Mini 767: Cubic Mafia (Game Over!)

[Dourgrim]

No.
Its your

job

to try and

prove

its validity, not convince players that its already there.
In other words, its your job to try to

verify

that your theory holds, not push it to a lynch without further investigation.
Its only your job to try and convince other players of its validity without trying to verify it if you're scum.

OK, look: it's early in Day One of the game. I proposed a theory that I believe has merit, and I used my ONE VOTE to apply pressure in support of that theory. I haven't at ALL tried to "push a lynch without further investigation." Matter of fact, as far as I can tell, this IS the "further investigation" you're looking for right here. You still haven't refuted my comment about your wishy-washy stance before... you actually gave me a "fair enough," which seems to mean that you're conceding the point and agree with my assessment. How does that equate with me pushing a lynch without further investigation?

whether you believe the suspicion to be valid or not.

What's this here for? Do you believe there is reason for me to find your suspicions invalid? I in fact praised you for suspecting me for what you did. Unfortunately, the way you went about doing it I found to be scummy.

You removed the emphasis I placed on the word "you" above in my original post, which changes the meaning of the post entirely. My point was that I'm learning about you and your playstyle with this conversation, and that learning is independent of the specific facts of the case and your opinion of those facts. Does that make more sense?

Yes, everyone has bias.
Did I dispute this?
Why are you bringing this up?

This:

Then why is being "apologetic" and admitting your own personal bias (Ie. My opinion) an additional scumtell to the backpedeling, according to you? (Hence the words "In addition...")

You referenced bias above, and I was refuting your claim that bias itself is a scumtell by stating that everyone has bias. That's all.

-----------

Dourgrim's play in this game also bothers me, but I'm afraid I must wait before I can say anymore on this.

This pisses me off. It's a VERY thinly-veiled reference to something else current on the site, and B_B, you should know better. That's a MAJOR no-no.

-----------

Isacc: I'll try to answer your questions today... and I owe somebody an analysis on Nocmen as well. Yeesh, you guys are needy on Day One.

[MafiaSSK]

Vote Magnus

Being too overly aggressive for a townie.

[caf19]

Scum, if the object of a joke (which ends in there being voting) causes their percent to be raised by 1% (at least on day one) if they over react. In other words, if Nocmen has posted something similar to PhilyEc's post, I would have found him the slightest bit more suspicious. However, I don't. He handled it well, in a town "I'm sure this will be explained" manner. (Though, not in those words, per se.)

So, do you find PhilyEc suspicious for his condemnatory reaction to your omgus? You seem to be using the tactic solely to judge Nocmen and ignoring the reactions of others.

Personally, I didn't find it overtly scummy, but I did find it slightly weird, which is something your posts have struck me as several times. I'm still not sure whether you are more concerned with finding scum or just messing around and confusing people.

Anyway, PhilyEc continues to bother me. It's just so easy to pull people up for something obvious like Omgus, as he did in his last post. His tone also seems quite assured ("care to redeem yourself before I'm completely convinced you're mafia?"), which makes me think he's planning to push further. Possible scum behaviour.

As for RBT, the "I've posted more in this game on average" comment seems to imply an unwillingness to help the town by contributing more often. But on rereading I don't see quite the same jumpiness, willingness to attack people for obvious reasons, as I do in PhilyEc.

I'd say Phily is in danger of getting my vote now, and needs to address my points and make a more decent attempt at scumhunting. It's pretty impossible to get a read on MafiaSSK, Flame (being replaced I know) or Trumpet at this stage - I would really like to get something from them before I commit.

[preview edit: I see SSK has voted. Could you explain what you mean by 'aggressive' in this sense, and why it is a scumtell? I've played with aggressive townies before, and they're just remorseless and argumentative by their nature and it seems largely independent of role.]

[Nocmen]

I'm feeling a bit more confident and townie vibes from dourgrim now, but I'm not going to give him a free pass just yet.

RBT: I want to know your opinions on this game, not just a quick short post. You can think this out, because while you may not like hasty posts, you've had more than enough time to collect thoughts about this game.

[MafiaSSK]

[preview edit: I see SSK has voted. Could you explain what you mean by 'aggressive' in this sense, and why it is a scumtell? I've played with aggressive townies before, and they're just remorseless and argumentative by their nature and it seems largely independent of role.]

Aggressive as in attacking everyone in the game. It's a scumtell because aggressiveness shows that they want night more and do not like the day. This usually means that they are mafia.

[Dourgrim]

OK, someone asked me for my opinion on Nocmen's playstyle before (I think it was magnus_orion, since he seems to be the one asking me all the questions)...

Nocmen is one of those players who seems to want to ask LOTS of questions without actually stepping forward and presenting an opinion of his own. This isn't necessarily scummy, but personally I find it a touch on the annoying side (see my "questions aren't the only way to scumhunt" statement before). Then, he seems to get into a sparring match with B_B regarding short posts and lurking, to which B_B responds with his flowery bleeding scene and an OMGUS vote. While I'm all about making the lurkers play the game, it's kind of an "easy way out" of scumhunting. I guess I wish he'd take a bit more aggressive of a stand somewhere instead of just constantly asking questions. This may very well be playstyle preference, however, and I don't have a firm feeling on scummy/non-scummy here.

On a side note, I noticed an inconsistency just above. Sorry for the long quote, but I don't know how to avoid it and still make my point clearly (bolding is mine):

So, do you find PhilyEc suspicious for his condemnatory reaction to your omgus? You seem to be using the tactic solely to judge Nocmen and ignoring the reactions of others.

Personally, I didn't find it overtly scummy

, but I did find it slightly weird, which is something your posts have struck me as several times. I'm still not sure whether you are more concerned with finding scum or just messing around and confusing people.

Anyway, PhilyEc continues to bother me.

It's just so easy to pull people up for something obvious like Omgus, as he did in his last post. His tone also seems quite assured ("care to redeem yourself before I'm completely convinced you're mafia?"), which makes me think he's planning to push further.

Possible scum behaviour.

<snipped to save space>

I'd say Phily is in danger of getting my vote now, and needs to address my points and make a more decent attempt at scumhunting.

It's pretty impossible to get a read on MafiaSSK, Flame (being replaced I know) or Trumpet at this stage - I would really like to get something from them before I commit.

The first part of this quote seems to say, "You thought he was scummy? I didn't think he was scummy." Then, as the post goes on, it turns into "this is scummy, that's scummy," and suddenly he's the likely candidate for a vote. Was this a contradiction like it seems at first blush, or was this you "talking out loud" and coming to a contradictory conclusion while you were typing? I get why you think PhilyEc seems scummy, and I agree to an extent, but couching it with the first part, the "it didn't look scummy, just weird" part, seems like you're giving yourself an out in case you don't get support on your theory.

[caf19]

@ Dourgrim, the "I didn't find it overtly scummy" paragraph was actually referring to BB's initial omgus vote, not Phily's reaction. I guess I didn't phrase that very clearly.

[Dourgrim]

@ Dourgrim, the "I didn't find it overtly scummy" paragraph was actually referring to BB's initial omgus vote, not Phily's reaction. I guess I didn't phrase that very clearly.

OK, I can see that. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

[PhilyEc]

It's just so easy to pull people up for something obvious like Omgus, as he did in his last post. His tone also seems quite assured ("care to redeem yourself before I'm completely convinced you're mafia?"), which makes me think he's planning to push further. Possible scum behaviour.

I think hes scummy, he could be scum.Perhaps I phrased 'before I'm completely convince' inappropriately. It was meant for pressure but I am not going to vote for him until more scumminess is revealed AFTER he answers all the questions his post brought up.

(I believe 3 people found that post EXTREMELY scummy, not just me)

-----

Aggressive as in attacking everyone in the game. It's a scumtell because aggressiveness shows that they want night more and do not like the day. This usually means that they are mafia.

In Day One I'm not suprised. Theres been no concentration on scummy players yet since we've not made much progress, would you agree? The only problem is, attacking everyone doesnt help anyone. More concentration on scummiest players is more appropriate.

-----

@Calf

What questions are you trying to ask me? You seem suspicious of me for not answering them, whatever they are.

[Riceballtail]

I still don't have much to say, but I do have a few notes:

SSK: Posting frequently, which is also unusual for him, but this may be because he's no longer burnt out after taking a break.
Doug: Like him a lot so far
Magnus/Isacc/BB: Almost the same banter as last game, hoping it doesn't repeat itself with wall after wall of text.
Phily: Made a lot of non-game comments, but this is somewhat normal. Still don't care too much for it.

[MafiaSSK]

aSSK"]Aggressive as in attacking everyone in the game. It's a scumtell because aggressiveness shows that they want night more and do not like the day. This usually means that they are mafia.

In Day One I'm not suprised. Theres been no concentration on scummy players yet since we've not made much progress, would you agree? The only problem is, attacking everyone doesnt help anyone. More concentration on scummiest players is more appropriate.

-----

That's almost exactly what I'm trying to say. Attacking everyone does not help town and is as thus anti-town and deserves a vote. He should concentrate on the more scummy of players if he wants to be considered pro-town.

[MafiaSSK]

SSK: Posting frequently, which is also unusual for him, but this may be because he's no longer burnt out after taking a break.
.

So taking a break is now an excuse for scummy behavior? Why don't we all just do that then? Then scum could all be acted as town and every game would be broken.

[Beyond_Birthday]

Scum, if the object of a joke (which ends in there being voting) causes their percent to be raised by 1% (at least on day one) if they over react. In other words, if Nocmen has posted something similar to PhilyEc's post, I would have found him the slightest bit more suspicious. However, I don't. He handled it well, in a town "I'm sure this will be explained" manner. (Though, not in those words, per se.)

So, do you find PhilyEc suspicious for his condemnatory reaction to your omgus? You seem to be using the tactic solely to judge Nocmen and ignoring the reactions of others.

Yes, I

seem

to be.

@PhilyEc: For some reason, your post bothers me. I think its because you make a statement about a lack of scum hunting while you continue to scum hunt...

@SSK: When did "unusual" become "scummy?" Paranoid and eager to flip things around on RBT as soon as possible, huh?

Unvote

Just because the joke is long sense over.

[Beyond_Birthday]

*since

[Walnut]

Walnut you failed to

actually

answer the question.

Which specific question are you talking about?

Why did you think it was important that Magnus' credibility was being undermined?

It is either justified, in which case it is good to know as we can all just ignore Magnus from now on, or unjustified, in which case we have to look at why BB said it.

Why did you think the issue was worth pushing? Repeating "because it looked like BB undermined Magnus' credibility," is not an answer. Please answer the question again.

If by "pushing" you mean raising it initally, it was something that struck me as subtle but effective as an attack on magnus. I was at the time engaged in a discussion with magnus regarding his case on nocmen, and when I first read that my initial thought was "Oh, no one takes any notice of him anyway, why continue talking with him?" then realised how much I was being affected by what seemed a throwaway comment by BB.

Also,

I thought it was appropriate for Magnus to be the one to respond to BB's comment, as it was regarding him.

If this is so, then why did you keep pushing the issue when BB and Magnus both said it wasn't a big deal? It sure didn't seem like you wanted Magnus to respond to BB, because you weren't satisfied with that and kept arguing the case. In actuality, it seemed like you wanted Magnus to specifically respond

antagonistically

.

Because it seemed to me that magnus had initially misunderstood, and had taken it as me saying he was ignorable, when I was in fact pointing out that someone else had said that.

[magnus_orion]

No.
Its your

job

to try and

prove

its validity, not convince players that its already there.
In other words, its your job to try to

verify

that your theory holds, not push it to a lynch without further investigation.
Its only your job to try and convince other players of its validity without trying to verify it if you're scum.

OK, look: it's early in Day One of the game. I proposed a theory that I believe has merit, and I used my ONE VOTE to apply pressure in support of that theory. I haven't at ALL tried to "push a lynch without further investigation." Matter of fact, as far as I can tell, this IS the "further investigation" you're looking for right here. You still haven't refuted my comment about your wishy-washy stance before... you actually gave me a "fair enough," which seems to mean that you're conceding the point and agree with my assessment. How does that equate with me pushing a lynch without further investigation?

whether you believe the suspicion to be valid or not.

What's this here for? Do you believe there is reason for me to find your suspicions invalid? I in fact praised you for suspecting me for what you did. Unfortunately, the way you went about doing it I found to be scummy.

You removed the emphasis I placed on the word "you" above in my original post, which changes the meaning of the post entirely. My point was that I'm learning about you and your playstyle with this conversation, and that learning is independent of the specific facts of the case and your opinion of those facts. Does that make more sense?

Yes, everyone has bias.
Did I dispute this?
Why are you bringing this up?

This:

Then why is being "apologetic" and admitting your own personal bias (Ie. My opinion) an additional scumtell to the backpedeling, according to you? (Hence the words "In addition...")

You referenced bias above, and I was refuting your claim that bias itself is a scumtell by stating that everyone has bias. That's all.

-----------

Dourgrim's play in this game also bothers me, but I'm afraid I must wait before I can say anymore on this.

This pisses me off. It's a VERY thinly-veiled reference to something else current on the site, and B_B, you should know better. That's a MAJOR no-no.

-----------

Isacc: I'll try to answer your questions today... and I owe somebody an analysis on Nocmen as well. Yeesh, you guys are needy on Day One.

*sigh*
This conversation acts as investigation into how I play only because

I

engaged

you

. That was a concious decision on my part. In other words, I could have chosen to ignore you. If I had, you would not be gathering information about me now. However, If you claim to be gathering information on me, then you should be able to substantiate your case against me, assuming it is correct.

You removed the emphasis I placed on the word "you" above in my original post, which changes the meaning of the post entirely. My point was that I'm learning about you and your playstyle with this conversation, and that learning is independent of the specific facts of the case and your opinion of those facts. Does that make more sense?

I use copy and paste and not the quote button on posts to make my quotes. As such, any emphasis is removed as a result of this method, and is unintentional. However, you dodged the question. Why did you include the comment about whether I consider your suspicion valid or not? Also, why does my opinion of the facts not matter? I'm the one being investigated, so I'd think them highly relevant.

You referenced bias above, and I was refuting your claim that bias itself is a scumtell by stating that everyone has bias. That's all.

You misunderstood me. You included "in addition" in your intial case against me, which lead me to believe that this was an additional point of your case of my scumminess. And this "in addtion" included admitting my personal bias, implying that you thought doing so was a scumtell, which I disagree with.

However, after your read on nocmen, I no longer think you are as scummy as before. I'll stop attacking you, for now, but you're still pretty high on the suspect list.

@Mafiassk: I'm not voting. (well, I wasn't, I am now) If I'm trying to get to night phase, my method of doing so sucks. Of course this is wifom, but your reasoning is lolsomely awful and based on gross generalization.

Phillyec is scum. He's trying to avoid making definite comments in order to see who the town will support, me or my targets, and then jump on. This is why he is active lurking. IIOA is an extension on this.

@Phillyec: You're tryng to pull out of suspcion on BB before you get hanged for it. Why?

vote: phillyec

[Isacc]

@Dour: I'm still waiting on that answer.

@Others: I'm with Magnus on Phillyec. Post 158 is pretty bad vibes across the board.

I think hes scummy, he could be scum.Perhaps I phrased 'before I'm completely convince' inappropriately. It was meant for pressure but I am not going to vote for him until more scumminess is revealed AFTER he answers all the questions his post brought up.

Seems like backpedaling to me. 'Nuff said.

In Day One I'm not suprised. Theres been no concentration on scummy players yet since we've not made much progress, would you agree? The only problem is, attacking everyone doesnt help anyone. More concentration on scummiest players is more appropriate.

This is so noncommittal it's almost a contradiction. Seems to start by saying "Magnus' attacks on most players makes sense this early," but then ends with "However, attacking more ppl instead of just the scummiest is bad."

Maybe Dourgrim's answer will change my mind, but in the meantime, I think Phil is the strongest suspect.

Vote: Phillyec

[Beyond_Birthday]

I've read here. Nothing more to add really, except that I am waiting on Phily's response.

[Dourgrim]

*sigh*
This conversation acts as investigation into how I play only because

I

engaged

you

. That was a concious decision on my part. In other words, I could have chosen to ignore you. If I had, you would not be gathering information about me now. However, If you claim to be gathering information on me, then you should be able to substantiate your case against me, assuming it is correct.

Incorrect, and I believe a direct misrepresentation of the facts. I placed my vote on you first and you responded; ergo, I provoked this entire conversation. Just because I don't choose to investigate people through direct questioning doesn't make my methods any less valid or effective, as you have so kindly proven thus far. Trying to take credit for the conversation in order to validate your counterattack is not the way to prove your honesty.

You removed the emphasis I placed on the word "you" above in my original post, which changes the meaning of the post entirely. My point was that I'm learning about you and your playstyle with this conversation, and that learning is independent of the specific facts of the case and your opinion of those facts. Does that make more sense?

I use copy and paste and not the quote button on posts to make my quotes. As such, any emphasis is removed as a result of this method, and is unintentional.

Irrelevant. If you're going to quote someone's posts as "evidence" of a point you're trying to make, quote them accurately or don't bother. You could have put tags in to recreate the emphasis, and as I've already mentioned, omitting those tags changed the meaning of the quote. Another misrepresentation.

However, you dodged the question. Why did you include the comment about whether I consider your suspicion valid or not? Also, why does my opinion of the facts not matter? I'm the one being investigated, so I'd think them highly relevant.

Also incorrect. If you're my suspect, it's only logical for you to contradict what I've said. Therefore, your opinion of the case I made is irrelevant in my eyes because there's only one opinion you can logically have.

You referenced bias above, and I was refuting your claim that bias itself is a scumtell by stating that everyone has bias. That's all.

You misunderstood me. You included "in addition" in your intial case against me, which lead me to believe that this was an additional point of your case of my scumminess. And this "in addtion" included admitting my personal bias, implying that you thought doing so was a scumtell, which I disagree with.

OK, I'll concede this as potentially a simple misunderstanding... although if you take into consideration the above points, one has to wonder.

However, after your read on nocmen, I no longer think you are as scummy as before. I'll stop attacking you, for now, but you're still pretty high on the suspect list.

To me, this sounds a lot like someone who realizes he's getting called out for BS and is trying to backpedal, and seems like further evidence of my original case.

----------

Isacc: does the above answer your question about my opinion on magnus' "scumhunting" style?

[PhilyEc]

@PhilyEc: For some reason, your post bothers me. I think its because you make a statement about a lack of scum hunting while you continue to scum hunt...

I assume you want me to respond to you about this.
1) It would bother you wheter town or scum thus why mention it?
2) I dont remember talking about scumhunting, care to refresh my memory since you managed to cling to this notion?

At this point I don't see why people are calling me scummy, rather it looks like Magnus is protecting a buddy very nonchalantly.

Isaac, you are agreeing with their notions but why do you think I've been giving off 'scum

vibes

'. Theres got to have been a misunderstanding since you believe thats the case.

[Nocmen]

It's just so easy to pull people up for something obvious like Omgus, as he did in his last post. His tone also seems quite assured ("care to redeem yourself before I'm completely convinced you're mafia?"), which makes me think he's planning to push further. Possible scum behaviour.

I think hes scummy, he could be scum.Perhaps I phrased 'before I'm completely convince' inappropriately. It was meant for pressure but I am not going to vote for him until more scumminess is revealed AFTER he answers all the questions his post brought up.

(I believe 3 people found that post EXTREMELY scummy, not just me)

Which post is this, and who all found that scummy?

Also, I'm curious to Issac seeming to follow magnus's vote here. But it is an early vote, and not a wagon, so I'm not too suspicious. But it is something to note for later.

[Kairyuu]

Votecount 4:

Walnut(1):

PhilyEc

Dourgrim(1):

Flame

Isacc(1):

caf19

Flame(1):

Walnut

PhilyEc(2):

magnus_orion; Isacc

MafiaSSK(1):

Riceballtail

Beyond_Birthday(1):

Nocmen

magnus_orion(2):

Dourgrim; MafiaSSK

Not Voting(2): Trumpet of Doom; Beyond_Birthday

With 12 players alive it's 7 to lynch.

Note: I will be V/LA until Monday night, so prods will not go out until then. Also, still looking for a replacement for Flame.

[magnus_orion]

Arrgh I wrote up a big post, and then it logged me out.

In summary,
1. I think Isacc would be scum if philly flips town
2. First point in Dourgrim's last post: This is semantics, plus, conversations aren't worth credit
3. second point"""": I'm not going to do extra legwork just because you can't make your points without appeal to emotion. Also, your points rely on pathos? + to scumminess
4. Third Point"""": If I disagree with you in one aspect, (I disagree that I'm scum), it is an Association Fallacy to assume that I disagree with you in all aspects. So no, it would be the opposite of logic to think that. + to scumminess
5. Last point"""": I like how I'm scummy if I change my mind on you. + to scumminss

HOS: Dourgrim

[Isacc]

@Dourgrim: Not really...here, maybe I need to be more specific.

Give me your opinion on this quote in particular:

I LOVE to polarise things. I want the town to divide into two groups on an issue, those with one thought and those with another thought. The scum will tend to agree with each other on the thought that benefits them, and then, they're found. Of course, saying that doesn't worry me too much, because the other option is for scum to be disunified, in which case, they're screwed due to infighting.

Mind you, I am not asking you to comment on whether you think the strategy is effective. Think of it this way: This is Magnus's claim. He is claiming this strategy. What do you think about this

claim

? (emphasis on claim)

Hopefully, I'll get an answer that will give me a solid read this time.


@Phily: 145 and 166 should be exactly what you are looking for. I don't see any misunderstanding. However, if you care to explain yourself in response to my 166, that would probably help us all out a lot.


@Nocmen: Fair assessment. If only I had managed to have time to post before Magnus lol (he only beat me by a bit, that bastard =P). Anyways, in all seriousness, it was Phily's post 158 that really started pinging the scumdar.

[Beyond_Birthday]

Note to self: I am hear, and while Phily did ask me a question, I don't really know to what it is referencing. I may have been mistaken then...
...
*Checks*
I think you mentioned that there is a lack of concentration on just the scummy people in reaction to dour/magnus. The problem is, you haven't really attacked the "scummy" people, not with any real effort anyway.