the best way to describe the situation.
And like i said to ZDS, i didn't bandwagon zds. I unvoted (it was grak) where i couldve placed the 6th vote, but instead waited to hear ZDS' response (as despite his attacks on me, i hadnt really been finding him that scummy before the alx and axel pbpas). His response was simply that:
hey of course i noticed the vote counts that wasnt strange at all! and look you all wagoned me despite 2 people bringing cases agaisnt me, that's so suspicious!
That's not a defense. Err well, correction, that's a sutherlands' style defense (i think suth has it trademarked but he normally follows it up with a refusal to claim).
As such, i voted him, and it ended up being the 9th vote (putting him at -2 if he's not lying). It was NOT bandwagoning.
His defense makes sense to me, although he might have phrased it better. It went something along the lines of "be original people, and stop just basing your votes off of the perspectives of two people". I don't see a real issue with that. In the end, you voted for him for claiming that people were bandwagonning him. That's rather scummy, imho.
Get a sense of humor my friend. Lighten up. Tis a game, yes? I like to have fun when i'm bored! ARRRR :-P
See above.
Vindictiveness? Here's my wagon on zds.
1. Unvote after axel brings it up and mention i want to hear his response
2. Vote zds after a "too fast bandwagon" defense. Ask for name claim.
3. Ask ZDS to partial role claim.
4. Unvote after mason claim.
How's that vindictive? Maybe if i was doing what cyan is doing i'd be vindictive, but i cant see the vindictiveness there.
The vindictiveness stems from you voting for him, in my opinion, as a response to his actions toward you. Just my thinking.
I explained this before. First of all, he had already claimed mason at this point...and at that point, you don't want him spilling any extra info to the scum. Like i said up there, it wasn't necessary. If you can't understand that then you've already decided in your head that i'm scum and nothing i say will convince you.
That's not a defense. Err well, correction, that's a sutherlands' style defense (i think suth has it trademarked but he normally follows it up with a refusal to claim).
1) Don't be a dick.
2) Apparently "my defense" is working, just as it always has.
1) Don't be a dick.
2) Apparently "my defense" is working, just as it always has.
Sorry, couldn't resist. You made a reference to it before when i talked about being defensive not necessarily being a scum tell. I thought you wouldn't mind. :-P
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 personally reckon that a confirmed innocent who becomes a liability in an endgame is exceptionally elegant, but that's just me.
You think if it got down to just the two of them and 1 scum in an endgame then they both would be lynched without anyone having to cast a vote? That would be cute.
And I think it's fairly obvious how two roles could both be included one PM, especially one with similar flavour.
Could be? Yeah? So what? I don't think I said it couldn't be done. But it ain't the normal way to do it - not if they have separate roles at least. What are you disagreeing with here? Or are you just talking to hear yourself talk?
Certainly not enough to counteract the fact that he claimed confirmed innocent mason day 1, before all other claims, when he could have easily been counterclaimed, when a confirmed mason could easily counterclaim, without it being worth outing one, and with 2 confirmed mason groups being very unlikely, even in a setup this size.
If you are going to fake a Mason claim on Day 1, then you claim an obsure 2-man group. That's exactly what you do.
I'm not saying that's the case here. I don't know that's the case here. But I have no problems raising the possibility. And people who dismiss it out of hand are naive or scummy.
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.
You think if it got down to just the two of them and 1 scum in an endgame then they both would be lynched without anyone having to cast a vote? That would be cute.
Not necessarily, but I think Pod's point is that such a role could essentially put the town at LyLo with 3 scum out of 9 players, or 2 out of 7, etc. Which does indeed make it elegant.
Obviously, the elegance of such a role doesn't mean the claim is true, but it definitely isn't a strike against its plausibility.
Given the claimed restrictions with this mason group, I think the 2nd mason should reveal his or herself.
I prefer to put the difficult decision in the hands of the mafia (go for the masons early, or hope they are useless late). Not to mention, the more scum we hit early, the more it pressures the mafia to kill one of the two claimed masons.
I mostly believe the mason claim, but Axelrod makes a good point about the "right way" to do a fake mason claim and I'm not interested in risking it.
For anyone who took ZDS's "slip" as sufficient evidence to press for a lynch, it stands to reason that lynching Suth would've been an even better play, yet no one even considered it. The way the wagon played out seems pretty indicative of a scum-motivated wagon on a townie, which boosts my belief of ZDS's claim and lowers my trust of several other players on that wagon.
I thought this might have been what you meant.
I considered this, but the fact remained that ZDS has seemed scummy already, whereas Sutherlands to my mind had not. It was possible that Axel's "slip" theory was wrong but that ZDS was scum anyway, in much the same way that the slip that brought Sutherlands to his knees in DotA was (apparently) not a real slip.
In other words, if the slip theory was right, it didn't matter which order we lynched them in. If the slip theory was wrong, it seemed better to obtain ZDS' claim first, since the odds were we would be obtaining it anyway sooner rather than later.
Stream-of-consciousness read of the other overnight events:
Alx's pickup on Cyan is rather interesting, although it's a very Cyan thing to say (especially since it's probably wrong, zing!) and I could probably find a game where he said it as town. Alx generally seems to be working hard to generate something, which is probably unnecessary for scum in a situation where there's a lot of arguments ongoing. This is not a comment on how good or otherwise his leads are... it's just a comment that I find Alx's behaviour so far to be townie, and don't approve of this little push against him by arim.
Like loran's hit on LJ's obvious note that there's probably one or more scum on the ZDS wagon (where wagon = voters + hangers-on).
Liking grakthis. I approve a great deal generally of making people talk and respond on day 1, and he's doing that.
Xyre's loran PBPA is incredibly loaded and doesn't make me more comfortable with Xyre. Most of the PBPA is purely descriptive. "Votes CP for his aggressive approach to Hvir" "Asks for an Athos prod". But when it's something loran said that touches on Xyre, Xyre says stuff like "Explains his vote again, saying I was being "seemingly retaliatory". So now I'm not even retaliatory, just "seemingly" so." This is playing semantics.
PBPAs which mostly boil down to descriptions rather than analysis (post by post ANALYSIS, you know?) come across to me as people pretending to look helpful. It seems like the main purpose of the PBPA is actually to slur Loran for his attacks on Xyre, not to do a serious analysis of anything else loran has done.
Cyan's revelation: this should not surprise anyone, given the TMNT characters in Sin City!
Alx2: Wouldn't assume anything.
If I was going to be suspicious of someone for spilling too much information unnecessarily on day 1, it would be cp not Cyan. cp has unnecessarily told any scum recruiter or rolecopier where to look, and I find it hard to believe those possibilities wouldn't cross his mind in a matrix theme game.
Don't have a chance to check- did ZDS claim the two less votes to lynch thing, or was that atlseal bringing that up? For some reason I thought atlseal said that.
Don't agree with grak on outing the other mason at this time. If the mafia feel the need to take out masons tonight, ZDS is available already. If they don't, let's leave the other mason in the pool of people they might kill instead of killing a more powerful townie, hmm?
Ah. OK, ZDS more or less said it, then atlseal said he had reason to believe ZDS was at 2 votes from lynch, then ZDS outright said it. Hence my confusion. That's quite an interesting set of events (and an interesting drawback to a masonry, too- confirmed, but not really a danger to scum in a endgame at all).
Ok, so 2 cases: ZDS is lying or ZDS is telling the truth. Mutually exclusive. If he's lying, he's almost guaranteed to be scum. If he's telling the truth, do we want to let him live? The mafia are going to leave him around until endgame, and then just use him as a free lynch.
Ok, so 2 cases: ZDS is lying or ZDS is telling the truth. Mutually exclusive. If he's lying, he's almost guaranteed to be scum. If he's telling the truth, do we want to let him live? The mafia are going to leave him around until endgame, and then just use him as a free lynch.
Good Lord you are scummy.
Do you actually have an opinon on this topic you bring up? Is this your way of suggesting we should lynch ZDS no matter what. If so, why aren't you voting for him? If not...why did you bring it up?
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.
When you live the life I've lived, you learn to be paranoid.
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.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm still suspicious of Xyre and Loran, for earlier transgressions. I've added atlseal and alx to that list, because of recent events. Atlseal for reasons already stated, alx because of the fact that he(from the way he explains it) went out of his way to reference a statement I made in another game as scum, but was only compelled to FoS me for it, seems suspect. Plus, he was also scum in that game, and the statement he referenced(doubting people's claims based upon their character being an extremely minor one) is a fairly commonplace one. On top of that, he gives the impression that he look hard to find examples of such from me as town, when in reality, he didn't look at all, he remembered something that happened in a game where we were both scum. It all seems fairly misleading to me.
If by "second," you mean "fourth," then okay. Or are you not even paying attention to your own vote counts (see #114)?
Where did I say that? I said it's "unusual," especially since you've gone to the point of *editing* posts to include them. Whether it's scummy or not is up for question, but it's certainly not typical behavior.
It's amusing that you always lash out whenever you get attacked in Mafia games. This is why I always like pressing you so much - I'm guaranteed to get a reaction
1 Alx2-Arimnaes
1 Atlseal-Cyan
1 Carrion Pigeons- Hawkeye7
2 Cyan-Grakthis, ZDS
1 Fadeblue-Sutherlands
1 Grakthis- Spoon
3 Loran16- Athos, Vampyr, DYH
2 Spoon-Wizzpig, Atlseal
1 Sutherlands- Dagger
2 xyre- Rafaelk, Ljustus,
1 Vampyr-Carrion Pigeons,
1 zedorkslipeur- Carrion Pigeons (2)
1 Looking for Dwight’s Corpse-Abbeygargoyle
8 Not Voting- Fadeblue, Pod, Hvirfilvindr, Xyre, Loran16, Alx2, Axelrod, Sutherlands
13 to lynch.
Pod has been politely prodded.
???? I havent' said anything accidentally. I may have joked once or twice, which i think you're talking about, but i'm pretty sure i intended to say it. Not sure where you're going here.
Ive addressed this "flipflopping", which it wasnt before. And as i said before, after reviewing the xyre wagon again, i thought that while vampyr's vote wasn't particularly worthwhile (thus excusing xyre's vote), cyan's was perfectly fine imo, and thus xyre's retaliation was not.
Other suspects have come up, and xyre isnt really on my radar at the moment, thus why i eventually unvoted, but i dont see what's wrong for voting for someone when it appeared to me they were OMGUSing.
What's wrong with my voting record?
My first serious vote was Xyre. My 2nd was CP iirc. my third was grak, for a reason that i may revisit soon (see my above posts). My fourth was you for....well we've gone over this before.
I fail to see what's wrong with my voting pattern. So do please go back and find what's wrong with my posts.
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
The situation is being closely monitored. If the problem persists, a replacement will go through.
Experiments Series: #5 (Courtly Intrigue Mafia) | #4 (Drunken Tracker) | #3 (Big Red Button) - coming soon | #2 (Pope Mafia) | #1 (Iso's Inflammable Mafia)
Mini Games: MTGS Mafia Redux II (Invitational, Evil Mirror Universe) | Unreal City
Old Games (bad): The Greenwood Affair | Blood Moon Mafia
Like i said, originally my vote on you was because you seemed to retaliate on both vampyr and cyan, a pattern that i didnt find townie.
Upon closer inspection, i agreed that the vote against vampyr was actually justified.
But i'll welcome a pbpa.
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
Yes, well I almost specifically said something about it in my post, but whatever.
1 Alx2-Arimnaes
1 Atlseal-Cyan
1 Carrion Pigeons- Hawkeye7
2 Cyan-Grakthis, ZDS
1 Fadeblue-Sutherlands
1 Grakthis- Spoon
3 Loran16- Athos, Vampyr, DYH
2 Spoon-Wizzpig, Atlseal
1 Sutherlands- Dagger
2 xyre- Rafaelk, Ljustus,
1 Vampyr-Carrion Pigeons,
1 zedorkslipeur- Carrion Pigeons (2)
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
To the extent that it is suspicious behavior, yes. But it doesn't fall under the category of scum tells.
In any case, I see you've at least conceded that you were *not* the second vote on ZDS.
I never said that I agreed with how he plays or his tone. I never said that I supported it. If you read Xyre's post, he ponders aloud whether Grak's insistance that only he knows that he is a townie and his generally being an unhelpful, condescending and arrogant dick is just how is. That is how he has played as long as I have played with him regardless of alignment.
Yeah, I realized that about 5 minutes after I posted it. :(.
Not going to bother with this anymore.
Do you learn anything? If cp was acting scummy, which he was, him being a multivoter and all doesnt mean jack! He is not confirmed. Seriously.
Well, besides the fact that it uses loaded words to make his point against someone for using loaded words; LOOK AT HIS REACTION TO SUTHERLANDS!
Oh, I'm townie, therefore when I'm doing it, i have the town's interests at heart.
HOW DOES THAT NOT STRIKE YOU AS WRONG?!!!
This is the one vote where i'm still of the belief that i may go back to it, seriously man, go read the exchanges between me, grathkis sutherlands, and occasionally xyre. How could you have anything wrong with the vote? Not to mention that it doesn't follow your bandwagoning theory, as no one else voted him. HMMM!
Like i said, i wanted to hear your response, it didnt convince me, so i voted you. Nothing more about this. Only reason my vote was the last on the wagon was because i waited for your response to axel's accusation to actually place my vote on, (otherwise I'd have been the 4th vote and not the 9th).
Seriously though, go read the grathkis stuff again. I'm shocked that you can try brining that against me.
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
Well, I see no need to put pressure on you further with the mason claim and all, so I guess that request for clarification is actually you putting pressure on me. Fair enough. I had it coming.
To clarify, the below is does not necessarily represent my current view, I'm merely explaining my views at the time I made the case.
Flip-flopping:
1. Bringing up the flavor discussion and withdrawing from it in the next post (but the ending of that post leaves a hook to continue the discussion)
2. Voting Xyre, then chiding his defenders for wishing to gain "townie points"
3. Unvoting Xyre, then continuing to argue with Xyre, then voting Loran for attacking Xyre.
Convenient voting:
1. Voting Xyre immediately upon being asked a loaded question by RafK. If he answers that question in a satisfactory manner - you can quickly unvote. If not, voila, you're already on the wagon!
2. Voting Loran just as the Xyre wagon was sort-of falling apart also struck me as politically motivated.
Wow... I am voting for you, right?
*checks*
Whew. Good thing. I was almost dissapointed in myself for a minute.
I mean, clearly, with 25 (right?) players in this game I can totally see how the designer would be able to come up with 25 roles without using obscure characters from the movies.
Yes. And if you'd read what I posted, you'd see that *I* said that.
Amazing what happens when you actually read my posts.
K. Sounds good to me. I just wanted to be clear on what was and was not acceptable.
Man... if I didn't have enough proof that you're not even reading my posts, I have it now.
I did, in fact, answer your question. Maybe you should go back and re-read my posts till you find it. Then maybe you actually would know what I said.
You're right... it's not "scum" vs "town" it's "cowards" vs "leaders." Scum are often cowardly, but it's a coward tell, not a scum tell.
Either way, cowards FOS instead of voting.
You, of all people, can't completely discredit the effectiveness of what I do.
Dislike it all you want, but I get results.
Also, I have been well behaved this game so far. So, no u
A more general note on the game: The last 2 posts from Fadeblue have read as strongly townie to me. Very authentic, honest and thought out. I'll need to review the content for accuracy (on the surface, he had a few logical statements I didn't agree with), but call it a vibe based on experience.
Also, good lord, I've been working on this reply for like 3 hours. Damn customers always wanting help
Oh look, in the PPE, I see more stuff to respond to
plz explain how what I said was scummy.
Wrong? Maybe. INvalid? Maybe. Unhelpful? Maybe. Sarcastic? Damn right.
Scummy? How?
Posting a pbpa using loaded words (in a pbpa accusing another of using them no less), then being completely unhelpful and sarcastic in response to accusations of this is scummy, as its not responding to the accusations in the first place. Its useless talking that did nothing but a. confuse others and b. direct attention away from the fact that the pbpa was crap to begin with. It is definitely not protown(read: helpful to the town) behavior (by your own admittance) and i think i can fairly call it scummy.
Also, this isnt tings, and as much as i love joking, sarcasm is hardly a useful thing here.
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
I'm going to start with 72. While there are other loran posts before that, the majority of them are arguing with Grakthis and the like, and no matter how cute it is for Grak to call him "Lauren", it doesn't help much. So...
72: Defends me (ironic) against accusations of defensiveness and whatnot.
75: I love this post in that it's a perfect representation of how dumb the wagon on me was. Nothing new.
88: Unvotes me. Mildly amusing considering he's one of my biggest proponents at the time.
92: Asks Spoon to check something with respect to his blue votes.
98: Asks Az for a vote count, probably to check the Spoon thing.
101: Notes something on Abbey. Yawn.
158: Now it gets interesting. OMGUS votes me for my Cyan vote. Of course, he doesn't say anything about the rationale for my vote... he just calls it OMGUS and uses that as justification. This is interesting - OMGUS has a very negative connotation, and it could be a scum tactic to hide behind OMGUS to justify a flimsy vote. And that's what this vote really is: flimsy as hell.
164: Here's where he has to stand up to the argument that he's bandwagonning on little evidence. He does argue effectively that he isn't wagon hopping, but he still doesn't really provide a validation for the vote other than "retaliatory voting". If he had, you know, read my post, he'd realize that it was never retaliatory and instead that my vote was based on sound mafia logic.
169: Defends his original vote for "being first", which I can understand. What I don't get is why he just shrugs me off. This looks rather vicious, especially considering I'm the guy he's calling scummy.
172: Explains his vote again, saying I was being "seemingly retaliatory". So now I'm not even retaliatory, just "seemingly" so. Interesting. Other than that, he responds to my taunt, which was based on my frustration with his ludicrous rationale.
179: Swings his attention onto ZDS (nothing new - CP had already done such). Defends my pseudo-fish as not justifying a wagon. I'm sad he missed my taunt in 174 - I really wanted to show him how idiotic he was acting. Ah well.
181: Admits that his original vote wasn't really justified (nice!). Still stands by his second (damn!).
185: This is interesting - he admits that the Vampyr vote was justified. He stands by the Cyan vote. It may just me, but does this strike anyone as him trying to backtrack to stop people from looking at him?
192: Says he doesn't understand why Hvir's now a person of interest.
200: Votes CP for his aggressive approach to Hvir.
209: Tells Vampyr to go reread his "reasoning" before focusing on him for voting me.
222: Blows Vampyr off because he apparently didn't read Loran's posts. He then points out that while CP has a rather townie role, he's acting rather scummy.
226: More argument with ZDS about CP's multivote.
228: Notes what's up with the voting the mod thing. Yawn.
237: Asks for an Athos prod. Snore.
248: Makes a reference to Court Mafia in relation to arimnaes' possible posting restriction... I think? This post confuses me.
250: Explains 248 as being, well, useless. Awesome. Just 25 posts to go!
254: And again.
255: Makes a point on Grak's abbreviations of players' names. Wonderful to see Loran's still trying to help the town make progress!
258: *sigh* Ditto.
260: This post reminds me of a cartoon from homestarrunner.com. It's a strong bad email in which he's talking about radio, and at one point, Homestar says something about "Cut it out about the fish already!"
I dunno, that's just how some of loran's posts make me feel.
273: Clarifies his votes again.
274: And again. IGMEOY's Cyan.
275: I just think it's funny that, 200 posts earlier, loran was yelling at Grak for triple posting. Just saying.
Points out Grak's crap-logic.
281: This is what, the fifth post on pirates? WHAT IS WITH THE PIRATES??
284: Makes a note on Sutherlands' potential posting restriction.
287: Basically says 284 is wrong.
301: Responds to Grakthis and Hvirfilvindr. I don't understand quite what the point with ZDS is about, but he makes one of those, too, and votes for him.
305: Points out Grak's hypocrisy. Responds to Atl's rather unimportant comment.
307: Argues for a ZDS name-claim.
310: Makes a guess on the name-claim.
317: Unvotes ZDS the claimed mason. Argues that ZDS has been anything but subtle.
319: Argues that knowing the other mason isn't important at the moment.
326: And again. This interests me, because after how much loran jabbed at him, one might think he'd want ZDS to be confirmed by someone else. It's almost like he's... relenting? This doesn't make sense to me.
347: Points out some things related to votes.
348: Argues that the Cyan comparison is irrational.
364: Points out how LJustus' point does the town little. Goes back to arguing with ZDS.
365: Refers to a game in progress. I don't know what to make of it, or if we really should make anything of it. For now, let's move on.
367: Yeah...
373: Points out how badly Grak's playing.
380: More bantering with ZDS. He still is backing off his vote on me, which bothers me. While he's still standing behind it, he's also saying he unvoted me because I wasn't on his radar. This seems inconsistent to me, like he's both protecting and disowning his actions simultaneously.
381: More mod-prodding.
Now for all his posts made since I started this pbpa.
384: Still both defending and rejecting his vote. Not making me feel any better about him.
389: Defends his original fish vote and its context. This doesn't make much sense - if you wanted to say "don't fish", why the vote?
He then says nothing in response to ZDS' new argument that he gave himself wiggle room by trying to appear impartial while piledriving me. Next he argues that CP's role doesn't justify CP's actions, then points out how idiotic Grak has been at times, then tries to justify his bandwagonning.
I agree with him on the CP and Grak things to some extent. I take CP's claim/ability with a grain of salt, looking at his actions in context. While I know it's nigh-unheard of that a multivoter would be scum, I want to see what happens and until then, am willing to give CP the benefit of the doubt. I also think that Grak has been relying on crap-logic too much and isn't looking too good to me.
However, his first and last justification to me are pure crap. He did vote for me with reckless abandon and bandwagonned ZDS, which are both rather scummy reactions.
390: I'm not even going to say anything.
393: Argues again that Grak has been anti-town.
Overall impression: First of all, this guy posts a lot, and often with no real reason. The pirate thing especially sticks out to me.
While not all of loran's votes/bandwagons have been unjustified, there are a few that stick out. Both of his votes on me have been rather poorly upheld by him, and his argumentation for the second one especially has been choppy and irrational. It's almost as if he didn't even read my original justification for the vote. And I don't think I'm alone in thinking that his persistence in trying to get me for that vote was not a townie response.
The wagon on ZDS, in my opinion, was rather poorly executed and even more poorly reasoned through. If anything, his wagon on ZDS reeks of vindictiveness, which to me looks quite hypocritical in light of his accusations against me. But what interests me is that at one point, he's almost kind to ZDS, when he's nearing a lynch (326). It's almost as if he doesn't actually want to lynch ZDS. It sounds crazy, but maybe, just maybe, this entire thing was an act? I don't know... putting 326 and the posts around them in context with the rest of loran's posts is difficult.
However, loran, you've really not shown me you're working in the town's best interest, and I could easily see CP and Grak being town and you being scum trying to get them. I don't know about the ZDS thing, but it doesn't make you look any good at all.
Vote Loran.
@ Grakthis: I did read your response. I wanted to see if you answered it in the same way. But forget it, it's no longer important, I suppose.
Experiments Series: #5 (Courtly Intrigue Mafia) | #4 (Drunken Tracker) | #3 (Big Red Button) - coming soon | #2 (Pope Mafia) | #1 (Iso's Inflammable Mafia)
Mini Games: MTGS Mafia Redux II (Invitational, Evil Mirror Universe) | Unreal City
Old Games (bad): The Greenwood Affair | Blood Moon Mafia
First of all, you keep saying PBPA and it was nothing close to a PBPA.
Second of all, I have been posting opinions, analysis and thougts in EVERY POST. No where have I just been unhelpful and sarcastic.
Third of all, I can't really respond to accusations that it's scummy until someone makes a case that it's scummy.
Fourth, don't call my analysis crap unless you're willing to back it up. Also, calling things crap without actually making a case for it, *is* grade A scum tactic. This is also known as LINK AND PROVE OR STFU.
Incorrect. I never stated Sutherlands was the scummiest player in the game. I simply said he was scummier than ZDS, and a better candidate for a lynch.
This logic might be valid if I didn't know, with absolute certainty, that there are at least two non-Matrix characters that Az tied into the story for this game. This is a big part of why I doubt ZDS claim. There is no reason to use such ridiculously obscure characters as the ones ZDS mentioned when you're already bringing in characters from outside of the original genre.
Why would you come out and say this in the face of little-to-no pressure? Do you realize what you've done?
V/LA: 3/21-3/24 & 3/27-3/29
I'm going to treat this as a mason claim. This is not fishing. I am not a requesting information, not pushing Cyan for clarification or explanation. I'm merely pointing out that AS FAR AS MY VIEW OF THE GAME IS CONCERNED, from this point on, Cyan is a claimed mason. There is no need for Cyan to confirm or deny this. That's all. I shall now reread with that in mind.
@Alx: I'm not claiming a masonry, and don't want pressure put on ZDS based upon the misconception that I am. That's not to say that I believe him, because I don't, but it's not because I'm a mason, because I'm not.
I disagree. It only makes the claim slightly less likely, rather than highly unlikely. I don't believe that Az would take only significant Matrix characters (and no minor ones) and then jump completely outside of the Matrix realm for the rest of the characters.
I mean, honestly, when you're trying to come up with roles/names, and you've already set the precedent for including characters from other mythos, why would you include such minor, pointless roles? It doesn't make any sense. ZDS is getting a pass because he claimed mason.(well, after Loran threw out the idea, ZDS ran with it, which is inconsistent with his statement that he 'was just nameclaiming'..if such was the case, he wouldn't suggested that we could figure out his role, nor would he have confirmed it immediately after Loran suggested that). ZDS claim stinks, but he's getting the benefit of the doubt anyway. If he'd claimed that rolename with any other role, I highly suspect we'd be bantering idly now while waiting for the lynch vote to be cast. I'm fine with not lynching ZDS today, because this situation is likely to work itself out later..but I was pressed for why I don't believe him, and I've answered.
Something I forgot. This post by Alx rubs me the wrong way. I didn't claim anything like a masonry, and it comes across to me as though alx is trying to set me up to take a fall here. There is one other possibility as to what he was trying to do, which involves him being town, but hopefully he's not so transparent. I think that this, along with the earlier things that I mentioned, make alx worth looking into.
Huh... I wonder if there are any other roles besides masons in mafia that have knowledge of the characters of other players in the game....
1) Azrael is likely to include one or more improbable roles in this game. Possibly way more.
2) I am not disagreeing with you about outside roles, BUT, their presence does not preclude obscure roles from the movie
3) Tank and Dozer are dead when this story starts. That obv doens't make it impossible for them to be included, but I would call them significantly less likely than a minor character who has a chance of actually being alive in this plot line.
Personally, if I were designing a 25 person matrix game, I would start running out of "likely" characters at about 10-15. After that, everyone becomes improbable or from outside source material.
I doubt that all of the characters that die in the movies are not in this story, considering that would be..most of the characters. And Azrael clearly isn't following exactly to the core storyline, considering that he made up his own storyline to go with this game. You stating that Tank and Dozer are dead really confuses me.
The game is set after the events of the trilogy and the alliance between the robots and men.
Also, Suth, I'm pretty sure you've counted my votes wrong, but I'll make it easy for you. Unvote, Unvote, Unvote.
A more serious vote pending.
Mafia MVP BM Mafia
Mafia MVP Matrix Mafia
Somehow, I don't think it's quite that simple.
Morpheus
Trinity
Agent Smith
Cypher
Apoc
Dozer
Tank
Mouse
the Oracle
Switch
Agent Brown
Agent Jones
the Architect
the Merovingian
Persephone
the Twins (2)
Agent Johnson
Seraph
Zee
Captain Ballard
Agent Jackson
the Keymaker
Commander Lock
Agent Thompson
Link
Niobe
Councillor West
Rama-Kandra
Ghost
Cas
Councillor Hamann
Captain Mifune
There's 34 roles there, pulled straight from the wiki. There's around 6 that are so insignificant that they don't have their own wiki article. The role that ZDS claimed wasn't even significant enough to be mentioned. Now, does that mean that ZDS was lying? No. It's possible that Az put those roles in to make sure we weren't dependent on the setup. But Cyan has a point, there are much more likely roles in there for masons. But also, how many of those characters died during the movies? Those may or may not be present in this game... according to the scenario, they won't be. I'd be willing to ask that ZDS bring out his partner, depending on what the rest of the town thinks (obv). What's the worst that could happen? I see no scenario in which this wouldn't help the town.
(But then again, I'm always willing to lynch Grakthis ;))
@CP: That's the way the mod had them... but they're correct now ;). As for loran, right now I don't really think he's likely to be scum.
1 Alx2-Arimnaes
1 Atlseal-Cyan
1 Carrion Pigeons- Hawkeye7
2 Cyan-Grakthis, ZDS
1 Fadeblue-Sutherlands
1 Grakthis- Spoon
3 Loran16- Athos, Vampyr, DYH, Xyre
2 Spoon-Wizzpig, Atlseal
1 Sutherlands- Dagger
2 xyre- Rafaelk, Ljustus,
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
And of course the fact that they supposedly got the same role PM at all is questionable. This isn't DoTA Mafia where the people who got the same role PMs all had the same role. These are supposedly 2 separately named roles.
That said, there are certainly other people to look at.
DO NOT keep speculating about which roles are or aren't significant enough to be included in this game, because all that does is give indications to the Mafia of who is a significant character and who isn't. While that doesn't give them information about abilities, it's still more than we need to be giving them at this point.
I am going to say right now that my character is NOT in Sutherlands' list. I am doing this so that we can end this discussion and move away from the "minor vs. major" argument and prevent any extra leaks of information. I feel this is necessary because Sutherlands posted that list, which means that people's reactions to it may unnecessarily reveal information. Now PLEASE, no more speculating over which characters Az has included in the game. Just ignore the whole issue.
(Of course, you can still discuss the likelihood of ZDS' claim based on issues *other than* role obscurity.)
1 Alx2-Arimnaes
1 Atlseal-Cyan
1 Carrion Pigeons- Hawkeye7
2 Cyan-Grakthis, ZDS
1 Fadeblue-Sutherlands
1 Grakthis- Spoon
4 Loran16- Athos, Vampyr, DYH, Xyre
2 Spoon-Wizzpig, Atlseal
1 Sutherlands- Dagger
2 xyre- Rafaelk, Ljustus
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
I'm not accusing you of doing so. I'm simply trying to prevent anyone else from involuntarily giving free information to the Mafia by talking about that list.
Let me repeat to everyone: DO NOT COMMENT ON WHETHER YOU ARE A "MAJOR" OR "MINOR" CHARACTER. IT IS NOT RELEVANT.
While true, it is insufficient evidence.
What's the problem with that?
That was unnecessarily dramatic.
See, this is a problem with someone having an opinion pretty strongly before they do a pbpa, and its why you don't understand this. I say NO to ZDS answering axel's 2nd question because his claim already was good, and why are we giving the scum extra info? Notice in 310 i ask for a partial role claim. Why a partial claim? Because ZDS being a mason means that he's not the lynch for today.
So why would we need to know the answer to axel's 2nd question? How does that help us if ZDS isn't the play? The answer: It doesn't. As such, i argued against zds exposing such info, and i'm glad he didn't.
Furthermore, we dont' need to know the 2nd mason, as its day 1. The thing is that a claimed mason with 100% confirmance is NOT the play on day 1. in a couple of days, if we haven't hit scum, we can start inquiring, especially if zds either has done something scummy or night actions attract our notice. But for now, this info is only helpful to the scum. worst comes to worst, we wagon the 2nd mason and he comes out. But most likely the situation occurs where the 2nd mason remains safe confirmable when the time comes.
Cyan was using the game in question to make an example of why you can lynch a scummy mason claim on day 1. Read the game in question....there's no comparison. Still, shouldnt talk about it any more than that.
My opinions do change over time. Like i said, i first voted you for what seemed to me like retaliatory voting on two people. After my reveiew of the case on you (see post 179), i saw that vamp's vote was crud. However, as i'm someone who likes to see how people are playing compared to previous games and etc, i thought cyan's vote was justifiable and that a retaliatory vote, which was what it was, was scummy.
Also the prodding has to do with the fact that a. i hate lurkers, and b. every time i see a vote count his random vote is till on me. That annoys me.
Reckless abandon? Sounds fun! But i've already defended my vote there, so i dont feel like arguing with loaded language (hey it comes up again!).
And like i said to ZDS, i didn't bandwagon zds. I unvoted (it was grak) where i couldve placed the 6th vote, but instead waited to hear ZDS' response (as despite his attacks on me, i hadnt really been finding him that scummy before the alx and axel pbpas). His response was simply that:
hey of course i noticed the vote counts that wasnt strange at all! and look you all wagoned me despite 2 people bringing cases agaisnt me, that's so suspicious!
That's not a defense. Err well, correction, that's a sutherlands' style defense (i think suth has it trademarked but he normally follows it up with a refusal to claim).
As such, i voted him, and it ended up being the 9th vote (putting him at -2 if he's not lying). It was NOT bandwagoning.
Get a sense of humor my friend. Lighten up. Tis a game, yes? I like to have fun when i'm bored! ARRRR :-P
Vindictiveness? Here's my wagon on zds.
1. Unvote after axel brings it up and mention i want to hear his response
2. Vote zds after a "too fast bandwagon" defense. Ask for name claim.
3. Ask ZDS to partial role claim.
4. Unvote after mason claim.
How's that vindictive? Maybe if i was doing what cyan is doing i'd be vindictive, but i cant see the vindictiveness there.
I explained this before. First of all, he had already claimed mason at this point...and at that point, you don't want him spilling any extra info to the scum. Like i said up there, it wasn't necessary. If you can't understand that then you've already decided in your head that i'm scum and nothing i say will convince you.
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
I know this. What made it bothersome for me was the fact that had to keep explaining it to people.
Ok.
And another thing - I didn't have an opinion coming into it. It was some of your posts that led me to my final conclusion.
Ok.
Ok. I wasn't arguing with you on that note.
How was it retaliatory? Is there something wrong with my rationalization that makes "retaliation" the only feasible conclusion to you?
I think you're missing something here. When I PBPA, I do it on EVERY relevant post. I wasn't criticizing you so much as expressing how painful it is to have to PBPA such posts for the sake of consistency. I wish you wouldn't double and triple post so much, but other than that, I'm not complaining.
Nice job with the subtle accusation. Reckless abandon to me is the best way to describe the situation.
His defense makes sense to me, although he might have phrased it better. It went something along the lines of "be original people, and stop just basing your votes off of the perspectives of two people". I don't see a real issue with that. In the end, you voted for him for claiming that people were bandwagonning him. That's rather scummy, imho.
See above.
The vindictiveness stems from you voting for him, in my opinion, as a response to his actions toward you. Just my thinking.
Ok. Thanks for explaining.
Experiments Series: #5 (Courtly Intrigue Mafia) | #4 (Drunken Tracker) | #3 (Big Red Button) - coming soon | #2 (Pope Mafia) | #1 (Iso's Inflammable Mafia)
Mini Games: MTGS Mafia Redux II (Invitational, Evil Mirror Universe) | Unreal City
Old Games (bad): The Greenwood Affair | Blood Moon Mafia
1) Don't be a dick.
2) Apparently "my defense" is working, just as it always has.
1 Alx2-Arimnaes
1 Atlseal-Cyan
1 Carrion Pigeons- Hawkeye7
2 Cyan-Grakthis, ZDS
1 Fadeblue-Sutherlands
1 Grakthis- Spoon
4 Loran16- Athos, Vampyr, DYH, Xyre
2 Spoon-Wizzpig, Atlseal
1 Sutherlands- Dagger
2 xyre- Rafaelk, Ljustus
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
Sorry, couldn't resist. You made a reference to it before when i talked about being defensive not necessarily being a scum tell. I thought you wouldn't mind. :-P
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
You think if it got down to just the two of them and 1 scum in an endgame then they both would be lynched without anyone having to cast a vote? That would be cute.
Could be? Yeah? So what? I don't think I said it couldn't be done. But it ain't the normal way to do it - not if they have separate roles at least. What are you disagreeing with here? Or are you just talking to hear yourself talk?
If you are going to fake a Mason claim on Day 1, then you claim an obsure 2-man group. That's exactly what you do.
I'm not saying that's the case here. I don't know that's the case here. But I have no problems raising the possibility. And people who dismiss it out of hand are naive or scummy.
Not necessarily, but I think Pod's point is that such a role could essentially put the town at LyLo with 3 scum out of 9 players, or 2 out of 7, etc. Which does indeed make it elegant.
Obviously, the elegance of such a role doesn't mean the claim is true, but it definitely isn't a strike against its plausibility.
I prefer to put the difficult decision in the hands of the mafia (go for the masons early, or hope they are useless late). Not to mention, the more scum we hit early, the more it pressures the mafia to kill one of the two claimed masons.
I mostly believe the mason claim, but Axelrod makes a good point about the "right way" to do a fake mason claim and I'm not interested in risking it.
I thought this might have been what you meant.
I considered this, but the fact remained that ZDS has seemed scummy already, whereas Sutherlands to my mind had not. It was possible that Axel's "slip" theory was wrong but that ZDS was scum anyway, in much the same way that the slip that brought Sutherlands to his knees in DotA was (apparently) not a real slip.
In other words, if the slip theory was right, it didn't matter which order we lynched them in. If the slip theory was wrong, it seemed better to obtain ZDS' claim first, since the odds were we would be obtaining it anyway sooner rather than later.
Stream-of-consciousness read of the other overnight events:
Alx's pickup on Cyan is rather interesting, although it's a very Cyan thing to say (especially since it's probably wrong, zing!) and I could probably find a game where he said it as town. Alx generally seems to be working hard to generate something, which is probably unnecessary for scum in a situation where there's a lot of arguments ongoing. This is not a comment on how good or otherwise his leads are... it's just a comment that I find Alx's behaviour so far to be townie, and don't approve of this little push against him by arim.
Like loran's hit on LJ's obvious note that there's probably one or more scum on the ZDS wagon (where wagon = voters + hangers-on).
Liking grakthis. I approve a great deal generally of making people talk and respond on day 1, and he's doing that.
Xyre's loran PBPA is incredibly loaded and doesn't make me more comfortable with Xyre. Most of the PBPA is purely descriptive. "Votes CP for his aggressive approach to Hvir" "Asks for an Athos prod". But when it's something loran said that touches on Xyre, Xyre says stuff like "Explains his vote again, saying I was being "seemingly retaliatory". So now I'm not even retaliatory, just "seemingly" so." This is playing semantics.
PBPAs which mostly boil down to descriptions rather than analysis (post by post ANALYSIS, you know?) come across to me as people pretending to look helpful. It seems like the main purpose of the PBPA is actually to slur Loran for his attacks on Xyre, not to do a serious analysis of anything else loran has done.
Cyan's revelation: this should not surprise anyone, given the TMNT characters in Sin City!
Alx2: Wouldn't assume anything.
If I was going to be suspicious of someone for spilling too much information unnecessarily on day 1, it would be cp not Cyan. cp has unnecessarily told any scum recruiter or rolecopier where to look, and I find it hard to believe those possibilities wouldn't cross his mind in a matrix theme game.
Don't have a chance to check- did ZDS claim the two less votes to lynch thing, or was that atlseal bringing that up? For some reason I thought atlseal said that.
Don't agree with grak on outing the other mason at this time. If the mafia feel the need to take out masons tonight, ZDS is available already. If they don't, let's leave the other mason in the pool of people they might kill instead of killing a more powerful townie, hmm?
OK, now I really have to go, be back later.
1 Alx2-Arimnaes
1 Atlseal-Cyan
1 Carrion Pigeons- Hawkeye7
2 Cyan-Grakthis, ZDS
1 Fadeblue-Sutherlands
1 Grakthis- Spoon
4 Loran16- Athos, Vampyr, DYH, Xyre
2 Spoon-Wizzpig, Atlseal
1 Sutherlands- Dagger
2 xyre- Rafaelk, Ljustus
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
Good Lord you are scummy.
Do you actually have an opinon on this topic you bring up? Is this your way of suggesting we should lynch ZDS no matter what. If so, why aren't you voting for him? If not...why did you bring it up?
heh.
When you live the life I've lived, you learn to be paranoid.