Mini 767: Cubic Mafia (Game Over!)

magnus_orion · Post Post #300 (ISO) » Thu Apr 16, 2009 5:30 pm

Well, if it had been a no, nocmen, I would've thought you were town. If yes, definitely scum... For now, null, but + to scumminess, for not saying no, and fencesitting, since you are aware I do tests like this from earlier in the game.
BB is Town. (why is it that every time I say this, I get the feeling I'm going to regret it?)
Dourgrim is town. (Your last reaction changed my mind completely, but I wanted to check nocmen, because his post bothered me... my test was inconclusive, unfortunately. I still want those reads from you though, if for nothing else but a new take on the situation. My humblest apologies, accuse me of backpedalling all you wish. I deserve it, as it is how I play, so it is technically true. Just know that you could be finding the actual scum instead.)
Too bad I couldn't get any more reactions out of that... Any more would be tainted by opinions posted immediately after.

In short, excet for suspicions on me, I agree with everything BB just said.
Oh, and phillyec is still scum, imo, until he can establish in my mind otherwise, so I don't agree with BB's unvote either.

Riceballtail · Post Post #301 (ISO) » Thu Apr 16, 2009 7:07 pm

UNVOTE; VOTE:Caf

Beyond_Birthday · Post Post #302 (ISO) » Thu Apr 16, 2009 7:09 pm

*jab Riceballtail*
Get back here dammit! I'm not scum this time to know your right and not really challenge your short posts! Get back here and explain you damn logic! *Is frustrated*

Magnus: Saying you disagree with suspicion of you is pointless. Unlike me, for example, who conceded the point that I was scummy as hell, thus catching a scum who was defending me with terrible logic. Caught a scum-a-day in that game.... ah...good times, right Dour? Goo-ood times. Although, it was really just laziness on my part.

Back to being angry at Rice*

Walnut · Post Post #303 (ISO) » Thu Apr 16, 2009 9:47 pm

MafiaSSk, RBT- any more of a case on Caf19? I am finding it pretty easy to resist the urge to jump on the slowly forming bandwagon, because... well, no one has really put forward any reason to do so. The "say very little, say very little, then- vote this guy!" approach is not at all convincing. If we are going to pick someone arbitrarily and vote for them, I am happier with my initial random vote on Flame/Seraphim, because he still has not said anything at all.

caf19 · Post Post #304 (ISO) » Thu Apr 16, 2009 11:56 pm

Riceballtail wrote:
UNVOTE; VOTE:Caf

Was it something I said?

magnus_orion · Post Post #305 (ISO) » Fri Apr 17, 2009 4:06 am

Beyond_Birthday wrote:*jab Riceballtail*
Get back here dammit! I'm not scum this time to know your right and not really challenge your short posts! Get back here and explain you damn logic! *Is frustrated*

Magnus: Saying you disagree with suspicion of you is pointless. Unlike me, for example, who conceded the point that I was scummy as hell, thus catching a scum who was defending me with terrible logic. Caught a scum-a-day in that game.... ah...good times, right Dour? Goo-ood times. Although, it was really just laziness on my part.

Back to being angry at Rice*

Yes, well, it is quite difficult to suspect myself.

@Caf19: apparently so, though rbt and mafiassk won't let us know what.

MafiaSSK · Post Post #306 (ISO) » Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:52 pm

Walnut wrote:MafiaSSk, RBT- any more of a case on Caf19? I am finding it pretty easy to resist the urge to jump on the slowly forming bandwagon, because... well, no one has really put forward any reason to do so. The "say very little, say very little, then- vote this guy!" approach is not at all convincing. If we are going to pick someone arbitrarily and vote for them, I am happier with my initial random vote on Flame/Seraphim, because he still has not said anything at all.

Nope. The case is already enough for a lynch.

caf19 · Post Post #307 (ISO) » Fri Apr 17, 2009 1:44 pm

Unsubstantiated cases are fail, but there's not really anything else I can say about it, so I'll move on to a couple of other things.

magnus_orion wrote:Dourgrim is town. (Your last reaction changed my mind completely

Dare I ask what it is about his last post that looks so town?

@ Walnut, reading through your posts I am having some trouble discerning who you actually suspect right now. Please enlighten me.

magnus_orion · Post Post #308 (ISO) » Fri Apr 17, 2009 3:57 pm

caf19 wrote:Unsubstantiated cases are fail, but there's not really anything else I can say about it, so I'll move on to a couple of other things.

magnus_orion wrote:Dourgrim is town. (Your last reaction changed my mind completely
Dare I ask what it is about his last post that looks so town?

@ Walnut, reading through your posts I am having some trouble discerning who you actually suspect right now. Please enlighten me.

Scum simply don't explode like that.
Its too attention grabbing. And scum dislike attention. Besides, from a scum pov, there's more panic and anxiety involved with suspicion, as opposed to genuine anger, which is hard to fake.
Btw, that question makes you look scummy, since moments ago you were attacking me and supporting dourgrim, now your asking why I don't suspect dourgrim, meaning that your not keeping consistent with whom you suspect.
So, caf19, who is scum, in your opinion?

Kairyuu · Post Post #309 (ISO) » Fri Apr 17, 2009 5:33 pm

Isacc and Seraphim are being prodded. ToD's V/LA is noted.

Votecount tomorrow.

Isacc · Post Post #310 (ISO) » Fri Apr 17, 2009 5:41 pm

Prod gotten, and I haven't really been inactive, I just was hoping Philly would have posted by now, since he's my top suspect. This is getting pretty frustrating.

@MafiaSSK, and RBT: Wow -_-. Worst case ever lol.

Beyond_Birthday · Post Post #311 (ISO) » Fri Apr 17, 2009 5:54 pm

Vote RBT

Only because RBT provides less than Walnut.

FoS: Walnut

Your response sucks.

magnus_orion · Post Post #312 (ISO) » Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:19 pm

In respect to RBT and Mafiassk:
Actually I can hazard a guess at what they were getting at, but I want to hear them say it.
So I'll just sit quietly for now.

Walnut · Post Post #313 (ISO) » Fri Apr 17, 2009 10:33 pm

@Caf: I am voting for Seraphim, am happy with that vote, and encourage others to join me. I would roughly divide the players into three groups right now: those who have posted considerably and I have a slight positive read on, those who have posted considerably and I have a mild scum read on, and those who have not posted much at all. The last group is the one I am most interested in right now, and it includes RBT, ToD, MafiaSSK and Seraphim. Part of the purpose of Day 1 is to get everyone talking and get a chance to get a feel for all of the players, and I don't want us to be going into Day 2 with a whole bunch of people who have not posted much. Of those in the scummy leaning group, I would probably vote for Isacc first- he seems to have been following someone else's views a lot.

caf19 · Post Post #314 (ISO) » Sat Apr 18, 2009 1:49 am

Walnut wrote:@Caf: I am voting for Seraphim, am happy with that vote, and encourage others to join me. I would roughly divide the players into three groups right now: those who have posted considerably and I have a slight positive read on, those who have posted considerably and I have a mild scum read on, and those who have not posted much at all. The last group is the one I am most interested in right now, and it includes RBT, ToD, MafiaSSK and Seraphim. Part of the purpose of Day 1 is to get everyone talking and get a chance to get a feel for all of the players, and I don't want us to be going into Day 2 with a whole bunch of people who have not posted much. Of those in the scummy leaning group, I would probably vote for Isacc first- he seems to have been following someone else's views a lot.

Hmm. Lurkervoting is not always the most productive course of action. Would you actually be in favour of lynching Seraphim if he continued to lurk for the rest of the day?

magnus_orion wrote:So, caf19, who is scum, in your opinion?

My vote's still on Phily and I haven't seen any reasons to take it off... if not Phily, then there are a few people I might consider voting, but I'm not entirely sure about any of them right now.

Isacc · Post Post #315 (ISO) » Sat Apr 18, 2009 3:15 am

Walnut wrote: [Isacc] seems to have been following someone else's views a lot.

Hardly. There is really

one

event where anyone has mentioned it seeming like I followed anyone, namely following Magnus on voting Philly. I have defended myself against that too, but that's irrelevant (you can choose to believe or not). The point is, this kinda seems like a severe overgeneralization.

I think you should make some cases on non-lurkers. Could you please name your top three scum suspects and why you suspect them (with evidence)? No lurkers, mind you.

Riceballtail · Post Post #316 (ISO) » Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:19 am

magnus_orion wrote:In respect to RBT and Mafiassk:
Actually I can hazard a guess at what they were getting at, but I want to hear them say it.
So I'll just sit quietly for now.

What's funny is that I have no idea what SSK see or is voting for. I was quite literally going for reactions.

I see Walnut to be likely scum. Nocmen and magnus close behind. I actually don't thin caf is scummy at this point either.

Unvote; Vote:Walnut

magnus_orion · Post Post #317 (ISO) » Sat Apr 18, 2009 6:07 am

-_-

Well, fine, I can hazard a guess at what mafiassk was getting at...
I still want to hear him say it. If I'm wrong, then I'll explain what I was thinking...

I agree with Isacc in regards to walnuts obsession with lynching lurkers. The only problem is that I've used attacking lurkers as scum to substantiate an arguement for opportunism that got me the win in lylo once, so I'm not certain whether or not its the best indication of scum. Some people just like going after lurkers. Which isn't to defend walnut, because he really should be going after other people. And his defense of phillyec is still suspicious.

magnus_orion · Post Post #318 (ISO) » Sat Apr 18, 2009 6:09 am

Actually, come to think of it, Walnut's last list should have included phillyec. Selectivity, much?
Walnut will have to explain this.

Walnut · Post Post #319 (ISO) » Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:32 pm

caf19 wrote: Lurkervoting is not always the most productive course of action.

QFT. However, as I said in my previous post, we have a whole third of the town not contributing much, so I am in no hurry to lynch yet, and more keen to get them involved. The deadline is now less than a week away, and it is insane that someone can go the whole day without posting a single content post.

you actually be in favour of lynching Seraphim if he continued to lurk for the rest of the day?

Depends what else comes up, and if there was any chance of getting a lynch on him before deadline. If no one else was going anywhere near him, I wouldn't waste my vote there. I am a bit more suspicious of him than the average lurker on account of his making an active decision to replace into a game then lurking.

RBT wrote: What's funny is that I have no idea what SSK see or is voting for. I was quite literally going for reactions.

"I have just done something scummy, but of course I did it on purpose". Similarly to when magnus did it early on, you get a reaction that says "That was scummy". It's a terrible defence.

@Isacc: Whether it is due to the frequency and timing of your posting or that you just happen to think similarly to other players, the majority of your posts say something that someone else has already said. Taking a look at post #310 as your most recent example, it essentially includes two points:

Isacc wrote:Prod gotten, and I haven't really been inactive, I just was hoping Philly would have posted by now, since he's my top suspect. This is getting pretty frustrating.

@MafiaSSK, and RBT: Wow -_-. Worst case ever lol.

First, that Phily hasn't posted (which magnus has already said). Secondly, that RBT and Mafia SSK have not presented a strong case (which I have already said. So, not so much an overgeneralisation, and it keeps you in my top three. Now that he is starting to post more, I am getting more of a scum vibe from RBT (see earlier in this post). I'll do some more thinking about who I would round out my top three with.

Actually, come to think of it, Walnut's last list should have included phillyec. Selectivity, much?
Walnut will have to explain this.

Fair point on Phily. I guess I felt I had a decent read on him from his early posts, but had overlooked that he has not posted much more recently.

magnus_orion · Post Post #320 (ISO) » Sat Apr 18, 2009 5:23 pm

walnut wrote:Fair point on Phily. I guess I felt I had a decent read on him from his early posts, but had overlooked that he has not posted much more recently.

You overlooked it? But it was in your points against isacc, which were hinted at in the post where you left out philly. More selectivity.

Isacc · Post Post #321 (ISO) » Sat Apr 18, 2009 7:55 pm

First, that Phily hasn't posted (which magnus has already said). Secondly, that RBT and Mafia SSK have not presented a strong case (which I have already said. So, not so much an overgeneralisation, and it keeps you in my top three.

Ok, this is wrong on multiple levels.

This isn't even an example of "following others" for two simple reasons. First, "following" would generally imply a direct attempt to conform to a specific viewpoint. Usually, it's most accurate when a person conforms to one side of a major argument without bringing anything to the table. Why? Because there is a lack of reasoning for choosing

that side

of the argument.

However, in this situation, I am not buddying up to any particular opinion. I'm stating a fact. Philly hasn't posted, and the other two didn't make a case. It's not a select opinion which I am "following," instead being essentially an objective fact which I am acknowledging. If I call the sky blue, is that following too?

Next, issue.

Following others is generally a scumtell for the simple reason that scum are trying to stay on everyone's good side. Therefore, if you are accusing me of "following," in a scummy way, my "following" should fulfill this goal.

However, how does post 310 that you quoted fulfill this at all? Both the things that I allegedly "followed" on were so utterly obvious that I was not going to gain townie points and get on people's good side. If anything I was gonna score "he's not completely unaware of his surroundings" points, which don't help me one way or the other.

The moral of the story is, your entire accusation is a pretty large reach. I'm honestly surprised you would even try to make 310 out to fit your accusation, when you could have argued the old point of my Phillyec vote (which is at least arguable on both sides). The evidence you chose to use kinda makes it seem like you were trying to make my posts seem "follow-y" rather than actually pointing out what gave you that idea in the first place.

Isacc · Post Post #322 (ISO) » Sat Apr 18, 2009 7:57 pm

magnus_orion wrote:
walnut wrote:Fair point on Phily. I guess I felt I had a decent read on him from his early posts, but had overlooked that he has not posted much more recently.
You overlooked it? But it was in your points against isacc, which were hinted at in the post where you left out philly. More selectivity.

Didn't even get what you were saying at first, but after re-reading, QFT.

Walnut, you accuse me of following. As evidence for following, you site my accusation of Philly. This would suggest that you knew that Philly was inactive at the time you accused me of following (since that's the opinion I was allegedly "following")...which was in the same post where you now claim you didn't realize he was lurking...

Walnut · Post Post #323 (ISO) » Sat Apr 18, 2009 9:43 pm

magnus_orion wrote:
walnut wrote:Fair point on Phily. I guess I felt I had a decent read on him from his early posts, but had overlooked that he has not posted much more recently.
You overlooked it? But it was in your points against isacc, which were hinted at in the post where you left out philly. More selectivity.

How would noting that Isacc followed someone else's opinion on Phily have a direct correlation to whether I was keeping tabs on how much Phily had posted recently? I agree it would be suspicious for me to say that Isacc was repeating a point about Phily being absent then in a subsequent post say that I did not realise that Phily was absent. However, to make an argument out of saying it in the same post seems a bit unbelievable.

Isacc, that was a weird attempt at a strawman. You start off by attempting to define "following" as a particular set of behaviours, then demonstrate how you are not displaying them. You go on to say that I was completely wrong to say that you were "following" when in fact you were actively lurking and proud of it.

If I call the sky blue, is that following too?

If someone else has called the sky blue, yes it is. Especially when it is the entirety of your contribution.

Beyond_Birthday · Post Post #324 (ISO) » Sun Apr 19, 2009 7:05 am

Walnut wrote: Isacc, that was a weird attempt at a strawman.
You start off by attempting to define "following" as a particular set of behaviours, then demonstrate how you are not displaying them. You go on to say that I was completely wrong to say that you were "following" when in fact you were actively lurking and proud of it.

Actually, I thought that this sequence of logic was actually a decently designed case. It doesn't prove Isacc town, but it does prove your accusation false.