Newbie 762 - OhGodMyVillage - Game Over

[sirdanilot]

confirm

[sirdanilot]

vote: ubaten

Also I am an IC in this game so if you have any questions about abbreviations or game theory just ask. ICs are more experienced players who play in newbie games to answer questions and show how it's done. Keep in mind that we are also normal players, so treat us as such.

[sirdanilot]

EBWOP (edit by way of post): my name is

sirdanilot

not "sirdanalot" thank you!

[sirdanilot]

Ha, ha, Hi, Scien.

Anyway, this is my first actual Day One, believe it or not, as every other time, I've replaced in after at least one page. That said, Scien, you probably wouldn't know that I like to start games off with random.org. ...The result was Mastin. :/

Mastin Votes: Mastin.

Oh, well. It's random, alright.

Two things wrong about this, that give me enough reason to

unvote ubaten vote Mastin

1. Random dice roll vote. Although it is called 'random voting stage' this does NOT mean you can just roll the dice and be done with it. The RVS (random voting stage) is there to give some information for the beginning of the game. It is not a great tool to give information, but it is one of the best things to get things going, since we have no other information. By simply rolling the dice, you are taking away the human aspect of choice from the RVS, and thereby taking away the microscopic amount of information that can be gained by it.

2 - Self voting in the RvS. Self voting is a BIG no-no. You are the only person you know is town, and voting yourself accomplishes absolutely nothing. It is very anti town to do this. I don't care wether you did this because your dice told you to, in fact that only makes it worse since you have even less reasons to vote yourself. Just don't self vote EVER again. It is only ever useful in very special settings in theme games with weird mechanics that won't ever occur in newbie games or even mini normal games (for example jesters, assassin in the palace) or maybe if you are mafia and don't want to give away any more information or something. Not something you should do as a vanilla townie in a newbie game.

I am not saying this is a huge scum tell, but it is better than the RVS information for now.

Also, as for the 'getting discussion going' part, yes, you indeed got discussion going, but does this make you more towny? No. You did something scummy, and you got discussion going, but you are still scummy. Otherwise, scum could get away with anything that is scummy and draws attention to it. It would reduce the game to WIFOM (click for explanation of this concept).

I didn't like Ubaten's 'to show my intentions' thing, but his explanation was reasonable enough I guess. Still something to keep an eye on, especially in these early stages of the game.

[sirdanilot]

And yes Barim I was in the dutch mafia but I had to replace out quite early on.

[sirdanilot]

Oh, far from it--I've been looking at the results rather carefully, and find people's reaction to them...interesting, to say the least.

Which is exactly what you should do.

I tend to disagree with this point--it gets things going by *giving* us information.

That was what I meant. Sorry for misphrasing.

On the contrary, reactions I have gotten from this have produced more information than I believe could have ever been created from normal random voting. I'm still processing it, but for the most part, I believe that Ub's reaction to it has seemed rather scummy, Scien's reaction is pro-town, and your reaction...not sure. It seems too similar to Scien's for my comfort level.

Well, you're not really bringing up any new points here. You emitted a (minor) scum tell, which got discussion going. Analyzing the discussion is good, but does not make the scum tell smaller.

During

any other stage of the game

, I would agree with you. During the random voting stage, I find it to be acceptable, as the discussion it generates will create more than enough information to find scum tells out of.

It's still scummy and anti town. The fact that it creates discussion doesn't change that. It creates discussion BECAUSE it's such a bad tactic.

Unless, of course, I've given you my reasons for doing it already and they amount to a greater reward than not doing it. Which I believe I have.

This seems a inherent difference in game philosophy rather than alignment.

Not something you should do as a vanilla townie in a newbie game.

This is perhaps one of the most obvious attempts at rolefishing I have ever seen. How would you know what my role is? What are you trying to do, in getting me to respond to it? Answer: My role.

I wasn't rolefishing, nor was I expecting you to answer that with a role. But in retrospect I realise that I should have said 'towny' here instead of 'vanilla townie'. I am sorry for that.

I didn't like Ubaten's 'to show my intentions' thing, but his explanation was reasonable enough I guess. Still something to keep an eye on, especially in these early stages of the game.

Precisely, especially considering his explanation and his vote contradict. If he thought it was scummy to roll, why not vote the person who did the action?

It seems that my argument with mastin has been resolved now. We both have agreed to disagree. I view this more as a personality/game philosophy difference than an alignment difference. Because of this, I am going to

unvote Mastin

.

At this point, we need more input from the other players since a core of 3-4 players is doing all the talking right now. I cannot scumhunt if nobody else posts.

[sirdanilot]

vote: santos

That doesn't cut it. Do one of the following things:

1. refresh.
2. use another browser (firefox if you aren't using it already)
3. suck it up and try to read and contribute anyway

[sirdanilot]

EBWOP (edit by way of post): Wait, I think I misunderstood this.

You mean coding errors by players? Because the above post is assuming some browser error.

In that case, option 3 is the only thing that remains; suck it up and try to contribute anyway.

[sirdanilot]

[quote""Ubaten"]I voted according to my belief that a random roll vote is a bit scummy and contra-productive and as I prefer not seeming scummy and being productive I voted a random vote instead, with no evidence whatsoever, but at an inactive player.

These are my answers given so far. I'll try to be as clear as I can for this attempt. I agreed with Scien that the random self-vote = minor scummyness, therefore I chose to vote accordingly. This is were my logic might seem strange, so brace yourselves. Voting accordingly meant, for me, not to do as Mastin had done and random self-vote but to do what I thought the most productive: a random vote on an inactive player.

Why then, didn't I vote for Mastin? Because there didn't seem to be any need to vote for Mastin. I might be incorrect here, but a vote is for me a tool for putting pressure on someone to write and defend themselves, that was obviously not necessary since Mastin seemed to be doing quite well without any pressure needing to be applied.[/quote]
I think this is extremely interesting, and needs WAY more attention.

Voting is indeed a pressure tool. However, voting is most of all a tool to lynch scum. It is okay to use voting as a way to

find

scum (pressure voting) but if you see someone who is clearly scummy you should vote where your suspicions lie at some point. What I can understand of your posts is that you thought Mastin dropped a minor scum tell, but you voted someone else instead. In that scenario I would've certainly voted the scummy player instead (which I did) but this looks more like a playstyle difference than anything else.

I am not quite sure what to think of this yet, but it sets a certain tone. It might in fact be scummy, it might now.
------------------------
What I do know, is that Santos hasn't yet posted a satisfactory amount of content which would make me unvote him. And there are still a lot of people who need to post.

[sirdanilot]

edit by way of post: wow, I misquoted too....

[sirdanilot]

No, it's good to ask the mod to prod people. You should do this fairly often since it may help to boost the game activity. And activity = town advantage.

Being that this game is so inactive, I'm going to do a little activity check.

PhilyEc: Please come here and post.

You have made some posts today elsewhere so I expect you to post in this game as well.

[sirdanilot]

I assume you are talking to me rather than to barim? Anyway, I didn't post about lleu as he has posted on page 2, but sure it wouldn't hurt for him to be active either. And I do consider the fact that phily is around the site important, yes.

lleu please post

[sirdanilot]

k. I am NOT going to start a post with a plethora of quotes, because it would just be too much. However, I will raise a few points against mastin, phily and santos.

santos: I'm quite happy with my vote on you. You say you are waiting for a scum slip, but how can you expect one to happen while you're *waiting* for them? Isn't the best way to get a scum slip to engage in as much conversation as possible?

Mastin: long is not

always

better. It can sometimes help to bullet points (like scien did) or make a short, concise post to clear things up.

Phily: I do not like at all how you are dismissing the begining discussion stages of the game, and in my eyes it is very anti town to do so, and thereby quite scummy.

fos: philyec

. Yes, it can be annoying to read long posts. I agree with you on that. However, what is the most important is that people

post

, because people who are posting generates more people who will post, and this discussion will greatly increase the chances of a town win. It would be scummy to try and limit this. I also don't like the blatant scum team discussion; scum teams are almost impossible to find on day one, with no confirmed role yet other than yourself. Finding one scum would be tough enough, trust me.

[sirdanilot]

Also,

mod: please find a crysthia replacement (or whatever their name was, you know who I mean anyway) and prod barim and lleu. I would also like to mention that lleu has just been replaced out of another newbie game. Not sure if this information is important to you, but just pointing it out.

Also let me do a quick activity check on barim.

Oh, his last post on the site was Tuesday. It seems he's gone inactive?

[sirdanilot]

santos: I'm quite happy with my vote on you. You say you are waiting for a scum slip, but how can you expect one to happen while you're *waiting* for them? Isn't the best way to get a scum slip to engage in as much conversation as possible?

(1)You're clearly never going to understand how I play mafia. Why should I explain it anymore? Is that going to help you figure me out or what?

(2)Also, having too much conversation tends to convolute conversation, (3)hence why I am not asking for everyone to give us walls of text to search through as you appear to want. The simplest of posts can, just as well, prove to be scummy. Otherwise, I don't know how else to explain this to you.

1. Have you even

tried

? I am really dying to hear your explanation! If you decide that you refuse to even try, then it seems my vote is going absolutely nowhere else for now.
2. 30 pages day ones tend to convolute conversation. A normal to high activity level like this one doesn't. Thinking it does is anti-town.
3. not really. Another reason to keep my vote; you're either not reading what I said or just twisting my words to your advantage. Probably both, in fact.

Mastin: long is not always better. It can sometimes help to bullet points (like scien did) or make a short, concise post to clear things up.

Bottom line is, it's okay that you don't like the long posts. What is not okay, however, is that you don't even make an effort to read them. You can tell people to post summaries, and cut down their post length a bit, but you still have to dig through the walls of text whether you like it or not, and you cannot just dismiss an entire page of very valuable discussion just because the posts are too long.

Scien, stop sitting on the fence. You have a clear suspect now, don't you?

[sirdanilot]

sirdanilot, after having played over 30 mafia games it tends to get old to read newbie walls of text. I am playing in these newbie games so I don't get shunned out of the themed games because ('I have no experience and must have at least 5 newbie games played before joining outside games'). [/outside discussion]

You think I have not read the walls of text in this game? I would have to be a complete idiot not to. I have read them, but it doesn't change the fact that I'm all for just looking around and seeing where the scum are hiding. IMO, scum's number one mistake is to try and lead the town. Next is to lurk. Third would be a scum who is able to play with the rest of the town but never give away too much that they are not on town's side. Sometimes this can be spotted with WIFOM. Other times it can be spotted with simple questions like 'Hey guys, who should we pressure?'

Okay, so you have read the walls of text (to be honest I did expect you to have done at least that). But all you have to say about it that they are walls of text?

What doesn't sit right with me is that you say that they are walls of text, and that they are not useful at all in scumhunting (although I'm not sure you said actually that but you seem to imply it). You can't just wait and sit around until scum does one of the above three things. Or well, maybe they will start lurking, but lurking is not a viable scum tell, especially in that scenario, as newbie town would lurk too and possibly even flake out.

Activity is very important for the town to win.

So if you think I'm ignoring this game because of long posts and unfortunate coding mistakes, you're wrong.

At this point in the game it actually would be useful to go back through the pages now and try and find who is the scummiest poster and then lynch them. This is what I like to do.

then go ahead!

[sirdanilot]

Wow, huge playstyle clash in this game. Let's try not to get too carried away in this guys; you should be looking at members of your own 'playstyle group' as well (as in, I should look at mastin and scien and santos should look at phily and papa zito etc. etc.)

To be honest, I don't think that scien's play style is scummy. Yes, he flip flops with his vote a lot. Yes, he is aggressive. But does that mean he is scum? To me it looks like he is genuinely scumhunting.

The only argument against him that I do understand is that he would be trying to control the town. It seems that he is indeed in a leading position. I have not decided yet that I find that scummy, but who knows.

As for me, I really don't like how you find me voting Mastin and Santos for their first posts 'bizarre' and then not talk about the content of those posts and/or the reasons I had. It looks like you are just picking out things without backing it up.

[sirdanilot]

Either you're an extremely aggressive townie or you're what I suspect you are.

Yep, that just about covers all the possibilities. Heh.

Lawl. At least we agree on something.

I need more input from other people. What you're saying makes sense, honestly, and I really don't want to make a mistake, i.e. mistake playing style for scum tell. I'm absolutely willing to unvote

if the majority of the town looks at what I'm saying and tells me I'm barking up the wrong tree.

Of course that requires input from other people. Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

FOS papa zito

Why do you need the majority of the town to agree with you before you unvote?

I'll split these since they're different topics.

As for me, I really don't like how you find me voting Mastin and Santos for their first posts 'bizarre' and then not talk about the content of those posts and/or the reasons I had. It looks like you are just picking out things without backing it up.

(1)I'm judging by what I read, since that's all we have to go on at this point.

This may be a difference of opinion, but my only weapon in this game is the vote, so I personally am very careful with it. (Not a fan of the random voting thing, BTW, but see it as a necessary evil to get things going) (2)So I find it bizarre that you'd be willing to lay a vote down on two different people after their very first posts, without bothering to question them first. I can at least appreciate that Scien's use of voting if not his methods of interrogation. Yours I don't get.

1. Yes, so how does this help your case? Unnecessary content.
2. Congratulations. You just succeeded in completely ignoring my request that you actually analyze the reasons of my vote. You just posted an entire psot without valuable content (at least the part I am quoting)
In the interests of not doing the same as you, I'll address that. If I see something suspicious enough, I vote. Simple like that really. If I don't find them suspicious anymore I unvote. Sometimes I use my vote to pressure (like I did with Santos initially, but that has turned into a suspicion vote by now). I'm not really very flipfloppy with my vote, I tend to use FoSes for smaller suspicions if I have a bigger suspect.

Now go address my request.

[sirdanilot]

if the majority of the town looks at what I'm saying and tells me I'm barking up the wrong tree.

FOS papa zito

Why do you need the majority of the town to agree with you before you unvote?

Because the majority of the town can't be mafia. And I said if they

don't

agree. If the rest of the town thinks I'm making sense then there's no reason to change my vote.

You cannot possibly let your scumhunting be lead by the rest of the town. It's your job to find out whether you are making sense or not.

2. Congratulations. You just succeeded in completely ignoring my request that you actually analyze the reasons of my vote.

Because it's irrelevant. I mean, unless someone said "oh hai I'm mafia vote me plz" then I'd think a comment or question or at best an FoS would be appropriate. I found the act of an immediate vote shady.

Now go address my request.

*salutes*

Then my only answer to this attack can be this; because my reasons for the vote were strong enough to vote,

especially

early day 1 where really small tells would be a reason to vote which would be null later in the game. It's how we get things going, you know.

[sirdanilot]

(1)and sirdanilot has just got a shot of steriods in the ass since this is the first time I've seen him contributing like this.

(2)Sirdani is making a meal of his approach on Papa but hes definately over investing his focus.(3) Could fall into a steep tunnel soon~

1. What? How have I not been contributing throughout the entire game?
2. Then where should I direct my attention more, in your opinion? You?
3. What?

Also do you even know what 'semantics' is. A semantics argument would be nitpicking over the meaning of a certain sentence or something. I have been lynched over a semantics argument before, and it's extremely annoying and anti-town. Trust me, this isn't a semantics argument.

What it could be analyzed as, is as a play style discussion. Although I personally think there is more to it than even that. I don't like how you dismiss the entire discussion as a 'semantics' discussion (disregarding whether it is or not) and by that slip by without commenting on the discussion at hand. In fact you did exactly the same with my discussion with papa zito.

[sirdanilot]

(1)Building the quote pyramid, brick by brick...

(2)Lawl.

I

think I make sense. I mean, I went through the thread, jotted down notes, and came to the conclusions I gave before. And I felt good enough about what I'd concluded that I put in a vote.

(3)But that doesn't mean I'm right. This is my first game, and so I fully recognize that I may be making a mistake here. If the town (eventually, someday) reads all this and tells me I'm off my rocker, I'll listen.

(4)I thought early day 1 votes are supposed to be random? (5)And I thought the point of discussion was to lead you to a vote? I'm sorry, I just can't buy a "shoot first, ask questions later" stance. It smells.

1. Oh snap! It just collapsed!
2. k. you think you make sense. that should be enough for you
3. How do you know who is town? 'The majority'? I just don't buy this. It sounds like some kind of cover up. Some kind of reference point in case a more useful bandwagon arises, so you can safely change your vote because 'town said I am wrong'.
4.

NO.

The ONLY reason to random vote is if there is ABSOLUTELY no reason to vote anyone WHATSOEVER. This was not the case since I thought mastin had dropped a scum tell.
5. I saw a better reason to vote, so I voted. And I do not regret it for one second because it generated discussion. Yes you can have discussion that leads to a vote, but you can also have votes that lead to discussion ('pressure votes', something I'm personally not really a fan of but alas) and you can also vote without previous discussion simply because you see a scum tell, which is also something that generates discussion.

[sirdanilot]

3. How do you know who is town? 'The majority'? I just don't buy this. It sounds like some kind of cover up. Some kind of reference point in case a more useful bandwagon arises, so you can safely change your vote because 'town said I am wrong'.

(1)First, I like your number system in replies.

(2)Second, the majority of the town has to be good by definition, or the game would be over.

(3)Third... I don't know what to make of the reference point. Explain please?

1. k. That's a keeper then. I usually tear posts apart to small little page filling quotes, but this number system is more concise,quicker, and less prone to quote tag failure.

2. Well duh. But out of that majority, how do you know who is town?

3. I didn't explain the reference point very well. Let's try again though. So the issue at hand is here post #128. You are willing to unvote Scien at this point. What a towny would/should do is to just unvote. But now you are saying 'I'll unvote if the majority of the town wants me to'.

This means that you are no longer voting where your suspicions lie (since you no longer suspect scien enough to be voting him, apparently). And you can always fall back on your Scien vote whenever you want. This is what I call a 'reference point'. Other people would call it 'backtracking' or something like that, but I am really not familiar enough with that term and I have also been accused of 'backtracking' over some stupid semantics argument in another game so I don't use the term.

4.

NO.

The ONLY reason to random vote is if there is ABSOLUTELY no reason to vote anyone WHATSOEVER. This was not the case since I thought mastin had dropped a scum tell.
5. I saw a better reason to vote, so I voted. And I do not regret it for one second because it generated discussion. Yes you can have discussion that leads to a vote, but you can also have votes that lead to discussion ('pressure votes', something I'm personally not really a fan of but alas) and you can also vote without previous discussion simply because you see a scum tell, which is also something that generates discussion.

Wow. Big red no. How do you really feel? heh

Understood on the purpose of a random vote. I'm still not seeing how an immediate vote on somebody for their very first post is good behavior. You're the only one who's done it, and I feel that's an important distinction.

The fact that I am the only one who has done it in this game doesn't mean it's scummy. I just explained why I did it, and I haven't seen you saying that my reasoning for why i did it is scummy or anything so you should drop the point or attack my reasoning.

I'm observing some trends so far.(1) I have also decided who I think is most pro town as well. (2)I will have a summary soon because there are some very obvious town, scum arguments going on (3)as well as buddying (4)(which, IMO, is the most dangerous thing to do if scum were going to try it IE Mastin/Scien).

(5)Does anyone agree?

1. Are you willing to give away this information or do you not want to?
2. Exciting. Now let's hope this is not an empty promise.
3. Oh joy.
4. So you think mastin is buddying to scien and/or vice versa ?
5. With what? I am eagerly awaiting your summary though.

[sirdanilot]

The fact that I am the only one who has done it in this game doesn't mean it's scummy. I just explained why I did it, and I haven't seen you saying that my reasoning for why i did it is scummy or anything so you should drop the point or attack my reasoning.

Aggressive player is aggressive.

Let's recap the series of events.

1. Mastin self-votes. Your response is a vote against Mastin. You explained that you put the vote because you think a random self-vote is scummy, even though you admit that it's not a huge scum-tell. If it's not a huge scum-tell, why vote? If most of the players haven't even posted yet, why vote? I see Scien's response as appropriate - he questioned it and got a dialog going. You didn't bother, you just lectured and voted.

2. Santos says "This discussion is killing me with all the coding errors and no names associated with quotes. Ugh. " AND YOU VOTE HIM FOR THIS. Again, it was a lecture and a vote. I find this one especially egregious since it was placed on an off comment. Please explain how a complaint about coding errors and bad quoting is scummy, and why PhilyEc and Barim haven't warranted the same treatment. kthx

1. You don't really get it do you. First, I had only a random vote. As I said before, I only want to have a random vote when I haven't yet seen ANYTHING more scummy. I then saw something scummy, namely Mastin's self vote, so I voted. It was indeed a small scumtell, but it was the only scum tell in my opinion so I voted.

2. Yes I voted him for that. I am not going to reiterate why; quote my reasoning that goes with the vote and address that if you so wish.

Also I am not that aggressive. Try playing with user Ythill some time...

[sirdanilot]

Thank you for giving me another reason to keep my vote on you, Santos!

I would have expected a cop-out 'it was a gambit' defense but thankfully you are sparing us from this nonsense.

More santos votes tralala happy easter

[sirdanilot]

It seems that Santos has a LOT to learn still. As an IC I will post several lessons of what not to do here.

Do not:
1. Self vote as town. Ever. And probably not as scum either.
2. Claim cop at l-3 or something. If you are indeed the cop, you are only going to claim that in the most extreme circumstances when a lynch is almost imminent. It's probably not a good idea as scum either.
3. Give up and replace out. It seems like Santos realized he made a mistake and he just gave up by replacing out. The best and most honorable thing to do after you make a dumb mistake is to try and make the best of it yourself, not burden the mod with finding a replacement who is willing to clean up your mess. Only replace out when real life just renders you completely unable to play.
4. Panic. Panicking is never good, scum make slip ups and town get themselves into more trouble.

That's all for my little lecture. I agree with mastin that the true cop should not claim (if there is one) and that we should probably not lynch Santos for now.

Since a Santos lynch is not happening today, I have decided to move my vote to my second largest suspect.

unvote santos
Vote: Papa Zito

Maybe this will stir up our discussion a bit, PZ. I think you know the reasons of my suspicion, I discussed them with you.

[sirdanilot]

Well, if santos is indeed the cop, then giving a towny list might be the same as giving nk targets to the scum. If we have a doc, this might harm him (since docs are typically town) but the doc could also protect one of those targets, and if we have only townies left it doesn't really matter that much. And if santos is scum it'll only give us more info about his partner. I guess you can tell us, but I am way more interested in the summary he promised us earlier, and also his top suspects.

[sirdanilot]

I'm ill today. Despite the fact that this means ages of spare time, I am not really able to concentrate to the utmost effect. Also I would like to note this:

MOD: I WILL HAVE LIMITED ACCESS FROM MONDAY 20TH APRIL TO SATURDAY 25TH APRIL. DON'T REPLACE ME PLEASE.

Henrz, I don't like how you want to just dismiss the actions of your predecessor. Sure, you cannot defend his actions to the utmost extent since you are not him. But that doesn't mean that the predecessor's actions should be ignored. His actions will keep coming back if anyone makes a case against you. Any case against you will consist of the predecessors actions and your actions. You can only defend against the rather, for the most part. So if we do conclude that your predecessor was scummy enough to be lynched, then there's probably not much you can do other than playing townish and try to make the best of it.

Now I am feeling a bit dizzy...

[sirdanilot]

You can only defend against the rather

rather should be latter

[sirdanilot]

k. PhilyEc's last post on the site was today, namely 17th of April, in some mishmash topic. His last post in this game was 10th April

unvote Papa Zito vote PhilyEc

This ridiculous amount of active lurking is absolutely unacceptable. Normally I don't agree to lurkerlynches, but the fact that he has done this twice now (posting on the site but not here) means that I am going to vote him.

[sirdanilot]

Do you just not suspect santos anymore or do you just stop FoSing him because you don't want him to be lynched? If you do suspect him there's no reason to stop fosing him, even if you don't want to get him lynched. At least that's what I am doing. I don't want to lynch Santos today but I do suspect him.

[sirdanilot]

just a few secs to pop in. I'll be v/la this week

I suspected phily not because he was lurking,but because he has posted on another place on the site yesterday but not here. I would have expected him to stop actively lurking and just start posting again. However, he hasn't posted, to the point where he deserves a replacement. I am no longer sure whether this is a scum tell or not.

If it weren't deadline, I would unvote him (since this is flaking, not active lurking) but because it is deadline we can't afford this. this is the only reason why I am keeping my vote right now.

mod: daedline extension due to replacements please

if this succeeds then I will vote another suspect. I don't want to risk a no lynch

Basics are always good: Lynch all Lurkers.

no

. Lurkerlynches just for the sake of lurking are BAD. VERY VERY BAD. lurking is only scummy if the lurker is clearly aruond, and just posting enough to avoid prods, but isn't contributing enough, or if he strategically lurks in order to draw away attention. imo this is not really the case with phily, but he IS around, so thats why I voted him initially.

[sirdanilot]

back

So well yeah. We've now entered a big pool of WIFOM. Santos could be scum or town, both are equally likely. Bottom line is that if he's town, he'll do no good for us (RBed or NKed) and he might also very well be scum. So I suggest not treating him any differently than everyone else when it comes to suspicions.

[sirdanilot]

Ithink sirdanilot is scum. (1)99.9 percent sure. Its gut feeling.

(2)Reason: why does he need to state the obvious and add nothing new to the conversation?

Vote: sirdanilot

(3)He's been against me this whole mafia (4)and has not tried to find another person guilty in the game. (5)He probably figures if he keeps pressuring me he will get support due to a deadline and lack of other options. He's got scum written all over him.

Can anyone find anyone else he's been suspicious of during this game?

1. That's very smart of you. You must know more than a roleblocked cop normally would for this.
2. This is a very good point. The reason is that I just came back from a week of v / la. I tried to add something new, but it turned out I had more or less the same opinion on the matter as mitey mouse.
3. Oh? That's not true. But even if it was,

it should not make me more scummy in your eyes

. Town cannot possibly know for sure that you are the town cop. Stop acting like you are a confirmed cop; you aren't. I suspected you before the cop claim, and you are still one of my suspects.
4. Untrue. I have been scumhunting mastin, Papa Zito, Phily... probably more than many other people in the game.
5. Did I pressure you in that post? Not really, did I. Did I vote you? No. But I do suspect you. I haven't quite figured out yet if you're scum or not, but you still are up there. This post didn't really make me feel more suspicious of you. It shows some newbie town tells IMO, namely the OMGUS. OMGUS means that you vote someone

because

they are suspecting or voting you (or because you believe they are). This should

not

be generalized to everyone who votes someone who has a vote on them. In this case, your vote seems like a newbie's OMGUS. It's an anti town thing (since it lets you tunnel on me while there may be better suspects) but I am not sure if I can find it scummy.

I'll state now that my second suspect is Papa Zito. This includes day 1 reasons (read the many discussions I had with him) but now also this very scummy post.

He's had three votes (1)(that mattered) this game. Mastin, you, and me. (2)He voted Mastin for self-voting, you for complaining about messed up quoting (both of these were first posts) and then me to make me talk more (?).

1. What? Who are you to judge which of my votes mattered and which didn't? Pro town thing to do would've been to list them all and then pick out which of them mattered. Manipulation.
2. Yes I voted mastin for the self voting thing. My vote was backed up, and I also backed up why I stopped voting him.
As for the Santos vote, what I found scummy was not the complaining per se, but more the dismissal of a page worth of discussion without analysis, and using the complaining as an excuse (and even without that last element it warranted a vote). The fact that these were 'first posts' doesn't matter at all.
Then the Papa Zito vote. This is where you begin to be scummy. We have had such a large amount of discussion, and then you simply dismiss my vote as something 'to make me talk more'? Reread the discussion please. It was your comment that you wanted the opinion of the town before you unvoted. It was your dismissal of the reasoning for my votes. I'm not reiterating it. Go read it.

So this post contains content that is slightly scummy at best. But I also have some general comments about the post. For this, I need two scenarios.
1. Santos - scum. Santos-scum is trying to build a bandwagon on me. Papa zito is making moves towards following (slowly but surely). In this scenario, pz-scum is more likely and we seem to have some sort of scummy buddying case.
2. Santos - town. In this scenario, papa zito is following santos flawed reasons and posting the scummy things above. It looks like papa-scum is using santos' case against me.

This is mere speculation, but I do think that I should mention it. This won't influence my vote as much as the actual reasons (since it's speculation) but it is there.

vote: Papa Zito

.

So far, he has voted against the (1)town doctor, (2)cop (3)and now you.[papa zito]

1. How could I have known. Even if I were scum I couldn't. Anyway, this was for the self voting thing. In the end, it turned out that I didn't suspect mastin enough anymore to be voting him. He defended himself to the point that I dropped my vote. So your point is completely moot.
2. How can I know you are the cop? You are certainly not confirmed. OMGUS.
3. So? Are you defending Papa Zito? Because it surely looks like you don't like me voting him. In case you are town, I have some advice for you right here; do not fall into the trap of buddying. It's nice if someone thinks you are town and follows your reasoning, but they might be scum buddying up to you. Be wary.

[sirdanilot]

(1)This may be the worst argument I've ever read on here. Of course I'm judging your votes. I'm judging everyone's votes. Everyone's judging everyone's votes.

I didn't include your initial Ubaten vote because it was random, and who cares. I also didn't include your Phily vote because I gave you credit for doing it under duress.

If it weren't deadline, I would unvote him (since this is flaking, not active lurking) but because it is deadline we can't afford this. this is the only reason why I am keeping my vote right now.

I agreed with your reasoning here. Maybe I should have included it, my mistake, but it didn't seem pertinent to Santos' question.

We have had such a large amount of discussion, and then you simply dismiss my vote as something 'to make me talk more'?

(2)Erm... I'm not dismissing anything. It's what you said. Here, I'll quote it for you:

unvote santos
Vote: Papa Zito

Maybe this will stir up our discussion a bit, PZ

I've never lurked, and I've always answered the questions posed to me, so I have no idea where you'd get the idea that I'm dismissing things.

(3)Your whole post just reeks of OMGUS. Like, how dare someone actually accuse me of something, and how dare someone answer a question related to it. Good grief.

1. Okay, now you have listed the votes you didn't deem 'important', which is fair enough to me.
2. Do you truly think that's the only reason I voted you? Do you really think that everything I addressed in our discussions was dropped for 'Maybe this will stir up our discussion a bit, PZ'? Also, I don't think I ever accused you of lurking.
3. OMGUS means voting someone

because

they are voting/suspecting you. That is not my reasoning. My reasoning was posted above. Note how I didn't vote Santos, even though he voted me.

[sirdanilot]

Yes, I truly do because... that's what you said. You're suspicious of me because of A and B but you voted for me to stir up discussion. I'm not making this up man, I just quoted it for you.

Obviously I voted you because I suspect you, and the stirring up discussion was an additional reason to that. How is that not obvious? I almost always vote out of suspicion, rather than pressuring, or at least in combination with pressure. Pure pressure votes are quite rare in my play (although I don't exclude anything).

Yeah, and it really looks like what you did.

Santos: Yo, sirdanilot sucks. Vote. Does he ever do anything?
PZ: Yeah, he voted these dudes.
sirdanilot: OMG bandwagon you guyz r scum. Vote.

You voted me and not Santos for the same "reason" you dropped voting him yesterday:

My reasons to suspect Santos aren't nearly the same as my reasons to vote you. Yours are the ones from the discussion, and the dismissing of votes, and Santos' are the earlier reasons about dismissing a page of content etc. Do I need to reiterate?

Since a Santos lynch is not happening today,

I have decided to move my vote to my second largest suspect.

(emphasis mine) I think this sentence is really interesting btw.

Obviously it is, without context. Without context, even I would immediately jump to vote the person who said that.

Of course, I said that after Santos claimed cop, and I, as well as everyone else, decided that Santos would not be lynched that day.

Ripping stuff out of context is a scum tell.

(1)I'm not sure what there is left to debate. (2)You all will

have

to take my word for it that I am the cop, the doc is dead, and a mafia goon and roleblocker are left. (3)There are no other options even though a few of you want to believe I'm scum (or are trying to pin me as scum, but that would be pretty bold of you to do so).

(4)Guys, take my word for it and believe me that I am the cop. I am utterly useless in my role now, but that does not mean I'm going to quit scum hunting. I have a quite useful ability still.

Blahblahblah what a scummy and useless post, Santos.
1. Oh? Now that's easy. Now you don't have to participate in discussion anymore and contribute!
2. I don't have to do anything, good sir. Stop pretending you are confirmed.
3. There are in fact other options; you claimed cop as scum (god knows why), there is no cop in the game, and we have setup D (2 goons 1 doc). You can claim roleblocked all you want. There's also the scenario of there in fact being a cop, but it being not you.
4. This is just blatant appeal to emotion 'take my word for it and believe me'. Blahblah. Sure, you can scum hunt, but so can we all so that doesn't make you any more special than the rest of us.

I do think your one liner directed at Scien was quite good though. I appreciate Scien clearing things up but it's not scum hunting.

[sirdanilot]

Sorry for my inactivity, it's a national holiday in the Netherlands today. I'll address the papa zito questions etc. tomorrow

[sirdanilot]

Obviously I voted you because I suspect you, and the stirring up discussion was an additional reason to that. How is that not obvious? I almost always vote out of suspicion, rather than pressuring, or at least in combination with pressure. Pure pressure votes are quite rare in my play (although I don't exclude anything).

Then why didn't you vote me earlier? I've already asked this question once (admittedly, to Scien) and haven't gotten an answer. It doesn't fit with the style of your play earlier in the game, i.e. voting immediately on a suspicion vs. airing suspicion, having discussion and then voting on the result. Does your style typically change like this in a game or was I some sort of special case?

I am not playing in order to keep the same style, I am playing to let the town win. At first, my suspicions of you weren't large enough to vote, but then they grew so at some point I decided to vote you. I didn't do that in the beginning of the game because small scumtells are much larger in that stage, since there is so little to go off on.

My reasons to suspect Santos aren't nearly the same as my reasons to vote you. Yours are the ones from the discussion, and the dismissing of votes, and Santos' are the earlier reasons about dismissing a page of content etc. Do I need to reiterate?

Your reasons may be different but it was Santos and I talking about your voting history that started this little tiff. Don't cloud the issue please.

wait what...

I think we're talking past each other here, because I have absolutely no idea what you just said. That was in reply to something from you (your weird generalization of our three posts) and now you say I am clouding the issue...?

It's funny you say that, because you've done just the same thing. You isolated that one statement out of context so that you can talk about isolating things out of context.

Lawl. Scien is right. We really are talking past one another.

Tell you what. Let's make this easier. You have suspicions of me, fine. Air them here in a cohesive post so that I can answer them in a cohesive manner. The banner-waving about "I have suspicions I have suspicions I have suspicions and you won't answer meeeeeee" is getting tiresome. I have a feeling I've answered them all already anyway but let's be sure. Plus I get the feeling that we're wasting time while the real mafia are off in a corner giggling somewhere.

As for the first past, what. As for the second part, sure.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll list everything here, including the things we discussed to death. Feel free to reply to everything.
1. Saying that he found my suspicions of Mastin's and Santos's first posts suspicious, WITHOUT bringing up the content of those.
2. post 125 Not addressing the issue I had with his accusation (lack of content), even though he did post a fair wall of text there.
3. post 128 "I'm absolutely willing to unvote if the majority of the town looks at what I'm saying and tells me I'm barking up the wrong tree."
4. 158. Look how he isn't addressing my 'reference point' accusation (which had to do with 3.) Look how he is shifting the attention to me by doing this. I shouldn't have fell for it at the time...
-----------------
then the cop thing happened which cut off discussion between me and papa
-----------------
5. (post 192) Why have I never noticed this post before? It's scummy. Let's quote it for lazy people.

Ack, my first vote.

Did 157 not answer your question? Or are you talking about something else? Sorry I let things lapse over the weekend but Santos was more interesting anyway.

The first line shows discontent for having been voted. Scummy. Scum don't want to be voted. But sure it's a bit minor a scumtell. 157 Was clearly not something that ended the discussion.
6. (post 209)

[sirdanilot]He and I have had quite a bit of back-and-forth recently. He's #2 on my list behind Scien but the more we talk the more that's starting to change.

In what direction?

The last one of more a question than an accusation. Anyway, I hope that's enough? Do I need to go on? I think I have 5 points against you which is enough to keep my vote on you for now.

[sirdanilot]

Do I need to go on? I think I have 5 points against you which is enough to keep my vote on you for now.

Erm, yes you need to go on, if you can. I asked you to put everything out there so that I could answer it all. Why you would want to hold some things back is beyond me.

Post whatever else you have and my next post will answer everything.

I am not holding back anything, but with 'going on' I meant going further in my reread (because I needed that to have a good case on you). The reason I didn't go on was because it was so recent, and time reasons.

I don't have anymore time now to 'go on', but tomorrow I will. In the meantime, feel free to address what I have first.

[sirdanilot]

I already had my responses to your post typed up, so at least this will be fast.

First, I'd like to point out that as I read your post, I was struck how it seemed like you were making this up as you went along. I thought you'd had this case against me from Day 1. Anyway, on to your points.

I had my case, but I needed reference (a reread) to back it up, and also refresh it in my mind. And I discovered some new points as I went along.

I didn't do that in the beginning of the game because small scumtells are much larger in that stage, since there is so little to go off on.

That answers this question, thanks.

I think we're talking past each other here, because I have absolutely no idea what you just said. That was in reply to something from you (your weird generalization of our three posts) and now you say I am clouding the issue...?

Agree. I'm willing to drop it if you are.

It would be very easy to drop it. But something tells me here that the easiest way is not always the best. Maybe I'll analyze it later on, but no time/feeling like it (I'm quite honest at that; it's late, I'm tired and don't feel like it) so not now.

1. Saying that he found my suspicions of Mastin's and Santos's first posts suspicious, WITHOUT bringing up the content of those.

I found your VOTES suspicious. I found it strange you would be willing to vote people on their very first posts after you'd already placed a random vote. Let's review what happened.

1. Mastin self-votes. He and Scien engage in a lengthy back-and-forth. You vote Mastin.

2. Santos complains about broken quoting but doesn't comment on the game. You vote him for this.

I saw both of these as extremely odd. I felt Mastin had already acquitted himself by the time you voted him. If anything, Ub is more suspicious at this stage. I also agreed with Santos that the broken quoting was making things difficult to follow, so I didn't feel this was vote-worthy either.

I've already tried to explain this to you several times. If you don't agree then that's fine, but I'm done addressing the issue.

I still think you should have mentioned from the start the reasons of my votes and why you thought they are bad. But whatever. I think we're done with this point.

["sirdanilot"]2. post 125 Not addressing the issue I had with his accusation (lack of content), even though he did post a fair wall of text there.

Erm. Yes I did. "So I find it bizarre that you'd be willing to lay a vote down on two different people after their very first posts, without bothering to question them first. I can at least appreciate that Scien's use of voting if not his methods of interrogation. Yours I don't get." That's directly answering you. You may not agree but I did answer.[/quote]
My issue wasn't your lack of reasoning of why you found the votes suspcious (there was no real lack actually), my issue was that, in my mind, you were unfairly not talking about the reasons for my vote. But see above.

3. post 128 "I'm absolutely willing to unvote if the majority of the town looks at what I'm saying and tells me I'm barking up the wrong tree."

I answered this in 157. You've yet to comment on 157.

Oh?

Welcokme Papa Zito...way to start off your game play here with a bang!

Lawl. I'm here to play, yo.

Something jumps out at me...Papa Zito...why do you need a majority for an unvote. This game is about thinking and voting. If we had to have a majority everytime we voted or unvoted, this game would last for years!

Arrite, this seems to be a bone of contention with you and sirdanilot, so lemme try to explain better, since I guess I'm failing.

After I replaced in, I went through the thread, made some notes, ranked the peeps, and made a vote. To sirdanilot's point - no, I'm not willing to unvote Scien at this point, because I haven't been swayed from it yet.

BUT, one thing I was pointing out is that since this is my first game, my analysis may be completely off. Sure, I've read through some of the other games on here, and yeah, I've browsed the wiki a bit, but each game is different (hence the appeal, I'd assume) so that's no replacement for game experience. What I've been trying to say is that I don't want to make a mistake and vote for an innocent guy, so if my analysis is wrong, then I'm willing to unvote. I'm not seeing what's unreasonable here.

Now to the second piece of this, the "majority" bit. Here's my thinking. The bad guys are going to, obviously, want the town to hang a good guy. Conversely, they're going to want to sway the town from hanging a bad guy. If I have a couple people say, "Hey, Zito, you're writing a ton of BS, cut it out" I have to stop and wonder if those two are mafia trying to sway me from making the correct choice. (Note: Most of this conversation has been with the two people at the bottom of my list, lawl) However, if I have five or six people tell me I'm a moron and STFU, then I'll certainly listen to that because

at most

two of those five or six people are bad guys, so I know it's a townie opinion.

Hopefully that helps.

k. so basically your wall is saying 'I will change my vote if 5 or 6 people are trying to sway me from my vote. I'm not that sure about scumhunting because I'm new. If only two people are trying to sway me maybe they are mafia'?
You know what, this is just a bad playing style. You yourself are the only one who can scum hunt how YOU want to, and by what YOU think is scummy. Letting outside factors controlling your vote (or even hinting towards that) is often scummy (except stuff like claims etc.). But you know what, I am beginning to stop seeing this as a scum tell for you. I don't know why. Maybe it's just gut. Maybe it's because we're mostly done with the discussion by now. I don't know.

4. 158. Look how he isn't addressing my 'reference point' accusation (which had to do with 3.) Look how he is shifting the attention to me by doing this. I shouldn't have fell for it at the time...

I felt I answered this in 157. Also important: I never said I was willing to unvote Scien. He was my prime suspect through Day 1.

I'm not sure why I ignored/overlooked 157. I don't think I mentioned Scien here? 'Why did you feel like mentioning that.

5. (post 192) Why have I never noticed this post before? It's scummy. Let's quote it for lazy people.

Ack, my first vote.

Did 157 not answer your question? Or are you talking about something else? Sorry I let things lapse over the weekend but Santos was more interesting anyway.

The first line shows discontent for having been voted. Scummy. Scum don't want to be voted. But sure it's a bit minor a scumtell. 157 Was clearly not something that ended the discussion.

Way to nitpick. It was my

first

vote. That's kinda a watershed moment in your Mafia career, isn't it? Also your logic is terrible. Scum don't want to be voted, but neither do town. lol

Townies would immediately jump to defense when voted. Newbie townies may OMGUS (note that even though you're a newbie, you're not really acting like you are an actual newbie so I don't really see you as one in this aspect). Really bad players may do a santos-like reaction ('bwah f* u I'm town selfvote').

If 157 didn't end the discussion, why have you failed to comment on it? I felt like it had.

Not sure, actually. However, it didn't really contain that much new and/or important information anyway.

6. (post 209)

[sirdanilot]He and I have had quite a bit of back-and-forth recently. He's #2 on my list behind Scien but the more we talk the more that's starting to change.

In what direction?

Down. I felt you were tunneling on me unfairly. The above reinforces that opinion tbh.

Up usually means scummy, down towny, so I think you actually mean up here.

I am having the feeling that most information that I can squeeze out of you has been squeezed out. I am not saying you are no longer scummy, but I have decided to

UNVOTE PAPA ZITO

.

I didn't find you not answering to my question very scummy, although I do think you could have immediately answered at that point. A bit annoying at most. xreckoners' attack on this is interesting. However, what is even more interesting, is his immediate unvote upon being called out for it.

fos xreckoner

more for the unvote than the vote

If you want me to continue to read up until your most recent posts, sure, but I have no time right now and I'm a bit tired. Tomorrow I have time. (yeah sorry it's always tomorrow)

[sirdanilot]

Interesting case, xreckonersx. However, I find it a bit odd that you first vote papa, then unvote due to being questioned and immediately find another suspect. Have you completely forgot about him or something?

[sirdanilot]

Hmm.

Question to IC-types: In your experience, do scum players sometimes fake real-life crises to avoid posting?

Almost seems like it should be against the rules or something, though I dunno how you'd enforce it.

If someone simply dissappears, and they are not posting anywhere else on the site either, it's called 'flaking'. This has nothing to do with alignment, but more with real life. An example is what happened to Barim in this game.

Lurking can be scummy if the person is posting actively on other parts of the site, while not posting in the game (or only to avoid a prod). Howeverm the most scummy element of lurking is when the player used to post actively, but then starts being questioned and disappears for a few days. Or when the game is in an endgame situation (called LyLo, Lynch or Lose, usually when like 3 players are left) and he is actively lurking until everyone has posted.

I am not sure wether we are dealing with the second or the third scenario here, since MiteyMouse is actually posting actively in other games (Search function for the win!), however she doesn't seem to be lurking because of some sort of tactical advantage right now simply due to the long period in which she has done it. I suggest not to go with a lurker lynch today, especially since it proved ineffective yesterday.

[sirdanilot]

Now I'm very interested in the exchanges between SirDan and Papa. I don't want to think in pairs but, wouldn't this be a brilliant play if they are both Scum? Go after each other agressively to put the other in the clear after the others lynch...

If one of you flip Scum, I'm going to be looking very hard at the other.

fos miteymouse

What? This is a very scummy post. Firstly, you aren't really analyzing the discussion, but okay, we may be able to excuse this with the fact that you are ill. Secondly, and the worst thing,

you are setting up future lynches

with the part I bolded. This is something very bad, since you are putting yourself into the position to easily vote me the next day, we would lynch papa today (all is still possible). This is not pro-town, but pro scum since it makes voting more credible and easier without being good for the town. Don't discuss scum pairs on day 1.

That said, my suspects right now are Santos and Miteymouse. I might do a reread of someone else as well when I have the time.
As for my 'lets not lynch the lurker' thing I meant that we should not lynch miteymouse because she lurked. However if from the little amount of statements she does make this trends continues I am not excluding anything. That doesn't mean we don't want you to post, MM. In fact, try to defend yourself against these accusations. That would be the most protown thing to do (in case you are town of course).

[sirdanilot]

:/ you just take it back.

pro-town MM: not very helpful to the town. cuts off discussion. possible mistake though.
pro-scum MM: smart move. you cut off discussion to avoid putting yourself into more trouble.

not sure. fos stands

[sirdanilot]

I really think mm and henrz should reply at this point.

I should do a reread at some point, but because I am not on my own computer my time is limited. Right now I have only very little to add to the discussion. I

might

come up with a reread later today. Tomorrow I'll be away most of the time.

[sirdanilot]

The sirdanilot quote is actually a curious one though. Yesterday he lynches Philly for lurking and says it's unacceptable, but today he's not sure what to do with Mitey.

grr this infuriates me. I explained IN THAT VERY POST that I lynched him for ACTIVE LURKING. that means lurking WHILE HE WAS IN FACT ACTIVELY POSTING ON THE SITE. And I also posted before that this ISN'T THE CASE WITH MITEYMOUSE. she actually has reasons for her lurking (that have to do with real life). Nevertheless her posts are rather scummy to the point I am thinking about voting her.

---------------------

Okay. Just now I read up to the point of the santos hammer.

WHAT. THE HELL.

FoS xreckoner

. Also, Santos is probably one of the worst players I have ever seen. Congratulations. I hope I will never have the same alignment as you in a game ever again. (assuming you are actually the cop that is but judging from your reaction you probably are).

@everyone: Please don't copy ANY element from Santos'play at all EVER in your future games.

Self voting, advocating your own lynch, threatening to replace out, claiming at a horrendous moment, thinking you are confirmed cop while you clearly aren't, OMGUS...

My opinion would be less damning if he would flip scum, but even then the threatening to replace out would have been horrible.

[sirdanilot]

I knew henrz was town. Not sure why

exactly

but I just did.

MM was neutral to scummy. I remember me calling him out on a scummy post of his. I'd rather have seen MM lynched over Santos day 2. Seriously, day 2 was an absolute debacle. Absolutely horrible. I didn't really mind the day1 lynch oddly, because sure one mislynch like that can easily happen, even though if the deadline was longer and there was more activity we might have achieved a better result. But day 2 was just too rushed. I knew santos was the cop, even though I didn't agree with his play at all (and still don't). I hope santos will chime in here to see what he's done.

MVP clearly goes to Papa Zito, whom I truly did not suspect anymore after our debate. I am not sure if I've ever seen scum clear themselves while I was debating with them. Congrats a lot. I think you have a lot of potential to become a fine player on mafia scum, and are clearly a whole class above newbie games now.

I honestly thought xreckoner was scum. I already started to have some gut because of his henrz case (while I thought that henrz was mostly town, off of his defense against xreckoner) and his hammer on santos was what did it for me. I think that if I wouldn't have been nightkilled I would have voted xreckoner then. Certainly not henrz.

So basically, what I personally can learn from this (yes, experienced players learn too): if you really think someone is town, you

can

say it (despite the night kill risk). In this situation I think I should have emphasized that henrz was town because the power roles were dead anyway (so nk didn't matter) and because there were more protown people like scien and, if I can be bold enough to say it, myself.

Overall great game, scum. I would consider papa zito for a scummy, but I don't really have a lot of experience ICing yet (1 finished, 1 ongoing and now this one) so I don't know if his performance was truly exceptional or not (there seems quite good potential all around in newbie games). It's not like we can't do it later. For now these compliments should suffice.

Scien did a good job too, never really suspected him that much. Try to refine your scumhunting just a tiny notch to make a better town game (your post and scumhunting quantity is fine, but your gut and perfect manners of questioning will grow with time). I would be interested to see you as scum; I think you would look very pro town as scum.

Everyone played quite well, except for santos (emo-selfvoting is NOT the way to go.people WILL hammer you, and may not follow your wishes)