You want to debate it's validity, take it to the theory thread. You want to debate whether it is a tell or not, then you're wasting energy. The conversation could only go bad places depending on how BE responded, so I sought to curtail it. Simply put, it's a tell being misapplied and that's all that can be gained from it. Anything else is a long-winded player being obtuse, and I bet you've seen that before.
Not so, Mister Pinata. ^^ Firstly, I voted for Mister DoG because I believed I had caught scum. (So quickly? You'd better believe it!) Therefore, Mister Seal's vote on me was completely unjustified.(1) Following that, he unvoted me, not following it up, not pushing me further (2)(3). This tells me that his vote was either not a serious vote or that he realized I wasn't going to react to his vote. I'm not going to pretend to know Mister Seal's reason for voting me initially, as in, what purpose he hoped to achieve with it. However, the fact that he is tossing his votes around like nobody's business is fairly indicative to me that I should not have taken his own seriously.(4) My logic is not contrary to my behavior, as the situation dictated that our separate responses to being voted were strictly circumstantial.(5)
ugh.
This is factually incorrect.
His vote is doubting your motive for voting, not that you thought the vote should have been placed.
He didn't unvote you, he voted me. That's a clear difference. He only has a single vote.
He has not posted since you've come back so you have no evidence of this.
Your conclusion is based on revisionist history.
How's the situation different? You both had votes with reasons attached, and you both ignored them. What post caused the difference in circumstances?
Let me add that if I remember the mafiascum wiki correctly (can't access it at work), it mentions tha the third vote on a legitimate/real wagon is a scum tell. None of the wagons in the RVS are real. Hence, why LC's explanation of the third RV on a wagon being a null tell was precisely correct.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're town and I'm mafia, you've already lost. You just don't know it yet.
It's an accusation with a token question to show he's hunting
The question is worse than "token". It's plainly obvious how many "strikes" you "get" just by nature of phrasing it like that - I can't see any reason to ask this, so I assume it's scum trying to look like they're doing something.
Quote from Emo_Pinata »
Is searching really hard for a reason to place a vote, and the unvote is a firmly showing that serious business is going on. It's all phooey.
Why, then, would blue choose not to vote BE in the following post?
Quote from atlseal »
I disagree with both the blue and WoD wagons right now as they are both based off of crap.
Regardless of your opinion of EP (whom I think is town, by the way), what do you make of blue's "How many strikes does he get" question?
The unvote is theatrics to show "blue is getting serious" while blue starts making accusations. It's completely unnecessary.
And you can only see a scum reason for making that play?
-----
I missed this before:
Quote from BlueElectric »
Not so, Mister Pinata. ^^ Firstly, I voted for Mister DoG because I believed I had caught scum. (So quickly? You'd better believe it!) Therefore, Mister Seal's vote on me was completely unjustified. Following that, he unvoted me, not following it up, not pushing me further. This tells me that his vote was either not a serious vote or that he realized I wasn't going to react to his vote. I'm not going to pretend to know Mister Seal's reason for voting me initially, as in, what purpose he hoped to achieve with it. However, the fact that he is tossing his votes around like nobody's business is fairly indicative to me that I should not have taken his own seriously. My logic is not contrary to my behavior, as the situation dictated that our separate responses to being voted were strictly circumstantial.
My vote for you when I did was quite serious, but I know your mafia history and I know that I couldn't really expect a reaction out of you. The only reason my vote is on EP right now is that he caught my eye with a more scummy play than your initial wagon attempt. I still cannot honestly believe that you think you caught scum with not only a weak tell, but a misapplied tell, at that.
While I disagree with both the blue and WoD wagons, I can wholeheartedly support a BlueElectric wagon and am willing to lend my vote if required. As it stands, consider my vote on both EP and BE.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're town and I'm mafia, you've already lost. You just don't know it yet.
Mister Zaj, how often do you find you pay attention to the first page of the game?
Typically not very much.
@TIM: Scum don't ask completely null questions anymore than town. Scum ask questions that are actually related to the game, but then they don't follow up or whatever.
I don't like blue's reaction to the pressure on him.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
EDH:
:symb::symb: Marrow-Gnawer :symb::symb: - :symw::symu: Grand Arbiter Augustin IV :symw::symu: - :symb::symb: Toshiro Umezawa :symb::symb: - :symg::symg: Sachi, Daughter of Seshiro :symg::symg:
This is simply untrue. There's always something to gain from RVS because people are candid making scum less so. If what you're saying is true, then there'd never be a reason to leave RVS without some stupid forced reason like asking about mass claims.
Why, then, would blue choose not to vote BE in the following post?
Had Blue voted, then the posts would have looked a lot better to me since they would be genuine. By flirting with two directions that are pretty far apart the logic seems to be testing the water, not pressing for revealing answers.
And you can only see a scum reason for making that play?
Boo.
As for answering your terrible question, it's not an attitude a townie makes. It's an attitude some players may take on thinking they are doing good by asking questions with no clear logic in mind, but the whole thing comes across as trying to look like taking a strong step forward with his scum-hunting cap on.
Please note that your vote is based on my case being completely fabricated, and by asking this question your purposely hemming me into an extreme opinion (only scum do this) without asking for any actual explanation to expand on parts you disagree with. The only way for you to prove I have made up my logic is to show that I am shifty or incapable in answering questions about my logic. So if the next part of our conversation could be in that relm, then that'd be great.
-----
Let's be clear here - BE is probably town at this point. His logic's obnoxious, he's being bull-headed, and he's obviously wrong in his analysis. Sort of like bad Yanni or poggy, but with a pretentious attitude. I don't see a single reason scum would invent three points that have concrete logic that is simply wrong: 1) WoD is ignoring things (which, let's be honest, is kind of funny), 2) WoD placed a third vote in RVS (a tell that's clearly misapplied), and 3) WoD is trying to dust this under the rug (when WoD had no reason to give BE's vote a second thought). His line of thought is extremely evident, and his responses to me show that he clearly has some sort of filter between his reading and comprehension of events.
@Mod: Votecount please? <- worried about the number of votes on him?
the wagon on me is based on my three posts and I already had 3 random voting stage votes on me. Nobody finds that a little bit suspicious? <- fear mongering
Next post will be responses to everything but y'all need to chill the heck out.
Blue's post reads as if he just started sweating bullets. You have 5 votes (with Zajnet's not moving because he didn't unvote) and two are random. That's not something to be so threatened by. What are you worried will happen? The scum decide it's time to reveal themselves and take you out D1?
@TIM: Scum don't ask completely null questions anymore than town. Scum ask questions that are actually related to the game, but then they don't follow up or whatever.
Scum do both. They try to pretend scum-hunt and they scum-hunt with no conviction. Two different methods.
Blueelectric (Probably abbreviating this to elec from now on): I'm not liking your jump from claiming the end of the RVS to giving someone a strike two before the end of RVS is clear to everyone. How many strikes are you implying Wrath gets?
Emo: What's the point of your question when Wrath hasn't responded yet to Elec yet?
Well apparently this needs to be broken down:
I don't like the way you phrased your accusation: "really want to see Mister blue lynched" insinuates a degree of commitment and malice on WOD's part. You didn't even ask him a question. Was your vote supposed to be the question? The same with the strikes. You act like it's some foregone conclusion that WOD is scum and give him one strike because of his RVS vote (this is implied) and a second strike because he didn't respond to the "end of RVS" in an appropriate manner as designated by you. What I wanted to know with my "empty question" is why does it matter how many strikes a person gets when they get a vote on the first strike O_o? And you say strike two like there's a number of strikes where you'll be ready to lynch WOD. Using the baseball metaphor it sounds like you're only going to give him one more chance and if he does something scummy you're going to try to get him lynched.
So while I thought it was slightly suspicious to receive three votes in RVS (and thus I agree with why you voted) the way you phrased it has me suspicious that you're trying to make what he did look scummier than it is.
Time frame because you should be aware how fast this went:
WOD votes me at 6 AM.
BE: Votes WOD for placing the 3rd vote on someone during RVS at 7AM.
ATL: votes BE for being "overeager to find a reason to vote" at 8 am.
WOD: votes for Kahedron's 6 AM post where Kahedron voted WOD. also 8 AM
BE: gives WOD a second strike at 9 am.
3 hours with no acknowledgement that WOD did or didn't recognize the end of RVS/serious vote on him.
It's an accusation with a token question to show he's hunting. Also:
Is searching really hard for a reason to place a vote, and the unvote is a firmly showing that serious business is going on. It's all phooey.
See above.
To Emo and your question to BE regarding ATLSeal: Not sure what you hoped to gain from this. BE makes a self proclaimed serious vote on WOD and the first thing out of your mouth is "What about someone else?" WOD hadn't responded so my gut tells me you're deflecting/diffusing the wagon BE seems set on starting at that point in the game. If that's not accurate then by all means be less cryptic.
And can you please explain how I'm searching really hard for a reason to place a vote when I'm not voting anyone? When I'm ready to vote I'll give my reasoning and you can judge it for what it's worth. Til then stop putting words in my mouth.
Blue's post reads as if he just started sweating bullets. You have 5 votes (with Zajnet's not moving because he didn't unvote) and two are random. That's not something to be so threatened by. What are you worried will happen? The scum decide it's time to reveal themselves and take you out D1?
So what i'm getting from this post is that you do NOT find it suspicious that i have 5 votes on me and am at L2? Fearmongering implies that I'm misrepresenting the facts to skew perspective of a situation. I wanted a vote count so we could "officially" hold the people responsible for my wagon whether I die or not.
I don't like the way your first sentence implies that you're talking to everyone else instead of me. Why not say "your post reads like you're sweating bullets" instead? The rest of your paragraph is worded that way. It's reminiscent of a bully trying to get some kid to explode but first you have to get your friends to watch so they know how big you are.
Blueelectric (Probably abbreviating this to elec from now on): I'm not liking your jump from claiming the end of the RVS to giving someone a strike two before the end of RVS is clear to everyone. How many strikes are you implying Wrath gets?
Emo: What's the point of your question when Wrath hasn't responded yet to Elec yet?
Being the third vote on somebody is one of the weaker tells, though. It should never be used to build a cake case, but rather be the icing on that cake.
And "Firstly, overall lack of attention to events up to that point." is about the stupidest thing possible to say ON THE FIRST PAGE.
Really? It helps me better assess and understand your play. Now answer.
My experience is not what you should be basing your interpretation of my play on, Mister Kitty. My mindset and motives are.
Quote from Syrenz »
So basically this "lack of attention" adds up to the same thing as being the third vote on the wagon and that is the only justification you are providing for your vote, correct?
Mister DoG did not seem to be paying enough attention to realize that there was a serious vote on him, and in addition, placed a third vote on somebody in the RVS.
Quote from Syrenz »
Again, this was after your vote and is not relevant to your vote.
Not necessarily relevant to the [I]vote[/I] so much as it is relevant to the sustaining thereof.
Quote from Syrenz »
No. You will answer this. Here are the questions again:
- Can you provide some examples of scum doing this?
In Seance Mafia, the second random vote on a single person during the RVS was a member of the mafia's vote. The reason I placed my vote on Mister Blue as the second vote (in addition to the fact that I had decided prior to the game that I would be voting him for the reason I stated in my initial vote) was simple - To see if any opportunistic mafia would call me on my vote. It just so happened to coincide with the fact that I initially planned to vote Mister Blue prior to the game. I received an even better response in that Mister DoG added his vote as the third vote to a single person in the RVS. ^^ That, and why on earth would he continue to random vote after the first real vote had been cast?
Quote from Syrenz »
- Why do you think scum would do this?
I do not know. Why do they do it?
Quote from Syrenz »
-Do you think a scum would expect that he could get an accidental quick lynch off something like this?
I do not. That is a preposterous assumption, as any grounded member of the town worth their salt would end such shenanigans. ^^
Quote from Syrenz »
-Please outline exactly why this is a scumtell.
Typically, during a wagon, the third vote has been shown to be more indicative of being that of a mafia-aligned player due to an attempt to seemingly moderate their actions. And see above my example wherein additional RVS votes on a single person can be a scumtell.
Quote from Syrenz »
Please provide a sufficient answer to each of these questions in your next post or expect my vote to appear on you.
You may place your vote wherever you see it fit, Mister Kitty. ^^
LIST=5][*]How's the situation different? You both had votes with reasons attached, and you both ignored them. What post caused the difference in circumstances?[/LIST]
Mister DoG's behavior and my behavior as well as Mister Seal's reason to vote and my reason to vote share no parallel, and thus, you cannot draw a parallel to my vote on Mister DoG and his response (or lack thereof) and Mister Seal's vote on myself and my response (or lack thereof).
My vote for you when I did was quite serious, but I know your mafia history and I know that I couldn't really expect a reaction out of you. The only reason my vote is on EP right now is that he caught my eye with a more scummy play than your initial wagon attempt. I still cannot honestly believe that you think you caught scum with not only a weak tell, but a misapplied tell, at that.
You flatter me, Mister Seal.
Though it begs the question - if you knew you couldn't get a reaction out of me, why did you even bother? And do you find that to be indicative of my alignment in any way? If so, why? If not, why bring it up?
His line of thought is extremely evident, and his responses to me show that he clearly has some sort of filter between his reading and comprehension of events.
Unfortunately, Mister Pinata, my ideas seem good at first to me, but then in hindsight, I realize I'm interpreting a lot of responses incorrectly. I'm experimenting with my play and trying to figure out what works best for me. Alas, I seem to be making a lot of ineffective plays. I think I need to reconsider what I'm working with here.
And on that note, [B]Unvote[/B]. I will be keeping my eye on Mister DoG, however.
I don't like the way you phrased your accusation: "really want to see Mister blue lynched" insinuates a degree of commitment and malice on WOD's part. You didn't even ask him a question. Was your vote supposed to be the question? The same with the strikes. You act like it's some foregone conclusion that WOD is scum and give him one strike because of his RVS vote (this is implied) and a second strike because he didn't respond to the "end of RVS" in an appropriate manner as designated by you. What I wanted to know with my "empty question" is why does it matter how many strikes a person gets when they get a vote on the first strike O_o? And you say strike two like there's a number of strikes where you'll be ready to lynch WOD. Using the baseball metaphor it sounds like you're only going to give him one more chance and if he does something scummy you're going to try to get him lynched.
Is there something specific in here that you'd like me to answer, Mister Blue? This all seems rather rhetorical to me.
Mister Guardman, do you have a post restriction, by chance?
List tags are malformed.
Mister Kitty, one more thing I'd like to address to you -
Asking why something is telling of a player being mafia-aligned is arbitrary at best. That would be like asking why fence-sitting is considered a tell. Yes, town can do it, and mafia may do it to appear pensive, but the fact is that they do it, and each player that exhibits behavior that is telling of alignment does so for circumstantial reasons as well as what their own psyche promotes their actions to be.
@TIM: Scum don't ask completely null questions anymore than town. Scum ask questions that are actually related to the game, but then they don't follow up or whatever.
I don't like blue's reaction to the pressure on him.
Scum like to ask questions for the sake of asking questions, rather than because they care about the answer. And what, specifically, do you not like about blue's reaction?
Quote from Emo_Pinata »
Had Blue voted, then the posts would have looked a lot better to me since they would be genuine. By flirting with two directions that are pretty far apart the logic seems to be testing the water, not pressing for revealing answers.
Your logic does not make sense. He can't have been - at once - trying too hard to look for a reason to vote, while at the same time you would have been totally OK with things had he indeed voted. I completely agree that it feels like there should be a vote there, but that doesn't cohere at all with what you were originally attacking him for.
blue's whole response is pretty decent. I do have a question:
Quote from blue »
So what i'm getting from this post is that you do NOT find it suspicious that i have 5 votes on me and am at L2? Fearmongering implies that I'm misrepresenting the facts to skew perspective of a situation. I wanted a vote count so we could "officially" hold the people responsible for my wagon whether I die or not.
Why do you think there is any chance of your dying at L-2 with a couple random votes on you?
Quote from blue electric »
In Seance Mafia, the second random vote on a single person during the RVS was a member of the mafia's vote. The reason I placed my vote on Mister Blue as the second vote (in addition to the fact that I had decided prior to the game that I would be voting him for the reason I stated in my initial vote) was simple - To see if any opportunistic mafia would call me on my vote. It just so happened to coincide with the fact that I initially planned to vote Mister Blue prior to the game. I received an even better response in that Mister DoG added his vote as the third vote to a single person in the RVS. ^^ That, and why on earth would he continue to random vote after the first real vote had been cast?
First, just because something has happened once does not mean that it is a rule. For something to legitimately be a scum-tell, there must be a reason why scum are more likely to make said tell. I can see no reason why scum are more likely than town to place the second - or third - vote on someone during the RVS. Second - and following along with that line of thinking - what do you think scum have to gain from placing a random vote after seeing a serious vote has been placed?
Quote from BlueElectric »
Asking why something is telling of a player being mafia-aligned is arbitrary at best. That would be like asking why fence-sitting is considered a tell. Yes, town can do it, and mafia may do it to appear pensive, but the fact is that they do it, and each player that exhibits behavior that is telling of alignment does so for circumstantial reasons as well as what their own psyche promotes their actions to be.
Not really. Mafia fence-sit because they want to avoid attention and end up on the side of an issue that ends up looking better in retrospect. You can't be content with calling something a tell just because you've heard it somewhere - there has to be a reason.
Hate to sound like a broken record, but it's going to be one of those games, isn't it.
Quote from BlueElectric »
My experience is not what you should be basing your interpretation of my play on, Mister Kitty. My mindset and motives are.
But how is that not pertinent information?
Quote from BlueElectric »
In the RVS, who has to be aware of what they do?
The mafia.
So since when are RVS actions not indicative of a person's alignment?
Am I going to have to define the word "random" for you?
Quote from BlueElectric »
Unfortunately, Mister Pinata, my ideas seem good at first to me, but then in hindsight, I realize I'm interpreting a lot of responses incorrectly. I'm experimenting with my play and trying to figure out what works best for me. Alas, I seem to be making a lot of ineffective plays. I think I need to reconsider what I'm working with here.
And on that note, Unvote. I will be keeping my eye on Mister DoG, however.
The subtext here reads to me as "I'm backing off WoD because I've fallen under scrutiny for voting for him in the first place."
Also, while EP's argument about BlueElectric's newbiness is granted, this is more self-conscious than newbs usually are.
Why do you think there is any chance of your dying at L-2 with a couple random votes on you?
Oh I am not worried about actually dying. The point is that there ARE random votes at all to contribute to the vote count. If 3 are random then it means my threshhold for being lynched is actually only 4 (assuming none of the scum are in the random votes). The dying part is moot, it's going to happen or it won't.
First, just because something has happened once does not mean that it is a rule. For something to legitimately be a scum-tell, there must be a reason why scum are more likely to make said tell. I can see no reason why scum are more likely than town to place the second - or third - vote on someone during the RVS. Second - and following along with that line of thinking - what do you think scum have to gain from placing a random vote after seeing a serious vote has been placed?
That was the first example I could think of though I'm sure with a bit of research I could find more instances of this happening. As for the second question, to avoid any serious interactions for as long as they possibly can.
Quote from TheIceMan »
Not really. Mafia fence-sit because they want to avoid attention and end up on the side of an issue that ends up looking better in retrospect. You can't be content with calling something a tell just because you've heard it somewhere - there has to be a reason.
Perhaps, but I haven't put much thought into why that is the case. I am only stating what I've heard and observed for myself.
Because it shouldn't affect anybody's perception of my play. Regardless of how much mafia I have played, that is not relevant to how well I play it.
Quote from Liquidity Crisis »
Am I going to have to define the word "random" for you?
May as well, seeing as most mafia actions in the RVS are far from my preconceived notion of the word "random".
Quote from Liquidity Crisis »
The subtext here reads to me as "I'm backing off WoD because I've fallen under scrutiny for voting for him in the first place."
Also, while EP's argument about BlueElectric's newbiness is granted, this is more self-conscious than newbs usually are.
Then you are misreading. It was meant quite directly as, "I have come to terms with the fact that my attack is lacking and that if I find more substantial evidence later I will come back to it, however, as it is, I will convince nobody with what is present."
For the record, I am certainly not a newb, though how non-newbish I am, as I said, is not pertinent to anybody's overall perception of me. ^^ However, speaking of unknown experience levels, is there a reason you choose to post under a moniker that is not your standard account?
Oh I am not worried about actually dying. The point is that there ARE random votes at all to contribute to the vote count. If 3 are random then it means my threshhold for being lynched is actually only 4 (assuming none of the scum are in the random votes). The dying part is moot, it's going to happen or it won't.
You're making zero sense. Your lynch threshold is lower...which makes it easier for you to die. Why do you care about your lynch threshold being lower?
Oh I am not worried about actually dying. The point is that there ARE random votes at all to contribute to the vote count. If 3 are random then it means my threshhold for being lynched is actually only 4 (assuming none of the scum are in the random votes). The dying part is moot, it's going to happen or it won't.
My experience is not what you should be basing your interpretation of my play on, Mister Kitty. My mindset and motives are.
Please don't tell me how to play mafia.
Playing experience is quite relevant to my interpretation of your play and your apparent mindset and motives. I am experienced enough to know this.
Not necessarily relevant to the vote so much as it is relevant to the sustaining thereof.
I can live with that.
In Seance Mafia, the second random vote on a single person during the RVS was a member of the mafia's vote.
Firstly, I don't see this game anywhere so I'm guessing it was on Mafia scum or somewhere. Secondly, if you want to talk about second random vote on a player, I can provide you with a dozen games with townies placing their votes as second in the RVS. I thought we were talking about the magical third vote here. But this is not important.
The reason I placed my vote on Mister Blue as the second vote (in addition to the fact that I had decided prior to the game that I would be voting him for the reason I stated in my initial vote) was simple - To see if any opportunistic mafia would call me on my vote.
Well if voting a player after someone else in the RVS is considered legitimately scummy (according to you), how would you detect an "opportunistic mafia"? By your logic, anyone attacking you for voting the same person as another would be entirely justified, so this plan sounds kind of flawed, no?
I do not know. Why do they do it?
...
I do not. That is a preposterous assumption, as any grounded member of the town worth their salt would end such shenanigans. ^^
Precisely, my good sir.
Typically, during a wagon, the third vote has been shown to be more indicative of being that of a mafia-aligned player due to an attempt to seemingly moderate their actions. And see above my example wherein additional RVS votes on a single person can be a scumtell.
Agreed about the third vote - yet I do not believe it applies to the RVS (and I can't see how it could - this is my point).
Asking why something is telling of a player being mafia-aligned is arbitrary at best. That would be like asking why fence-sitting is considered a tell. Yes, town can do it, and mafia may do it to appear pensive, but the fact is that they do it, and each player that exhibits behavior that is telling of alignment does so for circumstantial reasons as well as what their own psyche promotes their actions to be.
Not really. Mafia fence-sit because they want to avoid attention and end up on the side of an issue that ends up looking better in retrospect. You can't be content with calling something a tell just because you've heard it somewhere - there has to be a reason.
Quote from BlueElectric »
Because it shouldn't affect anybody's perception of my play. Regardless of how much mafia I have played, that is not relevant to how well I play it.
It is actually. The few exceptions being the Poggy's, Vezok's, and Jordman's of mafia. Newbs acting scummy do not deserve the same level of attention as experienced players acting scummy. And thank you for answering the question finally.
I am beginning to think that EP is right and my discussions with you are more suited to the mafia theory thread than this game, so I will be dropping this line of questioning at the moment and be moving elsewhere.
[COLOR=darkslategrey][font=Comic Sans MS][COLOR=darkslategrey][FONT=Comic Sans MS][COLOR=darkslategrey][FONT=Comic Sans MS]
@Guardman:
If you truly have a PR, you may go to the lolcat site and create your own lolcats (if MH allows). This will enable you to post at least something more relevant.
Because it shouldn't affect anybody's perception of my play. Regardless of how much mafia I have played, that is not relevant to how well I play it.
It's pertinent to evaluating your alignment, though. Bad players are more likely to get a pass if they have a history of being bad, etc.
May as well, seeing as most mafia actions in the RVS are far from my preconceived notion of the word "random".
And your preconceived notion of RVS seems pretty far from everyone else's.
Then you are misreading. It was meant quite directly as, "I have come to terms with the fact that my attack is lacking and that if I find more substantial evidence later I will come back to it, however, as it is, I will convince nobody with what is present."
What I said wasn't a question, it was a statement evaluating scumminess.
For the record, I am certainly not a newb, though how non-newbish I am, as I said, is not pertinent to anybody's overall perception of me. ^^
It appears it is, for others.
However, speaking of unknown experience levels, is there a reason you choose to post under a moniker that is not your standard account?
Yes. Because my past behavior is indicative, in a very negative manner, because I'm more mature and more self-aware now then I was back then and thus play with a more controlled manner in general.
Something interesting about this post, however - it feels too earnest to come from scum, if that makes sense. BE seems to be almost incapable of thinking like a scum, to the effect that when I characterized the subtext of his vote withdrawal, he parroted back the actual text. It's amazing, reading it... it sounds like he genuinely has no idea how to play as scum.
I would like to see your game history as well, BE, if only to get a better sense of this impression, but I'm confident he's just an idi- no no no, not using that phrase anymore.
The day begins with a surge in activity. Players hitting each other all over the place, attacking each other over the smallest of things, it seems. One steps forward, demanding that I wrangle them all up and show who's injured the most. I smack the crap out of that player.
If you truly have a PR, you may go to the lolcat site and create your own lolcats (if MH allows). This will enable you to post at least something more relevant.
I don't see this game anywhere so I'm guessing it was on Mafia scum or somewhere.
Perhaps if you had looked past the first page of the games that have been hosted on this site, you would have found Seance Mafia on Page 2. And on that note, MafiaScum is an abomination to the Mafia community, and that's all I'll say about that.
Quote from Syrenz »
Well if voting a player after someone else in the RVS is considered legitimately scummy (according to you), how would you detect an "opportunistic mafia"? By your logic, anyone attacking you for voting the same person as another would be entirely justified, so this plan sounds kind of flawed, no?
And yet here you are as somebody who does not believe this to be a legitimate tell. In fact, it seems most of the playerbase of this game does not. So does that answer your question?
It's pertinent to evaluating your alignment, though. Bad players are more likely to get a pass if they have a history of being bad, etc.
I do not ask for a pass. ^^ Analyze my actions all you will, I don't see you finding a mafia's motivation behind my actions.
Quote from Liquidity Crisis »
What I said wasn't a question, it was a statement evaluating scumminess.
And I was correcting you on your misinterpretation of my statement.
Quote from Liquidity Crisis »
Something interesting about this post, however - it feels too earnest to come from scum, if that makes sense. BE seems to be almost incapable of thinking like a scum, to the effect that when I characterized the subtext of his vote withdrawal, he parroted back the actual text. It's amazing, reading it... it sounds like he genuinely has no idea how to play as scum.
Oh, you have no idea how this comment made me laugh, Mister Crisis. ^^ At any rate, I have nothing to hide.
I don't care if y'all think I'm skittish, paranoid, sweating bullets, don't like my reaction, or the weakest link. This is the way I'm going to play and you can take it for what it's worth.
You're making zero sense. Your lynch threshold is lower...which makes it easier for you to die. Why do you care about your lynch threshold being lower?
I don't know how I can make it any clearer. The actual dying part does not concern me. What concerns me is the speed of the wagon. If there were three votes that were random and two votes that were serious on me and scum was not voting randomly/or serious then it's an easy opportunity for a speedlynch. I'd be concerned about the speed of a wagon like this on anyone it just happens to have happened to me. If that doesn't make sense to you then I can't help you. But to continue this discussion see my response to Syrenz below.
Syrenz: It's pretty incidental who is scummy on a speedy wagon and all about justification of the vote. Random votes can actually just be random, but scum can use them hoping something will stick. If RVS votes aren't unvoted when the person gets to L2 then they need some justification at that point for still being on that person. If the serious votes have weak justification then it looks like they're just trying to build on an imaginary wagon. At the time I requested a vote count Emo was correct there were 5 votes but there should have only been 4 (Zajnet had voted another player but had forgotten to unvote and rectified that after Emo's vote count. Emo pointed this out already) That means that there was really only one random vote on me and three serious votes with the only justifications being my "empty question" and apparently a "flourish" denoting it was time for serious business. I think those are trash so pretty much the three people at the end of the wagon deserve more scrutiny. At the time of the vote count I requested it was TIM with the first serious vote on me, Emo with the followup and then you Syrenz with the question and the I like this wagon vote.
I've already explained my "empty question" and answered your question re: the post you voted me. I disagree with Emo's assessment that my post was phooey and a flourish and I especially disagree that he feels like I was looking hard for a reason to vote considering I'm not even voting for anyone.
I have a few questions for people about what's going on right now but I'll get to that in a second.
Has some new rule been created that states that the RVS must not go beyond 20 posts. And if so why wasn't I informed of it?
Question: You acknowledge that it's the end of the RVS but you still have an RVS vote on WOD. Why didn't you unvote? In fact after all this talk you're STILL voting WOD.
I don't think it's meant to be empty; it just sounds confusingly written. He should rephrase it before we go throwing votes around, especially about something as nit-picky as random voting.
I agree people shouldn't just go throwing their votes around, but you really shouldn't answer for me.
@TIM: Scum don't ask completely null questions anymore than town. Scum ask questions that are actually related to the game, but then they don't follow up or whatever.
I don't like blue's reaction to the pressure on him.
So my question is you had called BE out for what you consider a bad vote on WOD (or a vote with bad reasoning) then you find my reaction suspicious. When Emo points out you're still voting me you unvote. But if you already found me suspicious why didn't you just leave your vote where it was?
Mister DoG did not seem to be paying enough attention to realize that there was a serious vote on him, and in addition, placed a third vote on somebody in the RVS.
What do you think of the fact that WOD hasn't even responded to your accusations at this point? And why did you drop your vote on him when he's not even posting?
Is there something specific in here that you'd like me to answer, Mister Blue? This all seems rather rhetorical to me.
Mister Guardman, do you have a post restriction, by chance?
Apparently this is the only way people get answers around here.
VOTE BlueElectric
Whether the question was rhetorical or not you should have answered it. Instead you ask if you should answer it. I ask you specific questions after this post and you have YET to answer them. Instead you're arguing semantics and mafia theory with Liquidity. That's a lot of fluff and only looks like scumhunting. Then after that you DROP YOUR VOTE on a player you've been dogged about and haven't even gotten a response FROM THAT PLAYER! And a minor nitpick: why are you concerned with guardman and whether or not he has a posting restriction? Asking for content isn't scummy but focusing on a PR is a minor scumtell.
Pardon me if this comes across as rude, but is Mister Blue always this skittish under pressure?
Pardon me for being rude, but ask me questions directly if you want answers. When you ask blanket questions like this to everyone it makes me think you're trying to gather support. in this case you'd be egging on a wagon while not even voting. And also, pardon me for being rude, but could you actually answer the questions I asked of you?
I don't know how I can make it any clearer. The actual dying part does not concern me. What concerns me is the speed of the wagon. If there were three votes that were random and two votes that were serious on me and scum was not voting randomly/or serious then it's an easy opportunity for a speedlynch. I'd be concerned about the speed of a wagon like this on anyone it just happens to have happened to me. If that doesn't make sense to you then I can't help you. But to continue this discussion see my response to Syrenz below.
"If there were three votes that were random and two votes that were serious on me and scum was not voting randomly/or serious then it's an easy opportunity for a speedlynch."
This sounds a hell of a lot like caring about dying.
What do you think of the fact that WOD hasn't even responded to your accusations at this point? And why did you drop your vote on him when he's not even posting?
He had a game that just ended that he was modding, and he did not post in his other on-going game. So it tells me that he hasn't had the time to respond.
Quote from blue »
Whether the question was rhetorical or not you should have answered it. Instead you ask if you should answer it. I ask you specific questions after this post and you have YET to answer them. Instead you're arguing semantics and mafia theory with Liquidity. That's a lot of fluff and only looks like scumhunting. Then after that you DROP YOUR VOTE on a player you've been dogged about and haven't even gotten a response FROM THAT PLAYER! And a minor nitpick: why are you concerned with guardman and whether or not he has a posting restriction? Asking for content isn't scummy but focusing on a PR is a minor scumtell.
The implied amount of strikes is 3, but I'd be willing to give more, considering it usually takes more than 3 instances of evidence to get a player lynched. I asked about Mister Guardman because if he's faking a Post Restriction, that can easily be an excuse not to provide content, especially considering the fact that most LOLcats image captions are not relevant to Mafia in the slightest. I have explained my reasoning for unvoting Mister DoG. I don't see why it was so terribly important to you that I answer your irrelevant question that it netted a vote from you. Why is knowing how many strikes I would have allowed Mister DoG such critical information, Mister Blue?
Quote from Blue Electric »
Pardon me for being rude, but ask me questions directly if you want answers. When you ask blanket questions like this to everyone it makes me think you're trying to gather support. in this case you'd be egging on a wagon while not even voting. And also, pardon me for being rude, but could you actually answer the questions I asked of you?
Pardon me for not caring about your input on the matter, as self-metagaming is inherently unreliable as a defense. ^^ Your questions are answered, and I'm curious as to why you deemed it necessary to attempt to deflect pressure from yourself to me at a critical stage of your being voted. Consider my vote on you until either some of the random votes on you are gone or I have reason to believe you're town.
Give us some time to do a full read but it appears that BlueElectric is being very defensive / secretive not willing to read more into that before the full read.
Question: You acknowledge that it's the end of the RVS but you still have an RVS vote on WOD. Why didn't you unvote? In fact after all this talk you're STILL voting WOD.
Only just got a minute to check back in and I was hoping that I might actually see an RVS stage last a little longer this time. Guess not this time. Ah well I can live in hope for the next game.
Unvote WOD
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
He had a game that just ended that he was modding, and he did not post in his other on-going game. So it tells me that he hasn't had the time to respond.
Is this the reason you're giving for why you unvoted?
The implied amount of strikes is 3, but I'd be willing to give more, considering it usually takes more than 3 instances of evidence to get a player lynched. I asked about Mister Guardman because if he's faking a Post Restriction, that can easily be an excuse not to provide content, especially considering the fact that most LOLcats image captions are not relevant to Mafia in the slightest.
Re: Guardman/pr - So are you saying faking a posting restriction is scummy? If so why and what motives would town or scum have for doing it?
I have explained my reasoning for unvoting Mister DoG. I don't see why it was so terribly important to you that I answer your irrelevant question that it netted a vote from you. Why is knowing how many strikes I would have allowed Mister DoG such critical information, Mister Blue?
You keep calling my questions irrelevant. Do you think I don't have reasons for asking questions? The longer you waited to answer the more relevant they became. If not the answers (which apparently only matter to me) then the fact that you avoided it for so long.
It's important to me that you use the term strikes here because it's conclusory. You seemed like you were drawing a conclusion out of thin air then eager to look for evidence after the fact. It was only three hours before you gave him strike two. He hasn't posted since. You've dropped the case but you were sure you caught scum. I don't see anything in the arguments with the people who aren't WOD to make you change your mind unless somehow semantics is a reason to unvote. Answer the question at the top of this post so we're clear what your reasoning for unvoting is. And then I'll tell you how i feel about it.
Pardon me for not caring about your input on the matter, as self-metagaming is inherently unreliable as a defense. ^^
Explain self metagaming and how you think it applies here.
Your questions are answered, and I'm curious as to why you deemed it necessary to attempt to deflect pressure from yourself to me at a critical stage of your being voted. Consider my vote on you until either some of the random votes on you are gone or I have reason to believe you're town.
So basically "consider me OMGUSing you but I don't want a record of it" why not just vote me? That doesn't make sense unless you're concerned with how your vote will appear. If you have justification for you vote then by all means vote. I don't like this anemic attempt to save face before you OMGUS me.
Deflecting onto you? That's malarkey. I've been asking you questions since my third post and you ignored them. I voted you answered. I want more answers. My vote stands.
__
TIM: Read it how you want. I'm done explaining myself against "well it sure sounds like you care about dying." Question: Do you think scum or town is more likely to be concerned about dying? Why?
Why is knowing how many strikes I would have allowed Mister DoG such critical information, Mister Blue?
.
Also because I'm not sure I explained clearly enough:
Why imply 3 if really it's more than 3? What purpose does it serve to use the term "strikes" if you were giving him anything but three strikes? To me the only purpose I can see is trying to paint WOD as scummier than he actually was.
So you agree that being the third to random vote a player holds no importance?
ugh.
This is factually incorrect.
The unvote is theatrics to show "blue is getting serious" while blue starts making accusations. It's completely unnecessary.
Then what were you saying? Because I'm looking at the three pieces of evidence you put up against WoD, and they all look ridiculous.
The question is worse than "token". It's plainly obvious how many "strikes" you "get" just by nature of phrasing it like that - I can't see any reason to ask this, so I assume it's scum trying to look like they're doing something.
Why, then, would blue choose not to vote BE in the following post?
Regardless of your opinion of EP (whom I think is town, by the way), what do you make of blue's "How many strikes does he get" question?
A flippant remark - neither here nor there.
fos atlseal
B.E. Pushing the way he has. Ignoring what atlseal countered with.
@B.E. What was the 2nd serious vote that was placed when WoD continued random?
atlseal pushing hard on Emo. Somethings there.
They hate us cause they ain't us.
And you can only see a scum reason for making that play?
-----
I missed this before:
My vote for you when I did was quite serious, but I know your mafia history and I know that I couldn't really expect a reaction out of you. The only reason my vote is on EP right now is that he caught my eye with a more scummy play than your initial wagon attempt. I still cannot honestly believe that you think you caught scum with not only a weak tell, but a misapplied tell, at that.
While I disagree with both the blue and WoD wagons, I can wholeheartedly support a BlueElectric wagon and am willing to lend my vote if required. As it stands, consider my vote on both EP and BE.
@Mod: Votecount please?
the wagon on me is based on my three posts and I already had 3 random voting stage votes on me. Nobody finds that a little bit suspicious?
Next post will be responses to everything but y'all need to chill the heck out.
Be ready to find out that that's not the case.
Typically not very much.
@TIM: Scum don't ask completely null questions anymore than town. Scum ask questions that are actually related to the game, but then they don't follow up or whatever.
I don't like blue's reaction to the pressure on him.
EDH:
:symb::symb: Marrow-Gnawer :symb::symb: - :symw::symu: Grand Arbiter Augustin IV :symw::symu: - :symb::symb: Toshiro Umezawa :symb::symb: - :symg::symg: Sachi, Daughter of Seshiro :symg::symg:
High Mage of Arcane Babblings of [The Izzet]
MafiaScum Wiki Page
Had Blue voted, then the posts would have looked a lot better to me since they would be genuine. By flirting with two directions that are pretty far apart the logic seems to be testing the water, not pressing for revealing answers.
Boo.
As for answering your terrible question, it's not an attitude a townie makes. It's an attitude some players may take on thinking they are doing good by asking questions with no clear logic in mind, but the whole thing comes across as trying to look like taking a strong step forward with his scum-hunting cap on.
Please note that your vote is based on my case being completely fabricated, and by asking this question your purposely hemming me into an extreme opinion (only scum do this) without asking for any actual explanation to expand on parts you disagree with. The only way for you to prove I have made up my logic is to show that I am shifty or incapable in answering questions about my logic. So if the next part of our conversation could be in that relm, then that'd be great.
-----
Let's be clear here - BE is probably town at this point. His logic's obnoxious, he's being bull-headed, and he's obviously wrong in his analysis. Sort of like bad Yanni or poggy, but with a pretentious attitude. I don't see a single reason scum would invent three points that have concrete logic that is simply wrong: 1) WoD is ignoring things (which, let's be honest, is kind of funny), 2) WoD placed a third vote in RVS (a tell that's clearly misapplied), and 3) WoD is trying to dust this under the rug (when WoD had no reason to give BE's vote a second thought). His line of thought is extremely evident, and his responses to me show that he clearly has some sort of filter between his reading and comprehension of events.
-----
Blue's post reads as if he just started sweating bullets. You have 5 votes (with Zajnet's not moving because he didn't unvote) and two are random. That's not something to be so threatened by. What are you worried will happen? The scum decide it's time to reveal themselves and take you out D1?
EDH:
:symb::symb: Marrow-Gnawer :symb::symb: - :symw::symu: Grand Arbiter Augustin IV :symw::symu: - :symb::symb: Toshiro Umezawa :symb::symb: - :symg::symg: Sachi, Daughter of Seshiro :symg::symg:
High Mage of Arcane Babblings of [The Izzet]
MafiaScum Wiki Page
Well apparently this needs to be broken down:
I don't like the way you phrased your accusation: "really want to see Mister blue lynched" insinuates a degree of commitment and malice on WOD's part. You didn't even ask him a question. Was your vote supposed to be the question? The same with the strikes. You act like it's some foregone conclusion that WOD is scum and give him one strike because of his RVS vote (this is implied) and a second strike because he didn't respond to the "end of RVS" in an appropriate manner as designated by you. What I wanted to know with my "empty question" is why does it matter how many strikes a person gets when they get a vote on the first strike O_o? And you say strike two like there's a number of strikes where you'll be ready to lynch WOD. Using the baseball metaphor it sounds like you're only going to give him one more chance and if he does something scummy you're going to try to get him lynched.
So while I thought it was slightly suspicious to receive three votes in RVS (and thus I agree with why you voted) the way you phrased it has me suspicious that you're trying to make what he did look scummier than it is.
Time frame because you should be aware how fast this went:
WOD votes me at 6 AM.
BE: Votes WOD for placing the 3rd vote on someone during RVS at 7AM.
ATL: votes BE for being "overeager to find a reason to vote" at 8 am.
WOD: votes for Kahedron's 6 AM post where Kahedron voted WOD. also 8 AM
BE: gives WOD a second strike at 9 am.
3 hours with no acknowledgement that WOD did or didn't recognize the end of RVS/serious vote on him.
See above.
See above.
To Emo and your question to BE regarding ATLSeal: Not sure what you hoped to gain from this. BE makes a self proclaimed serious vote on WOD and the first thing out of your mouth is "What about someone else?" WOD hadn't responded so my gut tells me you're deflecting/diffusing the wagon BE seems set on starting at that point in the game. If that's not accurate then by all means be less cryptic.
And can you please explain how I'm searching really hard for a reason to place a vote when I'm not voting anyone? When I'm ready to vote I'll give my reasoning and you can judge it for what it's worth. Til then stop putting words in my mouth.
So what i'm getting from this post is that you do NOT find it suspicious that i have 5 votes on me and am at L2? Fearmongering implies that I'm misrepresenting the facts to skew perspective of a situation. I wanted a vote count so we could "officially" hold the people responsible for my wagon whether I die or not.
I don't like the way your first sentence implies that you're talking to everyone else instead of me. Why not say "your post reads like you're sweating bullets" instead? The rest of your paragraph is worded that way. It's reminiscent of a bully trying to get some kid to explode but first you have to get your friends to watch so they know how big you are.
Unvote
My experience is not what you should be basing your interpretation of my play on, Mister Kitty. My mindset and motives are.
Mister DoG did not seem to be paying enough attention to realize that there was a serious vote on him, and in addition, placed a third vote on somebody in the RVS.
Not necessarily relevant to the [I]vote[/I] so much as it is relevant to the sustaining thereof.
In Seance Mafia, the second random vote on a single person during the RVS was a member of the mafia's vote. The reason I placed my vote on Mister Blue as the second vote (in addition to the fact that I had decided prior to the game that I would be voting him for the reason I stated in my initial vote) was simple - To see if any opportunistic mafia would call me on my vote. It just so happened to coincide with the fact that I initially planned to vote Mister Blue prior to the game. I received an even better response in that Mister DoG added his vote as the third vote to a single person in the RVS. ^^ That, and why on earth would he continue to random vote after the first real vote had been cast?
I do not know. Why do they do it?
I do not. That is a preposterous assumption, as any grounded member of the town worth their salt would end such shenanigans. ^^
Typically, during a wagon, the third vote has been shown to be more indicative of being that of a mafia-aligned player due to an attempt to seemingly moderate their actions. And see above my example wherein additional RVS votes on a single person can be a scumtell.
You may place your vote wherever you see it fit, Mister Kitty. ^^
That is [I]also[/I] not what I was saying, Mister Seal.
Mister DoG's behavior and my behavior as well as Mister Seal's reason to vote and my reason to vote share no parallel, and thus, you cannot draw a parallel to my vote on Mister DoG and his response (or lack thereof) and Mister Seal's vote on myself and my response (or lack thereof).
In the RVS, who has to be aware of what they do?
The mafia.
So since when are RVS actions not indicative of a person's alignment?
What counter?
Mister Seal's vote on me, of course.
You flatter me, Mister Seal.
Though it begs the question - if you knew you couldn't get a reaction out of me, why did you even bother? And do you find that to be indicative of my alignment in any way? If so, why? If not, why bring it up?
Unfortunately, Mister Pinata, my ideas seem good at first to me, but then in hindsight, I realize I'm interpreting a lot of responses incorrectly. I'm experimenting with my play and trying to figure out what works best for me. Alas, I seem to be making a lot of ineffective plays. I think I need to reconsider what I'm working with here.
And on that note, [B]Unvote[/B]. I will be keeping my eye on Mister DoG, however.
Is there something specific in here that you'd like me to answer, Mister Blue? This all seems rather rhetorical to me.
Mister Guardman, do you have a post restriction, by chance?
List tags are malformed.
Asking why something is telling of a player being mafia-aligned is arbitrary at best. That would be like asking why fence-sitting is considered a tell. Yes, town can do it, and mafia may do it to appear pensive, but the fact is that they do it, and each player that exhibits behavior that is telling of alignment does so for circumstantial reasons as well as what their own psyche promotes their actions to be.
Are you going to attempt to find pictures that are at least related to the situation at hand?
IGMEOY Guardman
You gave WOD a second strike against him:
Did you not want confirmation from him FIRST that he recognized the RVS was over?
Why do you think WOD posted an RVS themed vote outside of RVS? Specifically please.
Scum like to ask questions for the sake of asking questions, rather than because they care about the answer. And what, specifically, do you not like about blue's reaction?
Your logic does not make sense. He can't have been - at once - trying too hard to look for a reason to vote, while at the same time you would have been totally OK with things had he indeed voted. I completely agree that it feels like there should be a vote there, but that doesn't cohere at all with what you were originally attacking him for.
blue's whole response is pretty decent. I do have a question:
Why do you think there is any chance of your dying at L-2 with a couple random votes on you?
First, just because something has happened once does not mean that it is a rule. For something to legitimately be a scum-tell, there must be a reason why scum are more likely to make said tell. I can see no reason why scum are more likely than town to place the second - or third - vote on someone during the RVS. Second - and following along with that line of thinking - what do you think scum have to gain from placing a random vote after seeing a serious vote has been placed?
Not really. Mafia fence-sit because they want to avoid attention and end up on the side of an issue that ends up looking better in retrospect. You can't be content with calling something a tell just because you've heard it somewhere - there has to be a reason.
Paranoid as hell.
Uh... any particular reason?
Hate to sound like a broken record, but it's going to be one of those games, isn't it.
But how is that not pertinent information?
Am I going to have to define the word "random" for you?
The subtext here reads to me as "I'm backing off WoD because I've fallen under scrutiny for voting for him in the first place."
Also, while EP's argument about BlueElectric's newbiness is granted, this is more self-conscious than newbs usually are.
Oh I am not worried about actually dying. The point is that there ARE random votes at all to contribute to the vote count. If 3 are random then it means my threshhold for being lynched is actually only 4 (assuming none of the scum are in the random votes). The dying part is moot, it's going to happen or it won't.
That was the first example I could think of though I'm sure with a bit of research I could find more instances of this happening. As for the second question, to avoid any serious interactions for as long as they possibly can.
Perhaps, but I haven't put much thought into why that is the case. I am only stating what I've heard and observed for myself.
Because it shouldn't affect anybody's perception of my play. Regardless of how much mafia I have played, that is not relevant to how well I play it.
May as well, seeing as most mafia actions in the RVS are far from my preconceived notion of the word "random".
Then you are misreading. It was meant quite directly as, "I have come to terms with the fact that my attack is lacking and that if I find more substantial evidence later I will come back to it, however, as it is, I will convince nobody with what is present."
For the record, I am certainly not a newb, though how non-newbish I am, as I said, is not pertinent to anybody's overall perception of me. ^^ However, speaking of unknown experience levels, is there a reason you choose to post under a moniker that is not your standard account?
You're making zero sense. Your lynch threshold is lower...which makes it easier for you to die. Why do you care about your lynch threshold being lower?
Unvote
Vote Blue
Do you find that suspicious? Who do you find suspicious for it?
Please don't tell me how to play mafia.
Playing experience is quite relevant to my interpretation of your play and your apparent mindset and motives. I am experienced enough to know this.
I can live with that.
Firstly, I don't see this game anywhere so I'm guessing it was on Mafia scum or somewhere. Secondly, if you want to talk about second random vote on a player, I can provide you with a dozen games with townies placing their votes as second in the RVS. I thought we were talking about the magical third vote here. But this is not important.
Well if voting a player after someone else in the RVS is considered legitimately scummy (according to you), how would you detect an "opportunistic mafia"? By your logic, anyone attacking you for voting the same person as another would be entirely justified, so this plan sounds kind of flawed, no?
...
Precisely, my good sir.
Agreed about the third vote - yet I do not believe it applies to the RVS (and I can't see how it could - this is my point).
See:
It is actually. The few exceptions being the Poggy's, Vezok's, and Jordman's of mafia. Newbs acting scummy do not deserve the same level of attention as experienced players acting scummy. And thank you for answering the question finally.
I am beginning to think that EP is right and my discussions with you are more suited to the mafia theory thread than this game, so I will be dropping this line of questioning at the moment and be moving elsewhere.
@Guardman:
If you truly have a PR, you may go to the lolcat site and create your own lolcats (if MH allows). This will enable you to post at least something more relevant.
Lair of the Cat (Mafia Stats)
It's pertinent to evaluating your alignment, though. Bad players are more likely to get a pass if they have a history of being bad, etc.
And your preconceived notion of RVS seems pretty far from everyone else's.
What I said wasn't a question, it was a statement evaluating scumminess.
It appears it is, for others.
Yes. Because my past behavior is indicative, in a very negative manner, because I'm more mature and more self-aware now then I was back then and thus play with a more controlled manner in general.
Something interesting about this post, however - it feels too earnest to come from scum, if that makes sense. BE seems to be almost incapable of thinking like a scum, to the effect that when I characterized the subtext of his vote withdrawal, he parroted back the actual text. It's amazing, reading it... it sounds like he genuinely has no idea how to play as scum.
I would like to see your game history as well, BE, if only to get a better sense of this impression, but I'm confident he's just
an idi-no no no, not using that phrase anymore.He's Candide.
The day begins with a surge in activity. Players hitting each other all over the place, attacking each other over the smallest of things, it seems. One steps forward, demanding that I wrangle them all up and show who's injured the most. I smack the crap out of that player.
Vote Count 1.1
blue (3): Emo_Pinata; Syrenz; Guardman
Wrath_of_DoG (1): Kahedron
Kahedron (1): Wrath_of_DoG
Emo_Pinata (1): atlseal
BlueElectric (2): Zajnet; Archmage Eternal
Not Voting (4): TheIceMan; Liquidity Crisis; blue; BlueElectric
Tired of corporate corruption ruining your favorite MtG site?
Come join ours!!
We even have Mafia!!
Is that accurate?
I think so, yes.
No, I'm exhausted and can't count.
Carry on.
Tired of corporate corruption ruining your favorite MtG site?
Come join ours!!
We even have Mafia!!
Perhaps if you had looked past the first page of the games that have been hosted on this site, you would have found Seance Mafia on Page 2. And on that note, MafiaScum is an abomination to the Mafia community, and that's all I'll say about that.
And yet here you are as somebody who does not believe this to be a legitimate tell. In fact, it seems most of the playerbase of this game does not. So does that answer your question?
That's "madame", Mister Kitty. ^^
I do not ask for a pass. ^^ Analyze my actions all you will, I don't see you finding a mafia's motivation behind my actions.
And I was correcting you on your misinterpretation of my statement.
Oh, you have no idea how this comment made me laugh, Mister Crisis. ^^ At any rate, I have nothing to hide.
I don't know how I can make it any clearer. The actual dying part does not concern me. What concerns me is the speed of the wagon. If there were three votes that were random and two votes that were serious on me and scum was not voting randomly/or serious then it's an easy opportunity for a speedlynch. I'd be concerned about the speed of a wagon like this on anyone it just happens to have happened to me. If that doesn't make sense to you then I can't help you. But to continue this discussion see my response to Syrenz below.
Syrenz: It's pretty incidental who is scummy on a speedy wagon and all about justification of the vote. Random votes can actually just be random, but scum can use them hoping something will stick. If RVS votes aren't unvoted when the person gets to L2 then they need some justification at that point for still being on that person. If the serious votes have weak justification then it looks like they're just trying to build on an imaginary wagon. At the time I requested a vote count Emo was correct there were 5 votes but there should have only been 4 (Zajnet had voted another player but had forgotten to unvote and rectified that after Emo's vote count. Emo pointed this out already) That means that there was really only one random vote on me and three serious votes with the only justifications being my "empty question" and apparently a "flourish" denoting it was time for serious business. I think those are trash so pretty much the three people at the end of the wagon deserve more scrutiny. At the time of the vote count I requested it was TIM with the first serious vote on me, Emo with the followup and then you Syrenz with the question and the I like this wagon vote.
I've already explained my "empty question" and answered your question re: the post you voted me. I disagree with Emo's assessment that my post was phooey and a flourish and I especially disagree that he feels like I was looking hard for a reason to vote considering I'm not even voting for anyone.
I have a few questions for people about what's going on right now but I'll get to that in a second.
I'm missing something here, what was the point of this post?
Baiting and breadcrumbing and an attempt to end RVS?
Question: You acknowledge that it's the end of the RVS but you still have an RVS vote on WOD. Why didn't you unvote? In fact after all this talk you're STILL voting WOD.
I agree people shouldn't just go throwing their votes around, but you really shouldn't answer for me.
So my question is you had called BE out for what you consider a bad vote on WOD (or a vote with bad reasoning) then you find my reaction suspicious. When Emo points out you're still voting me you unvote. But if you already found me suspicious why didn't you just leave your vote where it was?
What do you think of the fact that WOD hasn't even responded to your accusations at this point? And why did you drop your vote on him when he's not even posting?
Apparently this is the only way people get answers around here.
VOTE BlueElectric
Whether the question was rhetorical or not you should have answered it. Instead you ask if you should answer it. I ask you specific questions after this post and you have YET to answer them. Instead you're arguing semantics and mafia theory with Liquidity. That's a lot of fluff and only looks like scumhunting. Then after that you DROP YOUR VOTE on a player you've been dogged about and haven't even gotten a response FROM THAT PLAYER! And a minor nitpick: why are you concerned with guardman and whether or not he has a posting restriction? Asking for content isn't scummy but focusing on a PR is a minor scumtell.
Pardon me for being rude, but ask me questions directly if you want answers. When you ask blanket questions like this to everyone it makes me think you're trying to gather support. in this case you'd be egging on a wagon while not even voting. And also, pardon me for being rude, but could you actually answer the questions I asked of you?
"If there were three votes that were random and two votes that were serious on me and scum was not voting randomly/or serious then it's an easy opportunity for a speedlynch."
This sounds a hell of a lot like caring about dying.
He had a game that just ended that he was modding, and he did not post in his other on-going game. So it tells me that he hasn't had the time to respond.
The implied amount of strikes is 3, but I'd be willing to give more, considering it usually takes more than 3 instances of evidence to get a player lynched. I asked about Mister Guardman because if he's faking a Post Restriction, that can easily be an excuse not to provide content, especially considering the fact that most LOLcats image captions are not relevant to Mafia in the slightest. I have explained my reasoning for unvoting Mister DoG. I don't see why it was so terribly important to you that I answer your irrelevant question that it netted a vote from you. Why is knowing how many strikes I would have allowed Mister DoG such critical information, Mister Blue?
Pardon me for not caring about your input on the matter, as self-metagaming is inherently unreliable as a defense. ^^ Your questions are answered, and I'm curious as to why you deemed it necessary to attempt to deflect pressure from yourself to me at a critical stage of your being voted. Consider my vote on you until either some of the random votes on you are gone or I have reason to believe you're town.
Give us some time to do a full read but it appears that BlueElectric is being very defensive / secretive not willing to read more into that before the full read.
Only just got a minute to check back in and I was hoping that I might actually see an RVS stage last a little longer this time. Guess not this time. Ah well I can live in hope for the next game.
Unvote WOD
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
I have 20 completed games of forum Mafia under my belt.
Better?
Is this the reason you're giving for why you unvoted?
Re: Guardman/pr - So are you saying faking a posting restriction is scummy? If so why and what motives would town or scum have for doing it?
You keep calling my questions irrelevant. Do you think I don't have reasons for asking questions? The longer you waited to answer the more relevant they became. If not the answers (which apparently only matter to me) then the fact that you avoided it for so long.
It's important to me that you use the term strikes here because it's conclusory. You seemed like you were drawing a conclusion out of thin air then eager to look for evidence after the fact. It was only three hours before you gave him strike two. He hasn't posted since. You've dropped the case but you were sure you caught scum. I don't see anything in the arguments with the people who aren't WOD to make you change your mind unless somehow semantics is a reason to unvote. Answer the question at the top of this post so we're clear what your reasoning for unvoting is. And then I'll tell you how i feel about it.
Explain self metagaming and how you think it applies here.
So basically "consider me OMGUSing you but I don't want a record of it" why not just vote me? That doesn't make sense unless you're concerned with how your vote will appear. If you have justification for you vote then by all means vote. I don't like this anemic attempt to save face before you OMGUS me.
Deflecting onto you? That's malarkey. I've been asking you questions since my third post and you ignored them. I voted you answered. I want more answers. My vote stands.
__
TIM: Read it how you want. I'm done explaining myself against "well it sure sounds like you care about dying." Question: Do you think scum or town is more likely to be concerned about dying? Why?
Also because I'm not sure I explained clearly enough:
Why imply 3 if really it's more than 3? What purpose does it serve to use the term "strikes" if you were giving him anything but three strikes? To me the only purpose I can see is trying to paint WOD as scummier than he actually was.