Good Omens Mafia! Game Over.

[Gaspode]

NOTE: Please read the entire post if you have time, don't just skip over it, especially if you are going to vote for me, since I believe I made some important points.

Wow, there's a lot there. I'll just tackle everything in chronological order, since that makes the most sense.

You're trying to redirect suspicion on the people who placed it on you in the first place with the argument that it seems ill-argued and rushed. Ill-argued and rushed it might be, but to me, at least, it's so obvious how and why it happened that the idea of pointing to it as an anomaly seems desperate.

*sighs* I knew someone would say something like this. I guess I should just post with a disclaimer from now on. Anyway, it made no difference to me that the bandwagon in question was on me; I would have pointed it out no matter who it was on. I understand that DP often gives no reasoning for his vote and that people often start bandwagons with little or no reasoning. I also understand that usually, on such a bandwagon, at least one of those people is scum. I was just pointing the fact out, not "desperately" trying to "derail" my bandwagon. Any decent scummer would have at least mentioned it, and it's not like my entire post revolved around it.

Bah, I really ought to be more careful. Nevertheless, I'm happy with my vote for now

Why? It seemed to me that you were completely on my side until you misread my last post. There's no need to just follow the crowd here unless you actually believe I'm scum.

Since then, I've realised my mistake, but I'm still suspicious of Gaspode in general. My gut reaction is that it's even chances he's scum, which to my mind is worth it.

This is a cop-out. What's suspicious about me? The only specific things you've said in reference to me all game were supportive of my logic. If you can back up your vote with good logic I'll back off, but right now it just seems like you don't feel like completely admitting that you were wrong in your interpretation of my post. That's not a good reason to vote for someone.

Ironic, considering I've been fighting against all the random/nonsense votes, but anyway.

You're right. To be perfectly consistent with my demands for logic-backed votes, I guess I shouldn't have random voted early on, but it's a tough habit to break.

So, maybe he only mentions this because he was particularly concerned with *not* falling into one of my traps?

Another misinterpretation. I did not mean this to be a reason not to follow you specifically. I meant it to support my argument that your reasons for voting are not always solid.

The main problem I have here is that if you insist on going slowly, what's the point of a random vote?

See the earlier point about my random vote.

Well, as you mentioned before, mith seemed to be 100% sure. You agree with most of what mith says. Most means more than 50%, and more than 50% of 100% is more than 50%, every time, no matter how you look at it. Therefore, you should be sure enough to vote.

Good point, I guess I was a bit careless with my wording. The point is, I cleared it up in a later post, saying that it wasn't my intention to come across as more than 50% sure korais was scum. I'm not a perfect writer, but a bad night at the keyboard doesn't make me scum.

But you agree with (most of) what he's saying -- why wouldn't you also agree in with him in the vote count? It's not like you'd be blindly following him, but you read his argument and made an informed desicion on them.

Yes, and my informed decision was that korais had done some suspicious things, but not enough to make me believe he was scum yet.

Again, if we all just sit there and watch until something suspicious enough for a vote comes up, this would be a really slow game. Although I could probably get my children to replace.

So we have different philosophies about the optimal speed of a game. By waiting for more information, I didn't mean that we should wait around forever; I just wanted to hear other people's views on the situation. Other people have an obligation to post as well, and I don't see anything wrong with wanting to hear other opinions before formulating my own.

That, or that you are NOT trying to start a bandwagon on them, and either say "Yeah, I thought that they weren't suspicious enough to vote for them" if they are town or "Yeah, I thought that there was something suspicious about them" if they are scum.

We all know that doesn't work, and I thought you knew I wasn't stupid enough to attempt that ploy. I guess you don't. I wasn't trying to set anything up; I just wanted to show that I was thinking about what was going on and provide an interesting topic for discussion. As I said, everyone has an obligation to post things of substance; I was trying to fulfill mine.

So what are you saying? That we should vote for innocent looking people? Obiously you'd agree in that it sounds like a silly plan. My point is, we have to go after suspicious people, and hope they are not town.

Obviously I don't think we should vote for innocent-looking people; I just think it can sometimes be dangerous to vote for suspicious people too quickly, because they often turn out to be powerful innocents. And now that I look back at mith's original anti-korais post once again, I realize that his logic is even thinner than I remembered. That's not to say that it's wrong; I just don't think it's nearly enough to vote for someone. When I said I agreed with most of what mith said, I basically meant that I agreed that each individual case he presented was slightly suspicious, but disagreed with his belief that it made korais look scummy enough for a vote. My post was simply one of caution, nothing more.

It seems to consist almost entirely of poor reading comprehension.

This post made me laugh, because it is largely true: not so much that people are unable to read, but that this whole thing has been caused by misinterpretations of my posts.

For now, I am withholding my vote for two reasons: a) the discussion is all about me right now, and we should resolve a few more issues before adding something else to the equation, b) I know people would jump all over me for "trying to derail suspicion". I'm sure they'll jump all over me for this paragraph and my lack of a vote, but I don't care, since I don't think it's the right time for a new vote right now anyway.

Sorry if any of this doesn't make sense, I'll be happy to clear anything up; it's a lot to be writing in one post.

[Polotet]

Gaspode, I'm pretty sure posting the same thing three times isn't going to affect whether people trust you or not. ;p

Multiple posts deleted for your reading pleasure.

[mepmuff]

Oops... Somehow I managed not to get any more topic notifications and didn't check the thread for new posts myself. So I had to catch up, and quite a bit had happened.

First of all:

unvote

.

Next, on the gaspode issue: I didn't see enough to warrant a vote yet. It was ceratinly enough to warrant the discussion, which I will have to read again to get the full picture here.

[mith]

Another misinterpretation. I did not mean this to be a reason not to follow you specifically. I meant it to support my argument that your reasons for voting are not always solid.

Which is irrelevant if you claim to agree with most of those reasons...

(Stewie and Gaspode) Regarding the "50%" thing... well, for one thing, you can't really put a number on suspicion that's actually meaningful. I'm surprised Stewie even included something like this in an argument, and equally surprised Gaspode didn't jump on him for it. (Just Stewie) Also, it seems a bit silly to suggest that since it's 50% for you, it should be exactly the same for everyone else. Maybe Gaspode will vote when he's "60% sure", whatever that means; is that extra 10% going to slow the game down horribly? Of course not. And finally, agreeing with 50% of the points made by someone who is 100% sure (and I'm not) does not equally you being 50% sure anyway. Perhaps the one point he disagrees with is the really big one for me. Bad math, crap logic.

So, small FOS to you both. I still don't see nearly enough to vote for Gaspode, and I'm surprised that the wagon is as large as it is.

[mith]

Oh, almost forgot:

HOS: Aelyn.

I would, in fact, switch if I weren't so convinced korais is scum.

That's

hackney

humpenscrump

hyperemesis

hand

of suspicion.

[Aelyn]

Bah, I really ought to be more careful. Nevertheless, I'm happy with my vote for now

Why? It seemed to me that you were completely on my side until you misread my last post. There's no need to just follow the crowd here unless you actually believe I'm scum.

Since then, I've realised my mistake, but I'm still suspicious of Gaspode in general. My gut reaction is that it's even chances he's scum, which to my mind is worth it.

This is a cop-out. What's suspicious about me? The only specific things you've said in reference to me all game were supportive of my logic. If you can back up your vote with good logic I'll back off, but right now it just seems like you don't feel like completely admitting that you were wrong in your interpretation of my post. That's not a good reason to vote for someone.

I found the entire post slightly suspicious. I had been kinda supportive of you, as I was uncertain and wished to play conservatively. However, your last post before I voted you was suspicious in a number of ways, and I only pointed out the most obvious. Perhaps that was a fallacy, and I should have pointed out everything I found suspicious... but it's kinda difficult to point out a vibe.

I apologise for the error, and I'll try to be a bit more clear in the future.

@Mith: Why the HOS? You haven't mentioned me since the affair started, and you suddenly point your hand at me without even mentioning why?

[olio]

Stewie, I'm still waiting for your take on Genocide Heart.

What about him?

You sure do attack Gaspode because "his lack of voting even though he voices his suspicions", while at the same time Genocide Heart does the same thing and you don't even seem to notice.

You apply your logic to only one person and that is scummy in my eyes.

unvote
vote: Stewie

[korais666]

vote: mith 50% out of spite for starting the acronym thing

Read: I have no sense of humor, so I will act superior and pretend to have some reasoning behind my vote.

50% out of spite for starting the acronym thing

If this is actually a serious reason, you have problems.

No, it wasn't, and I'm sorry for not being funny. I won't even try in the future.

and we can have a sense of humor, because, hey, this is supposed to be fun.

Again, I get your point, and you won't see me at the mafiascum open mic.

Huh. I'd love to know what your reason was for changing what I quoted. It's not really something you can do accidentally.

I know who I'm playing mafia with here, and I know there are experienced players in this game, and I know the majority of the people in this game go back and look over old posts during the game. It would be

completely

idiotic for me to try and "sneak in" a fake quote, hoping everyone took my word that that's what you said. That being said, you

know

that it was a mistake, and I'm astonished you even bothered to post that comment at all. A simple "you misquoted me" would have been enough, or even posting the correct quote yourself if you were feeling nice and wanted to make sure everyone understood what you were talking about.

For your piece of mind, I will explain. I had to cut and paste that quote a couple times because I was having some trouble with my browser, and by accident (yes, by accident) I put lines where they shouldn't have been. The correct quote is:

As amusing as the acronyms were (read: not amusing), I'd like to play some mafia here.

Read: I have no sense of humor, so I will act superior and pretend to have some reasoning behind my vote.

50% out of spite for starting the acronym thing

Read: Random.

If this is actually a serious reason, you have problems. I will note that a. I've used VGOMS before, and it's not my fault none of you were around for it, b. The second one was a direct response to the Mod, who was also participating in the fun, and c. if you really want to insist on looking for suspicion in strange places, it's probably best placed on the followers.

Now, allow me address your playing style for a moment:

That first paragraph is an insult to ass halves everywhere.

Okay, now you're pretty much just insulting me for the hell of it. I understand the word disagree, you can say "I disagree, and I don't think that's a good reason for you to vote for me," and I will completely understand your reasoning. Mafia games do not need to be personal.

As for the second, again, this is something easily verifiable if it's true, but you would rather base it on what *you know* of how he likes to play. And this somehow outweighs what I know, having played in, oh, twice as many games with him, and having met him in meatworld twice?

I said in my first post about it that *I don't actually know* whether he would use the kill these days, but you're going to have to do better than "I know better than you for no reason whatsoever".

Where did I say I knew him better than you? I say what I know from my experience. I can't base my opinions off of what

you

know about people.

And besides, show me an example of him *not* using a night 1 vig kill and I'd be more apt to believe you. As of now, it seems to be your guess vs. my guess.

However, at this point, I

am

suspicious of you, because hyperspazzing over something small and insignificant early in the game is something that I've seen others and myself do as mafia in the past.

I'm sorry, but when I have *just* made a point about random voting still going on, and then someone votes for me for some completely idiotic reason because they can't find anything better, they're getting their post ripped apart.

Well, the alternative is not participating at all. I found what I viewed (and still view) as a strange thing to say, so I brought it out. I didn't just pick you at random then find a piece of crap evidence so it would seem justified. In my mind (and you've made it clear that you do not share the same opinion) voting for you made sense at the time, because your post seemed iffy. Now that I see other, even more suspicious people surfacing, I'm going to change my vote.

If you want to see hyperspazzing though, I suggest you read: Minvitational 2

What exactly are you trying to prove by this? That you're prone to hyperspazzing? That you're just as capable of it now as you were 28 months ago?

Also, there's a difference between here and there. In the minivitational you wrote a long post in response to other long posts. Here, I wrote 5 sentences, and you wrote a long post, which included telling me how much I suck several times for no logical reason.

Your vote appears to be because according to you A) I have no sense of humor and am bad at mafia (which falls under same category as "spite for the acronyms") and B) because you disagree with me as far as the IS scenario and speculation being important.

So, to sum up, half of your reason for voting for me is that you feel that the IS scenario doesn't matter right now and that I am speculating too much. Yet these are both your opinions, specifically ones we differ on, and not tangible pieces of evidence. I'm getting the same sense of "waaaaaaa, korais disagreed with me I'll vote for him" you were talking about before.

However, as I said before,

unvote: mith

, because there are more suspicious people out there, although keeping an

FOS: mith

out there for the hyperspaz earlier, I don't see a rational explanation other than panic or pre-existing emotions.

vote: electra, FOS: DP, Stewie & roland

.

Oh yes, finally, a truly suspicious post in the middle of all the speculation of things I know nothing about.

vote: Gaspode

because that's exactly the kind of nothing mafia would say.

Saying "the mafia would say X" doesn't work as evidence, because everyone plays differently as mafia. Besides, the "nothing" that you refer to is gaspode deciding to wait until there is more evidence. That's not nothing, that's being a smart player. Rather than jumping on a bandwagon while admitting you don't understand what's going on, you could reread the thread, then if you're still unclear on anything, ask questions.

As for the other three of you, don't just say "that post is suspicious" without saying what's suspicious about it. If it's because he's not voting, and posting that he's not voting, then why no suspicions against Aelyn, who did the same thing 5 posts later, or genocide heart, who did the same thing in post 110?

[korais666]

Also, could we get a prod for those people who have yet to post, or who haven't since the very beginning? I feel like 10-12 people are dominating this currently 28 person game.

[Stewie]

Stewie, I'm still waiting for your take on Genocide Heart.

What about him?

You sure do attack Gaspode because "his lack of voting even though he voices his suspicions", while at the same time Genocide Heart does the same thing and you don't even seem to notice.

You apply your logic to only one person and that is scummy in my eyes.

unvote
vote: Stewie

Well damn, we can only lynch

one

scum each day. We could go after him, but that would be a waste of time, since there are quite a few votes on gaspode already.

[mith]

Aelyn: I thought it was obvious. The whole voting for Gaspode on a bad premise and then sticking with your vote.

korais666:

I know who I'm playing mafia with here, and I know there are experienced players in this game, and I know the majority of the people in this game go back and look over old posts during the game. It would be completely idiotic for me to try and "sneak in" a fake quote, hoping everyone took my word that that's what you said. That being said, you know that it was a mistake, and I'm astonished you even bothered to post that comment at all. A simple "you misquoted me" would have been enough, or even posting the correct quote yourself if you were feeling nice and wanted to make sure everyone understood what you were talking about.

For your piece of mind, I will explain. I had to cut and paste that quote a couple times because I was having some trouble with my browser, and by accident (yes, by accident) I put lines where they shouldn't have been. The correct quote is:

~shrug~ That came off as a bit more of an accusation than I intended. I agree, it's not something one would do to try to fool anyone. I was just completely baffled as to how you can manage to change *part* of a quote by accident. But anyway.

Okay, now you're pretty much just insulting me for the hell of it.

Um... no? You called your evidence "half-assed", yet there wasn't actually any evidence there. There was nothing remotely personal about it. Though I did find the phrase "ass halves" quite amusing, and we've gathered that you probably didn't.

Where did I say I knew him better than you? I say what I know from my experience. I can't base my opinions off of what you know about people.

And besides, show me an example of him *not* using a night 1 vig kill and I'd be more apt to believe you. As of now, it seems to be your guess vs. my guess.

Er, well, you kinda implied you think you know better when you mentioned it as a reason for voting for me. As for the rest, you seem to be missing the point that

I don't care

whether he would use it or not. As I mentioned, I am only discussing it because people keep arguing and voting for me for no reason. Part of the problem here is that I *can't* show you all the games I've played with IS in, as they simply aren't around any more. All I'm saying is that I never remember him Vig killing on night one, which is a hell of a lot more than you're saying ("I've never seen him do it either, but *I* think he would."). I don't have time for a complete search, but a quick look doesn't reveal any games in which he even had a normal Vig role, other than the ongoing one.

Well, the alternative is not participating at all. I found what I viewed (and still view) as a strange thing to say, so I brought it out.

Beyond the fact that it doesn't even matter, why would I make up a theory on whether IS would do that or not? If I knew I was wrong, it would be a simple matter for someone to point it out (what with people like DP in the game), and "fooling" people wouldn't accomplish anything anyway. And no, the alternative isn't not participating. There was plenty to go through to find something better than this nonsense.

What exactly are you trying to prove by this? That you're prone to hyperspazzing? That you're just as capable of it now as you were 28 months ago?

Perhaps that different people have different opinions on what a long post is? My first post at you was *not* that long, and only appeared that way because I quoted a lot; it's just what I do.

Also, there's a difference between here and there. In the minivitational you wrote a long post in response to other long posts. Here, I wrote 5 sentences, and you wrote a long post, which included telling me how much I suck several times for no logical reason.

Actually, that post was the result of Antrax and I going back and forth for a while. Kinda like you and I are doing now. You see how your post is longer than mine was, and how this one will be longer than yours? Anyway, no, that was not me "hyperspazzing". That was me going through a post and analyzing it. It looks long and scary because I quote everything, so people don't have to go back and look for what I'm talking about.And hell, part of my post was me talking about the relative humor value of acronyms. That's not exactly what I'd call freaking out.

I never once said you suck. I believe that I said:

1. You have no sense of humor (which you agreed with).
2. If the acronym thing was a serious reason, you have problems (you admitted your evidence was half-assed, so I assume it *wasn't* serious).
3. Your take on IS was the logical equivalent of Stewie's (because it was).
4. You used Crap Logic (tm) (because you did).

And I believe that covers "for no logical reason". You can hardly blame me for ripping your post apart when you *agree* that it was "half-assed" at best.

Your vote appears to be because according to you A) I have no sense of humor and am bad at mafia (which falls under same category as "spite for the acronyms") and B) because you disagree with me as far as the IS scenario and speculation being important.

So, to sum up, half of your reason for voting for me is that you feel that the IS scenario doesn't matter right now and that I am speculating too much. Yet these are both your opinions, specifically ones we differ on, and not tangible pieces of evidence. I'm getting the same sense of "waaaaaaa, korais disagreed with me I'll vote for him" you were talking about before.

Wow, a bit of a sarcastic sense of humor after all. Shame the premise is wrong. I am voting for you because:

1. You voted for me, based on Crap Logic (tm).
2. You admitted your evidence was bad, but kept your vote on me anyway, because I was "hyperspazzing". Except I wasn't.
3. You refuse to look for any verification to your IS-vig claim, despite that the burden of proof lies with you. You voted for me because of it, whereas I have shown several times that it is completely irrelevant, yet I have still put more effort into finding out the truth.
4. Having failed to win any points in the logic competition, you use bad analogies and sarcasm to try to misrepresent what I say.
5. You use the classicly scummy Unvote/FOS to bail out.

In other words, your posting style has been entirely consistent with what I usually see from scum when I go after them like this.

[Aelyn]

Fair dos, Mith. I guess I simply never mentioned that that sentence wasn't the only reason I felt he was scummy, simply the largest.

Regarding the Korais situation: This intrigues me. Korais seems to have hugely over-reacted to what seemed to me to be early-game banter, and then grew angry when he was challenged about that. That seems to me to either be scummy, or simply be an indication that recently Korais has been very much over-tired.

I dunno, though. Mith's arguments are pretty convincing.

Unvote: Gaspode, vote: Korais666

[olio]

Well damn, we can only lynch

one

scum each day. We could go after him, but that would be a waste of time, since there are quite a few votes on gaspode already.

I'm sure there are more than one scum in this game. Or do you usually concentrate on one person at time? Why are you so sure Gaspode will be lynched today?

Fair dos, Mith. I guess I simply never mentioned that that sentence wasn't the only reason I felt he was scummy, simply the largest.

Damn. Stewie is right. We can only lynch scum / day. That sentence of Aelyn's makes it hard for me to choose.

[Seol]

Just to say I'm here, I've got my PM, I haven't read the thread, I'm just about to do just that

[Stewie]

Well damn, we can only lynch

one

scum each day. We could go after him, but that would be a waste of time, since there are quite a few votes on gaspode already.

I'm sure there are more than one scum in this game. Or do you usually concentrate on one person at time? Why are you so sure Gaspode will be lynched today?

1. We can always get them tomorrow (the other scum).
2. Yeah, I like to concentrate on one person. If someone more suspicious comes along, then I'll change my vote, but I won't change it from someone equally suscious, unless they have more votes.
3. I'm not sure if he will be lynched today. Where is this implied?

3. Your take on IS was the logical equivalent of Stewie's (because it was).

Uh, no it's not. I didn't vote you for it. In fact, I think that it's not relevant when it comes to deducing whether you are scum or not. The only thing similar is that we both think that IS kills night one as a vigi.

[lazarusmoth]

I'm really getting the feeling that mith and korais are two townies "hypersazzing" on each other.

My vote stays for now but an FOS for Aelyn for being personally confused on whether or not Korais is scum but deciding to follow mith after all.

[korais666]

Hm. My post turned out equally hyperspazzish when I went back through it.

To start, I found "ass halves" amusing, but I took calling my post "an insult to ass halves everywhere" as an insult.

I don't have time for a complete search, but a quick look doesn't reveal any games in which he even had a normal Vig role, other than the ongoing one.

That was pretty much my point. Neither of us have any evidence other than what we think about IS.

Anyway, I see what you're trying to say now, except for this quote:

5. You use the classicly scummy Unvote/FOS to bail out.

When did that become a scum move? What I was saying was "Electra's post is scummier than yours, but I'm still keeping an eye on you, moreso than everyone else." That seems pretty normal when it comes to a long back-and-forth discussion.

If you would like me to use an Eye Of Suspicion instead, perhaps that would be more accurate, but I like to stick with acronyms everyone recognizes.

That was a joke. Heh. Heh heh.

Anyways, I'll find some examples of me doing the same thing in other games, if you want.

[Locus Cosecant]

I'm really getting the feeling that mith and korais are two townies "hypersazzing" on each other.

I've had bad experiences with that kind of assumption... nobody believed me when I told them MeMe was scum.

[rolandofthewhite]

I've had bad experiences with that kind of assumption... nobody believed me when I told them MeMe was scum.

Hee. That was a fun game.

[Locus Cosecant]

I've had bad experiences with that kind of assumption... nobody believed me when I told them MeMe was scum.

Hee. That was a fun game.

unvote, vote: rolandofthewhite

[rolandofthewhite]

[Dragon Phoenix]

Still happy with my vote on Gaspode.

[olio]

1. We can always get them tomorrow (the other scum).
2. Yeah, I like to concentrate on one person. If someone more suspicious comes along, then I'll change my vote, but I won't change it from someone equally suscious, unless they have more votes.
3. I'm not sure if he will be lynched today. Where is this implied?

Ok. If you want to concentrate on one person, that is your choice. It just is scummy in my eyes letting others do the same thing you're using as a main argument to vote somebody and not even FOS'ing them. Also that kind of one-sided approach - as according to your posts you're only finding Gaspode scummy - isn't as fruitfull from the conversational point of view.

When it comes to point "3." above, this you said:

We could go after him, but that would be a waste of time, since there are quite a few votes on gaspode already.

Maybe I read in it too much, but you seem to imply that as there's a good and healthy bandwagon, we should finish it and discuss more/concentrate on others some other day. I know it's day 1, but still.

[Desperate Heart]

Note that horrible as Korais' reasons may be, Mepmuff's are still worse.

I agree. You seem to think those reasons are not horrible enough to warrant a vote though.

unvote
vote: Genocide Heart

I think mepmuff deserves it, but I dislike placing a vote whenever a new person seems scummiest and prefer to wait until I'm much more sure. Way I play (And I don't think it's dangerous any, though if anyone disagrees please say so.)

If you really care, though,

vote: mepmuff

.

Are you scum, ignorant, or do you just hate me?

[JDTAY]

Oh no, the quotes within quotes within quotes have arrived.

*head explodes*