Mini 757 - South Park Mafia (Game Over)

[dejkha]

I'll post my suspicions later tonight or sometime tomorrow.

[nicoliosgotpolio]

No problem. My school did You're a Good Man, Charlie Brown last year, and as soon as I saw your signature I was like "Just like a busy bee, each new philosophy, can fly from tree to tree and keep.. me... moving!" in my head all over again.

[Riceballtail]

1) Don't really like the Dej wagon.
2) I didn't like people pressuring me for a claim when mine is potentially subtle. However, one as obvious as "TIMMEH" every other line is kinda hard to not notice... mkay?

[nonny]

Okay...but it's fine for you to pressure him? No one pressured you to claim! They asked to just admit you have a PR then move on. A full claim was stupid.

Why don't you like the wagon? Cause that is a very scum thing to do, saw you are against something with no reason so that if they are lynched and flip town you can say you were against it without really trying to prevent it.

[Spolium]

TIMMAAAAAH

Yes RBT, please explain your dislike for the dej wagon.

Timmeh Timmyyyyy jibbadroobidaaaaaah TIMMAH

Haaaah

[Empking]

Clearly, if I didn't have a PR, I wouldn't use "mkay" at the end of every post I've made. .

I didn't like people pressuring me for a claim when mine is potentially subtle

These seem to contradict each other slightly.

[caf19]

2) I didn't like people pressuring me for a claim when mine is potentially subtle. However, one as obvious as "TIMMEH" every other line is kinda hard to not notice... mkay?

Asking you whether or not you have a PR is not the same as asking you to claim.

Actually, I wouldn't mind a dej lynch at this point...

vote: dej

Hrm. This is the same sort of minimal elaboration that I was bringing Empking up for previously. Going from not expressing much of an opinion, to not just voting, but saying a 'lynch at this point' is acceptable? Ok, so eight or nine days until deadline isn't that long, but there's no need to get ahead of ourselves. That is somewhat reminiscent of scum trying to push a wagon along. Your explanation is that "He hasn't really tried to explain himself..." - so if he does explain himself, will you still advocate a lynch?

Unvote

. dej has been scummy, but so have some of those on his wagon. I don't want to help the wagon to reach critical mass while I'm still not totally decided.

@

Mod

: prod fuzzylightning please?

[dejkha]

Would there be any harm in saying which character you are? As far as I know, the effects of each aren't known yet, possibly except for obvious ones like Officer Barbrady or maybe Satan if they're in it. Not that I'm suggesting claiming your character is the right thing to do, but with Spolium repeatedly giving a Timmy reference, it doesn't seem like it's a big deal...

The post that started it all. I'll call it "the post" for easy reference. Before I get into this, I think what may have caused confusion was how I asked the first question. I said "Would there be any harm in saying which character you are?" and you all may think I asked it as oppose to "Would there be any good in saying which character you are?" which would imply that I don't think it's a good idea where as my original phrasing of the question implies that I do. Maybe that caused problems, maybe not. Anyway:

At first I suspected Spolium the most, but re-reading the thread gave me a new opinion.

I noticed that Nonny and Nico answered the initial question with reasons and that was all. Then Spolium made a post saying how only the question was scummy and made no note of anything after it. After that, Nonny notes how it was weird, but, I for one, think that would be something you'd notice from reading the question the first time. So, while she must've had the opinion, 'it was weird', she didn't think it was weird enough to bring up until someone else did.

I personally didn't notice that part either, but it doesn't change the fact that you brought it up, for essentially no point. Especially this point in the game.

^Doesn't that also seem like something she would think from reading "the post" the first time, rather than waiting until someone else found the question scummy? If she thought "the post" was as scummy as she made it look, she would not have waited until someone else brought it up.

Anyone that made their first post and used that for an argument after that nonny's above post is hard to get a read on.

And bringing up the subject is suggesting it.

That was a very false statement. I don't know if anyone else noticed, but it really is for obvious reasons.

Still wondering your opinion on name claiming.

Oh really?

Now once again what is your actual opinion on nameclaiming?

I answered that already in a response to Rest's post, but apparently it didn't go through, as far as I can tell. People answered my question on the matter,

so I'm against it.

And she acknowledged my answer by saying.

Because now it appears you are only against it because everyone else is.

So obviously, I did say my position and she was aware of it.

Yes, I have [been reading]. And I'm not the only one noticing that it's missing.

Actually, I think you were. Or at least you were trying to make it seem that way. But that looks like you're trying to make me look even more suspicious by making it look like I haven't answered questions that I have answered.

That actually makes sense. If you could have said that earlier instead of getting defensive it would of been better. Now that you know other peoples opinions on nameclaiming, what do you think of it?

The first sentence may be her trying to look like she's being understandable, but the second sentence is her asking for my opinion on name claiming

again

.

So, for most of the thread, she's pushing harder and harder because of a post that seemed fine until it Spolium made something of it that would've been obvious at first glance.

If there's anyone like that, I would expect it to be caf

, so I'll wait to see what he thinks.

Howsabout you do some actual scumhunting

instead of buddying up to caf

and pointing out everyone else's shortcomings?

7. In post 72, why did you single out Caf in particular as the most likely person to be open-minded?

7. Because I've played with him before and he was useful and logical player,

so I figured if anyone would understand, it would be him

.

I can see why he may have wanted an explanation, but the bolded parts are pretty much the same. Why would I single out Caf if I thought he wasn't useful or logical? It seems like a given. I'll give Spolium only a few scumpoints for that, but I could see where he was coming from if he was serious.

I answered that already in a response to Rest's post, but apparently it didn't go through, as far as I can tell. People answered my question on the matter, so I'm against it.

This boils down to two vital, bullshit elements:

1 - "Oh, I answered the question already but APPARENTLY it didn't go through, AS FAR AS I CAN TELL."
2 - "My question was answered, so I'm against it"

1 is a prime example of dej's wishy-washy play. "Apparently"? "As far as [dejkha] can tell"? Is there some way to check whether a post went through, other than hitting the refresh key? Why the forced implication of uncertainty? The post either went through, or it didn't.

Understandable point, but an unnecessary, reaching one IMO. I see no way how my post could come back to haunt me if I posted in certainty and it seems like an easy way to attract suspicion to me.

Nico hasn't been saying much, which seems to be because of restricted access, but I'm gonna let her get by because of that. She seemed to understand what I was saying, she asked me a few questions, I answered and she understood my answers, which makes this a little weird:

Actually, I wouldn't mind a dej lynch at this point...

vote: dej

with her reasoning being:

He hasn't really tried to explain himself about anything this game.

Which seems a little weird to me considering how she has hardly posted and when she did, most of the time, if not every time, it was a question to me that I answered. Sounds like she saw how everyone was saying I wasn't answering questions, so she said I wasn't explaining. Sounds like an easy way on the wagon to me.

God help the town if Spolium is Mafia.

No biggy, but i really don't like that statement. Just seems like an odd thing to say.

Those are my thoughts. I'll let everyone else think of it what they will.

Unvote Vote: Nonny

[nonny]

Yes pulling things out of context is amazing. I said you hadn't answer

why

you were against it! Saying yay or nay doesn't count as giving your opinion on a subject. You have to give reasoning without reasoning there is no opinion and no solid stance. So because you weren't able to give me reasons and I kept asking for them that makes me scummy? Care to elobrate? Right now that looks very OMGUS.

there are still millions of questions out there for you to answer and instead of doing so you just decide to go after me. And like I said, you already picked to be against me, all this "proof" is after the fact that you said you already thought I was suspicious.

[dejkha]

Yes pulling things out of context is amazing. I said you hadn't answer

why

you were against it! Saying yay or nay doesn't count as giving your opinion on a subject. You have to give reasoning without reasoning there is no opinion and no solid stance. So because you weren't able to give me reasons and I kept asking for them that makes me scummy? Care to elobrate? Right now that looks very OMGUS.

there are still millions of questions out there for you to answer and instead of doing so you just decide to go after me. And like I said, you already picked to be against me, all this "proof" is after the fact that you said you already thought I was suspicious.

I said you would be suspicious under circumstances that turned out not to be true. There's nothing OMGUS about it. If I were to OMGUS vote, then it would be against Spolium since he's been all over me with this as well as leading the attack.

Feel free to restate any question you have for me as long as I haven't answered it and it doesn't have to do with a suggestion that I didn't make.

[dejkha]

BTW, asking my opinion on it isn't asking why. If you wanted a why (which I also gave to you) then you should've specifically said so, which I don't think you did.

[nonny]

I did ask why, I asked it many times. Like I said before, in mafia you must say why you think something is a certain way you can't just say something positive or negative about it. You aren't the only person I've hounded about this, I've said the same thing to those who are voting or supporting or against lynches with no reason. It's not like I'm singling you out asking for reasoning. With out reasons we have no read on each other. I feel like I have to be an IC in this game too...this is very basic. The best way to help our town is to explain every thing thoroughly!

I already accepted your answer for why you thought you weren't suggesting it because you were unclear. I still think you should have phrased it differently if you were really just asking for others opinion and not saying you wanted it done. I have hounded you about that since. Why do you feel the need to bring it up?

I'm not the only one that has asked you questions that have gone unanswered. I'm getting sick of it honestly.

[dejkha]

I said why in the form of Rest's response. I mean, everyone's reasons seemed pretty solid, but I favored hers the most. I don't need to say anything else regarding why.

[Spolium]

HEY DEJKHA DO YOU REMEMBER WHEN YOU SAID

Oh I am scumhunting. And you and nonny really seem to pushing this, so you can bet I suspect you both.

You more than her BTW and for more reasons than one.

Buuuuut, none of which I'll say now.

Why is it that in your case, which you have FINALLY unveiled, you make no reference to any post of mine which came before #74? Where are these "more reasons than one"? WHAT HAS BECOME OF THEM DEJKHA

TIMMMMMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH Timmy Timmy?

TIMMEH

.

[dejkha]

I guess they were lost in the abyss of reason. Hell, I don't even remember what they were (maybe it was OMGUS), but I'm more confident in my vote on nonny since I reread.

[nonny]

that's why you say everything up front!

I KNOW YOU FAVOR REST!!! You have said this I have acknowledged this, I wasn't asking you to say such a thing again. I was pointing out that all along I was asking for reasons not just a blanket I agree or I don't. Also I still find it some what wrong that you want to hide behind some one else's logic and not state something in your own opinion doesn't make sense to me, but to each thier own.

I agree with spoilum, and that is exactly what I assumed would happen when dej said they wouldn't reveal things at that moment.

[dejkha]

Oh wow, I'm not gonna hear the end of this am I? So what if I forgot? I certainty wouldn't have forgotten anything important. There's no point in arguing it, so please don't.

[nonny]

Or you had nothing to begin with and just wanted to try and push the suspicion on to others for no known reason?

All I will say for now want others to chime in.

[dejkha]

Or not, since it's near impossible to push suspicion onto someone without making a case or displaying any sort of evidence whatsoever. I'm feeling more and more confident with my vote with every post you make =D

[Spolium]

Timmeh, Timmeh, Timmeh... more dejkha fun. TIMANASDHGFD

So, for most of the thread, she's pushing harder and harder because of a post that seemed fine until it Spolium made something of it that would've been obvious at first glance.

If there's anyone like that, I would expect it to be caf

, so I'll wait to see what he thinks.

Howsabout you do some actual scumhunting

instead of buddying up to caf

and pointing out everyone else's shortcomings?

7. In post 72, why did you single out Caf in particular as the most likely person to be open-minded?

7. Because I've played with him before and he was useful and logical player,

so I figured if anyone would understand, it would be him

.

I can see why he may have wanted an explanation, but the bolded parts are pretty much the same.

It doesn't matter whether the bold parts are the same. You singled out caf, implying special knowledge of his character, and did so without explaination.

My question was entirely justified. TIMMAAAHAHAH

Incidently, I find it interesting that in your assessment of caf, you didn't seem to give even the slightest consideration to the possibility that he might be scum.

- What do you think about caf's refusal to support you?
- Does this fly in the face of your hope that he be open minded?
- Do you find him scummy as a result?

Why would I single out Caf if I thought he wasn't

useful or logical

? It seems like a given.

Waaaaait a second. (TIMMEH!)

Remember what you said in #72 (and snipped down when you quoted it above)? It was: "

is there someone with an ounce of open mindedness in them.

If there's anyone like that, I would expect it to be caf, so I'll wait to see what he thinks.

" Nothing about logic or usefulness declared until after I asked question 7.

- How is it a

given

that caf was useful/logical, when the implicit implication was that you valued his

open-mindedness

?

- Why are you trying to equate

agreement with dejkha

"open-mindedness"

to

logic/usefulness

?

- Why do you think I deserve scummy points for not assuming a connection between two different concepts?

1 - "Oh, I answered the question already but APPARENTLY it didn't go through, AS FAR AS I CAN TELL."
2 - "My question was answered, so I'm against it"

1 is a prime example of dej's wishy-washy play. "Apparently"? "As far as [dejkha] can tell"? Is there some way to check whether a post went through, other than hitting the refresh key? Why the forced implication of uncertainty? The post either went through, or it didn't.

Understandable point, but an unnecessary, reaching one IMO.

I see no way how my post could come back to haunt me if I posted in certainty

and it seems like an easy way to attract suspicion to me.

Can you explain what you mean by the emboldened text? I can't make any sense of it.

I'm not sure what you mean in saying it's an easy way to attract suspicion to you. It's not at all easy to convince people that a linguistic feature suggests scumminess, as indicated by the fact that nobody has really taken to it. TIIIIIEEEEEMMMMMMAAAAARRRGGGHHH

[dejkha]

It doesn't matter whether the bold parts are the same. You singled out caf, implying special knowledge of his character, and did so without explaination.

My question was entirely justified. TIMMAAAHAHAH

I didn't say it wasn't. Hence me saying I could understand why you asked.

Incidently, I find it interesting that in your assessment of caf, you didn't seem to give even the slightest consideration to the possibility that he might be scum.

- What do you think about caf's refusal to support you?
- Does this fly in the face of your hope that he be open minded?
- Do you find him scummy as a result?

- I don't think much of it. Just like I don't think much of anyone else that doesn't support me outside of you and nonny.
- Nope
- Nope, but then again, he's not posting so much, so I don't have much to work with.

Waaaaait a second. (TIMMEH!)

Remember what you said in #72 (and snipped down when you quoted it above)? It was: "

is there someone with an ounce of open mindedness in them.

If there's anyone like that, I would expect it to be caf, so I'll wait to see what he thinks.

" Nothing about logic or usefulness declared until after I asked question 7.

- How is it a

given

that caf was useful/logical, when the implicit implication was that you valued his

open-mindedness

?

- Why are you trying to equate

agreement with dejkha

"open-mindedness"

to

logic/usefulness

?

- Why do you think I deserve scummy points for not assuming a connection between two different concepts?

- Those can all be answered by pointing to my "I can see why he may have wanted an explanation". I didn't say they were the say thing.

Can you explain what you mean by the emboldened text? I can't make any sense of it.

I'm not sure what you mean in saying it's an easy way to attract suspicion to you. It's not at all easy to convince people that a linguistic feature suggests scumminess, as indicated by the fact that nobody has really taken to it. TIIIIIEEEEEMMMMMMAAAAARRRGGGHHH

I mean if I were to rephrase the statement, making it certain, such as "My response to Rest's post didn't go through", as opposed to my original uncertain post, I can't see how it could be used against me. Understand?

[nonny]

Or not, since it's near impossible to push suspicion onto someone without making a case or displaying any sort of evidence whatsoever. I'm feeling more and more confident with my vote with every post you make =D

Saying that unless poeple ask/pressure you to claim they should move on and then one or two posts later saying by the way I suspect these poeple but won't say way is a poor way to attempt just that. It's not impossible it's just not done by those who know how to play.

You were attempting to get the attention off of yourself by putting up a curtain and saying to look over there. But you wouldn't say what is there, just that something must be there. Now you again are trying to detract attention from yourself and turn it on others while you are at L-3. Suddenly when poeple are asking you for info and possibly a claim you suddenly have reasons(that you will share) why we should be concentrating on others. This is all silly and mediocre ways to play mafia. I've seen it happen a lot in many different games, but it's always annoying and makes me ask what are you trying to hide?

[Spolium]

Haaaaah yabbadoodwaaaa TIMMYYY

It doesn't matter whether the bold parts are the same. You singled out caf, implying special knowledge of his character, and did so without explaination.

My question was entirely justified. TIMMAAAHAHAH

I didn't say it wasn't. Hence me saying I could understand why you asked.

An implication of "

Spolium made something of it that would've been obvious at first glance

" is that I asked a question about something which should have been obvious, and it follows that you think the question didn't need to be asked. By definition, you were saying that the question was not justified or necessary; I contest that it was both. TIMMMMEH

1. I don't think much of it. Just like I don't think much of anyone else that doesn't support me outside of you and nonny.
2. Nope
3. Nope, but then again, he's not posting so much, so I don't have much to work with.

1. If, in your experience, caf is open-minded - and, in your opinion, everyone who thought post 38 was suspicious is close-minded - does that not suggest that his play is contrary to your experience with him? What might you determine from his "close-mindedness" in light of your experience with him?

2. Trick question - caf's refusal to support you flies in the face of your expectations

by definition

. Why have you denied that it doesn't?

3. TIMMMEEEEEEH (ok)

-

Those can all be answered by pointing to my "I can see why he may have wanted an explanation".

I didn't say they were the say thing.

No, those questions cannot be addressed in that way.

You quite clearly implied that they were the same thing, as I explained before.

Answer the questions:

- How is it a given that caf was useful/logical, when the implicit implication was that you valued his

open-mindedness

?

- Why are you trying to equate

agreement with dejkha

"open-mindedness"

to

logic/usefulness

?

- Why do you think I deserve scummy points for not assuming a connection between two different concepts?

I mean if I were to rephrase the statement, making it certain, such as "My response to Rest's post didn't go through", as opposed to my original uncertain post, I can't see how it could be used against me. Understand?

Well that's sort of the point, isn't it? If you had just said "

sorry, it didn't go through, here is my opinion on nameclaiming: blah blah etc.

" then I wouldn't have picked up on it.

However, the fact remains that you

did

imply uncertainty where you had enough information to be certain. That was wishy washy, and you've been wishy washy again by trying to address half my post with "I can see why you may have wanted an explanation".

Well, guess what? You don't get to palm off arguments and questions by using a disclaimer in exactly the manner I pre-emptively criticised. Try again.

TIMMYYY

[dejkha]

Or not, since it's near impossible to push suspicion onto someone without making a case or displaying any sort of evidence whatsoever. I'm feeling more and more confident with my vote with every post you make =D

Saying that unless poeple ask/pressure you to claim they should move on and then one or two posts later saying by the way I suspect these poeple but won't say way is a poor way to attempt just that. It's not impossible it's just not done by those who know how to play.

You were attempting to get the attention off of yourself by putting up a curtain and saying to look over there. But you wouldn't say what is there, just that something must be there. Now you again are trying to detract attention from yourself and turn it on others while you are at L-3. Suddenly when people are asking you for info and possibly a claim you suddenly have reasons(that you will share) why we should be concentrating on others. This is all silly and mediocre ways to play mafia. I've seen it happen a lot in many different games, but it's always annoying and makes me ask what are you trying to hide?

I sounds to me like you're getting defensive because I'm onto you. The second paragraph also sounds like you're mad that I revealed my suspicions, which you shouldn't be since you were all asking for it.

1. If, in your experience, caf is open-minded - and, in your opinion, everyone who thought post 38 was suspicious is close-minded - does that not suggest that his play is contrary to your experience with him? What might you determine from his "close-mindedness" in light of your experience with him?

2. Trick question - caf's refusal to support you flies in the face of your expectations by definition. Why have you denied that it doesn't?

3. TIMMMEEEEEEH (ok)

1. I don't believe I said everyone who thought it was suspicious is close-minded. If I did, it was only under circumstances that turned not to be true. But I'm sure you'll quote me on something that you think would imply that I thought that, which is pretty much all you've been able to get - implications. It kind of shows how much you're willing to reach.

2. I didn't

expect

him to agree with me, nor did I said so. I thought if anyone would understand it would be him, but I wasn't expecting him to say "Oh, Dej is right!"

Well that's sort of the point, isn't it? If you had just said "sorry, it didn't go through, here is my opinion on nameclaiming: blah blah etc." then I wouldn't have picked up on it.

The fact that you did pick up on it is exactly my point. You agree that if i was certain, nothing would come of it, which is exactly why it's weird for you to try to bring it into your case: because there's no way me being certain could backfire. Meaning, I'd have nothing to lose or gain by being certain or uncertain with that particular statement, so your attack seems to attract easy suspicion.

Before Nonny and Spolium respond, can we get other opinions first, because it's pretty much been us three discussing the matter? Everyone else has been making short posts regarding RBT for the most part. Which, BTW, I don't agree with the point everyone's making with how he (or is it a she? no gender specified.) reacted to the his own PR, but I would like him to say more than just what he does and doesn't like, preferably with reasons.

[Spolium]

Timmarrrrgh >: (

Answer the questions:

- How is it a given that caf was useful/logical, when the implicit implication was that you valued his open-mindedness?

- Why are you trying to equate agreement with dejkha "open-mindedness" to logic/usefulness?

- Why do you think I deserve scummy points for not assuming a connection between two different concepts?

---
Timmy!

1. I don't believe I said everyone who thought it was suspicious is close-minded.

7. Because I've played with him before and he was useful and logical player, so I figured if anyone would understand, it would be him.

What's more likely:

(a) that every player except for you is a close-minded fool, or
(b) you said something suspicious

First answer: A

Timmeh

.

But I'm sure you'll quote me on something that you think would imply that I thought that, which is pretty much all you've been able to get - implications. It kind of shows how much you're willing to reach.

Am I to understand that you are denying the value of taking your statements to their logical conclusions? Why is it a "reach" for me to do so should I be waiting for scum to say something suspicious outright?

The fact that you did pick up on it is exactly my point. You agree that if i was certain, nothing would come of it, which is exactly why it's weird for you to try to bring it into your case: because there's no way me being certain could backfire. Meaning, I'd have nothing to lose or gain by being certain or uncertain with that particular statement

You still haven't addressed my argument here - why imply uncertainty when confirming a successful post is a simple matter? How doing so might benefit scum is neither here nor there - my point is that it was a very odd thing to say.

Before Nonny and Spolium respond, can we get other opinions first, because it's pretty much been us three discussing the matter?

I'm in partial agreement with this. More from others please. TIMMAH TIMMEH TIMMIH