Mini 684: Quacks and Masons Mafia- Game Over

[Sun Tzu]

I'm willing to hammer unless someone objects.

[raider8169]

I'm willing to hammer unless someone objects.

I object only to the point of making sure everyone understands and agrees to the plan.

[Riceballtail]

I agree to and understand the plan. Target SL tonight.

[militant]

Okay I am in the process of re reading.

I was happy until page 2. I thought it was a relatively good plan to discuss night strategy. Discussing it obviously gives scum ideas as to what town power roles do alas I still think it was the right thing to discuss due to the fact that if all Doctors/Quacks made independent decisions town would be decimated rather quick.

Now in Post#44 Clammy suggests the game could be broken by mass claim (I dislike mass claim anyway, this game seems far too interesting for that). He suggest that on day 1 all Doctors/Quacks should claim, Mafia would probably claim to be a doctor or a quack since there is not vanillas in this game and claiming mason would be suicidal. That plan has merit. Clammy then suggests that on Day 2 all masons should claim which is an awful idea. All doctor and quacks claiming along with the mafia would out the masons. Raider then makes an excellent point, it would make the masons targets for Mafia kill but also possible death via quack. Clammy then says he has a plan for how the town should act at night but will not go into it. Overall I think Clammy was subtlety trying to out all the masons to scum; introduce a plan where quacks and doctor alike should act on their own accord which would cause confusion/speculation in the town; all the masons would be outed and the mafia will have tracked someone. Overall I think the plan aids the mafia more than the town.

So far I like the idea that the doctors sit tight until both quacks are dead. Main goal of course will be taking out the scum.

This plan is better, I agree with this.

I'm not asking for any reasons, frankly i don't care that you're voting me.

This just doesn't sit right with me. I think irrespective of alignment a player should care if someone is voting them. Scum for obvious reasons but town because town players should have the interests of town in the front of their minds. Getting lynched does not generally help town so that statement seems a tad fishy to me.

Nothing contradictory in it, roflcopter is pushing a case on the sole basis that clammy's plan is antitown, I do not agree with this.

This is kinda scummy. Voting for someone because they proposed a plan which was anti town in my eyes is pretty sensible. I don't see how roflcopter was in the wrong while voting for Clammy.

Right I have re read. I think I will re read the last two pages again tomorrow which is partly why I have not yet commented on them. I am a replacement, you have effectively been spending the game with one player saying nothing so a new view point may be good; what I am saying is a lynch should not be rushed. I object to a lynch at the minute if you guys don't mind waiting.

I can see merit in the "lets all target SL tonight" plan. If she is scum then it may save town a lynch. If she is town then she will die due to the quacks and mafia will get an extra kill. The plan is still rather ambiguous in my mind. The death of a town player is obviously bad, which makes me think all doctor/quacks should do nothing, resulting in one death. But then again SL either being proven mafia or dieing...

I don't know which is better at this point. Losing a town player or having the quacks do nothing and only have one death. I'm not quite sure.

I will re read tomorrow, I got a bit lost towards page 5/6 so I will re read again. I don't want to come home from school tomorrow and see Clammy being lynched. I think if he was lynched now it would be far to premature. I still think there is discussion in this day yet! There is still further discussion to be had about SL and such but I generally agree that Clammy should be lynched eventually. He has already claimed what mafia would be expected to claim and still refuses to outline his plan thus I would not mind seeing him lynched but not yet.

I will post agian tommorow after slowly re reading pages 5-7

[raider8169]

I am fine with waiting. The more we discuss the better.

[Dattebayo]

Why hello? Please do take the time to read and reply to my post instead of ignoring me, because you know, you're kinda voting to evict me from this game and not even giving me a chance to defend myself.

Anyway. it seems I will be targeted tonight because I have a thought process that is too sophisticated for this town. And because of some deluded idea that I would be the kind of sugary-scum who would 'seek people's favor' were I scum. I'll say here that I take offense for the latter notion beyond anything else, as scum, I still take no shit.

At the moment and with clammy's lynch moving closer, I still think clammy needs to explain himself. I also think that independently of clammy's alignment, roflcopter is to be looked closer at.

In the previous post you were asking me to explain my reasoning behind why I think you were trying to get on rofl's good side but then here you are calling the argument a deluded idea and shit without actually understanding the reasoning behind the accusation (hence your quesitoning). That's scummy in my book.

Anyway, the following is the reasoning behind that accusation:
You spent the entire post attacking Clammy and then voted him. The exact thing that rofl had been doing. You then asked rofl what he thought about that. This question seemed to be meant to emphasize that you were now on rofl's side of the argument and that you wanted to see what he thought of you now. It seemed to me that you were trying to get on rofl's good side.
But you are claiming that you were scumhunting by asking that question. From what I've seen of you so far, that is not how you scumhunt. But before I assume that, I am going to look at some of your previous completed games.

No one hammer please. Let's wait for militant and for everyone's approval of the plan.

Players in support of the all doctors target SL:
Datte
Light
Raider
Rofl
Riceballtail
Sotty

Players against the plan:
SL

PLEASE, POST YOUR THOUGHTS REGARDING THE PLAN IF YOU HAVE NOT ALREADY DONE SO! Thank you.

[muffinhead]

Vote Count

clammy (6)- roflcopter, Dattebayo, springlullaby, Riceballtail, Light-Kun, sotty7

springlullaby (1)- Netlava


Not Voting (5)- Pimhel, Sun Tsu,clammy,pacman281292,raider8169

7 to lynch

[springlullaby]

In the previous post you were asking me to explain my reasoning behind why I think you were trying to get on rofl's good side but then here you are calling the argument a deluded idea and shit without actually understanding the reasoning behind the accusation (hence your quesitoning). That's scummy in my book.

That is not my opinion, my understanding of the conversation run as follow.

You: "Spring's question is scummy, let's target her tonight"
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 37#1304937
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 41#1304941

Me: "What exactly is scummy in my question? What are you accusing me of exactly? I see where this is going and will make clear now that I still think rofl is scummy."
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 29#1305529

You: " Spring is seeking rofl's approval."
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 43#1307043

Me: "I already said that I still think roflcopter is scummy, I asked that question to see what he had to say. Can you explain how my question was in anyway indicative of my wanting to 'seek rofl's approval'?"
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 14#1307214

You: "Spring doesn't understand what I'm saying."
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 14#1309414

Me now, I understood you alright, it is you who didn't seem to pick up on what I was saying.

Even if you genuinely did think that I was seeking rofl's approval, your failure to demonstrate how my question was in anyway indicative of such an intention had me at loss at what answer to give you beside, 'no, I wasn't' - an answer I already gave you.

Understand now?

BTW, please answer this:

His vote most likely served the purpose of self-preservation.

Explain how you could possibly see self-preservation in my vote?

Anyway, the following is the reasoning behind that accusation:
You spent the entire post attacking Clammy and then voted him. The exact thing that rofl had been doing. You then asked rofl what he thought about that. This question seemed to be meant to emphasize that you were now on rofl's side of the argument and that you wanted to see what he thought of you now. It seemed to me that you were trying to get on rofl's good side.
But you are claiming that you were scumhunting by asking that question.

From what I've seen of you so far, that is not how you scumhunt.

But before I assume that, I am going to look at some of your previous completed games.

1. I've never played with you before. Bolded contains a paradox.
2. If you want to look sincere in your statement that you are going to meta me to verify your say, do unvote me first.

[raider8169]

Sorry about my lack of posting today. I am in the middle of doing my final project and not sure how much time I will have extra until next Monday. I will try to post but if anyone asked me anything please repost it on Monday. Sorry everyone.

PS Willing to hammer when I get back but I would like everyone to either agree with the plan or say otherwise.

[muffinhead]

proding roflcopter

[Netlava]

I agree with the plan and if I am doctor, I am targeting SL tonight. I just had a chance to reread SL's posts in isolation and I still find SL the most suspicious. The quote:

This is inaccurate and a misrepresentation, let me ask you, is it intentional?

I don't see where the misrep claim comes from. Clammy's general description of what happened is not misleading.

Clammy, I have a neutral read on - what he's mainly done so far is make a plan and refuse to explain it. I don't even know if that's scummy, just weird, because I can't see the motivation for not explaining himself for town or for scum. Either way, I prefer a SL lynch (or a no lynch + some complex plan I thought of), but I suppose the quack thing may work just as well.

[roflcopter]

i am prodded. just waiting for everyone to agree so we can move things along.

[clammy]

This does not change my stance on rofl.

[springlullaby]

I agree with the plan and if I am doctor, I am targeting SL tonight. I just had a chance to reread SL's posts in isolation and I still find SL the most suspicious. The quote:

This is inaccurate and a misrepresentation, let me ask you, is it intentional?

I don't see where the misrep claim comes from. Clammy's general description of what happened is not misleading.

Clammy, I have a neutral read on - what he's mainly done so far is make a plan and refuse to explain it. I don't even know if that's scummy, just weird, because I can't see the motivation for not explaining himself for town or for scum. Either way, I prefer a SL lynch (or a no lynch + some complex plan I thought of), but I suppose the quack thing may work just as well.

It is a misrepresentation, a simple verification of the order in which the posts clammy has quoted were made would have told you that.

But frankly I can't be bothered to defend myself further since no one seems interested anyway. If anyone has direct question for me, please do ask.

The way so many have agreed to target me tonight without a proper reason sucks, because you can't all be scum, which mean that tomorrow is gonna be a mess.

[clammy]

Clearly i was hiding the order of the posts and intentionally misleading you all by posting the post numbers in the quotes and the expanded order certainly had nothing to do with supplying the expansion to my post when requested in the same order i originally posted it.

[militant]

I have re read. It seems to me that clammy needs to be lynched but other than that I cannot say I am sure of anything else. Datte and SL makes good arguments but what kinda settles it for me is that SL gives up on defending herself in post 163, something I would not regard as a pro town action if indeed SL is town.

Overall the whole day is incredibly ambiguous, I have made about 3 posts that I was planing to post but then have deleted in favour of having another go and trying to decipher what is going on. I accept that if clammy is a doc as he claimed and SL is not scum, we will be in a mess tomorrow, not forgetting another death due to the mafia.

Because of this I think the best course of action is to take a risk so to speak. I certinately agree with Clammy being lynched and will put my name forward for targeting SL this evening if I am in fact a doctor. Analyzing the alignment and roles of the dead players tomorrow I think will give us a good chance of finding scum by looking at voting patterns, relationships between the dead players who we will know the roles of and so on. I don't think anymore discussion will do us any good today, for one SL has given up defending herself and as I previously stated I think we may have a good chance of working things out tomorrow with all the corpses exposed. If no one objects I am willing to hammer but I don't want to end the day before everyone is happy to embark on night.

[springlullaby]

Lol, I specifically said that if people had questions, I would answer.

But whatever, of all the people combined I put the most effort in my posts and have answered every post addressing me to date, yet very few bothered to reply or even to comment, so yes voting me for 'giving up' while refusing to address the fact that of the people who pledged to target me, few have even deigned to cite a single reason, is rather lame and just pissing me off more.

Maybe I should be more level about this, but feeling like the only one who is trying, and indeed the only one who is interested in the discussion, is not entertaining.

Clearly i was hiding the order of the posts and intentionally misleading you all by posting the post numbers in the quotes and the expanded order certainly had nothing to do with supplying the expansion to my post when requested in the same order i originally posted it.

Short answer: the order in which you quoted those posts makes it looks like as if my vote on roflcopter was an OMGUS, which is inaccurate, and conveniently omit the posts in which I repeatedly explain to you why your plan sucks, which is a misrepresentation.

[clammy]

See, i'd consider telling you you were right except you're very wrong.

The post mentioned people who had attacked me and kept their attacking options wide open, especially keeping a foot in two doors of the same argument.

If the post had even been an attempt to look at your voting patterns then i could pretend to see how you say it's a misrepresentation, but it's not!

And no-one but you has found it to be a misrepresentation which makes me wonder if you have more to hide than i pick you as having because at this stage i still have you as shockingly mis-guided townie and rofl as scum.

[Dattebayo]

In response to Spring:
I don't think your post with a bunch of links effectively points answers my argument. There was no way you could have understood my arguments if you were asking me to explain my reasoning behind them therefore it is still scummy of you for concluding that the argument was a deluded idea and shit. It's not a matter of who didn't understand who but rather that you didn't have the back up reasoning to understand my argument (hence the questioning). So, while it is possible I misunderstood, there was no way you could have and for that your action remains scummy.

In addition, you misrepresented me above one of your links.

You: "Spring's question is scummy, let's target her tonight"

This makes it look like that one point I made was the entire basis for me deciding to target you at night. It was not. I have already explained my other reasoning.

And finally, I do in fact plan on meta-ing you.
1. From the way you've scumhunted this game, I get the feeling that the way of questioning at the bottom of your post a few pages back addressed to rofl is not how you scum hunt.
2. I'm not voting you.

Players in support of the all doctors target SL:
Datte
Light
Raider
Rofl
Riceballtail
Sotty
Netlava
Militant

Players against the plan:
SL

Still waiting for two players to weigh in: PACMAN AND SUN PLEASE POST YOUR POSITION ON THE PLAN

[springlullaby]

In response to Spring:
I don't think your post with a bunch of links effectively points answers my argument. There was no way you could have understood my arguments if you were asking me to explain my reasoning behind them therefore it is still scummy of you for concluding that the argument was a deluded idea and shit.

I just saw where you were going with your insinuation.

It's not a matter of who didn't understand who but rather that you didn't have the back up reasoning to understand my argument (hence the questioning). So, while it is possible I misunderstood, there was no way you could have and for that your action remains scummy.

I could tell from the start that your argument, which was effectively only an insinuation (namely 'spring is seeking rofl's approval'), was going to be lame. Your fault for not backing up your insinuation, my fault giving you wriggle room.

In addition, you misrepresented me above one of your links.

You: "Spring's question is scummy, let's target her tonight"

This makes it look like that one point I made was the entire basis for me deciding to target you at night. It was not. I have already explained my other reasoning.

Your other reasonings being?

And finally, I do in fact plan on meta-ing you.
1. From the way you've scumhunted this game, I get the feeling that the way of questioning at the bottom of your post a few pages back addressed to rofl is not how you scum hunt.

The paradox again, if you are willing to target me tonight, then you must think I'm scum, but scum have no motive to genuinely scum hunt, so how can you say that you have come to the conclusion that my question to rofl is not how I scumhunt "from the way I've scumhunted this game"?

2. I'm not voting you.

Pledging to target anyone at night is akin to casting a lynching vote shall the targetee be town. Are you eluding responsibility here?

Bold mine.

[springlullaby]

See, i'd consider telling you you were right except you're very wrong.

The post mentioned people who had attacked me and kept their attacking options wide open, especially keeping a foot in two doors of the same argument.

Oh god, I have already explained myself on that. The 'a foot in two doors at the same time' argument is plain riduculous - it is akin to saying that if A attacks B and B attacks A, then one can't be suspicious of both A and B.
This is so obvious to me I'm amazed I have to repeat it so many times.

If the post had even been an attempt to look at your voting patterns then i could pretend to see how you say it's a misrepresentation, but it's not!

What was that post an attempt at then?

And no-one but you has found it to be a misrepresentation which makes me wonder if you have more to hide than i pick you as having because at this stage i still have you as shockingly mis-guided townie and rofl as scum.

Given how I'm the only one who is questioning the fact that so many people have pledged to target me without even giving the shadow of a reason, you'll excuse me if I'm not moved by that particular argument.

Bolded mine.

[Dattebayo]

Okay, your defense has no boiled down to "I predicted your reasoning was bad." That's not going to cut it.

I'll restate my other reasons as keeping your foot in all doors, and the obvious attempt at a bus on Clammy.

1. As scum, you would try to emulate the genuine way you scumhunt as town.
2. I was responding to you asking me to drop my vote (as in the ones that appear in vote counts) on you here; in no way was I eluding responsibility.

[clammy]

How do you all intend to proceed when i suddenly become relevant again because i am a doc?

[Riceballtail]

If this is true, then we will leave a flower on your grave. Otherwise, you can hang scum. :O

[clammy]

Ya, since your case against SL is based on him bussing me, and i'm not scum, i'm foreseeing issues for you folk without a "shit! - clammy was just a townie with conviction!" plan...