Mini 738: The Town of Merrin - Game Over

[mykonian]

I'll let Dourgrim field that question. But rest assured, that wasn't a joke. Dour himself admitted that he doesn't like joke votes.

maybe joke was the wrong word...

but the way GIEFF makes this a big vote, and how he after that shoots the vote down again can't be protown.

[mykonian]

oops,

unvote vote Beyond_birthday

[GIEFF]

because the only serious reason for that vote is because GIEFF didn't random vote. (scumtell?)

But the second reason seems the most important: that GIEFF has already 2 votes on him. This would never be worth a serious vote, and I can't believe any mafia-player could call this a serious vote.

But that's the whole point. A vote is a joke only if the

caster

of the vote thinks it is a joke. But based on Dourgrim's reaction, it's clear he did not think it was a joke, and thought the reasoning sound. It may not have been a vote in search of a lynch, but to call it a joke-vote or a random-vote ignores Dourgrim subsequent posts, which show that he took it seriously.

[mykonian]

because the only serious reason for that vote is because GIEFF didn't random vote. (scumtell?)

But the second reason seems the most important: that GIEFF has already 2 votes on him. This would never be worth a serious vote, and I can't believe any mafia-player could call this a serious vote.

But that's the whole point. A vote is a joke only if the

caster

of the vote thinks it is a joke. But based on Dourgrim's reaction, it's clear he did not think it was a joke, and thought the reasoning sound.

It may not have been a vote in search of a lynch

, but to call it a joke-vote or a random-vote ignores Dourgrim subsequent posts, which show that he took it seriously.

that's why I think it is overreacting.

and determining what kind of vote it is can't be done with what the caster says: if he is scum, he will make it stronger/weaker when he needs it. You should determine it by the reasons given. If, on some point, someone gets too close to a lynch, while joke/random/weak votes are part of the votes on him, those persons should be questioned.

[Zilla]

Hello, I'm trying to catch up, I've read through the first two pages. Anything I should know to kickstart participation? A concise summary would not only be helpful in introducing me ot the game, it would also help me see where people stand on their cases.

[Goatrevolt]

Hello, I'm trying to catch up, I've read through the first two pages. Anything I should know to kickstart participation? A concise summary would not only be helpful in introducing me ot the game, it would also help me see where people stand on their cases.

I'd rather you read through the game and provided your own opinions before people start trying to influence you with theirs.

[Zilla]

No dice, I want to see where people stand before they try to appeal to me. If their case has any merit, they should be able to present it themselves.

[Goatrevolt]

No dice, I want to see where people stand before they try to appeal to me. If their case has any merit, they should be able to present it themselves.

People have presented cases in the thread with varying levels of merit that should give you a fairly solid indication of where they stand.

Having people tell you before you read the thread what to look for or who they think is scum is simply going to bias your opinions. If I give you this amazing case about why X is scum, then when you read through the thread you're going to do so with my ideas fresh in your mind. It can and very likely will color your perspective.

You will see who people suspect and where people stand when you read the thread. Knowing beforehand is unhelpful.

[mykonian]

People have presented cases in the thread with varying levels of merit

just tell her that on this moment there is not one that you should lynch a person for.

[Zilla]

I'm really not liking your reaction to this.

Vote: Goatrevolt

I'm pushing for information, you're saying that isn't good.

[mykonian]

I'm really not liking your reaction to this.

Vote: Goatrevolt

I'm pushing for information, you're saying that isn't good.

plz read the game, and after that start interacting with people. This just doesn't make sense...

[Zilla]

He's got no votes and I don't like his attitude.

Moreover, his logic also doesn't make sense, because the players are going to try to convince me in the past already anyway. It shouldn't make a difference if i'm reading old posts or new ones.

He's trying to stop a source of information, and that's not helpful at all to town. At the very least, it will be helpful to current players.

He's got a vote that needs explaining, also. He's the only one on MacCavityLock, and he should be explaining why he's there and where he stands on the top vote getters (something missing from the last few pages, at least).

Also, I tend not to gain much from reading things before my replacement. It helps to have a frame of reference and comparing things in retrospect, rather than being confused and not having anything to base the players on. I need something to add color and dimensionality to the players, because as I'm reading right now, I have nothing to really distinguish one poster from another.

[mykonian]

you don't like his attitude: brilliant.

and his logic makes perfect sense. After you know who is scum when a game is over, you read the game very different. You suddenly see all the scumtells. If someone now told you that lets, say, I was scum, then you would nitpick every post, and sure: you are going to find things that could point to me as scum. However, you would give me a special treatment. You would tunnel on me.

While we only want you to have a open mind when you start the game.

So please read the game.

[Zilla]

Moreover, his logic also doesn't make sense, because the players are going to try to convince me in the past already anyway.

It shouldn't make a difference if i'm reading old posts or new ones.

You're campaigning pretty hard for a vote yourself. All those past votes are going to do exactly what any current post would do, but those past posts don't take into account that I am playing the game, and don't involve me on a personal level.

These responses make me feel your arguments are totally invalid, you are unwilling to back them up.

[mykonian]

then vote me! what are you waiting for?

Maybe it is because you just should reread. If there were any scumtells there, you would miss them. If we told you where to look, you would only find those we told you to look for. Now when you reread with an open mind, you can find scumtells with everyone, and maybe that will help town for a change...

If you think you are also convinced by early posts, just as much as the new ones, then there is still no reason you shouldn't reread.

So if my arguments are invalid: show me. You are making a general statement: back it up. I only show you theory, and I think I'm right there.

[PJ.]

It's true that you did in general, but not in the post I was talking about. You're right that your first accusation of fence-sitting is another original point, though. But it's somewhat irrelevant in that the reasoning you used at the time you voted for springlullaby was exactly what I had said in the previous post. You found another point, but this is only after you found a target based on another poster's reasoning.

Wait, so because I just tacked it on as an additional reason. This is proof you're tunneling me. You pretty much,, "This doesn't count because it refutes my point. You scummy" And on the Truly/honestly thing, this is just the way I speak. I speak like this in everyday conversation. I don't change my regular speech patterns in a mafia game.

It wasn't an IGMEOY, it was a VOTE, about which you said you were pretty sure it was a "huge scum slip." You are lying AGAIN. That was not just an IGMEOY, and it was not a minor thing, and when you say things like "huge scum slip" it looks pretty serious.

Read the exchange between me and Myko on page 3. Post 62-67 It was clearly not as serious as my natural speech made it sound. My last post in that exchange implied it was more of a IGMEOY Vote and not an "I want to lynch you right this second on page 3" vote.

Meh...
I don't like some of the points being made against Panzer in this last post. Half of your argument seems to be reduced to a "random vote" that was claimed to have been, at the time of its posting, "not random" (by implication).

Unvote

I think this is by far the scummiest thing in the thread. When I look at this post, it reads: "Panzerwagon 09 as lost tremendous ammounts of momentum, blah blah blah blah. *hop of the wagon*"

GIEFF's attack on me saying random vote was deserved and honestly, I had to go check my role to see if I actually WAS scum. I need to pay a little more attention to what I'm saying, because he is right. It absolutely was not a random vote and I should have never(had I been paying attention) referred to it as one.

Unvote: Vote: Beyong_Birthday

This is a much better lead then SL. *Original point 4*(I've only Read up to 240, I'm catching up as I go posting on what is interesting)

Now on to 240, specifically the scum slip part of Goatrevolt's posted. I felt it was huge in terms of scum slips. It was one that slapped me across the face. It has nothing to do with whether or not scum slips are a big or little scum tell. In regards to "I don't see how a scum slip is a small thing" I believe I posted that page 2. Page 2, a scum slip IS a big deal. Page 9-10, less so. The reason scum slips are a weak tell is actually being largely displayed in this thread. First of, you can read a post several different ways. Second, the context of the post can change from your first look and your second look. Third, it could largely be semantics issues in which I think a lot of my "slips" That GIEFF has pointed out I believe are.

He's got no votes and I don't like his attitude.

Moreover, his logic also doesn't make sense, because the players are going to try to convince me in the past already anyway. It shouldn't make a difference if i'm reading old posts or new ones.

He's trying to stop a source of information, and that's not helpful at all to town. At the very least, it will be helpful to current players.

He's got a vote that needs explaining, also. He's the only one on MacCavityLock, and he should be explaining why he's there and where he stands on the top vote getters (something missing from the last few pages, at least).

Also, I tend not to gain much from reading things before my replacement. It helps to have a frame of reference and comparing things in retrospect, rather than being confused and not having anything to base the players on. I need something to add color and dimensionality to the players, because as I'm reading right now, I have nothing to really distinguish one poster from another.

The top of this post is a

BLATANT LIE

(bold for GIEFF to be proud). How is he trying to stop a source of information, your asking for a summary of past events and people's views on past events. No NEW info is coming from that, it's simply people restating old info which is already in the thread. It DOES make a difference to read the old ones, because you may find something we HAVEN'T in the old posts, new ones are just going to be bland summarys and(especially because you asked for post numbers) people telling you look here. You are simply trying to find the "juicy" passages where you can carve up someone and simply restate and paraphase some one else's case. The bottom really explains why the top is a lie. You want the new stuff because to you, stuff before you replace is old and new stuff(although it's explaining old stuff) is spicy and sexy. In short, The bottom says you want us to renew and restore old info and the top says Goatrevolt is cutting off us giving you brand New information.

LIES.

You're campaigning pretty hard for a vote yourself. All those past votes are going to do exactly what any current post would do, but those past posts don't take into account that I am playing the game, and don't involve me on a personal level.

Your not asking to be involved in the game (you can involve yourself by reading the thread and posting opinions). Us giving you summaries of old stuff isn't gonna take you into account either, it's just gonna tell you look here. You are trying to find an easy place to stow away.

Unvote: Vote:Zilla FoS:Beying Birthday

This is far far scummier. then what BB has been doing but I want answers BB.

[Goatrevolt]

I'm really not liking your reaction to this.

Vote: Goatrevolt

I'm pushing for information, you're saying that isn't good.

Are you even reading my posts, or are you just mad that I'm trying to shut down your attempt to get the abbreviated summary of the game rather than just reading it for yourself?

You're pushing for information that is available in the thread, and that you can easily see by simply

reading the game

something I would expect any replacement to do. You also have completely ignored the reasoning I gave for why I think it is a bad idea. Please read that, then get back to me.

He's got no votes and I don't like his attitude.

Why does me having no votes matter at all? What don't you like about my attitude? Is agreeing to your ever whim the mark of a townie?

Moreover, his logic also doesn't make sense, because the players are going to try to convince me in the past already anyway. It shouldn't make a difference if i'm reading old posts or new ones.

Have you ever read a book after having someone explain the entire storyline to you and what to look for? It's a lot different than reading a book completely unawares. You are influenced by what you expect to see and things you were told to look for. It colors your perception.

For example: If I tell you: "Hey MacativyLock is scum. Check out the way he does this and this when you read through the thread," then when you actually read the thread you might say "ah yeah, I see him doing it there!" and come to the conclusion that he's scummy. However, if you read completely unbiased, you might pick out some town tells of ML or get a completely different read on him, then you did since I told you what to look for in the thread.

Seriously. I can't make this simpler. Just read the game. If you were uninterested in reading the game, you should not have replaced in.

He's trying to stop a source of information, and that's not helpful at all to town. At the very least, it will be helpful to current players.

Wrong. The source of information you desire is already in the thread. I don't see how I'm stopping a source of information that is readily available to you by simply reading the game.

He's got a vote that needs explaining, also. He's the only one on MacCavityLock, and he should be explaining why he's there and where he stands on the top vote getters (something missing from the last few pages, at least).

I feel like I'm a broken record...You probably see where this is going already. I've explained my vote on MacavityLock. I've given stances on the top vote getters. This information and more available by reading the thread. LOL.

Also, I tend not to gain much from reading things before my replacement. It helps to have a frame of reference and comparing things in retrospect, rather than being confused and not having anything to base the players on. I need something to add color and dimensionality to the players, because as I'm reading right now, I have nothing to really distinguish one poster from another.

That is absolutely no different than the rest of the game. We all started out with no information on each other and have learned much by playing the game. You have nothing to distinguish one poster from the other, because you haven't read the game and learned information allowing you to distinguish one player from another...

All you're asking for is to have other players tell you how to think. Is that seriously what you want?

[PJ.]

Have you ever read a book after having someone explain the entire storyline to you and what to look for? It's a lot different than reading a book completely unawares. You are influenced by what you expect to see and things you were told to look for. It colors your perception.

I was gonna use this as an example but I wanted to be more consise(not knowing what books she read i couldn't have been) but I definently agree.

[subgenius]

Zilla, seriously, how can you cast a vote that quickly when I assume you still haven't read anything in the last 8 or 9 pages aside from the most recent vote count? I think Goatrevolt has clearly explained why he feels that it would be beneficial for you to go back and read the thread with an unbiased perspective.

You're campaigning pretty hard for a vote yourself. All those past votes are going to do exactly what any current post would do, but those past posts don't take into account that I am playing the game, and don't involve me on a personal level.

These responses make me feel your arguments are totally invalid, you are unwilling to back them up.

First, just because the earlier posts don't involve you on a personal level doesn't mean that you can't glean details from them. I assume your goal is to figure out who the scum players are. Regardless of whether or not the previous posts concern you personally, they contain details that will help you achieve this goal.

Secondly, I'm just flabbergasted that you would cast a vote based on Goatrevolt's very reasonable request that you read the thread for yourself. There's 11 pages of evidence for you to look at, and you fired off a vote based on :

1.

He's got no votes and I don't like his attitude.

As Goat already said, I'm not sure how having no votes is a scum tell, and I unpleasant attitude is not a scum tell.

2.

Moreover, his logic also doesn't make sense, because the players are going to try to convince me in the past already anyway. It shouldn't make a difference if i'm reading old posts or new ones.

You didn't really address Goat's argument as to why you'd be better of reading the thread without a summary. Just because you say the logic doesn't make sense, doesn't make it so.

3.

He's got a vote that needs explaining, also. He's the only one on MacCavityLock, and he should be explaining why he's there and where he stands on the top vote getters (something missing from the last few pages, at least).

Guess where you can find this information? He alluded to his reasons for his vote on Macavity on page 4, and if you read the thread you'll see his opinions on the top vote getters. In any case, what would Goat's stance on the top vote getters even mean to you? You haven't read the cases against them.

[subgenius]

@Panzer

I'm confused how in the same post you can describe Beyond Birthday's unvote as "by far the scummiest thing in this thread" and then finish the post by voting for Zilla and claiming she is in fact far scummier. You actually built something of a case against BB and explained how his unvote could be seen as a scummy flip flop. I'm not really seeing any case in your comments about Zilla. You characterize some of her post as lying, but I'd like to hear more about why you think she is lying. If she is, in fact, lying, I would surmise that her motive is to avoid rereading the thread, which isn't really all that scummy. Why do you think these alleged lies point to her being scum?

Why do you think that Zilla is so much scummier than BB? According to your post it seems to me that BB is the more likely scum, while Zilla is just a replacement that is trying to avoid reading 11 pages of play.

[springlullaby]

This is interesting. I'm going to reset my counter for the replacement.

Unvote

[Goatrevolt]

This is interesting. I'm going to reset my counter for the replacement.

Unvote

Why does replacement warrant reset?

[springlullaby]

I'll answer that after I see more from Zilla.

[Zilla]

I don't get anything from rereading. I've replaced before on day 2, and I couldn't even glean anything from day 1, and all my effective scumhunting was done based on things I saw after I replaced in.

It's tough and tedious to process that kind of information that has already happened without having an anchor, and I'm trying to get that anchor in the game.

IF you want my initial reactions, so far, it seems Panzer's been taking a lot of the spotlight and I find myself agreeing whoelheartedly with half of what he says, and disagreeing almost as strongly with the other half, which is peculiar for me. Usually, I have a solid feel about someone, a consistant read, but Panzer's been all over the place.

Specific examples:

And I'm not in any way sitting the fence. As I explained, I do think you are scummy but that doesn't mean I'm convinced you are scum. And as I have also explained, I think the wagon on you is sufficient as it is so I'm in no hurry to put you closer to a lynch.

Ironically in the same paragraph you tell me you're not Fence sitting you tell that you, indeed, are fence sitting.

This isn't exactly a pro-town tell, but he's got a point.

Also, read any of my games or ask a player who is prominent at this site and

@Gieff: I truly believe that you are singling me and trying to eventual force claim for inadquate and petty reasons.

I don't agree with the spin he's putting on this. It's all a matter of interpretation as for whether he's "singling" or actually hunting, and he's kind of second guessing motivation here.

Bah, the rest of his post is an argument about semantics.

You know, really, I want summaries on these cases because the way it looks right now, the arguments are really petty and stale, and we all need to take a step back and assess where we are on these things. Almost all the arguments I've seen so far this game are nit-picky and built up to be more than they should, and I really want some accountability here. You guys who refuse to summarize where you stand are eschewing accountability, and that is not a good sign for you or your case.

That is also why I'm voting Goatrevolt, his reaction tells me that he does not own his case. In fact, from what I've seen so far, nobody owns their case, because they refuse to recapitulate it.

[Zilla]

Also, you seem to think that I'm ready to buy anything anyone sells me, which is totally incorrect. This is a call to test your convictions. Don't think I won't be following up on these cases at all.

I haven't liked what I've seen so far. Most of these things seem to arguments based on nothing but pure speculation, which is hardly above the Random Voting Stage. I know it's day 1, but I've seen way too many arguments over semantics and supposed slips for my taste.