Mini 493: Methodical Mafia - Game Over!

[Simenon]

Big posts require long rereads.

[Simenon]

I'm going to try something new here. Instead of doing a massive IH-post with questions and quotes for everyone, I'm going to be pointing out specific exchanges in different posts.

As a general overview, all of LML and BMQs' posts have struck me as scummy in some way or another, and most of Flay's have as well.

I'm first going to take a look at the following

Bmq makes his first post in the thread with a lengthy explanation of all things that were already discussed at large. LML's plan was already discarded at this point, even by LML himself. Why, then, does BMQ feel the need to elaborate so much on why the plan won't work? His explanation later (I will get to it) states jokingly that he doesn't actually read the posts before. Well, even if he skimmed the rest of the thread, he would have noticed LML discard his own idea. His conclusion doesn't really put the plan into any new perspective. His last sentence isn't even an original comment: that argument was already made by Xdaamno.

Speaking of Xdaamno, In post 37 he points out just what I had in my notes. And how does BMQ reply?

You think I read what other people post?

If that's true, as I pointed out earlier, he still should have known that even LML didn't support his own plan (call it mindgames or not, debating the validity of it doesn't really make sense).
If that's not true, well, I think restating just what other players have said and not even adding any sort of suspicion is scummy.

I think Xdaamno response to this is even more bizarre:

Oh, in that case, well done!

Notice how quickly he drops the issue, and with a wink smiley. This is especially scummy considering how disappointing BMQ's excuse is.

Also note: BMQ stole the "there may be no vigs in this setup" argument from Xdaamno in the first place.

It does not surprise me then that BMQ posts exactly what he did in his first post for his third post, which is another post that only elaborates on what others have said, adds nothing new, and does not express any sort of suspicion towards anyone.

So, therefore:

Fos BMQ

Fos Xdaamno

If we could vote, I would totally be voting BMQ, but I'm not sure what stoofer would do. :[

[Simenon]

In fact, had I not commented on LML's strategy, would I be targeted and persecuted for "ignoring" it and not contributing to the topic of discussion? Am I to be punished simply because others were able to speak on a subject before I was able to?

That's not the point. Discussing it was okay, but using the same argument

at length

that another player had used. If you had said "QFT!" or "I agree with this because of this this and this" and then had moved on, sure, that would be okay, but your post seemed to be explaining the exact same argument that was used before, except with excessive elaboration. That I find scummy.

And at least I contributed to some extent rather than lurked.

What exactly have you contributed? None of your posts with perhaps the exception of this have actually contributed anything new to the game.

You have also disregarded my discussion on night choice list strategy and ignored the topic yourself.

I fail to see how you added anything new to the topic on both of those issues, so no, I did not ignore them. As far as me ignoring strategy, I will get to game strategy once I'm done with basic scummy posts.

[Simenon]

Looking back, there really isn't much more as far as scumminess for me to comment on. I thought I had a lot of wishy washy posts, but the fact that we are playing a day where we don't actually need to kill anybody, wishy-washiness isn't really a scumtell. The only thing that has really struck me as peculiar is LML's post:

Hey jackass! I said I could watch MYSELF once. Doofus. You have totally blipped my scumdar. (AKA, I could watch all others)

I have no clue where the wording of this is coming from. It's obviously a dramatic change of tone, but I don't understand why LML felt the need to employ this kind of language. If he's attempting to sound like this was a first reaction, I think it's pretty obviously artificial.

And then Flay's response of "Speak English or Die, Flay" seems a bit planned as well.

I will refresh my memory on the strategic arguments now. However, I think someone should point out that different roles need different strategies, and generalizations don't really work this game (and it's obviously not good to discuss certain power roles unless it can produce a clear benefit).

[Simenon]

Oh, and I hated the suggestion to kill the claimed watcher.

[Simenon]

I agree with Seol's 138, and I think it can be applied to all of the roles (except the vig, as I have no objection to him fireing tonight with a majority). We should treat this as a day one with a three day deadline. That, of course, means an increased activity level.

Vote BMQ

[Simenon]

In 120, Simenon mentioned my reply. The truth is there wasn't much of a way I

could

respond to that post, so I went with a shitty sarcastic remark.

You could have questioned it.

[Simenon]

/clap

[Simenon]

Vote Mr Flay

I think I see what you're doing here.[/b]

[Simenon]

"Vigilante" is also the classic SK claim, and I'm not sure how certain a gambit it is.

Then again, a one-shot seems sort of odd for this game as well, so I'd be content with a vig-lynch target of LML.

LoudmouthLee - Nightwatchman - Randomly slain night 1

I'm willing to bet Flay = sk

[Simenon]

You missed the point.

[Simenon]

I think yesterday you were setting yourself up to claim vig- however, the flavor suggests that the kill on LML was done not by a good methodical townie but by a mean evil man.

[Simenon]

Or rather, take protown credit for the kill of LML.

[Simenon]

Again: Hyperbole.

Erm...

[Simenon]

I thought it was you who expressed willingness to lynch CES a dozen times over rather than lynching BMQ.

[Simenon]

nevermind, I misunderstood

[Simenon]

Flay wagon please.

[Simenon]

Not entirely, no. Vitr makes sense and wagoning flay should give us plenty of information.

[Simenon]

Shut up and wagon.

<3

[Simenon]

If we can't have flay post, I suppose I'll go to #2.

Unvote

Vote BMQ

A continuation of yesterday, plus the fact that there hasn't been much of a bandwagon on him yet.

[Simenon]

Simenon would be a close second choice, if the bandwagon leans that way, for the already addressed SK theory and paradoxically for the fact that he dropped my wagon yesterday, after lobbying so hard for it on previous pages.

That's because you weren't there, silly. Not much use wagoning someone who isn't going to post.

I think this theory that I'm the SK because I mentioned the "SKs claim Vigilante" metagame is absurd. Give me a *little* credit for not being completely transparent, will you?? But latching onto that is opportunistic and counterproductive in my view.

lol
1. I assume you think it's conterproductive because I was on it and you said it.
2. Quoting text from three weeks ago doesn't sound very opportunistic. I assume you think it's opportunistic because I was on it and you said it.
3. I felt I was making a valid point and pursuing said valid point. Disagreeing with it is fine, but it's not anti town.

[Simenon]

I can't say as I understand that logic. I said when I was getting back in town, I'd started to respond already, and it's not like I was going to disappear/be replaced...

The game dies if we are all expecting to hear from a player that won't show up. Even if the absense is temporary, it's still reason to back off.

Of course I see it as "counterproductive" to bandwagon me when I know my alignment, but that's unprovable to anyone else.

That's silly. A wagon on anyone is productive.

I'm not clear what happened with the copy-paste error in the end of your sentence, but since the statement was made three weeks ago, why wouldn't it be "opportunistic" to make a case based on it when actual voting started?

The word opportunistic implies a mafia member seized the chance attack something.

[Simenon]

Like a BMQ wagon.

[Simenon]

Maybe I'm just really against one-sentence posts (and lord knows Simenon isn't the only one guilty of that),

Okay. Why?

also: i don't feel guilty making one-sentence posts.

but I'm just saying be wary of who you are trusting to lead this wagon.

scummy.

[Simenon]

dat's some good postin dat is

Why?

(yes i have a reason for asking this to you and not to bmq)

[Simenon]

B) Distad isn't accomplishing much by name-calling without evidence (says the pot to the kettle)

I must be misunderstanding.

Why is he not accomplishing much by wagoning bmq?

[Simenon]

D) I like the questions that BMQ asked -- they seem to be good ones for Distad to try to answer if his suspicion of BMQ is genuine

Does it have to be?

[Simenon]

I suspect you = I am scummy. Typical flawed logic.

This is a good reason why there should be more votes on BMQ.

Let's say I believe Player X is scummy, for whatever reason. But going over what Player X has posted, there's very little evidence to help my case and prove that X is being shady. Convenient, eh? The more you post, the easier it is for people to get a read on you and determine if you are pro-town, and the scum have an interest in not letting players get a read on them. All in all, posting short posts without any relevant information (or "lurking", if you will) is typical scum behavior.

This really is quite uneccessary. What you really are saying is that lurking in plain site is scummy. Which is not what I'm doing.

I simply don't communicate in thirty-line posts. I'm not verbose. A while ago, I tried to be verbose. I failed miserably. I think I can make good, decent posts with only using one line, so I'll stick to that, thank you. That and bandwagoning.

Your vote doesn't really make much sense either.

Please die.

[Simenon]

To you, BMQ may be a bad lynch. Why does that make him an unproductive wagon?

[Simenon]

I'll reply to those soon glrok.

If a player finds you suspicious, that does not necessarily make them scum.

Come now. I didn't write that originally, and I have no idea where you got that from the text I wrote. It was pretty obviously a leap.

Have you read your posts?

I should hope. I wrote them.

We have such all-star posts as "Erm", "/clap", and "Flay wagon please".

You have a selective memory.
I think "flay wagon please" was a good post that accomplished something. "Erm" managed to get Glrok to reply. So you haven't convinced me.

I'm not asking you to write essays, I'm just looking for a little thought.

This isn't fair.

[Simenon]

Actually, Sim, if you think that the wagon has been productive, I want you to explain exactly why you think it has been productive.

I think any wagon is productive.

Who on the wagon do you think is protown?
Who on the wagon do you think is scum?

I think distad is town. My metagame on ergo is that he posts very long posts infrequently as town, but I don't think my metagame is solid enough. Otherwise I'd say he's town as well.

What do you think of the people off-wagon who have commented on BMQ?

I'm alarmed by the lack of comment. You look okay. CES looked okay. I'm disappointed elsewhere.

What do you think of the people who have posted but have not commented on BMQ and/or his bandwagon?

It's either
1. too soon to tell right now (I have a suspicion there are players who haven't had the chance to comment but will)
2. distressing

Either way I like my vote.

[Simenon]

I'll be willing to compromise for the sake of the deadline.

Unvote
Vote Mr Flay

reasons should be obvious.

[Simenon]

Sim kind of pinged my scumdar with that switch, but I've generally been ok with him today.

Attempting to get a lynch through deadline pings your scumdar?

I'll switch back to BMQ if that will be our lynch today. I would love lynching either Flay or BMQ to be honest.

[Simenon]

I think now is the time to say what person looks good, xd.

[Simenon]

That post is ambiguous. I mean, now is the time to say what person looks scummy.

[Simenon]

Wow, that vote isn't productive.

You're asking us for five of us to change our minds and vote distad in less than twenty-four hours.

Also, I disagree that BMQ obviously had more momentum than Flay. More votes, maybe, but I felt ew had a better chance at lynching flay.

[Simenon]

Unvote Vote BMQ

We are dangerously spread. Now is the time to pick a lynch and roll with it.

I personally will be able to be active, so this vote is a temporary wagon hop.

[Simenon]

BMQ- Don't be dense. I said I would be active, so I could afford to keep this vote temporary just in case we can't get a lynch.

Also, voting me without a wagon is antitown, to be honest.

[Simenon]

I find it enlightening BMQ is contributing to this spread.

[Simenon]

Also, BMQ, way to dodge everything else you could respond to right before the deadline.


die.

[Simenon]

BMQ- Don't be dense. I said I would be active, so I could afford to keep this vote temporary just in case we can't get a lynch.

Also, voting me without a wagon is antitown, to be honest.

Let me clarify this. Some won't have this great activity. They should pick a bandwagon and stick with it. However, I have activity, therefore I can afford to make temporary votes. I laid this out in the discussed post.

ur still dense lol

[Simenon]

Yes, you did stick around, so you could afford to make temporary votes. But what if you just disappeared? I'm calling you out on it so you can't just get away with hiding and letting your vote ride. Your vote, after all, was the necessary third vote to get me deadline-lynched.

You accused me of trying to have it both ways.

Also, yes, it was the necessary third vote. That's kind of the point.

whut hav i been dodgin

I would love us to continue our discussion on why you're scum and why I'm not.

Logical fallacies, mostly. A lot of his accusations against me don't have sound reasoning behind them. It makes me think he's trying too hard to get me lynched.

You actually haven't responded to any of the reasons I originally voted you for. If you read my posts, I actually said my vote was a continuation of yesterday, and you just posted to attack me.

I did not bring any new points to the table when I voted BMQ

.

BMQ scum, calling it here. Feel free to embarrass me once the game ends.[/b]

[Simenon]

None were adressed. Our little altercation was the result of BMQ attacking me. That's my whole point; his reasons for voting me don't fit.

[Simenon]

You're not as brilliant as you think you are.

Kind words.

btw, I don't think I'm a good scumhunter particularly. I just think I'm right.

Sim, if my memory serves me right, you accused me of not contributing any new information in my first post, and merely repeating what others said. Bearing in mind that everyone in the game had posted before I did, is it really such a lynchworth offense? Has it really snowballed that greatly? Or is there something I'm missing?

I felt it was scummy then. I wasn't satisfied that day by your response. Part of my reason for calling you scum is that frankly you seem like you know it feels right to attack me, but you can't seem to find a reason why. The reasons you have settled with were mediocre at best (short posts), and this latest one makes no sense. I'm feeling it was the product of lack of thought, probably because you're scum, and therefore you only really need to throw out words like "logical fallacies" without checking if they actually stick.

[Simenon]

I would love it if you clarified why you think I'm scum. If it's for logical fallacies (whut?) please show me what said fallacies are.

[Simenon]

Because I've been to caught up with the BMQ lynch/figuring out what to do with the deadline.

I honestly haven't even read it.

[Simenon]

Thou shalt not go fishing!! D:<

Unvote

Asking for the reason that you hold a particular opinion is not fishing. Calling it fishing is dropping an unnecessary breadcrumb. If you're a power role trying to stay hidden you could at least try to cover it with some logic - "because I said so" is hardly subtle.

Vote Ergo

I feel dumb.

The inconsistency bit is also a point.

[Simenon]

I can't figure out what it is, but I've found something.

[Simenon]

I don't really feel the need to. He's made himself clear and that's all that matters.

[Simenon]

Maybe it's because you see Ergo as a likelier lynch? Bloodthirsty? Switching bandwagons this late in the day doesn't exactly surprise me.

This is pretty dumb, sorry.

[Simenon]

By the way I'm not even considering voting BMQ at this point.

[Simenon]

Your reaction to that post seemed like you were leading glrok into the open. I find people who don't take "stop fishing" for an answer scummy.

[Simenon]

I had just read that bit, actually, so glrok's post was new to me.

Horrible excuse, but that's just it.

Whether I pressed him on it or not, you can be sure that it would be seen by everyone who was paying attention in the slightest.

If it is a breadcrumb for a power role, well, nobody saw it when glrok originally said "don't consider voting bmq".
If it's not a breadcrumb, it just shows how serious glrok is about not lynching bmq, so there is something that both of us aren't seeing and glrok doesn't want to tell anyway. As you said, he's a good player, so he must have found something good.

Would you buy it if I'd just said "don't vote for me, but I can't tell you why"?

I would push you, but "don't vote for him" and "don't vote for me" are quite different imho.

[Simenon]

And this is similar to what I mean in post 408. I know there's something, and I can take a reasonable guess to what it is. I can't figure it out exactly (lack of brain-power), but it's enough.

[Simenon]

Glrok telling Ergo not to fish.

[Simenon]

If it's that good then now is the time to tell us all what it is. Holding onto it while BMQ is lynched isn't going to do the town a lick of good. That was the point of my original question.

In that very same quotation, I said that he's glrok, he has a reason not to share it with us.
Perhaps he's spotted a power role in BMQ. That's a suggestion. There may be others that are anti town. I trust glrok, mostly because I think glrok is very very town.

[Simenon]

well, that was anticlimactic.

[Simenon]

ping!

[Simenon]

Not surprisingly, I agree. Might as well make it official, though I'm almost certainly pissing in the wind here.

Vote: Simenon

I think this has been pretty well explored, and in re-reading it looks to me like he's just pointed fingers elsewhere until a better target to presented itself, rather than responding to the case against him.

I never fail to respond to a case against me.

whoops try again plz.

[Simenon]

Sorry but that's not what went down either. I gave an answer that covered everything here. I just didn't respond with twenty sentences each.

third time's the trick

[Simenon]

but have avoided serious suspicion up until now.

Erm... sorry, my bad?

The second bit reeks of conspiracy; I'm simply not that skillful a scum player. Ask glrok. Ask Ergo. Oh, wait, you're ergo.

Did I play like this in Happy Normal, honestly? My play hasn't changed much.

[Simenon]

I challenge anyone in this game to go back to Happy Normal Mafia and say they can find a connection to my play there and my play here.

[Simenon]

Right. I'm saying that:
1. Metagaming is important
2. My play in HappyNormal was vastly different than my play in this game.
3. I was scum in HappyNormal

First person to call this wifom I punch in the stomach.

[Simenon]

The value of this meta is dimished by the fact that you pointed it out yourself. This is similar to the point you raised earlier about Glork's breadcrumb - there's a big difference between saying "here's a good meta on him" and "here's a good meta on me".

Yes, but in this game, I'm imploring that you prove me wrong.

[Simenon]

Or, in other words, the resources are out there for all to see.

[Simenon]

Why not?

[Simenon]

WTF FLAY I HAD FLAY WTF

[Simenon]

edit: and instead they lynched me. ):

[Simenon]

^_^

Yeah, that hurts a bit, although I still had *something* to be proud of leaving this game.

[Simenon]

Flay wasn't scum though. He was the SK

Same thing.