Mafia 87 - New Age Mafia - Game Over!

[Jazzmyn]

@Jazzmyn: I posed it as a question because I was afraid that I had misunderstood you. It would have been a "strawman" if I tried to discredit your argument by arguing against one of my fabrication. Let me highlight the sentence:

it is possible that he was rabble rousing... but...I think he made several valid points, so I cannot interpret this as scummy.

The implications of this post are that you could interpret this as scummy but choose not to because he says something you find valid. I'm asking, are you really discarding your suspicion here based on that?

No, Sche, you have constructed a strawman and you are indeed arguing against a fabrication of your own making, which is made even more obvious by virtue of the fact that you have to remove the bulk of my sentence to try to make it say what you would like it to say, rather than addressing what it

actually

says.

And "You don't have to be town in order to say something true" isn't a non sequitur--it's a reaction to the statement I addressed above.

It is indeed a non sequitur, both to my actual sentence and to the strawman that you created out of my sentence. But it is probably moot since, as I have already said, I agree that "you don't have to be town in order to say something true". That doesn't make it any less a non sequitur on your part, though.

I asked about Der Hammer again because you saw fit to note that he'd done something suspicious in time to revise the post where you state an opinion of him without actually revising your opinion.

And yet, you failed to address the fact that I had indeed noted DerHammer's dubious reason for voting against you back in my post #246 (the very post of mine from which you quoted), when I saw his post during the 'preview' stage of posting my post, and I said explicitly that it had to be added for consideration to what I had already written. And you didn't address that at all until after I pointed out to you that you had omitted it from your queries to me in your post #272. How very odd.

Are you saying that his action has absolutely no bearing on your read right now?

No. Please see my posts #270 and #273, in which I have already expressed how his recent actions have impacted on my view of him. They still don't make me inclined to change my vote from you at present, though.

Regards,
Jazz

[Gerrendus]

It seems like we're most all convinced that Sche and Der are currently the most suspicious. IMO Sche's defensive arguments filled with logical fallacies waste more time than Der's relatively lurky style of play. Honestly, I've started just skimming Sche's posts because its more of the same baseless defensive claims and accusations.
Obviously we can't lynch two people in one day and IMO Sche needs to be the first to go. The "Worst Case Scenario" if we lynch Sche is that sche turns up town, but with the way he's been building his arguments I have to honestly wonder if we might not be better off regardless. I realize that sounds scummy but I'd rather have townies that can at least build logical arguments than townies that are going to waste time and use logical fallacies as their defense. However, Like I said that is the "Worst Case Scenario," but I don't honestly believe that Sche is town.

[Percy]

Indeed, time for me to weigh in on the whole game. Just did a re-read, and here are my opinions and questions.

Scheherazade: My opinion of him has been made abundantly clear. He has accused me of not asking questions to try and conduct a 'proper investigation', but I feel I spotted something scummy and pressed hard. I don't know whether he's just an argumentative, unhelpful townie or actually scum, but as others have said, at the very least he's unhelpful in the extreme. His investigation of Jazzmyn seems artificial and just as riddled with logical inconsistencies as his defense against my accusations.

al4xz: Voted for Juls, in an attempt to pull off a rather strange move. Also he said this:

everything dictates that Scheh is ... a skilled Mafia player who did a good job hiding his true intentions behind the mask of a Townie. Scum."

...then FoSed him, voted for him later, and now he's unvoted. I'm suspicious of him due to this inconsistency and the aforementioned strange move. I will ask the question:

@al4xz: If you were so convinced early on of Scheherazade's guilt, why did you Unvote? What changed your mind from such a strong position to such an uncertain one?

TAX: Had a changing random vote, and gave little justification of suspicions whenever he did vote, and now he's not voting at all and is possibly inactive. I find inactivity just as suspicious as stupid activity.

@TAX: Please get involved and weigh in here, I don't like how you might be trying to fly under the radar.

Der Hammer: Erratic and confusing strategies that are bad for the town. He even described the attempts to put pressure on him as 'clear scumtells'. Doesn't read sarcasm in others' posts, but has used the 'I was only kidding' defense himself. Relevant game quotes:

"That's the sort of reaction I was probing for" never actually had meaning at all

I reacted badly to your initial misjudging of my statement and acted childishly. It end of esuclated from there really, and its interesting to see who has jumped on my bandwagon..

He's OMGUS'd, claimed when he was nowhere near being lynched, and told us that we should look elsewhere rather than try to find something out of his posts.

Now he's asking us to lynch Scheherazade and give him a free pass, just because he says he's a townie (!).

Whilst Scheherazade has been extremely unhelpful, I think Der Hammer is a greater liability and has made more mistakes, and most importantly, is more difficult to read and keep tabs on: he's tried to make some of his posts 'real posts' and others 'not count' due to "hidden" humour or sarcasm.

It's very, very close, but I think it's marginally more likely that Scheherazade is just an unhelpful townie than Der Hammer. I'm therefore going to

Unvote

Vote: Der Hammer

Entire body of susipicion: Scheherazade

[ZazieR]

Look at the players however who have completed consistantly tryed to deflect all attention onto me while they slip by. Thats the list of players that mafia probably can be picked from on Day 2.

What are you saying here?

[Der Hammer]

Der Hammer: Erratic and confusing strategies that are bad for the town. He even described the attempts to put pressure on him as 'clear scumtells'. Doesn't read sarcasm in others' posts, but has used the 'I was only kidding' defense himself. Relevant game quotes:

"That's the sort of reaction I was probing for" never actually had meaning at all

I reacted badly to your initial misjudging of my statement and acted childishly. It end of esuclated from there really, and its interesting to see who has jumped on my bandwagon..

He's OMGUS'd, claimed when he was nowhere near being lynched, and told us that we should look elsewhere rather than try to find something out of his posts.

Now he's asking us to lynch Scheherazade and give him a free pass, just because he says he's a townie (!).

Whilst Scheherazade has been extremely unhelpful, I think Der Hammer is a greater liability and has made more mistakes, and most importantly, is more difficult to read and keep tabs on: he's tried to make some of his posts 'real posts' and others 'not count' due to "hidden" humour or sarcasm.

It's very, very close, but I think it's marginally more likely that Scheherazade is just an unhelpful townie than Der Hammer. I'm therefore going to

Unvote

Vote: Der Hammer

Entire body of susipicion: Scheherazade

This is actually misleading so I must take issue. If you look back I have only readdressed my "comedy" posts when someone has asked me to clarify. Your post makes it look like I have backtracked and said that those posts were jokes of my own accord. A small point, but a point nonetheless.

If anybody is interested in my main suspect then its strife. His interactions with me have made me suspect him more than anyone else.


_____

ZazieR, I am saying that since I know me to be town clearly the mafia know that too. The mafia are likely to be on my wagon or at least one or two of them if they are inexperienced.

[Percy]

This is actually misleading so I must take issue. If you look back I have only readdressed my "comedy" posts when someone has asked me to clarify. Your post makes it look like I have backtracked and said that those posts were jokes of my own accord. A small point, but a point nonetheless.

And a point that is against you, I feel. How can we trust anything you say, if we first have to ask if you're being serious about every post you make?

[ribwich]

Der Hammer, what specifically is it about strife's interactions with you that make you suspicious of him? Even if it turns out that you are town, I do not believe that strife has done anything wrong. The way I look at it, you were acting scummy and strife called you out on it. And why specifically him instead of the rest of us that are voting for you? Is it just because he was the first one to accuse you?

[al4xz]

al4xz: Voted for Juls, in an attempt to pull off a rather strange move. Also he said this:

al4xz 100 wrote:
everything dictates that Scheh is ... a skilled Mafia player who did a good job hiding his true intentions behind the mask of a Townie. Scum."

...then FoSed him, voted for him later, and now he's unvoted. I'm suspicious of him due to this inconsistency and the aforementioned strange move. I will ask the question:

@al4xz: If you were so convinced early on of Scheherazade's guilt, why did you Unvote? What changed your mind from such a strong position to such an uncertain one?

Allow me to explain. First, Scheh goes off and creates the big argument with you, wasting a lot of the town's time. When I asked him why he didn't just say, "oh, sorry, you guys were right, it was rolefishing", he said instead that he didn't say that because he refused to lie. He believed that it wasn't rolefishing and that therefore, saying said excuse would be a lie. I believed that what he said there was the truth, and if he's actually a Townie, I'm impressed that he stood by that choice despite the trouble it has caused him.

As for the "odd" move, it's known as the Slayer's Gambit. Check it up on the Wiki.

Hmm...yes, I agree with you about Derhammer, Percy. I'd rather have Scheh (who may or may not be useful) than Derhammer, the village idiot. Scheh at least strikes me as someone who tries to help. Derhammer jsut keeps joking around, so we can't trust him to sit still for a minute, let alone help us.

Vote: Der Hammer

[Juls]

I am posting this in all my games. I am through playing on mafiascum.net. I have found that people here are not very welcoming to new players and I don't really feel like taking the abuse. Good luck in the game.

Mod: Please find a replacement for me.

[Gerrendus]

That is something I had neglected considering. At least we know all of Scheh's posts are filled with logical fallacies, which while a time waster he is trying to help as you said al4xz.

Unvote: Scheh
Vote: Der
EBoS(Entire Body of Suspicion): Scheh

There's always tomorrow.

[Gerrendus]

EBWOP:
Though as I look back al4xz's vote makes nine

[ribwich]

I'm pretty sure it's yours that made it nine. Either way, Der Hammer is hammered.

[al4xz]

Are you serious? Shit! Town, sorry! I never realized how close we were! Fuck!

...Ugh! SHIT!

[al4xz]

Actually, never mind, I had already voted for DH earlier and Percy had confused me into thinking I was voting for Scheh. =.= However, DH is still hammered; Gerrendus placed the final.

[TAX]

I find Gerrundus hammer a little suspicious, did you really not know how many votes Der hammer had on him?

[Vi]

Forgive me for hopping on a soapbox at a time like this, but the point of voting for someone is to declare that you want them lynched more than anyone else at the time. Votes cause lynches, simply put.

So with that in mind... al4xz, why is it so bad that Der Hammer was der-hammered?

@TAX: 'Nice of you to show up just after the hammer gets dropped after a week of absence~

[Tom Mason]

I find Gerrundus hammer a little suspicious, did you really not know how many votes Der hammer had on him?

You would think with the line "There's always tomorrow" at the bottom that he did.

[Jazzmyn]

I find Gerrundus hammer a little suspicious, did you really not know how many votes Der hammer had on him?

Nice of you to join us, TAX. Your timing is impeccable.

Regards,
Jazz

[Gerrendus]

I actually did not know how many votes Der-Hammer had on him. "there's always tomorrow" referred to the fact that Der would most likely end up lynched. I realized that the vote was sliding that way, and Der had always been my number 2. I wasn't going to try to push for my number one most suspicious, especially when my number two was very close to number one. The post percy made forced me to realize that hypothetically if both sche and Der were town then of the two, we're better off without Der. At least with Sche we are aware that sche uses logical fallacies and thus we can avoid wasting our time by ignoring/skimming. Der's posts are much shorter and we cannot tell whether or not he is being serious. I honestly thought my vote would put us maybe at L-2, as I did not accurately recall the previous count, I thought the two were switched.

[Vi]

So aside from the excuses and backstory, I just want to get this for the record, Gerrendus - you're satisfied with this outcome?

[strife220]

@TAX: 'Nice of you to show up just after the hammer gets dropped after a week of absence~

Was about to agree, but his post history in all MS looks pretty similar - no posts in any game for almost a week


I don't see a real problem in the hammer. I'm not really clear what people were getting at with the 'at least Scheh is trying, DH is just useless' argument. Scheh has made 1 constructive post through the entire game - the rest were defenses.

[ribwich]

I'm not really clear what people were getting at with the 'at least Scheh is trying, DH is just useless' argument. Scheh has made 1 constructive post through the entire game - the rest were defenses.

I'm pretty sure those were used as lesser of two evil arguments. Has DH made any constructive posts?

[Scheherazade]

No, Sche, you have constructed a strawman and you are indeed arguing against a fabrication of your own making, which is made even more obvious by virtue of the fact that you have to remove the bulk of my sentence to try to make it say what you would like it to say, rather than addressing what it

actually

says.

I asked you a question because I didn't understand you. It's not a strawman because I'm not trying to prove you wrong. I'm asking you a question because I know that I don't understand you. I added a remark, which you deem non sequitur, to show you where the source of my confusion was.

You accuse me of a logical fallacy in asking you a question, twice. Is it because you don't understand that I'm confused by your words? Or is it something else? Please explain this as well. I'm confused.

And yet, you failed to address the fact that I had indeed noted DerHammer's dubious reason for voting against you back in my post #246 (the very post of mine from which you quoted), when I saw his post during the 'preview' stage of posting my post, and I said explicitly that it had to be added for consideration to what I had already written. And you didn't address that at all until after I pointed out to you that you had omitted it from your queries to me in your post #272. How very odd.

Shall I repeat back to you everything you've said? And this is, as there's confusion, another honest question, because if the only way that you'll respond to my questions is with an exhaustive quotation of your posts, then I will do it. Please let me know.

Are you saying that his action has absolutely no bearing on your read right now?

No. Please see my posts #270 and #273, in which I have already expressed how his recent actions have impacted on my view of him. They still don't make me inclined to change my vote from you at present, though.

This seems moot because Der Hammer has a majority of the votes. Let me explain myself again, because it seems that we're unclear.

#270 doesn't address Der Hammer directly, only in terms of relative use. It doesn't reveal anything new about your thoughts on him. All it says is that he's less deserving of a lynch than me, which was already clear from your vote.

That's why I asked what exactly you thought and cited a post to which I thought you might have more of a reaction. Why? Because in your previous mention of his vote, you mentioned it only as a note and mentioned "that consideration must be added" to what you had just written.

I wanted to know what consideration.

In #273, you merely repeat the sentiment that you'll address it later. He was about to be lynched, but you were filing your thoughts away for later? Why? What thoughts? Were they vindicating? Damning? I wanted something concrete, not "I'm going to think about it later." That wasn't the time for that kind of thinking.

[Der Hammer]

Tut tut.

[Gerrendus]

So aside from the excuses and backstory, I just want to get this for the record, Gerrendus - you're satisfied with this outcome?

More or less.

It will suck if Der is town, but at least he is an unhelpful town member, I don't think he's a power-role as when he suspiciously made the vanilla claim earlier he would probably have tried to claim that role and because I think he would have tried to defend himself harder.

If Sche had been lynched today Der would most likely have been my vote tomorrow unless some evidence had come in to exonerate him. Both Sche and Der are suspicious to me and at the VERY LEAST they are unhelpful players. The two are neck and neck for me in terms of suspicion