I never said my theory was that we all had Wiki entries. That's pure misrep.
You said "We're all sidekicks". Therefore, I had to assume that you're a sidekick. I know my role has a Wiki entry, and is a comic book character, so... the next logical step is to see if your soft-claim matched a possible sidekick. The best list was the wiki list. Your soft-claim didn't match anything in there. That's when I first put my vote on you.
Now, after Cyan's (rather obscure) body shows up at the end of the day, I have to rethink about the game set-up. But that doesn't change the various behavioral tells against you.
Quote from Infinis »
He is then confronted for his wasteful voting and maintains the vote. Why would anyone in the face of stronger arguments maintain a weak vote at best, scum starting a wagon, at worst?
If there were a stronger argument against a player, (I'm assuming you mean Some One) there would be more than 2 votes on the guy at this point I would think.
So far, all I'm seeing from you today is you flailing around at anyone who even looks at you funny. I see no reason to move my vote at this time.
Why not? Someone did something to me last night and I received the entire juicy flavor of it. That invalidates your entire point, doesn't it?
Besides, I have done my fair share of play analysis. Maybe you would like to contribute?
I'll also note that you did not call out others when they made "setup speculation based WIFOM" but protested about it when it concerned you.
You're setup speculation WIFOM had the potential to do damage. And you seem pretty intent on doing that damage.
It does invalidate it, if you're vanilla. And if you're vanilla you just concluded your own fishing expedition with a catch. Which is one of the many things I was trying to avoid. Also, see next.
Quote from Dagger »
The point I was trying to state was for something as intrusive as a roleblock, the mod would give a flavor PM regardless of whether the recipient was a vanilla or not. I would expect a mod like Chamber to not give anything. But judging from what I received last night, Ged is not such a mod.
Did you just try to discredit me without the information that doesn't discredit me anyways? Cause this doesn't clear anything up. Now implying that you're not vanilla, or at least didn't reveal your role casts your previous attempt at rebuttal in very poor light. So scummy.
Quote from Dagger »
I see. I have a specific reason for declining and am more than willing to back it up with a rationale when revealing it. In exchange for me revealing that, I gather we'll hear your specific reason then? If not, I refuse, and the only way you'll get it out from me would be getting me to claim range.
Let's do it.
Quote from Dagger »
Okay, I'm tired of waiting for your reply. My free time is up. I'm going back to work and won't really be available for the next few days.
Again, why? Your other theory has been proved pretty conclusively wrong with only 1 dead body. What makes you think your theories now are going to be more accurate?
Do you believe for a second that if a player asked someone for their role name and a player gave it out. And then the next night the name claiming player gets killed, that the requester for the name wouldn't go to the top of the scum list in many people's mind? So I ask you again what possible reason could I have to be fishing for a name Day 1, other than to prove my now dead sidekicks theory?
My current theory (unconventional hero sources) is for later game. I'm not using it to scum hunt nor accuse people of lying as Tilde has used his theory to accuse me based on the fact that he cant find a match in wikipedia for my claim. If this is not your theory then what was the theory you were working on?
And my second theory is not "proved pretty conclusively wrong", but again I am using the theory for late game and to bat ideas around. If you disagree then fine but does that make me scum for theorizing?
To borrow an argument from DYH, you care too much about your image. Nobody cares that you were on the list. The list is certainly not a list of scum, and even if it were, you aren't on it anymore. No one is going to go back to his list and use it as a point against you because, well, its wrong.
I guess they don't have the real world where you live? Image is important. Take Michael Jackson...not convicted of anything, but almost everyone considers him guilty of nefarious deeds.
Nice misrep again. The list is being used a stepping stone for a scum hunt, which implies that these people are scummy and/or have something to hide. You are correct in the fact that it is not a scum list per se. So if anyone uses the list later to bolster a scum case, that part of the theory will be ignored and dismissed?
Situation 1: Dagger, while reading your opinion, decided to purposely put you on the wrong list (with the intent of....? Lynching you?) and assumed that he could get away with it without having anyone point out his mistake.
Situation 2: Dagger, for whatever reason, made a mistake.
I think "inconceivable" is being used to describe the wrong situation.
Your play is scummy.
Vote: Infinis
I might have more to add after ~Tilde~ responds.
Why wait for ~Tilde~ to respond? What are you holding back, that can't be said now? You voted me, so out with it.
And the line you quoted means YOU FAIL, that was a Princess Bride reference. I used it intentionally since when it was used in the movie the inconceivable situation was always happening. I strongly believe that either the "mistake" has caused what it was meant to cause OR that you are using my objection, to the lists misrep of me, against me to start a wagon.
I'll take loran's advice here Unvote Tilde better arguments have come to light and my vote here is pointless.
Two final points:
1) I am defending my position calmly and succinctly, not flailing.
2) thanks for the protect whoever guessed that I am town (because I am) and would be a target.
I'm amused that [Shalako], of all people, are talking about terrible reasoning. "Hey, PF's RVS daykill must be serious, therefore I should shoot him to prove that I have a daykill!"
2) thanks for the protect whoever guessed that I am town (because I am) and would be a target.
Do you actually have any evidence this is more likely the case than, for example, RR being roleblocked by a townie roleblocker, and thus, stopping the mafia's nightkill? I'm just wondering if you pulled the quoted statement out of thin air or, on the contrary, have anything to support it with.
Do you believe for a second that if a player asked someone for their role name and a player gave it out. And then the next night the name claiming player gets killed, that the requester for the name wouldn't go to the top of the scum list in many people's mind? So I ask you again what possible reason could I have to be fishing for a name Day 1, other than to prove my now dead sidekicks theory?
I'm not accusing you of fishing. I'm asking why you thought you would be the top suspect day 2 if you fished for someone's name and they died night 1.
My current theory (unconventional hero sources) is for later game. I'm not using it to scum hunt nor accuse people of lying as Tilde has used his theory to accuse me based on the fact that he cant find a match in wikipedia for my claim. If this is not your theory then what was the theory you were working on?
I don't have any theories because I only know 3/20? rolenames in this game. My question to you has been... why? Theories with next to no evidence are rather useless. If you're only going to use it later, why not make it later, when it matters?
And my second theory is not "proved pretty conclusively wrong", but again I am using the theory for late game and to bat ideas around. If you disagree then fine but does that make me scum for theorizing?
I was discussing your first theory, and yes, it is wrong. Does it make you scum? Not inherently, but the fact that you continue to theorize at the expense of contributing does.
I guess they don't have the real world where you live? Image is important. Take Michael Jackson...not convicted of anything, but almost everyone considers him guilty of nefarious deeds.
I'm pretty sure he was convicted in civil court (or, if you want OJ as an example, I'm almost positive), even if not criminal court. The fact that he wasn't guilty beyond reasonable doubt does not automatically mean innocence.
You on the other hand, you are clear of all charges. 100%. You did not (without any doubt whatsoever) go against the soft claim. Nobody is harboring any secret thoughts as to your guilt on the matter. The proof is absolute. I don't know how else to say it. Image matters when there is doubt on the subject.
Nice misrep again. The list is being used a stepping stone for a scum hunt, which implies that these people are scummy and/or have something to hide. You are correct in the fact that it is not a scum list per se. So if anyone uses the list later to bolster a scum case, that part of the theory will be ignored and dismissed?
A "stepping stone" is something that causes you to look back at the person - generally a weak tell at best. Such as the "congratulating the doctor" one - I looked back at Some One and concluded he was probably town. The only place I expect to see this in a case (or the only place I would agree with it) is as a "this list triggered me to reread [player] and here's what I found."
Why wait for ~Tilde~ to respond? What are you holding back, that can't be said now? You voted me, so out with it.
I didn't want to answer for him, however he stated it quite well. You missed his point completely.
And the line you quoted means YOU FAIL, that was a Princess Bride reference. I used it intentionally since when it was used in the movie the inconceivable situation was always happening. I strongly believe that either the "mistake" has caused what it was meant to cause OR that you are using my objection, to the lists misrep of me, against me to start a wagon.
I didn't misrepresent you at all. You are saying that:
1) He made the "mistake" maliciously. That it wasn't a mistake, and that he saw your opinion and deliberately lied about it.
I am saying that:
2) He made a mistake.
Same options as last time, and Occam's Razor points to the same answer.
And yes I am voting you because you are objecting so much. The only reason I can see is a guilty conscious. I do not expect someone who is innocent to complain so much even after being proved innocent.
I am suspicious of RR and I am trying to determine whether it is a gambit he's trying to throw suspicion off him.
If you're truly suspicious of me, I don't mind you tossing a vote over. There's been enough discussion on the topic that nobody should accuse you of OMGUS.
I don't doubt you have a specific reason for declining, and I'm not interested in getting you to claim range over it. I think there is potential for something useful to be learned from this, and I will explain my rationale if you answer the question.
That really isn't the way that this works. The standard is that information isn't revealed unless there's a good reason. One person saying "trust me, there's a good reason, I'll explain later" doesn't cut it. It would be different if Dagger were under more pressure, or if we had a good reason to trust you, but as it is, you're going to need to step up first if you want Dagger to.
I never said my theory was that we all had Wiki entries. That's pure misrep.
You said "We're all sidekicks". Therefore, I had to assume that you're a sidekick. I know my role has a Wiki entry, and is a comic book character, so... the next logical step is to see if your soft-claim matched a possible sidekick. The best list was the wiki list. Your soft-claim didn't match anything in there. That's when I first put my vote on you.
How does that logic work? You think that he's scum and fishing for information by posting about how we could all be sidekicks... but at the same time you think that he hasn't prepared a falseclaim of a sidekick that matches his softclaim? I usually try to give scum a little more credit than that.
I know Loran made a good point about Infinis' sidekick thing that I agreed with earlier, but his recent activity really has me concerned. With Cyan as his scum buddy if he's mafia, convention is pretty much out the window, anyway. (Go back to Prehistoric Mafia) Andelijah is spot-on with the image tell, and Infinis' response to that is ridiculous.
@Infinis: The Michael Jackson analogy actually works against you - you can look scummy, and not be lynched, just like he can 'look bad' and not be in jail.
The point is that you've spent so much time "theorizing" and trying to clean your image that you're not doing what a good townie should be doing - hunting scum.
There's another problem: the part where you're claiming to have been protected.
I'll elaborate more after you answer: do you know if you were protected, or are you speculating?
I know Loran made a good point about Infinis' sidekick thing that I agreed with earlier, but his recent activity really has me concerned. With Cyan as his scum buddy if he's mafia, convention is pretty much out the window, anyway. (Go back to Prehistoric Mafia) Andelijah is spot-on with the image tell, and Infinis' response to that is ridiculous.
@Infinis: The Michael Jackson analogy actually works against you - you can look scummy, and not be lynched, just like he can 'look bad' and not be in jail.
The point is that you've spent so much time "theorizing" and trying to clean your image that you're not doing what a good townie should be doing - hunting scum.
There's another problem: the part where you're claiming to have been protected.
I'll elaborate more after you answer: do you know if you were protected, or are you speculating?
I'm have posted each of my theories and have spent time defending the fact that each has been a theory not a fact. I will not let my detractors have the last word portraying me as either scum or wasting time with theories. This game is about theory and analysis. I am taking what I've been given, PM and mod posts and extrapolating what I believe to be going on. THe usefulness of said theories is up for debate surely, but to continually infer I'm scum because someone disagrees with my theory is ludacrous. Especially if I or anyone has not gone after another player based on my theories. I would have been on to other topics but as I said I will not let fallacious attacks on my play and theories go unmet.
As to image's affect on the current game and games played here on the forums and it's importance I have three words for you: Kpaca, Cyan, Seppel (if this does not get my point across nothing will)
And now something completely different...
As to the point of the existence of evidence that I was protected, I received a Night PM from the Mod indicating I was either protected or roleblocked. There could be a third unknown quantity but the PM lends itself to my assumption that I was protected.
I'm amused that [Shalako], of all people, are talking about terrible reasoning. "Hey, PF's RVS daykill must be serious, therefore I should shoot him to prove that I have a daykill!"
I'm have posted each of my theories and have spent time defending the fact that each has been a theory not a fact. I will not let my detractors have the last word portraying me as either scum or wasting time with theories. This game is about theory and analysis. I am taking what I've been given, PM and mod posts and extrapolating what I believe to be going on. THe usefulness of said theories is up for debate surely, but to continually infer I'm scum because someone disagrees with my theory is ludacrous. Especially if I or anyone has not gone after another player based on my theories. I would have been on to other topics but as I said I will not let fallacious attacks on my play and theories go unmet.
So, this boils down to you needing the last word so you look better. That's exactly what we're pointing out; it's not important if you're a townie right now to be "right". It's important that you go find scum.
Quote from Infinis »
As to image's affect on the current game and games played here on the forums and it's importance I have three words for you: Kpaca, Cyan, Seppel (if this does not get my point across nothing will)
I don't understand what you're trying to say here. These three players have defined playstyles, yes. But the image tell I'm speaking to here is scenario-specific.
Quote from Infinis »
And now something completely different...
As to the point of the existence of evidence that I was protected, I received a Night PM from the Mod indicating I was either protected or roleblocked. There could be a third unknown quantity but the PM lends itself to my assumption that I was protected.
So, it sounds like a jailer.
I'd expect between you and RobRoy that it was likely a townie who targeted you, and the scum RBer who targeted RR. Reasoning: your lack of input yesterday and resistance to the Cyan wagon made you questionable. RobRoy was prepared to hammer Cyan and upon re-reading his material, did help accelerate attention back to him yesterday. I'm feeling even better than before about him.
Doesn't mean much for you, Infinis, your alignment is undetermined as a result of being the target of a town jailer if I'm right about this. He'd have no role insight to your alignment, whereas the scum RBer clearly would.
Furthermore, I need to know who targeted Dagger last night, please. It's in your best interest to be honest, you know.
Saying you were protected implies one thing. Saying you were roleblocked implies something very different.
Edited while writing.
And then there's the jailer option (I call them closet-stuffers) which as DYH says, doesn't really give us anything regarding your alignment.
Well, you've filled your quota of theories, where's the analysis?
As to the point of the existence of evidence that I was protected, I received a Night PM from the Mod indicating I was either protected or roleblocked. There could be a third unknown quantity but the PM lends itself to my assumption that I was protected.
Result of reread on Some One: Now that I have read his posts in an uninterrupted flow, I can say with almost certainty that his thought processes indicate a town's mindset, or at the very least a logical progression of thoughts and viewpoints. I haven't seen anything that would indicate a scum mentality (from what I could gather). And thus, I am leaning town on SO.
@loran: Just to clarify, what are these 5 or so "-"s that you have managed to pick out from SO's posts from your first read through?
My notes only go through Post 470, but Post #s 195, 197 (the nongenuine posts here), 268, 271 have -s next to them. So only 4 posts. Post 356 had the previous mention + and post 300 has a ?? for what it's worth.
As for the editing, like i said, it could mean something, it could not. Scum tend to doublethink their posts more than town do, but some town players do as well on occasion with more complicated posts. I wanted to see if some one could tell me how much of an editing struggle it was to write that post, which seemed off and a bit wrong.
He then responded with a "Not sure," and then proceeded to try and explain his point from that...which doesn't make me think much better of him truthfully...a town player would be more likely imo to have said, i dont know, a few times. Instead he sort of brushed it off there.
He later responded with an approximate of 4, which doesn't mean anything in particular.
----------------------------------------
I'm still reading infinis as town here btw. His continued insistance on theories of the game over analysis don't strike me as of bad-intent but more of i-have-no-idea-what-to-do intent.
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.
My He then responded with a "Not sure," and then proceeded to try and explain his point from that...
I wouldn't say I proceeded to try, but rather, I basically did what I said I was going to do. I found it incredibly interesting 2 people who were out for the other's blood all of a sudden had votes on the same person (that wasn't one of them) and I wanted to see if any conclusions could be drawn from it.
...which doesn't make me think much better of him truthfully...a town player would be more likely imo to have said, i dont know, a few times. Instead he sort of brushed it off there.
Let me get this straight - you feel worse about me because I say 'I don't know how many times I edited it' in the same post I do what I said I was going to do? You said a townie is more likely to say "I don't know, a few times" and you are calling me scummy for instead saying, "I have no idea, quite frankly, but the point is that I wanted to take the following..." and then doing what I said I was going to do?
You are speaking in loaded tongues, dear sir. You said I brushed the question off, and that's scummy. However, you also said a townie is more likely to say "I don't know, a few times," which is basically the exact same thing I said, except instead of saying "a few times" I said "but quite frankly," and lead to my post.
Unvote, Vote loran - You called what I said scummy by countering something I did with an example of something you think a townie would have done. However, what I really did is much closer to your townie mindset example than the brushing off you describe it as being. Grasping at straws/strawmanning me, much? For someone that claims to be so analytical and such, I am flabbergasted because you call me scummy for doing exactly what you said a townie is most likely to do, but you fabricate what I actually did and call it a "brush off."
I wouldn't say I proceeded to try, but rather, I basically did what I said I was going to do. I found it incredibly interesting 2 people who were out for the other's blood all of a sudden had votes on the same person (that wasn't one of them) and I wanted to see if any conclusions could be drawn from it.
Let me get this straight - you feel worse about me because I say 'I don't know how many times I edited it' in the same post I do what I said I was going to do? You said a townie is more likely to say "I don't know, a few times" and you are calling me scummy for instead saying, "I have no idea, quite frankly, but the point is that I wanted to take the following..." and then doing what I said I was going to do?
Your post appeared to sweep the whole thing under the rug, as if you didn't want to guess or talk about it. You didn't even ask why i asked, which would've been natural. And there were other reasons i was feeling negative about you.
You are speaking in loaded tongues, dear sir. You said I brushed the question off, and that's scummy. However, you also said a townie is more likely to say "I don't know, a few times," which is basically the exact same thing I said, except instead of saying "a few times" I said "but quite frankly," and lead to my post.
No, it's not the same thing. Saying a "few times" would be an attempt to answer it.
Unvote, Vote loran - You called what I said scummy by countering something I did with an example of something you think a townie would have done. However, what I really did is much closer to your townie mindset example than the brushing off you describe it as being. Grasping at straws/strawmanning me, much? For someone that claims to be so analytical and such, I am flabbergasted because you call me scummy for doing exactly what you said a townie is most likely to do, but you fabricate what I actually did and call it a "brush off."
No, I'm not strawmanning, and saying you didn't make the townie move there is standard scumhunting.
And now you're changing the words around from "much closer" to "exactly" what a townie is most likely to do....which is wrong.
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.
Your post appeared to sweep the whole thing under the rug...
My post WAS the post. It's not like we are talking about more than one post here on separate pages or far away from each other. I only saw your post upon hitting the preview post button.
...as if you didn't want to guess or talk about it...
The answer I gave later on you considered something "that doesn't mean anything in particular."
You didn't even ask why i asked, which would've been natural. And there were other reasons i was feeling negative about you.
Hmm, I did not ask you why you asked me after the fact when it was never brought up again. Oversight on my part, however, it's now known why.
No, it's not the same thing. Saying a "few times" would be an attempt to answer it.
What's wrong with "I don't know" when the truth really is that I didn't know? Keep in mind, you initially said an estimate would be fine, but I should try to be exact, and then you told me to pick a number, the second time around. I cannot speculate about what you would have done, but if I answered "a few times," that is obviously not an exact number and clearly not an estimate because you probably assumed it was "a few times" without me saying anything.
I can elaborate more later, but suffice it to say, he looks like scum. He's overcautious in how he words things, has a lack of confidence in his stances, and has done nothing in terms of actually hunting for scum.
I will be shocked if Infinis is scum. Theorizing on the setup speculation in the game thread based on the information from your own PM is not newbie scum material. Nothing about his posts strikes me as fake or insincere in the least.
I don't doubt you have a specific reason for declining, and I'm not interested in getting you to claim range over it. I think there is potential for something useful to be learned from this, and I will explain my rationale if you answer the question.
Okay. On your word then. If your rationale seems tacked on, I'll kick you out of my town list. I'll post it after I've caught up.
As to Dagger making ad hominem attacks about my play, this is beneath you.
If you want to cite ad hominem attacks, then quote the appropriate section so that I can respond to that. Using a blanket statement like that to categorize my arguments against you means you are pulling ad hominem attacks out of thin air to dismiss my arguments.
The list is not just a stepping stone, it will be harped upon later in the game. This is not paranoia, it is a foretelling. And if your only defense for misreping me is "I'm not a god-analyst" then I guess your analysis is no better or no worse than mine and therefore subject to the same criticisms.
It is paranoia and you are extremely conscious of anything that could potentially undermine your image. If you are town, then stop that. There is a reason why players attribute image-conscious people to scums. And misrep you how? As far as it is, I can see no one supporting your stance on the list. By all means, criticize. I reserve the right to respond though. Ultimately, the town is the final judge.
I believe the soft claim may be a lot more illuminating then a normal soft claim. Why do I believe this? The game set up.
1) Why would any gamer, worth there fanboy salt, need wikipedia for most superheroes?
2) Why is it that "false claiming will be hard enough as it is"?
Both these statements make me think that maybe we're going towards lesser known heroes? Like Thundarr, or the Wonder Twins. But number two bothers me a lot. It has been well pointed out that a false soft claim would be easy to back up, unless some major flavor issues arise later.
Normally I would be against what I perceive as a very weak tell, with this soft claim, but as I stated above I think the soft claim might be very helpful as the game progresses.
Here's your original post. On closer inspection, I suppose I must have read it as "Yeah, I agree with the soft claiming, but there are this and this bad points, but yeah, I still agree with it." At that point of time, I must have read it as someone trying to discredit it subtly but still giving the impression of supporting it. Of course, when you quoted it again trying to "clear" yourself, I thought "It certainly seem feasible that you were agreeing with it. Oh well, I must have put your name in wrongly".
I made a mistake and did not correct the post, I thought I had. I reread what I wrote and it wasn't there. I am not known for deep, analytical, long winded posts. I make mistakes. The list was corrected by ced, with no other mention of the list. The list then reappeared with the incorrect info and now I m quashing it. Use it for your scum hunting all you wish, but I am not overreacting nor paranoid, first impressions are important. That list gives the impression I'm trying to hide something. Now anything I say will be tinted with that stain. I want my thoughts to be judged on my play not on a false list.
Again, if you are of the impression the people on said list are hiding something, why aren't you going after them based on it? You are citing how damning the list is to your own reputation when the fact is no one even remotely care about it.
You're setup speculation WIFOM had the potential to do damage. And you seem pretty intent on doing that damage.
I gave reasons why it's not WIFOM. You did not refute my argument but still continue to cite it as WIFOM. You seem pretty intent on misrepresenting me.
Which is one of the many things I was trying to avoid. Also, see next.Did you just try to discredit me without the information that doesn't discredit me anyways? Cause this doesn't clear anything up. Now implying that you're not vanilla, or at least didn't reveal your role casts your previous attempt at rebuttal in very poor light. So scummy.
Oh, is it? I suppose the town can judge on their own, yes? I am stating I have information that invalidate your attempt at misrepresenting me.
Sure. Convince everyone else that getting me to claim range is the way to go. If you are worth your salt that is, and was not just spouting hot empty air.
If you're truly suspicious of me, I don't mind you tossing a vote over. There's been enough discussion on the topic that nobody should accuse you of OMGUS.
I am suspicious of multiple people. To give you a rough list... in fact...
List of people I am currently interested in: Jql
AH
RR (this is you) Roja
loran
As to image's affect on the current game and games played here on the forums and it's importance I have three words for you: Kpaca, Cyan, Seppel (if this does not get my point across nothing will)
I don't get your point. What does those 3 players have to do with anything?
I will be shocked if Infinis is scum. Theorizing on the setup speculation in the game thread based on the information from your own PM is not newbie scum material. Nothing about his posts strikes me as fake or insincere in the least.
Perhaps I should reread, but I do not remember Infinis speculating nearly this much in his other game as town in Battle Royale (and people can corroborate/deny this from other games if they remember). While my first impression wasn't newb scum defense mechanism, he's obviously played town before and more productively. I don't know why he would change.
Edit with some skimming:
Infinis was against early claims in Battle Royale. I could ignore changes in that, but the fact that he contributed productively to that game is a pretty strong point against him. Can't say I'm being motivated to move my vote.
My notes only go through Post 470, but Post #s 195, 197 (the nongenuine posts here), 268, 271 have -s next to them. So only 4 posts. Post 356 had the previous mention + and post 300 has a ?? for what it's worth.
I didn't really see anything wrong for 195. I would attribute 197 to an honest opinion rather a non-genuine one. I see 268 and 271 as a progression of belief from earlier when he suspected DYH was scum for the soft claim thing. I don't really know why you listed 300. As far as I can tell, you believed SO to be scum because he suspected both DYH and Cyan when they were arguing with each other? Another thing to support my belief in SO being town is when he made that analysis on people (except him) that were on Numegil's wagon. If one were to initate a wagon on a player (confirmed to be town after death), one would naturally be suspicious of who jumped onto said wagon. If you followed the progression of belief SO exhibited earlier, then he would suspect doubly when both Cyan and DYH were on Numegil's wagon, both of whom he suspected earlier and said so himself.
I was targeted by what I believed to be a protective role last night. I received a note telling me that I was in danger and that I should sleep in another place tonight. Seeing no reason not to do so, I followed what the note said. The entire thing ended with a musing that I was probably saved but would never be certain of it.
Here's the thing. If AH's theory on roleblocker is correct, then if I was not the target of last night's NK, I would not receive anything simply because the protection was not triggered. The fact that I received something that indicated I was protected BUT yet still ended with a note that said I wasn't certain I was saved PROVES that if something as intrusive as a roleblock was to happen to a vanilla, said vanilla would also receive a flavor PM from Ged that someone attempted to roleblock him or her. Being a power role has nothing to do with this.
Another reason also why I am still leery of RR is because if I was not the target of a kill, then the fact that RR was roleblocked would certainly condemn him if another person stood up claiming he was roleblocked as well. I don't see a scum standing up saying he was roleblocked by a town out of the blue like that if he was the one performing the kill last night. And since no one else claims being roleblocked, this either clears RR partially (since it's definitely scum origin) or RR was making a gambit by saying he was roleblocked. I would say the latter is unlikely because I simply don't see the scums foregoing a roleblock on Night 1 in an attempt at a gambit when one of their numbers was taken out on Day 1.
As for why I refused to divulge the nature of the ability, it was because I wanted to keep the scums guessing (if they indeed tried to NK me last night) whether someone was protecting me last night or the ability was inherent in my role (and that I received a flavor PM telling me someone tried to kill me last night). I thought that if they had no idea which one was the truth, they might attempt to initiate a wagon on me today, believing me to be the OTHER scum group (Mafia/SK) with a self-protection ability.
And so there. Everything out on the table. And thus far:
We had no kill last night, from 3 possible sources (Town, Mafia, SK).
RR claimed getting roleblocked.
I claimed getting protected.
Infinis claimed getting jailed? (What's the rough flavor you received?)
I gave reasons why it's not WIFOM. You did not refute my argument but still continue to cite it as WIFOM. You seem pretty intent on misrepresenting me.
I'm not misrepresenting you. I'm saying you're wrong. I'll break it down. You wanted to confirm the presence of second rollblocker because that would mean one was probably town (780). But you don't know which one. It follows Princess Bride more closely in that both individuals could be the same. So, WIFOM.
Quote from Dagger »
No, I did not even remotely said whatever was aimed at me was a roleblock. How exactly did you correlate those two?
Looking back, it's clear you're right. I just assumed that if you were bringing up a night action it would be relevant to our discussion. Now that it is clear that it is in no way shape or form related to a roleblock, how was that evidence of anything again? Because some random action was flavorful only remotely correlates. It's certainly not proof of anything. You're saying you have proof I'm wrong, without the proof.
Quote from Dagger »
Oh, is it? I suppose the town can judge on their own, yes? I am stating I have information that invalidate your attempt at misrepresenting me.
Produce the body. And my attempt to misrepresent you.
Quote from Dagger »
Sure. Convince everyone else that getting me to claim range is the way to go. If you are worth your salt that is, and was not just spouting hot empty air.
Hey guys! Dagger is acting really strangely. I think he's scum!
I was targeted by what I believed to be a protective role last night. I received a note telling me that I was in danger and that I should sleep in another place tonight. Seeing no reason not to do so, I followed what the note said. The entire thing ended with a musing that I was probably saved but would never be certain of it.
Here's the thing. If AH's theory on roleblocker is correct, then if I was not the target of last night's NK, I would not receive anything simply because the protection was not triggered. The fact that I received something that indicated I was protected BUT yet still ended with a note that said I wasn't certain I was saved PROVES that if something as intrusive as a roleblock was to happen to a vanilla, said vanilla would also receive a flavor PM from Ged that someone attempted to roleblock him or her. Being a power role has nothing to do with this.
Ok, you produced your body. Which was not even direct evidence contradicting my assumption. That's not proof.
Quote from Dagger »
And since no one else claims being roleblocked, this either clears RR partially (since it's definitely scum origin) or RR was making a gambit by saying he was roleblocked.
I'm not misrepresenting you. I'm saying you're wrong. I'll break it down. You wanted to confirm the presence of second rollblocker because that would mean one was probably town (780). But you don't know which one. It follows Princess Bride more closely in that both individuals could be the same. So, WIFOM.
No. Not WIFOM. We can judge by analyzing the targets. DYH already did so, when he delineated Infinis/RR with their respective claims.
Looking back, it's clear you're right. I just assumed that if you were bringing up a night action it would be relevant to our discussion. Now that it is clear that it is in no way shape or form related to a roleblock, how was that evidence of anything again? Because some random action was flavorful only remotely correlates. It's certainly not proof of anything. You're saying you have proof I'm wrong, without the proof.
Produce the body. And my attempt to misrepresent you.
You claimed I have devious intention in asking for a second claim of roleblock, trying to fish and out power roles from it. Despite my explanations, you repeatedly spouted I was using WIFOM without actually countering my arguments. That's misrepresentation.
Another thing to support my belief in SO being town is when he made that analysis on people (except him) that were on Numegil's wagon. If one were to initate a wagon on a player (confirmed to be town after death), one would naturally be suspicious of who jumped onto said wagon. If you followed the progression of belief SO exhibited earlier, then he would suspect doubly when both Cyan and DYH were on Numegil's wagon, both of whom he suspected earlier and said so himself.
Done.
....And the first thing a scum would do is to suspect people on a wagon involved with a dead townie. It's standard FOR ANY PLAYER.
Also, him suspecting BOTH cyan and DYH is NOT a positive thing......that's a clear case of him taking advantage of fence sitting to make a later line of reasoning seem less questionable.
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.
No, I'm not strawmanning, and saying you didn't make the townie move there is standard scumhunting.
I said "I don't know" because I truthfully didn't know. I don't think anyone would remember how many times they fixed their posts before posting, especially if they re-wrote it over.
And now you're changing the words around from "much closer" to "exactly" what a townie is most likely to do....which is wrong.
Point retracted and edited to say "basically exactly." Instead of doing "exactly" by saying "I don't know, a few times" I did basically the exact same thing by saying, "I don't know." As I see it, "a few times" provides no more insight than saying "I don't know."
Preview before post - I explained before that both players seemed to have very reasonable points directed at the other (about behavior, meta arguments, styles, comparisons, etc). The turning point for me really came at Cyan's claim when I really doubted an untargettable town-Cyan would decide to stroll merrily along when he could instead "do his thing."
....And the first thing a scum would do is to suspect people on a wagon involved with a dead townie. It's standard FOR ANY PLAYER.
Also, him suspecting BOTH cyan and DYH is NOT a positive thing......that's a clear case of him taking advantage of fence sitting to make a later line of reasoning seem less questionable.
Not if you are on the same wagon yourself. Especially not if you are the one to initiate the wagon. I can see another player not on the wagon doing it, irregardless of alignment. But I don't see a scum blatantly calling attention to himself or herself like that, especially when he or she knows people will call him out on it.
No, I did not say it was a positive thing in the way you imply. I merely said it's a natural progression of thought I can see a town make. And when one is fence-sitting, I don't expect to see him or her going all the way out at both like what SO did. I would expect to see a more laid-back manner, constantly sniping at both but keeping an uncertain mannerism with regards to both. That is what I would call a fence-sitting.
No, I did not say it was a positive thing in the way you imply. I merely said it's a natural progression of thought I can see a town make. And when one is fence-sitting, I don't expect to see him or her going all the way out at both like what SO did. I would expect to see a more laid-back manner, constantly sniping at both but keeping an uncertain mannerism with regards to both. That is what I would call a fence-sitting.
Your definition is lighter than mine....the dude basically said each player's points were good, but both had good refutations....WHICH IS THE SAME THING AS HAVING NO OPINION!.
That's fence sitting. Then his bit about them both possibly being scum in a bus attack also allows him to point at either one, regardless of how one of them (lets say...Cyan) turned up later down the line.
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.
Your definition is lighter than mine....the dude basically said each player's points were good, but both had good refutations....WHICH IS THE SAME THING AS HAVING NO OPINION!.
That's fence sitting. Then his bit about them both possibly being scum in a bus attack also allows him to point at either one, regardless of how one of them (lets say...Cyan) turned up later down the line.
I thought we were discussing when SO analyzed the wagon on Numegil? If that was your definition, why didn't you go after GR (or was it RR?) under the same premise?
With regards to your second point, did he do that on Day 2? After Cyan turned up scum? You are basically just tacking on possible scum rationale to his actions instead of judging him on a white board.
Your definition is lighter than mine....the dude basically said each player's points were good, but both had good refutations....WHICH IS THE SAME THING AS HAVING NO OPINION!
From the perspective of a person who doesn't have that much experience and hasn't played in most of the games cited in this thread, common sense tells me both players' meta arguments will be to some extent true and to some extent false (in other words, some aspects of a game cited will apply and others will be irrelevant). When the case versus Cyan was mostly (or all) meta, I really was not swayed in his direction. Likewise, when he used meta arguments versus DYH, I was not swayed in that direction. It's not that I didn't have an opinion, I just remained unbiased in regards to the meta-arguments being tossed around.
That's fence sitting. Then his bit about them both possibly being scum in a bus attack also allows him to point at either one, regardless of how one of them (lets say...Cyan) turned up later down the line.
I "predicted" a bus attack but my recent suspicions would indicate I feel Jql is a scumbuddy of Cyan. As a result, it would be grossly off-point to suspect I would do a 180 and suspect DYH of bussing Cyan when I just thought Cyan was on a team with Jql.
I thought we were discussing when SO analyzed the wagon on Numegil? If that was your definition, why didn't you go after GR (or was it RR?) under the same premise?
We're talking about that, and you brought up the fact that he had been suspicious of both earlier....which is therefore why i referred back at that act.
You're giving him credit for something that is scummy because it allows you to get credit for it by definition.
As for GR, i have one - posts on him, but 1 posts which i thought was a +s and showed a townie mindset (306 is the + for his reaction to AH, 318 is the -). I notice his fence sitting, but his post 277 seems more of a natural stream of consciousness whereas Someone's 268 and 271 feel like he's trying to remain neutral and is stretching to find reasons that both sides may be town or scum.
With regards to your second point, did he do that on Day 2? After Cyan turned up scum? You are basically just tacking on possible scum rationale to his actions instead of judging him on a white board.
I started my vote on him before day 2 really had much time to develop...i haven't really that much analyzed much of the day 2 happenings thus far. A failure on my part, but lack of time.
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-ish: For that matter, I'm going to update my PBPA on Some One some time tomorrow, but I'm going to be a bit busy so i can't promise anything...I got a take home midterm to finish, and I've got some stuff to do before I take a flight home for spring break on Friday.
Hopefully i should have time over break.
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.
Furthermore, I need to know who targeted Dagger last night, please. It's in your best interest to be honest, you know.
Why exactly is it in the best interests of anyone to step forward? I understand that this was written before Dagger came out with the full explanation, but exposing power roles is usually a bad thing, not a good thing. Curious or not, this seems like fishing.
Visited underworld bars and began hurting people. Put fourteen in hospital needlessly. Fifteenth gave me an adress. Did what had to be done. Can say beyond any doubt that Some One is in this conspiracy.
Huh. Shocking indeed.
Feel free to refuse this, but... can you offer any more information about the mechanics behind this revelation? Why you had to wait and so on? If this is true, and your character is trustworthy (which are two different things) then it's very helpful. I still need to figure out how much weight to put on this revelation, though.
Also: I'll be in Chicago this weekend for the GP. I'll try to keep up from there (there should be internet from the hotel) but don't expect me to be terribly responsive over the weekend.
Dagger, I'm the one that saved you. It's the reason I asked you about the toothpaste. I know for a fact that you were the only person slated to die last night after all normal effects took place; it's the reason I was skeptical of Infinis' claim of protection, especially since I think I know who the normal doc is, and who he protected.
I'm the Sandman and my gas mask disguise causes me to appear guilty upon investigations. You will notice the Sandman doesn't show up in the long list of people on Wikipedia, so click here for another link. In this other link, when it says "Unlike many of his hero contemporaries, he had no super-powers," this corresponds to me being otherwise vanilla.
The person who targeted you clearly isn't coming out now, anyhow.
If I'm not alive tomorrow, which is pretty likely, I wanted full disclosure to the town to help explain the N1 actions as it could become pivotal later.
Some One is scum? Awesome. That means we have 2 scum caught today, because Spot is also scum (almost certainly).
Since it seems to be the cool thing to do...I am an information role. I won't claim exactly what I am, but I will say that along with DYH, Spotofprey appears to have targeted Dagger last night. Is that a good enough reason for me to ask Dagger the nature of his information? Heh.
Just look at the end of post 769. Can you say, "I tried to kill Dagger and my shot failed, and my scum buddy is Some One, hence me needing clarification on the someone vs. Some One count." I can say it. I just did.
You said "We're all sidekicks". Therefore, I had to assume that you're a sidekick. I know my role has a Wiki entry, and is a comic book character, so... the next logical step is to see if your soft-claim matched a possible sidekick. The best list was the wiki list. Your soft-claim didn't match anything in there. That's when I first put my vote on you.
Now, after Cyan's (rather obscure) body shows up at the end of the day, I have to rethink about the game set-up. But that doesn't change the various behavioral tells against you.
If there were a stronger argument against a player, (I'm assuming you mean Some One) there would be more than 2 votes on the guy at this point I would think.
So far, all I'm seeing from you today is you flailing around at anyone who even looks at you funny. I see no reason to move my vote at this time.
Note to self: Your mafia theories are usually wrong, so don't act on them.
It does invalidate it, if you're vanilla. And if you're vanilla you just concluded your own fishing expedition with a catch. Which is one of the many things I was trying to avoid. Also, see next. Did you just try to discredit me without the information that doesn't discredit me anyways? Cause this doesn't clear anything up. Now implying that you're not vanilla, or at least didn't reveal your role casts your previous attempt at rebuttal in very poor light. So scummy.
Let's do it. Well, that sucks.
Do you believe for a second that if a player asked someone for their role name and a player gave it out. And then the next night the name claiming player gets killed, that the requester for the name wouldn't go to the top of the scum list in many people's mind? So I ask you again what possible reason could I have to be fishing for a name Day 1, other than to prove my now dead sidekicks theory?
My current theory (unconventional hero sources) is for later game. I'm not using it to scum hunt nor accuse people of lying as Tilde has used his theory to accuse me based on the fact that he cant find a match in wikipedia for my claim. If this is not your theory then what was the theory you were working on?
And my second theory is not "proved pretty conclusively wrong", but again I am using the theory for late game and to bat ideas around. If you disagree then fine but does that make me scum for theorizing?
I guess they don't have the real world where you live? Image is important. Take Michael Jackson...not convicted of anything, but almost everyone considers him guilty of nefarious deeds.
Nice misrep again. The list is being used a stepping stone for a scum hunt, which implies that these people are scummy and/or have something to hide. You are correct in the fact that it is not a scum list per se. So if anyone uses the list later to bolster a scum case, that part of the theory will be ignored and dismissed?
Why wait for ~Tilde~ to respond? What are you holding back, that can't be said now? You voted me, so out with it.
And the line you quoted means YOU FAIL, that was a Princess Bride reference. I used it intentionally since when it was used in the movie the inconceivable situation was always happening. I strongly believe that either the "mistake" has caused what it was meant to cause OR that you are using my objection, to the lists misrep of me, against me to start a wagon.
I'll take loran's advice here Unvote Tilde better arguments have come to light and my vote here is pointless.
Two final points:
1) I am defending my position calmly and succinctly, not flailing.
2) thanks for the protect whoever guessed that I am town (because I am) and would be a target.
12-11? I'm losing track
Do you actually have any evidence this is more likely the case than, for example, RR being roleblocked by a townie roleblocker, and thus, stopping the mafia's nightkill? I'm just wondering if you pulled the quoted statement out of thin air or, on the contrary, have anything to support it with.
I don't have any theories because I only know 3/20? rolenames in this game. My question to you has been... why? Theories with next to no evidence are rather useless. If you're only going to use it later, why not make it later, when it matters?
I was discussing your first theory, and yes, it is wrong. Does it make you scum? Not inherently, but the fact that you continue to theorize at the expense of contributing does.
I'm pretty sure he was convicted in civil court (or, if you want OJ as an example, I'm almost positive), even if not criminal court. The fact that he wasn't guilty beyond reasonable doubt does not automatically mean innocence.
You on the other hand, you are clear of all charges. 100%. You did not (without any doubt whatsoever) go against the soft claim. Nobody is harboring any secret thoughts as to your guilt on the matter. The proof is absolute. I don't know how else to say it. Image matters when there is doubt on the subject.
A "stepping stone" is something that causes you to look back at the person - generally a weak tell at best. Such as the "congratulating the doctor" one - I looked back at Some One and concluded he was probably town. The only place I expect to see this in a case (or the only place I would agree with it) is as a "this list triggered me to reread [player] and here's what I found."
I didn't want to answer for him, however he stated it quite well. You missed his point completely.
I didn't misrepresent you at all. You are saying that:
1) He made the "mistake" maliciously. That it wasn't a mistake, and that he saw your opinion and deliberately lied about it.
I am saying that:
2) He made a mistake.
Same options as last time, and Occam's Razor points to the same answer.
And yes I am voting you because you are objecting so much. The only reason I can see is a guilty conscious. I do not expect someone who is innocent to complain so much even after being proved innocent.
Salvation Mafia Clan
Mafia Stats
last updated 03/23/11
If you're truly suspicious of me, I don't mind you tossing a vote over. There's been enough discussion on the topic that nobody should accuse you of OMGUS.
That really isn't the way that this works. The standard is that information isn't revealed unless there's a good reason. One person saying "trust me, there's a good reason, I'll explain later" doesn't cut it. It would be different if Dagger were under more pressure, or if we had a good reason to trust you, but as it is, you're going to need to step up first if you want Dagger to.
How does that logic work? You think that he's scum and fishing for information by posting about how we could all be sidekicks... but at the same time you think that he hasn't prepared a falseclaim of a sidekick that matches his softclaim? I usually try to give scum a little more credit than that.
@Infinis: The Michael Jackson analogy actually works against you - you can look scummy, and not be lynched, just like he can 'look bad' and not be in jail.
The point is that you've spent so much time "theorizing" and trying to clean your image that you're not doing what a good townie should be doing - hunting scum.
There's another problem: the part where you're claiming to have been protected.
I'll elaborate more after you answer: do you know if you were protected, or are you speculating?
V/LA: 3/21-3/24 & 3/27-3/29
I'm have posted each of my theories and have spent time defending the fact that each has been a theory not a fact. I will not let my detractors have the last word portraying me as either scum or wasting time with theories. This game is about theory and analysis. I am taking what I've been given, PM and mod posts and extrapolating what I believe to be going on. THe usefulness of said theories is up for debate surely, but to continually infer I'm scum because someone disagrees with my theory is ludacrous. Especially if I or anyone has not gone after another player based on my theories. I would have been on to other topics but as I said I will not let fallacious attacks on my play and theories go unmet.
As to image's affect on the current game and games played here on the forums and it's importance I have three words for you: Kpaca, Cyan, Seppel (if this does not get my point across nothing will)
And now something completely different...
As to the point of the existence of evidence that I was protected, I received a Night PM from the Mod indicating I was either protected or roleblocked. There could be a third unknown quantity but the PM lends itself to my assumption that I was protected.
12-11? I'm losing track
So, this boils down to you needing the last word so you look better. That's exactly what we're pointing out; it's not important if you're a townie right now to be "right". It's important that you go find scum.
I don't understand what you're trying to say here. These three players have defined playstyles, yes. But the image tell I'm speaking to here is scenario-specific.
So, it sounds like a jailer.
I'd expect between you and RobRoy that it was likely a townie who targeted you, and the scum RBer who targeted RR. Reasoning: your lack of input yesterday and resistance to the Cyan wagon made you questionable. RobRoy was prepared to hammer Cyan and upon re-reading his material, did help accelerate attention back to him yesterday. I'm feeling even better than before about him.
Doesn't mean much for you, Infinis, your alignment is undetermined as a result of being the target of a town jailer if I'm right about this. He'd have no role insight to your alignment, whereas the scum RBer clearly would.
Furthermore, I need to know who targeted Dagger last night, please. It's in your best interest to be honest, you know.
V/LA: 3/21-3/24 & 3/27-3/29
Edited while writing.
And then there's the jailer option (I call them closet-stuffers) which as DYH says, doesn't really give us anything regarding your alignment.
Note to self: Your mafia theories are usually wrong, so don't act on them.
Why did you assume you were shot at?
Salvation Mafia Clan
Mafia Stats
last updated 03/23/11
My notes only go through Post 470, but Post #s 195, 197 (the nongenuine posts here), 268, 271 have -s next to them. So only 4 posts. Post 356 had the previous mention + and post 300 has a ?? for what it's worth.
As for the editing, like i said, it could mean something, it could not. Scum tend to doublethink their posts more than town do, but some town players do as well on occasion with more complicated posts. I wanted to see if some one could tell me how much of an editing struggle it was to write that post, which seemed off and a bit wrong.
He then responded with a "Not sure," and then proceeded to try and explain his point from that...which doesn't make me think much better of him truthfully...a town player would be more likely imo to have said, i dont know, a few times. Instead he sort of brushed it off there.
He later responded with an approximate of 4, which doesn't mean anything in particular.
----------------------------------------
I'm still reading infinis as town here btw. His continued insistance on theories of the game over analysis don't strike me as of bad-intent but more of i-have-no-idea-what-to-do intent.
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
Unvote
Need to dig something up.
[The Family]
I wouldn't say I proceeded to try, but rather, I basically did what I said I was going to do. I found it incredibly interesting 2 people who were out for the other's blood all of a sudden had votes on the same person (that wasn't one of them) and I wanted to see if any conclusions could be drawn from it.
Let me get this straight - you feel worse about me because I say 'I don't know how many times I edited it' in the same post I do what I said I was going to do? You said a townie is more likely to say "I don't know, a few times" and you are calling me scummy for instead saying, "I have no idea, quite frankly, but the point is that I wanted to take the following..." and then doing what I said I was going to do?
You are speaking in loaded tongues, dear sir. You said I brushed the question off, and that's scummy. However, you also said a townie is more likely to say "I don't know, a few times," which is basically the exact same thing I said, except instead of saying "a few times" I said "but quite frankly," and lead to my post.
Unvote, Vote loran - You called what I said scummy by countering something I did with an example of something you think a townie would have done. However, what I really did is much closer to your townie mindset example than the brushing off you describe it as being. Grasping at straws/strawmanning me, much? For someone that claims to be so analytical and such, I am flabbergasted because you call me scummy for doing exactly what you said a townie is most likely to do, but you fabricate what I actually did and call it a "brush off."
Your post appeared to sweep the whole thing under the rug, as if you didn't want to guess or talk about it. You didn't even ask why i asked, which would've been natural. And there were other reasons i was feeling negative about you.
No, it's not the same thing. Saying a "few times" would be an attempt to answer it.
No, I'm not strawmanning, and saying you didn't make the townie move there is standard scumhunting.
And now you're changing the words around from "much closer" to "exactly" what a townie is most likely to do....which is wrong.
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
My post WAS the post. It's not like we are talking about more than one post here on separate pages or far away from each other. I only saw your post upon hitting the preview post button.
The answer I gave later on you considered something "that doesn't mean anything in particular."
Hmm, I did not ask you why you asked me after the fact when it was never brought up again. Oversight on my part, however, it's now known why.
What's wrong with "I don't know" when the truth really is that I didn't know? Keep in mind, you initially said an estimate would be fine, but I should try to be exact, and then you told me to pick a number, the second time around. I cannot speculate about what you would have done, but if I answered "a few times," that is obviously not an exact number and clearly not an estimate because you probably assumed it was "a few times" without me saying anything.
I will get to the rest later.
I can elaborate more later, but suffice it to say, he looks like scum. He's overcautious in how he words things, has a lack of confidence in his stances, and has done nothing in terms of actually hunting for scum.
Okay. On your word then. If your rationale seems tacked on, I'll kick you out of my town list. I'll post it after I've caught up.
If you want to cite ad hominem attacks, then quote the appropriate section so that I can respond to that. Using a blanket statement like that to categorize my arguments against you means you are pulling ad hominem attacks out of thin air to dismiss my arguments.
It is paranoia and you are extremely conscious of anything that could potentially undermine your image. If you are town, then stop that. There is a reason why players attribute image-conscious people to scums. And misrep you how? As far as it is, I can see no one supporting your stance on the list. By all means, criticize. I reserve the right to respond though. Ultimately, the town is the final judge.
Right. Let me reread you again to find out why I actually even bother to put your name in the list in the first place.
Here's your original post. On closer inspection, I suppose I must have read it as "Yeah, I agree with the soft claiming, but there are this and this bad points, but yeah, I still agree with it." At that point of time, I must have read it as someone trying to discredit it subtly but still giving the impression of supporting it. Of course, when you quoted it again trying to "clear" yourself, I thought "It certainly seem feasible that you were agreeing with it. Oh well, I must have put your name in wrongly".
Again, if you are of the impression the people on said list are hiding something, why aren't you going after them based on it? You are citing how damning the list is to your own reputation when the fact is no one even remotely care about it.
I gave reasons why it's not WIFOM. You did not refute my argument but still continue to cite it as WIFOM. You seem pretty intent on misrepresenting me.
No, I did not even remotely said whatever was aimed at me was a roleblock. How exactly did you correlate those two?
Oh, is it? I suppose the town can judge on their own, yes? I am stating I have information that invalidate your attempt at misrepresenting me.
Sure. Convince everyone else that getting me to claim range is the way to go. If you are worth your salt that is, and was not just spouting hot empty air.
We'll make you an offer you can't refuse.
Hosting: Vista Mafia
Hosted: Intrigue Mafia (Mini), Seance #43 (Basic), Conflux Mafia (Normal), Goo Mafia (FTQ), Experiment #26 (Basic)
Ongoing/Completed - 0/41
Town/Mafia/SK/Survivor - 30/6/4/1
NKed/Lynched/Survived - 15/11/15
Nice. There is a surprise down the road, I say.
I am suspicious of multiple people. To give you a rough list... in fact...
List of people I am currently interested in:
Jql
AH
RR (this is you)
Roja
loran
I'll toss a vote when I'm ready.
I don't get your point. What does those 3 players have to do with anything?
Why would you need to know this? I haven't said the nature of the ability being aimed at me last night yet.
We'll make you an offer you can't refuse.
Hosting: Vista Mafia
Hosted: Intrigue Mafia (Mini), Seance #43 (Basic), Conflux Mafia (Normal), Goo Mafia (FTQ), Experiment #26 (Basic)
Ongoing/Completed - 0/41
Town/Mafia/SK/Survivor - 30/6/4/1
NKed/Lynched/Survived - 15/11/15
Edit with some skimming:
Infinis was against early claims in Battle Royale. I could ignore changes in that, but the fact that he contributed productively to that game is a pretty strong point against him. Can't say I'm being motivated to move my vote.
Salvation Mafia Clan
Mafia Stats
last updated 03/23/11
I didn't really see anything wrong for 195. I would attribute 197 to an honest opinion rather a non-genuine one. I see 268 and 271 as a progression of belief from earlier when he suspected DYH was scum for the soft claim thing. I don't really know why you listed 300. As far as I can tell, you believed SO to be scum because he suspected both DYH and Cyan when they were arguing with each other? Another thing to support my belief in SO being town is when he made that analysis on people (except him) that were on Numegil's wagon. If one were to initate a wagon on a player (confirmed to be town after death), one would naturally be suspicious of who jumped onto said wagon. If you followed the progression of belief SO exhibited earlier, then he would suspect doubly when both Cyan and DYH were on Numegil's wagon, both of whom he suspected earlier and said so himself.
Done.
We'll make you an offer you can't refuse.
Hosting: Vista Mafia
Hosted: Intrigue Mafia (Mini), Seance #43 (Basic), Conflux Mafia (Normal), Goo Mafia (FTQ), Experiment #26 (Basic)
Ongoing/Completed - 0/41
Town/Mafia/SK/Survivor - 30/6/4/1
NKed/Lynched/Survived - 15/11/15
V/LA: 3/21-3/24 & 3/27-3/29
Here's the thing. If AH's theory on roleblocker is correct, then if I was not the target of last night's NK, I would not receive anything simply because the protection was not triggered. The fact that I received something that indicated I was protected BUT yet still ended with a note that said I wasn't certain I was saved PROVES that if something as intrusive as a roleblock was to happen to a vanilla, said vanilla would also receive a flavor PM from Ged that someone attempted to roleblock him or her. Being a power role has nothing to do with this.
Another reason also why I am still leery of RR is because if I was not the target of a kill, then the fact that RR was roleblocked would certainly condemn him if another person stood up claiming he was roleblocked as well. I don't see a scum standing up saying he was roleblocked by a town out of the blue like that if he was the one performing the kill last night. And since no one else claims being roleblocked, this either clears RR partially (since it's definitely scum origin) or RR was making a gambit by saying he was roleblocked. I would say the latter is unlikely because I simply don't see the scums foregoing a roleblock on Night 1 in an attempt at a gambit when one of their numbers was taken out on Day 1.
As for why I refused to divulge the nature of the ability, it was because I wanted to keep the scums guessing (if they indeed tried to NK me last night) whether someone was protecting me last night or the ability was inherent in my role (and that I received a flavor PM telling me someone tried to kill me last night). I thought that if they had no idea which one was the truth, they might attempt to initiate a wagon on me today, believing me to be the OTHER scum group (Mafia/SK) with a self-protection ability.
And so there. Everything out on the table. And thus far:
We had no kill last night, from 3 possible sources (Town, Mafia, SK).
RR claimed getting roleblocked.
I claimed getting protected.
Infinis claimed getting jailed? (What's the rough flavor you received?)
We'll make you an offer you can't refuse.
Hosting: Vista Mafia
Hosted: Intrigue Mafia (Mini), Seance #43 (Basic), Conflux Mafia (Normal), Goo Mafia (FTQ), Experiment #26 (Basic)
Ongoing/Completed - 0/41
Town/Mafia/SK/Survivor - 30/6/4/1
NKed/Lynched/Survived - 15/11/15
I believed you thought I was roleblocked? But I have no interest in outing my benefactor.
We'll make you an offer you can't refuse.
Hosting: Vista Mafia
Hosted: Intrigue Mafia (Mini), Seance #43 (Basic), Conflux Mafia (Normal), Goo Mafia (FTQ), Experiment #26 (Basic)
Ongoing/Completed - 0/41
Town/Mafia/SK/Survivor - 30/6/4/1
NKed/Lynched/Survived - 15/11/15
That's a terrible assumption.
No. Not WIFOM. We can judge by analyzing the targets. DYH already did so, when he delineated Infinis/RR with their respective claims.
I have proof you are wrong. Proof given.
You claimed I have devious intention in asking for a second claim of roleblock, trying to fish and out power roles from it. Despite my explanations, you repeatedly spouted I was using WIFOM without actually countering my arguments. That's misrepresentation.
Go Go!
We'll make you an offer you can't refuse.
Hosting: Vista Mafia
Hosted: Intrigue Mafia (Mini), Seance #43 (Basic), Conflux Mafia (Normal), Goo Mafia (FTQ), Experiment #26 (Basic)
Ongoing/Completed - 0/41
Town/Mafia/SK/Survivor - 30/6/4/1
NKed/Lynched/Survived - 15/11/15
Right. Let the town judge on that.
We'll make you an offer you can't refuse.
Hosting: Vista Mafia
Hosted: Intrigue Mafia (Mini), Seance #43 (Basic), Conflux Mafia (Normal), Goo Mafia (FTQ), Experiment #26 (Basic)
Ongoing/Completed - 0/41
Town/Mafia/SK/Survivor - 30/6/4/1
NKed/Lynched/Survived - 15/11/15
....And the first thing a scum would do is to suspect people on a wagon involved with a dead townie. It's standard FOR ANY PLAYER.
Also, him suspecting BOTH cyan and DYH is NOT a positive thing......that's a clear case of him taking advantage of fence sitting to make a later line of reasoning seem less questionable.
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
I said "I don't know" because I truthfully didn't know. I don't think anyone would remember how many times they fixed their posts before posting, especially if they re-wrote it over.
Point retracted and edited to say "basically exactly." Instead of doing "exactly" by saying "I don't know, a few times" I did basically the exact same thing by saying, "I don't know." As I see it, "a few times" provides no more insight than saying "I don't know."
Preview before post - I explained before that both players seemed to have very reasonable points directed at the other (about behavior, meta arguments, styles, comparisons, etc). The turning point for me really came at Cyan's claim when I really doubted an untargettable town-Cyan would decide to stroll merrily along when he could instead "do his thing."
Not if you are on the same wagon yourself. Especially not if you are the one to initiate the wagon. I can see another player not on the wagon doing it, irregardless of alignment. But I don't see a scum blatantly calling attention to himself or herself like that, especially when he or she knows people will call him out on it.
No, I did not say it was a positive thing in the way you imply. I merely said it's a natural progression of thought I can see a town make. And when one is fence-sitting, I don't expect to see him or her going all the way out at both like what SO did. I would expect to see a more laid-back manner, constantly sniping at both but keeping an uncertain mannerism with regards to both. That is what I would call a fence-sitting.
We'll make you an offer you can't refuse.
Hosting: Vista Mafia
Hosted: Intrigue Mafia (Mini), Seance #43 (Basic), Conflux Mafia (Normal), Goo Mafia (FTQ), Experiment #26 (Basic)
Ongoing/Completed - 0/41
Town/Mafia/SK/Survivor - 30/6/4/1
NKed/Lynched/Survived - 15/11/15
Your definition is lighter than mine....the dude basically said each player's points were good, but both had good refutations....WHICH IS THE SAME THING AS HAVING NO OPINION!.
That's fence sitting. Then his bit about them both possibly being scum in a bus attack also allows him to point at either one, regardless of how one of them (lets say...Cyan) turned up later down the line.
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
I thought we were discussing when SO analyzed the wagon on Numegil? If that was your definition, why didn't you go after GR (or was it RR?) under the same premise?
With regards to your second point, did he do that on Day 2? After Cyan turned up scum? You are basically just tacking on possible scum rationale to his actions instead of judging him on a white board.
We'll make you an offer you can't refuse.
Hosting: Vista Mafia
Hosted: Intrigue Mafia (Mini), Seance #43 (Basic), Conflux Mafia (Normal), Goo Mafia (FTQ), Experiment #26 (Basic)
Ongoing/Completed - 0/41
Town/Mafia/SK/Survivor - 30/6/4/1
NKed/Lynched/Survived - 15/11/15
From the perspective of a person who doesn't have that much experience and hasn't played in most of the games cited in this thread, common sense tells me both players' meta arguments will be to some extent true and to some extent false (in other words, some aspects of a game cited will apply and others will be irrelevant). When the case versus Cyan was mostly (or all) meta, I really was not swayed in his direction. Likewise, when he used meta arguments versus DYH, I was not swayed in that direction. It's not that I didn't have an opinion, I just remained unbiased in regards to the meta-arguments being tossed around.
I "predicted" a bus attack but my recent suspicions would indicate I feel Jql is a scumbuddy of Cyan. As a result, it would be grossly off-point to suspect I would do a 180 and suspect DYH of bussing Cyan when I just thought Cyan was on a team with Jql.
We're talking about that, and you brought up the fact that he had been suspicious of both earlier....which is therefore why i referred back at that act.
You're giving him credit for something that is scummy because it allows you to get credit for it by definition.
As for GR, i have one - posts on him, but 1 posts which i thought was a +s and showed a townie mindset (306 is the + for his reaction to AH, 318 is the -). I notice his fence sitting, but his post 277 seems more of a natural stream of consciousness whereas Someone's 268 and 271 feel like he's trying to remain neutral and is stretching to find reasons that both sides may be town or scum.
I started my vote on him before day 2 really had much time to develop...i haven't really that much analyzed much of the day 2 happenings thus far. A failure on my part, but lack of time.
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
Hopefully i should have time over break.
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
Why exactly is it in the best interests of anyone to step forward? I understand that this was written before Dagger came out with the full explanation, but exposing power roles is usually a bad thing, not a good thing. Curious or not, this seems like fishing.
Huh. Shocking indeed.
Feel free to refuse this, but... can you offer any more information about the mechanics behind this revelation? Why you had to wait and so on? If this is true, and your character is trustworthy (which are two different things) then it's very helpful. I still need to figure out how much weight to put on this revelation, though.
Also: I'll be in Chicago this weekend for the GP. I'll try to keep up from there (there should be internet from the hotel) but don't expect me to be terribly responsive over the weekend.
@SO: Response? And claim as well.
We'll make you an offer you can't refuse.
Hosting: Vista Mafia
Hosted: Intrigue Mafia (Mini), Seance #43 (Basic), Conflux Mafia (Normal), Goo Mafia (FTQ), Experiment #26 (Basic)
Ongoing/Completed - 0/41
Town/Mafia/SK/Survivor - 30/6/4/1
NKed/Lynched/Survived - 15/11/15
Dagger, I'm the one that saved you. It's the reason I asked you about the toothpaste. I know for a fact that you were the only person slated to die last night after all normal effects took place; it's the reason I was skeptical of Infinis' claim of protection, especially since I think I know who the normal doc is, and who he protected.
I'm not surprised to hear that Some One is scum.
Vote: Some One
V/LA: 3/21-3/24 & 3/27-3/29
We'll make you an offer you can't refuse.
Hosting: Vista Mafia
Hosted: Intrigue Mafia (Mini), Seance #43 (Basic), Conflux Mafia (Normal), Goo Mafia (FTQ), Experiment #26 (Basic)
Ongoing/Completed - 0/41
Town/Mafia/SK/Survivor - 30/6/4/1
NKed/Lynched/Survived - 15/11/15
It's called Miller.
I'm the Sandman and my gas mask disguise causes me to appear guilty upon investigations. You will notice the Sandman doesn't show up in the long list of people on Wikipedia, so click here for another link. In this other link, when it says "Unlike many of his hero contemporaries, he had no super-powers," this corresponds to me being otherwise vanilla.
We'll make you an offer you can't refuse.
Hosting: Vista Mafia
Hosted: Intrigue Mafia (Mini), Seance #43 (Basic), Conflux Mafia (Normal), Goo Mafia (FTQ), Experiment #26 (Basic)
Ongoing/Completed - 0/41
Town/Mafia/SK/Survivor - 30/6/4/1
NKed/Lynched/Survived - 15/11/15
If I'm not alive tomorrow, which is pretty likely, I wanted full disclosure to the town to help explain the N1 actions as it could become pivotal later.
EWP: LOL @ that pitiful claim.
V/LA: 3/21-3/24 & 3/27-3/29
I'm still waiting on GR for that actually.
We'll make you an offer you can't refuse.
Hosting: Vista Mafia
Hosted: Intrigue Mafia (Mini), Seance #43 (Basic), Conflux Mafia (Normal), Goo Mafia (FTQ), Experiment #26 (Basic)
Ongoing/Completed - 0/41
Town/Mafia/SK/Survivor - 30/6/4/1
NKed/Lynched/Survived - 15/11/15
Good to know, for future reference.
k
How does having no super powers =/= vanilla?
We'll make you an offer you can't refuse.
Hosting: Vista Mafia
Hosted: Intrigue Mafia (Mini), Seance #43 (Basic), Conflux Mafia (Normal), Goo Mafia (FTQ), Experiment #26 (Basic)
Ongoing/Completed - 0/41
Town/Mafia/SK/Survivor - 30/6/4/1
NKed/Lynched/Survived - 15/11/15
Since it seems to be the cool thing to do...I am an information role. I won't claim exactly what I am, but I will say that along with DYH, Spotofprey appears to have targeted Dagger last night. Is that a good enough reason for me to ask Dagger the nature of his information? Heh.
Just look at the end of post 769. Can you say, "I tried to kill Dagger and my shot failed, and my scum buddy is Some One, hence me needing clarification on the someone vs. Some One count." I can say it. I just did.
Unvote, Vote Some One.
Spot tomorrow.
This is awesome!
We'll make you an offer you can't refuse.
Hosting: Vista Mafia
Hosted: Intrigue Mafia (Mini), Seance #43 (Basic), Conflux Mafia (Normal), Goo Mafia (FTQ), Experiment #26 (Basic)
Ongoing/Completed - 0/41
Town/Mafia/SK/Survivor - 30/6/4/1
NKed/Lynched/Survived - 15/11/15