Mini 767: Cubic Mafia (Game Over!)

[Walnut]

He should concentrate on the more scummy of players if he wants to be considered pro-town.

Who are these "more scummy of players" that he should be concentrating on?

[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)

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.

Well I remember post 127 (Walnut) post 128 Nocmen and my own post thats been speculated under only, are the three that found him scummy.
Looking back the extremely was my own belief and the rate of posts about it right after it was said made me think everyone thought it was a poor move by BB at the time.

There's a whole lot of active lurking going on this game.

I, for one, am starting to get annoyed at it.

I'm suspicious of all of you who are posting things like "I'm bored" or making these short posts. It doesn't really help your case either that you're not contributing anything on your own to the game as well.

Vote: Beyond_Birthday

Hm... I don't think my posts have been generally short. Your attack on me is generally unfounded, but if a "bored" comment bothers you that much...*Smiles wickedly before cutting into my arm in a kind of writing*
*As blood pours down my flesh, I turn to Dour*

@Dour: My percents are a method of attack, not a play style. My mafia game might be flawed, but my town game is still strong.

*turns to caf19*

Who I'm hunting is difficult to read. I dunno if I'm easy to read or not. I don't care what you think of me, no matter if you're scum or not, that isn't my job. My job is to find the anti-town factions.

*Still writing in arm, turns to Nocmen*
One second...

*beat*

Done.

*Shows writing carved into arm*

OMGUS Vote Nocmen

*Collapses*
Ow...this hurts...so not worth it.

^ That one

[PhilyEc]

@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.

For those reading this~

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.

In my post towards BB I used the idea of a potential vote to imply hes being scummiest at the moment. I'd imagine this is normal yet explaining it is backpedalling when its obvious I never voted in the first place?

I vote when Im sure.
I dont vote when Im unsure.

---

Magnus says I'm scum but for what, repetition is very effective and this is exactly what hes doing. Good scum play in my books but theres always the chance that hes just decided to tunnel on someone hes assured himself is scum, a very unavoidable thing town players do when eager to grandstand in a game.

[Walnut]

Well I remember post 127 (Walnut) post 128 Nocmen and my own post thats been speculated under only, are the three that found him scummy.

My post #127 is asking him about his statement about the job of a town player. I am not sure how you count that as me seeing him as scummy.

[magnus_orion]

Magnus says I'm scum but for what, repetition is very effective and this is exactly what hes doing. Good scum play in my books but theres always the chance that hes just decided to tunnel on someone hes assured himself is scum, a very unavoidable thing town players do when eager to grandstand in a game.

I'm not active lurking, so explain how this is "exactly what [I'm] doing"?

[Isacc]

Magnus says I'm scum but for what, repetition is very effective and this is exactly what hes doing. Good scum play in my books but theres always the chance that hes just decided to tunnel on someone hes assured himself is scum, a very unavoidable thing town players do when eager to grandstand in a game.

Seems like someone decided there was an easier target to defend against than me, eh? =P

[MafiaSSK]

@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.

So you had run out of reasons for attacking everyone until now and attacked Philly. You really don't care who gets lynched. Also by doing WIFOM, you have yet another scumtell.

[MafiaSSK]

He should concentrate on the more scummy of players if he wants to be considered pro-town.

Who are these "more scummy of players" that he should be concentrating on?

Wrong choice of words. He should concentrate on people that have a more solid ground for being scum.

[Dourgrim]

You really should've bothered to rewrite whatever it was you originally wrote, magnus, because this synopsis of yours didn't work.

2. First point in Dourgrim's last post: This is semantics, plus, conversations aren't worth credit

It's NOT semantics, it's FACT. You can try to brush off your misrepresentation all you want by giving it an easy label, but what it really boils down to is this: YOU LIED, and I caught you.

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

Wait, wait, let me see if I have this straight: you believe placing emphasis on a word is an appeal to emotion? Wow... that's almost stunningly simplistic of you. The fact is, you intentionally misquoted me, either because you're too lazy to bother putting formatting tags into a quote or because you wanted to misrepresent my post for your own reasons. I suspect the latter, which is why I pointed it out.

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

Go back and read the series of posts you're referencing. I said that your opinion of my case ON YOU didn't matter... I never said you disagreed with me on everything. Seriously, stop lying.

5. Last point"""": I like how I'm scummy if I change my mind on you. + to scumminss

Are you even reading my posts? I said that you backing off of me proves my point about your early wishy-washy backpedalling when called out on a case.

HOS

OMGUS cuz the big meanie is picking on me: Dourgrim

Fixed.

[Dourgrim]

@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.

I think it's ridiculous. It doesn't make any sense at all, except as a note that he's going to try and lead the Town by making a particular issue such a big deal that everyone feels like they have to weigh in on it.

Furthermore, it's an actively poor strategy to take if you're Town. I've run into quite a few players on here that seem to think that pissing people off is a valid scumhunting style, and it just simply isn't. All it does is introduce emotion into what is ultimately a game of logic and analysis... and guess what? Emotion benefits

scum

, not town, because it causes people to stop thinking clearly and just pursue their perceived enemies (i.e. the people who have pissed them off) by tunnelling.

He's trying it right now with me, actually... and the unfortunate thing is, he's been trying so hard to defend himself from the case I made (and voted in favor of) that it's causing thread noise that no one else in the thread seems to want to hear. That kinda bums me out because I'm very happy with both the case I've built and the location of my vote right now, but I don't want to dictate the conversation of the thread.

Whoever it was (MafiaSSK, I believe) that said magnus is grandstanding, you might very well be correct.

[magnus_orion]

He should concentrate on the more scummy of players if he wants to be considered pro-town.

Who are these "more scummy of players" that he should be concentrating on?

Wrong choice of words. He should concentrate on people that have a more solid ground for being scum.

LOL, the question was who, so reclarifying it doesn't make the question go away does it?

You really should've bothered to rewrite whatever it was you originally wrote, magnus, because this synopsis of yours didn't work.

2. First point in Dourgrim's last post: This is semantics, plus, conversations aren't worth credit

1. It's NOT semantics, it's FACT. You can try to brush off your misrepresentation all you want by giving it an easy label, but what it really boils down to is this: YOU LIED, and I caught you.

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

2. Wait, wait, let me see if I have this straight: you believe placing emphasis on a word is an appeal to emotion? Wow... that's almost stunningly simplistic of you. The fact is, you intentionally misquoted me, either because you're too lazy to bother putting formatting tags into a quote or because you wanted to misrepresent my post for your own reasons. I suspect the latter, which is why I pointed it out.

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

3. Go back and read the series of posts you're referencing. I said that your opinion of my case ON YOU didn't matter... I never said you disagreed with me on everything. Seriously, stop lying.

5. Last point"""": I like how I'm scummy if I change my mind on you. + to scumminss

4. Are you even reading my posts? I said that you backing off of me proves my point about your early wishy-washy backpedalling when called out on a case.

HOS

OMGUS cuz the big meanie is picking on me: Dourgrim

Fixed.

This is getting unpleasant. (Judging from your attitude thus far, your response will be to blame me for this, but you're the one using lack of tags as a scumtell.)

1. Conversation requires two people. Otherwise it is merely statements. Thus, when I engaged you it became a conversation. However, we could also say you started the conversation because it was your original statement that was engaged. So it is semantics, based on how you are defining the word conversation.

And You're meanwhile desperately grasping at something as ridiculous as me lying about who started a conversation to call a scumtell.

2. You have no retort to my over simpilicty? Good. It stands then. The fact of the matter is that what you were trying to say doesn't change with the emphasis, at least from what I can tell, so the only thing it has is emotional impact. Me not actively going in and putting your precious emphasis on words does not prove anything, other than that I copy and paste for quotes. Your fascination with these little details that you keep slashing away at is so desperate its laughable. I mean, are you for real? I'm scum because I didn't put tags in when I quoted you? If that isn't reaching I don't know what is.

3. [quote="dourgrim]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. [/quote]
My response is that this is not logical. It is association fallacy. Which means that your reasoning is flawed, so you need to go about another way of proving that my opinion of your case doesn't matter, which I say it does, because I'm the one being investigated. Actually reading this again, there is more fallacy, "there is no alternative" is a special case of false dichotomy. So yes, I hold an alternate viewpoint to you in one respect, but my opinion on your other veiwpoints still matters.

In other words: I will not necessarily contradict what you've said in all respects, so it is illogical to think that I would. So your basis for ignoring my opinions on your case has no grounds.

4. Once again, saying "OMG you think there's the possibility of Me (as in Dourgrim) being town, as opposed to thinking me (dourgrim) scum, so you (magnus) must be scum, since you're backing off!" after I say a post made me think you were less scummy is like saying I'm not allowed to change my mind, because doing so would be a scumtell.

Also telling me to "go back and read your posts" if I'm misunderstanding you is not the best way of going about correcting me. So if I'm misunderstanding, you should explain where I'm misunderstanding you, since the words in the posts won't change unless the mod edits them, believe it or not, so I'll read them the same exact way, since they are the same exact words, in the same exact order, with the same exact meanings in my POV.

So you had run out of reasons for attacking everyone until now and attacked Philly. You really don't care who gets lynched. Also by doing WIFOM, you have yet another scumtell.

Right, I don't care who gets lynched [/sarcasm] So, care to back that statement up? Because I want my suspects lynched.
Preferably philly, because I'm pretty sure he's scum.
Or do you disagree with that assessment?
I'd like to hear your reasoning on a few other players, besides me. (And including how I interact with them as the defining quality is unhelpful.)

[Trumpet of Doom]

I'm back, I'll reread and post more probably tomorrow.

[Beyond_Birthday]

...

*looks at fireworks of the Magnus arguement*

*sits with knees to my chest, grabbing a cup of coffee, I add a seemingly endless amount of sugar until it stirs similarly to molasses. Drink cup.*

I think I need jam.

*eats jam while talking.*

Isacc -31%- Has targeted players who, similar to my view, seem suspect. Acted logical and struck at Walnut and Dourgrim for play (particularly her analysis of 83-135.) The only thing that bugs me is a lot of filler post, but he did make the effort to note that he would be unavailable.
magnus_orion -27%- Has presented an excellent case against Dourgrim. Despite questioning, and Walnut's tempting invitation to attack me for my assessment of Magnus' play, he has remained level headed, calm, and logically countered Walnut and Dourgrim. I feel most confident in Magnus' alignment thus far.
Nocmen -36%- Though Noc's percentage is, admittedly, high, Nocmen has put fourth a substantial amount of effort in playing the game. The percentage is high because, as Isacc pointed out, she voted someone (me?) for lurking when flame has made, perhaps, 1 post. IAlso, a majority of his post seem to be spent not scum hunting but prodding lurkers, a terrible replacement for actual hunting.
Beyond_Birthday - 100%- Obvious serial killer. Look at this psychopath, he's carved his left arm out for God's sake!
Flame -?- I don't know who this is.
caf19-33%- Not enough to make a huge concern over, but definitely someone I need posting more.
Riceballtail-33%- I can't read you...
PhilyEc-37%- Maybe he's just not used to people like me, but I don't like Phily's posting thus far.
Trumpet of Doom-35%-Lurking, I'm sure he has a reason... Quell est votre raison, mon ami?
MafiaSSK-?- I just met the guy.
Dourgrim -42%- His play style has rubbed me the wrong way, and his logical fallacies are too numerous and too...foolish for the Dour I know.
Walnut-40%- His insistence on my alleged "undermining of Magnus' play" is stupid. I...really don't have anything else. That seems to be a majority of what his post talks about, and...yeah... It's a stupid concept that scum might find a reason to hide behind. So, stupid=scummy for once. Yay!

[Kairyuu]

Still looking for a replacement for Flame. Apologies for taking so long.

[Dourgrim]

This is getting unpleasant. (Judging from your attitude thus far, your response will be to blame me for this, but you're the one using lack of tags as a scumtell.)

My goal isn't to be unpleasant, it's to force you to address what I've said directly, and as far as I can tell you have failed to do so. We'll go through this one more time.

1. Conversation requires two people. Otherwise it is merely statements. Thus, when I engaged you it became a conversation. However, we could also say you started the conversation because it was your original statement that was engaged. So it is semantics, based on how you are defining the word conversation.

I presented a case on why I thought you were scummy and voted for you. You responded with a bunch of rhetoric and a FoS. The current argument ensued. Does that sound like an accurate accounting of the timeline? Then, you should be able to easily tell who began this exchange. I could care less who you believe started the conversation... you tried to take credit for starting this exchange, and I pointed out the lie therein.

You claim to scumhunt by trying to polarize the Town on an issue. I scumhunt by analyzing each player's posts, and then using my vote to apply what pressure I can to someone whose posts indicate potential scumminess. The whole reason we got off on this "who started it" tangent was because you wrongfully accused me of not scumhunting as part of your retort to my vote. I pointed out in return that I

was

scumhunting by applying my vote on the person who I believe is the scummiest looking player in the game. You then LIED about who began the exchange.

And You're meanwhile desperately grasping at something as ridiculous as me lying about who started a conversation to call a scumtell.

Are you familiar with the "Lynch All Liars" theory? It says that pro-Town players should never outright lie in a game because falsehood creates confusion and mistrust, which are the bread and butter of the scum. Therefore, I called you out on the lie. What is unclear about this? Furthermore, why is your lie (which it looks like you admit to above) somehow exempt from LAL?

2. You have no retort to my over simpilicty? Good. It stands then. The fact of the matter is that what you were trying to say doesn't change with the emphasis, at least from what I can tell, so the only thing it has is emotional impact. Me not actively going in and putting your precious emphasis on words does not prove anything, other than that I copy and paste for quotes. Your fascination with these little details that you keep slashing away at is so desperate its laughable. I mean, are you for real? I'm scum because I didn't put tags in when I quoted you? If that isn't reaching I don't know what is.

I've already tried to explain why the emphasis changes the meaning of the post, so I'm not going to bother re-explaining it to you here... but with regards to quoting tags and preserving the original posts, see my "Lynch All Liars" reference above. You can call them "little details" all you want, but there's a reason that LAL is a valid part of mafia game theory, and one that most successful players subscribe to. It doesn't take much misrepresentation and misdirection to influence people's opinions of a player. B_B up there is a shining example of this: he uses his %'s to create a false sense of legitimacy to his theories, a practice that I'm not very fond of. This game is all ABOUT details, magnus, and the sooner you start to realize that, the better.

3.

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.

My response is that this is not logical. It is association fallacy. Which means that your reasoning is flawed, so you need to go about another way of proving that my opinion of your case doesn't matter, which I say it does, because I'm the one being investigated. Actually reading this again, there is more fallacy, "there is no alternative" is a special case of false dichotomy. So yes, I hold an alternate viewpoint to you in one respect, but my opinion on your other veiwpoints still matters.

Yes, your opinion of my other viewpoints matters, I completely agree with that. However, that's not what I was saying at all, nor have I said that in any way, shape or form in this thread. What I

actually

said was that

your opinion on the case I made about your scumminess was irrelevant to the case itself

, because your opinion on the case itself was obvious. I have never once said that your opinion on everything else didn't matter. If you disagree, quote one post where I say that. Otherwise, stop lying.

In other words: I will not necessarily contradict what you've said in all respects, so it is illogical to think that I would. So your basis for ignoring my opinions on your case has no grounds.

This is irrelevant, see above.

4. Once again, saying "OMG you think there's the possibility of Me (as in Dourgrim) being town, as opposed to thinking me (dourgrim) scum, so you (magnus) must be scum, since you're backing off!" after I say a post made me think you were less scummy is like saying I'm not allowed to change my mind, because doing so would be a scumtell.

You're certainly allowed to change your mind in a game of mafia. If you weren't, we'd all just stick with our random votes, and this game would completely suck. However, this is twice this game that you've come out with very aggressive (but not necessarily strong) arguments and subsequently backed down (or changed your mind, whatever you want to call it) when someone starts to put up a fight. That doesn't look like "changing your mind" to me, it looks like backpedalling... there is a difference, although you may consider that just a "detail" not worth considering.

Also telling me to "go back and read your posts" if I'm misunderstanding you is not the best way of going about correcting me. So if I'm misunderstanding, you should explain where I'm misunderstanding you, since the words in the posts won't change unless the mod edits them, believe it or not, so I'll read them the same exact way, since they are the same exact words, in the same exact order, with the same exact meanings in my POV.

Dude, I have been explaining it to you. I'm sorry if I haven't been specific enough for you, but I've been doing the best job I can of spelling out exactly where you're wrong, exactly why I'm suspicious of you, and exactly why I'm voting for you. Have I been somehow ambiguous?

[MafiaSSK]

He should concentrate on the more scummy of players if he wants to be considered pro-town.

Who are these "more scummy of players" that he should be concentrating on?

Wrong choice of words. He should concentrate on people that have a more solid ground for being scum.

LOL, the question was who, so reclarifying it doesn't make the question go away does it?

Stop not doing what the inner quote says.

So you had run out of reasons for attacking everyone until now and attacked Philly. You really don't care who gets lynched. Also by doing WIFOM, you have yet another scumtell.

Right, I don't care who gets lynched [/sarcasm] So, care to back that statement up? Because I want my suspects lynched.
Preferably philly, because I'm pretty sure he's scum.
Or do you disagree with that assessment?
I'd like to hear your reasoning on a few other players, besides me. (And including how I interact with them as the defining quality is unhelpful.)

It seems you have suspected nearly everyone in the game. So you want everyone lynched? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your assessment of philly being scum. I'll define other players later.

[Dourgrim]

Dourgrim -42%- His play style has rubbed me the wrong way, and his logical fallacies are too numerous and too...foolish for the Dour I know.

Please provide a link to a completed game you and I have both participated in.

No? Can't find one? Maybe that's because

there isn't one to find.

You don't know me, B_B. I'm marginally flattered that I've somehow gotten the answer to life, the universe and everything as a % by your BS scale, but don't try posing as someone who has any idea about me and my playstyle. You're trying to legitimize your half-assed % analysis, and you're trying to use me to do it because of my debate with magnus.

If it weren't for magnus' lying, you'd be getting my vote.

FoS: B_B

[MafiaSSK]

*
MafiaSSK-?- I just met the guy.

I have some posts. How can you not deduct anything from them?

[Trumpet of Doom]

Trumpet of Doom-35%-Lurking, I'm sure he has a reason... Quell est votre raison, mon ami?

In a word, band. I've had concerts each of the last three days, and yesterday's and today's were out-of-state, a good ways into Louisiana. So, naturally, I've had lots of rehearsals for each, plus my homework. (Speaking of which, I should be working on that instead of this... )

I think I also tend to be a "sit back, let things happen and analyze from a distance"-style player early on in games, and especially with wall-o-texters such as yourselves. Not that I really have anything to back that up with, of course: Of my two completed games that I was in from the start, one was Killing Verse, where everyone was heavily post-restricted, where I was speedlynched D1, and where a lot of my posting was trying to defend myself against an overblown "case" on me; and the other was Rebels in the Palace, where I was trying to do number-crunching by hand for most of D1.

Basically, I tend to post more if I think I know what I'm doing, which doesn't happen much until late in the game.

[Walnut]

BB, I find it interesting that your results indicate that your two friends from a previous game are least scum-like. Do you believe it possible that your % approach favours a particular playstyle and has little relevance to scumminess? It might be time for a little reflection on that.

Right now, my sense is that magnus_orion has shown the most scum like play, but I am still trying to figure out what out of that might be attributable to his personal style. I am not interested in the Phily lynch. Look at his join date, note how he was pretty much the first person to voice an opinion on anything much and got slammed for it, then has tried to play it safe-ish from there. My read is more a new player than a scum player.

[caf19]

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

Really? Nocmen asked if BB actually had reasons for doing so or not. magnus_orion said "??". I'd say those are reactions of finding it maybe potentially scummy, but mainly just a weird move. Which I think is an acceptable reaction to what was quite an unexpected action. You are the only one I can find who reacted by finding it extremely scummy. Walnut's 127 doesn't really come into it.

I see you retracted the "extremely" part in 176, but that doesn't really excuse you, imo. You still mischaracterised others' reactions somewhat, and I'm not sure I buy your excuse. The rate of posts misleading you? I think you know better than that.

1) It would bother you wheter town or scum thus why mention it?

I find this point worrying too. I don't think he said anything to make you believe that it would 'bother' him regardless of your alignment. If it bothers someone, it generally means it makes them think of you as a bit more scummy. It looks like you're just trying to brush him off with a weak argument here - don't understand why you didn't just stick with point 2, which is more valid.

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

I wanted you to provide some kind of an explanation for what I saw as your scummy behaviour, and try to scumhunt more earnestly instead of just popping in occasionally to attack something really obvious. The first point you have addressed, although I'm not really happy with the results. the second one, you seem to have started to address more recently. I'm not really sure that magnus has been repeating himself with a criminal frequency, though. I would be more worried that magnus hasn't given a lot of reasons for voting you, but you don't seem to mention that

Anyway, I don't think it makes much sense for me not to be voting anymore. Phily just doesn't seem to be approaching the game from an honest, town viewpoint.

Unvote, vote PhilyEc

We still need material from trumpet obv, but he says he's getting to it now which is good.

Other stuff:
BB, your percentage scale seems to have everyone on a rather similar percentage. Are we meant to take the percents seriously?

I am not interested in the Phily lynch. Look at his join date, note how he was pretty much the first person to voice an opinion on anything much and got slammed for it

Which bit of Phily's play are you talking about here? The attack on BB's Omgus vote?

[Nocmen]

Nocmen -36%- Though Noc's percentage is, admittedly, high, Nocmen has put fourth a substantial amount of effort in playing the game. The percentage is high because, as Isacc pointed out, she voted someone (me?) for lurking when flame has made, perhaps, 1 post. IAlso, a majority of his post seem to be spent not scum hunting but prodding lurkers, a terrible replacement for actual hunting.

1. Last time I checked, I had a penis.
2. I think I have been scum hunting, but I also feel that a lynch should not be made unless we hear from all of the players, soemthing that has not happened.
3. I'm voting you because of your active lurking as well as posts which somewhat concern me.

BB, I find it interesting that your results indicate that your two friends from a previous game are least scum-like. Do you believe it possible that your % approach favours a particular playstyle and has little relevance to scumminess? It might be time for a little reflection on that.

Right now, my sense is that magnus_orion has shown the most scum like play, but I am still trying to figure out what out of that might be attributable to his personal style. I am not interested in the Phily lynch. Look at his join date, note how he was pretty much the first person to voice an opinion on anything much and got slammed for it, then has tried to play it safe-ish from there. My read is more a new player than a scum player.

Defense of Philly noted.

I'm going to do a much more thourough look into Philly later today or tomorrow, I want to see his stuff before I judge the wagon fully.

[magnus_orion]

BB, I find it interesting that your results indicate that your two friends from a previous game are least scum-like. Do you believe it possible that your % approach favours a particular playstyle and has little relevance to scumminess? It might be time for a little reflection on that.

Right now, my sense is that magnus_orion has shown the most scum like play, but I am still trying to figure out what out of that might be attributable to his personal style. I am not interested in the Phily lynch. Look at his join date, note how he was pretty much the first person to voice an opinion on anything much and got slammed for it, then has tried to play it safe-ish from there. My read is more a new player than a scum player.

So he's using a newb scum strat. If he's town he's got no reason to worry about his opinion making him look scummy. Town's advantage is in numbers so worrying about being lynched for your opinions should be a scum problem, not a town problem. At least at this stage in the game.
Later things should be a little different. So town should be bold and state their opinions, and take whatever may come, and then fight back if necessary. In my opinion, the time for critical thinking comes later in the game. The time for action is now.

I presented a case on why I thought you were scummy and voted for you. You responded with a bunch of rhetoric and a FoS. The current argument ensued. Does that sound like an accurate accounting of the timeline? Then, you should be able to easily tell who began this exchange. I could care less who you believe started the conversation... you tried to take credit for starting this exchange, and I pointed out the lie therein.

You claim to scumhunt by trying to polarize the Town on an issue. I scumhunt by analyzing each player's posts, and then using my vote to apply what pressure I can to someone whose posts indicate potential scumminess. The whole reason we got off on this "who started it" tangent was because you wrongfully accused me of not scumhunting as part of your retort to my vote. I pointed out in return that I was scumhunting by applying my vote on the person who I believe is the scummiest looking player in the game. You then LIED about who began the exchange.

Its still semantics, and now you've simply exchanged "conversation" with "exchange"

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.

Here's my "lie". Please underline the part of the post that contradicts your "facts" and make my "lie" more apparent. Underline the lie, state the facts, show how they contradict each other, and then you will have called me out on a lie.

Really, I'm not even voting you, haven't been since my random vote, and you're freaking out.

Are you familiar with the "Lynch All Liars" theory? It says that pro-Town players should never outright lie in a game because falsehood creates confusion and mistrust, which are the bread and butter of the scum. Therefore, I called you out on the lie. What is unclear about this? Furthermore, why is your lie (which it looks like you admit to above) somehow exempt from LAL?

Obviously I wouldn't expect you to know this, seeing as how this is our first game together, but I'm a strong opponent of LAL. I believe that LAL is silly, in the fact that it creates an overarcing generalization and ruins some very good townie moves. LAL should only be applied given the secarnio, and whether the lie was intended to benefit the town or not. For example, if you are about to be lynched, and you are a doctor, if you feel that a vanilla claim will get the lynch wagon off you, better to claim vanilla than doctor, as scum will see you as a mislynch target, and you will be able to protect people. If you are a pgo, suggest you are a lover, or some other pro-town role. If you are a lover, suggest you are a pgo. There are plenty of opportunities for pro-town lies.
So, I'd prefer if you not only demonstrate my lie in the above post, but also prove the lie to be against the best interests of the town. Now, I don't think I lied, I'm just throwing this out there because you mentioned it. In short, yes, I have heard of it. And don't agree with it.

I've already tried to explain why the emphasis changes the meaning of the post, so I'm not going to bother re-explaining it to you here... but with regards to quoting tags and preserving the original posts, see my "Lynch All Liars" reference above. You can call them "little details" all you want, but there's a reason that LAL is a valid part of mafia game theory, and one that most successful players subscribe to. It doesn't take much misrepresentation and misdirection to influence people's opinions of a player. B_B up there is a shining example of this: he uses his %'s to create a false sense of legitimacy to his theories, a practice that I'm not very fond of. This game is all ABOUT details, magnus, and the sooner you start to realize that, the better.

Right, right, you think I'm a lying bastard because I didn't include "

" and "[/i ]" in your quote, minus the spacing. So, prove that my "lie" was in fact a "lie", and then prove it was anti-town. Because leaving out emphasis is really a very biased thing to call a lie. And you make quite a lot of assumptions. Most importantly, that the leaving out was intetional (It wasn't).

Yes, your opinion of my other viewpoints matters, I completely agree with that. However, that's not what I was saying at all, nor have I said that in any way, shape or form in this thread. What I actually said was that your opinion on the case I made about your scumminess was irrelevant to the case itself, because your opinion on the case itself was obvious. I have never once said that your opinion on everything else didn't matter. If you disagree, quote one post where I say that. Otherwise, stop lying.

Alright, then I misunderstood. I apologize for the misunderstanding.

You're certainly allowed to change your mind in a game of mafia. If you weren't, we'd all just stick with our random votes, and this game would completely suck. However, this is twice this game that you've come out with very aggressive (but not necessarily strong) arguments and subsequently backed down (or changed your mind, whatever you want to call it) when someone starts to put up a fight. That doesn't look like "changing your mind" to me, it looks like backpedalling... there is a difference, although you may consider that just a "detail" not worth considering.

Meh, if you want to call my backing off of people a scumtell, go right ahead. I change my mind a lot, mostly in response to a suspect's post that makes me think them town. I'd like to hear more reasoning from you about people other than me as well, since I think you might be tunneling, and just facing a confirmation bias.

Dude, I have been explaining it to you. I'm sorry if I haven't been specific enough for you, but I've been doing the best job I can of spelling out exactly where you're wrong, exactly why I'm suspicious of you, and exactly why I'm voting for you. Have I been somehow ambiguous?

Unfortunately, you have somehow been ambiguous, otherwise we'd be reading your posts the same way. Apologies.

[Riceballtail]

*
MafiaSSK-?- I just met the guy.

I have some posts. How can you not deduct anything from them?

Probably trying to say the he's not attempting to be hasty in his method of deciding if you are town or scum by your current play.

[Dourgrim]

Really, I'm not even voting you, haven't been since my random vote, and you're freaking out.

Actually, I'm not freaking out at all, and I apologize if I've come across that way to you. I'm just trying to explain (perhaps a bit too emphatically for your tastes) what I've been trying to say the entire time. Nothing personal here... I believe you lied, you say you didn't, and we'll agree to disagree and let the other players make what they will of our debate. Fair enough?

And, for the record, the fact that you're not voting for me while spending all this time giving me HoS's and FoS's and arguing with me also comes across as somewhat scummy to me. You seem to be trying to cast suspicion on me while preserving deniability for future use. "I was just trying to see how he would react, but I never actually voted for him, it's not my fault!" See what I mean?

Your stance on LAL (I'm not going to keep quoting in an effort to keep thread noise down): I guess I'm not really surprised to hear that you don't support LAL, considering the accusations I've made up to this point.

RE: how your lies are detrimental to the Town: because I believe they misrepresent me in an effort to cast suspicion on me, and because I believe misrepresenting facts to help bolster a weak case is inherently anti-Town.

I genuinely am OK with agreeing to disagree on these points as respectfully as possible... but then I'm also OK with leaving my vote right where it is.