Mini 1130 - A Fishbowl Invasion by Ninja Monkeys! - Over

[[winger]]

I'm here!

I will

Vote: crazypianist

for being crazy

[[winger]]

Odd.

Unvote.
Vote: Oso

Bub's acronym is better than Oso's acronym.

[[winger]]

You have a problem with DemonHybrid's vote on you, pianist?

[[winger]]

Mod: Can you please post your votecounts instead of editing posts so I can ISO you when needed?

To add to this, I almost ignored an entire post because I saw the VC. Not that it was important, but down the line this could become problematic.

I'd much rather BW [winger] I think, DH. He looks to me like he's setting up for a bandwagon to take off without pushing it himself.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: [winger]

P.S. - Notice the "ex" in "ex-roommate" Parama.

Not at all, AGar. I just thought the response "lol" to someone who placed the second vote on pianist was a bit too lackadaisical. DemonHybrid already pointed it out... it seemed very much like crazypianist

did

have a problem with that vote, which makes me wonder why she lied about it.

Furthermore, having a problem with a vote while everyone is randomly voting makes her seem even more suspicious.

Unvote.
Vote: crazypianist (again)

This is my first not-random vote.

[[winger]]

What exactly is a traitor? I've never played with this role before.

[[winger]]

Oops, nevermind, just saw there's a full role PM in the first post. So basically, it's just a mafia member who isn't a part of the mafia. Do they know who mafia are?

[[winger]]

Parama/Oso, what is so bad about double voting randomly? This is my first game on this site, so you'll have to enlighten me a bit. I read through a few games here before I started this one, but I didn't see this being an issue there.

Language is too strong for this early in the game, in my opinion [second bold part].

Why? She directly contradicted herself. At what point in the game does it stop being "too early" to use the word "lie"? This is an arbitrary attack on me.

Apparent contradiction in the first bold part. DemonHybrid did point that out in Post - 41 but [winger] first mentioned it in Post - 39. [winger]'s post make it look like DH mentioned it first, in my opinion, and that [winger] is just building off that.

No… that's not what I said at all. When I said "DemonHybrid already pointed it out", I meant that there was no need to show the glaring contradiction, because DemonHybrid already had pointed it out. I asked pianist the question originally to gauge her response, because it felt like she had a problem with the attack on her, so I was going to dig at that a bit. However, then she said she didn't, and it caused me to switch my vote back to her, because I found that scummy.

Winger, why did you vote, unvote, and then re-vote?

Huh? My votes have gone like this:
Random vote on crazypianist
Random vote on Oso because I liked Bub's silly reasoning better (the whole acronym thing)
Serious vote back on crazypianist after her awful reaction to my question

Can someone please explain why voting randomly twice is such a bad thing?

That seems to be the point of what people are saying against me, and I don't even understand.

[[winger]]

Because random voting twice defeats the purpose of random voting to begin with. The idea of the RVS is to get an early wagon going. Once you get a wagon, you can gauge other player's reactions to that wagon. Random voting somebody, and then random voting somebody else defeats that purpose. Also, see Parama's response:

Okay, that makes more sense. I thought people just voted randomly until someone did something scummy. I didn't realize the point was to build a wagon/apply pressure.

If that's the case, and me double voting like I did, does that say anything about the connection between me/Oso or me/crazypianist? Or is it an individual tell?

[[winger]]

Oso, crazypianist contradicted himself (in my opinion) when he said he did not have a problem with the vote on him. That directly contradicts the tone set by the (what I'd consider) hostile/sarcastic "Lol" response he gave previously.

2. DemonHybrid, your vote was not random. Your bluff was that you were clearly trying to get someone you saw as a noob to crack under pressure that didn't really exist. Your "wagon" didn't really have a reason.

I'm uh... I'm just gonna wait for his response to this one.

[[winger]]

So, in other words, you took the vote completely serious. Which is everyone's case on you.

This sums it up pretty well.

For whoever it was that said I can't give a "lol" a tone of voice... well, tomayto, tomahto. I disagree. The "lol" implied there was SOMETHING wrong with the vote, otherwise pianist would've ignored it.

[[winger]]

As for the Winger/Crazy debate, I thought all of the extensive and imaginative analysis on Crazy's "lol" was a load of crap. Winger started that, along with Parama and DH, and then hopped onto the vote after other players confirmed that they also found Pianist suspicious. He's not really taking a stance in the first accusation, and jumping to a vote in the second. (I agreed with AGar's interpretation of what happened.)

No. Absolutely not. In fact, part of the debate that has gone on (which you would know if you had actually read and paid attention) involves the fact that I

wasn't

the first one to really give context to the "Lol". I simply asked a question, pianist said "Lol", then DEMONHYBRID is the one who actually pointed out why it was scummy first. In actuality, I only asked crazypianist a question to try and dig a little deeper.

Sure now he's made it clear that it's his opinion (whereas before he directly accused him of lying), but he's still saying that "Lol" means something "hostile/sarcastic" based only on his imagination, and therefore Pianist is lying. There's a reason I didn't study literary criticism, and it's because projecting onto the text is annoying.

Obviously, everything that happens in the game of werewolf is going to be in someone's opinion, especially this early on in the game. There are no facts or anything to

keep

the game going in the context of sure-fire-data. When I accused crazypianist of lying, it was supposed to be obviously in my own opinion. Obviously I didn't have an investigation result on her to prove my accusations.

This is my first game of forum mafia like this that I've ever played. Most of the other games I've played were on other forums that weren't dedicated to mafia and the deadlines were about 30 minutes long, not multiple weeks. Other than that, I played a lot on Epic Mafia. This is an entirely new pace of play that I'm trying to adapt to.

[[winger]]

Winger, why'd you call this a game of werewolf? And yeah, Mafia is about making up accusations, but you also provide evidence to back up accusations, in order to convince the town. And I'm not convinced by the evidence that either you or Parama have provided w/r/t Pianist, nor am I swayed by the loud agreement in lieu of evidence from DemonHybrid.

Werewolf, mafia… same game, different names. It went by werewolf on one of my old forums. Old habits.

What kind of evidence can there really be at this stage in the game (or rather, that stage of the game) other than vibes/hunches/opinions?

Also, no… THIS was my original suspicion of pianist:

Furthermore, having a problem with a vote while everyone is randomly voting makes her seem even more suspicious.

…and THIS came after DH had posted:

DemonHybrid already pointed it out... it seemed very much like crazypianist did have a problem with that vote, which makes me wonder why she lied about it.

I reversed them in order in the post because the secondary suspicion (which DH pointed out) seemed more important at the time so I mentioned it first… but originally, my suspicion was based on the fact that she took issue with a random vote (which is why I asked the question in the first place).

Parama, I stopped playing on Epic Mafia a few months ago. I much prefer this style.

[[winger]]

Fine, you're paranoid.

And no, it's not a way to tie myself to two players... it's an honest question that if double voting in RVS is scummy, then logic would follow that I would have a reason to unvote one person and vote for the other.

[[winger]]

You are deliberately looking for easy to hide on wagons and/or already under pressure targets,

It's a bit too early for such strong language! /sarcasm

[[winger]]

I never said I DIDN'T interpret it as anything other than a laugh, and point 1 is he-said-she-said. So your vote on me is completely based on NOTHING. It's based on 1) heresay, 2) a complete and utterlie, and 3) "plenty of other points".

This is the worst vote in the game so far. pianist waited for forever to lay down a vote on me until there was enough suspicion to not make her look even MORE scumalicious than she already was.

[[winger]]

I really can't understand what crazypianist is on about. He says that I shouldn't pretend I didn't interpret as a laugh (which, I never said or implied, otherwise I wouldn't have made the comment I did about it).

He goes on to say that I ignored what other people said about me, even though I responded to nearly every point made about me.

This really is starting to look more like "flailing", as someone else so eloquently described it.

[[winger]]

I feel like I should go ahead and claim my role, but I'm not sure what the proper protocol is for claiming on this site.

[[winger]]

Well, if I was close to being lynched before, I definitely am now.

I'm a

Town Doctor

. And yes, it specifically says "Town" before my role name. I assume I don't have to explain what that is.

[[winger]]

Winger, did you intentionally answer questions without actually giving rebuttals, or did you truly think that how you responded to people's claims was the right thing to do? And can you explain?

Huh? I'm not even sure what you're talking about, here.

I am positively opposed to the winger wagon. The case on him is thin, and most likely scum-driven. The main reason behind it is his attacks on crazy, which I view to be quite legitimate.

Did you show any defense of me/opposition to my wagon before here? I can't recall.

His play up to this point (as bad as I think it may be) doesn't override the claim, in my opinion.

I'm not sure what exactly makes my play so bad. I pressured someone I found scummy, thought they didn't respond well under pressure, and pursued it.

He only started to attack winger

after

Sundy made a case on winger and

after

it became clear that winger was the other big wagon.

This is something I failed to point out earlier, but it seemed like crazypianist was attacking me and focusing on me because I was attacking him, rather than legitimately finding me scummy.

[[winger]]

I think there is a good chance there was scum on my wagon. With 6 voters, and the weakness of the case against me, I don't see six townies jumping on the wagon. Which means I'd like to take a closer look at my wagoners:

Oso, Sundy, crazypianist1116, AGar, Akira, Cecily

I just found that nifty isolation feature at the bottom of the page, so it's time for some fun! I'll try and make this as concise as possible:

Oso:

His original jump onto voting me is weak. He admits that he finds crazypianist scummy, but his reasons for voting me in his first post are as follows: 1) I "double RVSed", 2) I used the word "lie" which is too strong, and 3) that I said DemonHybrid was the first person to mention the "Lol" post, which is true, but Oso implies it is false. The rest of his stuff seems rather… "fluffy". Empty. He asks for more votes on me, then questions me on my history on this website and playing this game in general, and multiple times makes comments in the light of protection his own image. He says things like, "At the risk of being accused of overthinking", or "Call me paranoid", or "At the risk of starting an MD discussion". This kind of language strikes me as off.

Sundy:

His first vote on me comes after he expresses suspicions of Bub Bidderskins, DemonHybrid, and Parama. However, he places his vote on me for two reasons: 1) it will "count" more on me, and 2) he believed the "case" on me is better than the pianist case. After he is called out on his unacceptable post, he clears things up a bit… though I'm not sure him calling pianist's "Lol" post a "subtle and brilliant accusation of DemonHybrid, for voting twice during the RVS". That is

quite

the stretch, and it kinda looks like, pardon my language, ass-kissing (if not outright uncalled for defense of a player). He calls my interpretation of pianist's "Lol" vote "extensive and imaginative" and "a load of crap"; but goes on to call the "Lol" vote itself "brilliant", "subtle", and "elegant". If he can interpret this so wildly, why is my interpretation any less valid?

crazypianist1116:

Aside from what has already been discussed (the "Lol" post, the flailing, the paranoia), his first vote on me was odd. He spends most of the previous posts attacking/respond to Parama & DemonHybrid. He even calls DemonHybrid's post a "bluff". The only time he mentions me before his vote on me is here:

[winger], 74 is just plain wrong. I never contradicted myself. DH was trying to form a wagon on me for what seem like a weak reason(stated above) which is why I lol'd and why I had no problem.

He spends the rest of the time arguing with Parama/DemonHybrid, then decides to vote me by completely putting words in my mouth. He says:

[winger] don't try and say your question didn't imply you interpreted somehow other than a laugh. A laugh would mean I had no problem. Further your vote said I was contradicting myself which means you thought I had problems with DH.

I never tried to say my "question didn't imply I interpreted somehow other than a laugh". The fact that I posted the question about his "Lol" vote obviously shows that I did not consider it to be a normal laugh, and I wanted to dig a bit deeper. This is a complete misrepresentation (and falsification) of what I said and implied. He saw that my wagon was taking off and tried to fabricate a reason to vote for me.

AGar:

His original vote on me was fine, in my opinion. He expressed his opinion succinctly, and said that he thought I was trying to push a bandwagon without doing the work myself, essentially. That's a fair opinion, but then goes on to start chiming in with Oso going "Moar winger votes, plz". Then he gets off my wagon to vote Sundy… but after Sundy and crazypianist join my wagon, he puts his vote back on me, saying:

Sundy still really caught my attention, and I'm not letting that one go, but [Winger] is just digging himself deeper and deeper, flailing about.

No explanation as to how I was digging myself deeper. He just pointed to two posts and said "[winger] wagon is go", then voted me. If someone he found suspicious, and isn't willing to let go, joined my wagon, shouldn't that give him MORE pause to not jump on the wagon with him?

Akira:

He regurgitates other people's cases on me in order to make his own case, using cute buzzwords like "flailing". I'm not sure what to make of his vote on me. It came at quite the opportune moment on the wagon, and the fact he added pretty much nothing to the discussion seems like mafia who are trying to hop on a wagon without looking bad.

Cecily:

His case on me was muddled between tons of other stuff, so it's a little hard to pick out what he was actually saying. He boiled it down to this:

winger - easily threatened, comes back with remarks that make it seem like everyone is personally attacking him. He also likes to say things as if they are facts when they truly are not.

I'm not easily threatened, and there's no evidence for that. I never once suggested I was being personally attacked in an ad hominem way, which is what this implies. Furthermore, I state things as facts, but how does that make me suspicious? It's the way I talk/play. I assume my opinion is the most valid, because I'm the only person I know for sure is not a bad guy, thus that's how it comes across. I only put (in my opinion) in parenthesis because it wasn't obvious enough to everyone else that EVERYTHING someone says in this game is in their own opinion, barring some type of role-related information. More than that, though, he puts me at "L-1", and has no problem in doing so.


I take issue with most of the people on my wagon, because a lot of it feels… forced, and weak. There was never a clearly stated case against me. It was just people bringing up a point, then someone else regurgitating it and turning it into a vote. Here is what happened with the "Lol" thing, from my perspective, to set things straight:

- Crazy posts his "Lol" vote in response to DemonHybrid voting him in the RVS
- I question him on this, because it seemed like he took an issue with this vote
- Crazy denies having a problem with DemonHybrid's vote
- DemonHybrid points out the contradiction between the implied tone of "Lol" and the "not having an issue statement"
- Rather than responding, crazypianist says he is "calling DemonHybrid's bluff"
- I check the game again, see the developments, and vote crazypianist in my first non-random vote for the following reasons: 1) I believe he had a problem with the vote on him, which is suspicious since it is the random voting stage, and nobody else had shown an issue with any of the votes; 2) crazypianist said he didn't have a problem with the vote, which contradicts what I interpreted from his "Lol", and thus would make him lying

Then, people start to suspect me for many reasons: randomly voting twice, attempting to start a lynchwagon on crazypianist (when all I did was question her "Lol" response, which is hardly starting a wagon), and even because I'm playing the "newbie" card. All of these reasons are weak and easily disproven (randomly voting twice doesn't really make one scummy since it's all random; I wasn't trying to start a wagon, I was just questioning something; and I'm not playing the "newbie" card, I'm asking honest questions about things I have never heard of/don't know…I'm not a total newbie, I've played this game before).

The wagon on me was full of people I'd like to lynch, but here's my preferred order:

Most Want to Lynch

crazypianist1116
Cecily = Sundy
AGar
Akira
Oso

Least Want to Lynch

crazypianist's ignoring of my pressure on him, and waiting until there were two votes on me already to "safely" join the wagon is what sits worse with me. Cecily putting me in danger of being lynched is bad, but I can't decide if its worse than Sundy's arbitrary and elaborate defense of crazypianist's "Lol" post while hypocritically telling me my interpretation of the "Lol" post was too imaginative.

[[winger]]

Oh god, sorry. I really did mean to keep that short. I got carried away.

[[winger]]

You can say that you interpreted one way, and I respect that, but I

definitely

took the "Lol" as avoidance. Rather than making an actual comment about the vote, or just ignoring it completely, for some reason crazypianist saw it fit to just say "Lol". It's complete avoidance of something that didn't need to be avoided or reflected in the first place.

I'm glad I won't be getting your vote today, but you definitely won't be getting my doc-save tonight.

[[winger]]

Winger, I'm glad you finally went through and analyzed people instead of just saying "I'm right" because that's a big part of the reason why I was voting you. I don't agree with your crazy call, because of how rational he stayed throughout the entire wagon. And I'm confused at you calling his post avoidance. If he were avoiding something, he wouldn't have posted at all, and it seems to me that his post was more of an acknowledgment without saying omgus, because everyone had been doing that at that point.

1) How does my analysis of people mean that I'm not saying I'm right anymore? Because I am.
2) He stayed rational and calm because he had other people with torches and pitchforks to do all the shouting for him.
3) Avoidance wasn't the proper word; let's call it reflective... or something. Deflection? I don't know, you get the idea.

[[winger]]

3a) He essentially tried to shoot down the vote by not looking like he cared about it, but in doing so, showed that he cared about it.

[[winger]]

You said you weren't giving context with the question but you just admitted your question implied a context.

The context I gave wasn't that the "Lol" was scummy. It was that it seemed out-of-place. Your response to my question is what made it scummy. Not once did I ever say I wasn't trying to read something further, which is all the original context was.

I don't like AGar's vote on TwistedSpoon, though. He essentially voted spoon for automatically believing my claim. Is that really so weird?

[[winger]]

Thanks for the non-sarcastic, non-douchebag explanation.

[/sarcasm]

[[winger]]

Yes. D1, only a VT is going to claim VT. Town PR will claim their role, scum will claim town PR, as a general rule. And even being just a "general rule", I've found it to be a pretty good one.

Touché… so what do YOU believe regarding my claim? Do you think I'm scum bluffing, or do you think I'm town telling the truth?

This whole newb thing. I have a bit of a soft spot for newbs (and VIs), having been both, but winger is not a newb. He might be new to MS and having some trouble with site meta but he's not a newb.

This is an accurate way to describe me. I'm not a newbie to the game, just to some of this site's policies and practices.

I don't believe the claim myself. Putting aside all his scummy behavior, he was way too quick with the claim. A real doc would have at least waited until someone was about to hammer. He even wanted to claim at L-2, which strikes me as scummy.
But staying on the wagon won't do much. We'll most likely lose him tonight, so

I

did

wait until someone was about to hammer - I was one vote away from a lynch. I wanted to claim early so we could stop the foolishness and move on.

However, saying you don't believe the claim, then saying that you expect me to die overnight is the scummiest contradiction of them all!

Unvote; Vote: Akira

Note that if he flips traitor, he might've blatant-slipped to save crazypianist.

[[winger]]

Cecily...

I don't think any scum would be dumb enough to reveal who they will be killing over night. It's common knowledge that after a doc claim, that person is a highly likely target for a NK. I don't see how Akira stating that makes it any less true and any more likely that he's scum.

That's not the main argument, from my point of view. The fact is that he didn't believe my claim, which would mean he still thinks I'm scum. Yet, he goes on to say that I'll probably be dying overnight... which means he assumes I'm town. THAT is the slip.

[[winger]]

I feel like with every post, Cecily is looking worse and worse. Are mafia usually this obvious?

[[winger]]

@Maemuki: I was getting to that. I thought I'd defend myself as early as possible before more people could vote without listening to my explanation.

I don't believe the claim myself. Putting aside all his scummy behavior, he was way too quick with the claim. A real doc would have at least waited until someone was about to hammer. He even wanted to claim at L-2, which strikes me as scummy.
But staying on the wagon won't do much. We'll most likely lose him tonight, so

I

did

wait until someone was about to hammer - I was one vote away from a lynch. I wanted to claim early so we could stop the foolishness and move on.

This doesn't make much sense. The best thing you could've done was to wait for a volunteer to hammer. You could've possibly avoided the claim that way. This is of course if you're telling the truth.
If you were waiting, then why did you want to claim at L-2?

No... I was one vote away from being lynched. If I had waited and someone hadn't said they were going to vote me and had just voted me instead, then I wouldn't have had an opportunity to claim. I didn't want to miss my chance to claim due to a quick lynch, that's why I wanted to claim at L-2.

Furthermore, I'm not buying the explanation for the slip from Akira. It seems too blatant. When I look back at the slip and then look at the explanation, I see nowhere the hint that "If I'm wrong, he's dead tonight" was how it was supposed to come across. I do believe Akira when he says he rushed typing it, which explains why he slipped so easily.

Finally, if I haven't made this clear enough I do suspect winger, for his strange behavior at L-2, but lynching him now is pointless because 3 things could happen tonight:
1) He gets NKed - We'll know the truth (duh)
2) He survives - Not confirmed scum but pretty close, at least for me.
3) No NK - He's the doc.

I have to doublecheck something to respond to the first sentence. But as for the rest, don't you think this kind of thinking is going to mix town up and not get us anywhere? Think about it.
1) This one is obvious.
2) Now that the idea is out there so blatantly, scum could leave me alive in order to make me look worse. Why waste a kill on me when they can get me lynched?
3) Now. If you think I'm scum (which you've said multiple times), then my scumteam could just not kill tonight in order to make my claim airtight to the town.

These hypothetical scenarios you're describing don't prove anything, as I've just proven there is scum motivation for each of the things occurring.

[[winger]]

Okay, I was right: Akira now says he suspects me for my strange behavior at L-2 (which I assume means asking if I should claim early?), but his original post where he votes me lists off SIX reasons to vote me. So, did he not suspect me before? Are his accusations from then no longer valid?

Here's the post for reference.

I would like Akira lynched now please.

[[winger]]

If Akira turns out to be town, none of you have any case against me.

I disagree.

[[winger]]

lies. You know he's scum, but you don't want to lynch him.

I was thinking if he's scum, it means he's trying to look good if Akira flips town.

[[winger]]

Crap!

Go town!