Mini 767: Cubic Mafia (Game Over!)

[Nocmen]

I'm here. Been a hectic two days. Going to try and get a nice post once I finish my work for today.

[Seraphim]

Still here and still rereading.

[magnus_orion]

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.

Unbelievable? I disagree.
As it stands, your defense involves the implication that the evidence for the case against issac made itself apparant after you accused him.
Then what lead you to accuse him of following people?
This evidence on isacc you present is invalid, because you could not have used it to reach your conclusion because, by your own admission, you hadn't noticed philly's lurking. So, give us the evidence that lead

you

to your conclusion of this generalization with respect to isacc.

[caf19]

I see Walnut to be likely scum.

Plz explain why this is the case, kthx.

If no one else was going anywhere near him, I wouldn't waste my vote there.

Well, y'know, nobody is going near him at the moment either. I guess I just don't see the utility of your vote and I think it could be better put to use elsewhere.

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.

Obviously a few people have jumped on this line already, but I will chip in that I think it's weird for a slightly different reason. To me, Phily is differentiated from the other lurkers on your list in that he did contribute for a time, enough for people to form opinions on him. So a natural response to that question would echo that, instead of just agreeing with magnus and saying that you should have put him on your lurkerlist. It makes you seem a bit over-eager to appear agreeable.

Still here and still rereading.

Please be quick, deadline isn't far away.

Mod

, is it time for a prod on Phily yet?

[MafiaSSK]

Vote:Walnut

He's overdefending.

[PhilyEc]

Requesting a replacement

Sorry guys, alot of my games are finished but life has gotten alot busier lately, this is the game I find least approachable and most time consuming, one word of advice, dont let Magnus' attempts of grandstanding go unnoticed, still possible scum.

[Kairyuu]

*grumble*

Another replacement? Very well, I'll get searching.

Votecount should be up very soon.

Remember people, deadline is Friday, and I'm not extending it any further, since it was supposed to have been 2 days ago already.

[magnus_orion]

*Is blissfully ignorant of what "grandstanding" is*

Caf19's observation is correct, but I would have expected walnut to find that on his own, were that truly the case.

[Kairyuu]

Votecount 6:

Walnut(3):

Trumpet of Doom; Riceballtail; MafiaSSK

Dourgrim(1):

Seraphim

Flame(1):

Walnut

PhilyEc(2):

magnus_orion; caf19

magnus_orion(1):

Dourgrim;

Riceballtail(2):

Nocmen; Beyond Birthday

Not Voting(2): PhilyEc; Isacc;

With 12 players alive it's 7 to lynch.

If deadline were to hit right now, there would be no lynch.

[Walnut]

Well, y'know, nobody is going near him at the moment either. I guess I just don't see the utility of your vote and I think it could be better put to use elsewhere.

By leaving my vote on Seraphim and explaining why, I have drawn attention to the fact that Flame/Seraphim accounts for 2 (now 3) posts, for a total of "Hi, I am here", an in-joke with RBT, and now his most recent post to say he is still re-reading. That is insfufficient for a Day 1 contribution- we will go into Day 2 knowing nothing about him.

@Caf19, magnus:

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.

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.

I see what you are getting at, but the answer is simple. I felt I had a decent read on him (which was largely that he was showing more newb than particularly scum); his not posting for a long time after that was not consistent with the read that I had made, so he fell more into the lurker category.
And if you think I am trying to be too agreeable, I should mention that BB's last post was worthy of American Idol- y'know, the early rounds where they show people who think they can sing but really can't.

@MafiaSSK: Go meta me. I live for defense. I consider it a better scumhunting tool than groundless accusations

[caf19]

Mod

, BB is voting for Riceballtail, not me.

Fixed. Thank you.

[Isacc]

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.

At the same post you did two things: Accused me of following, and admitted not realizing Philly lurked.

In order to prove I was following, you then said that I copied Magnus by stating that Philly was lurking.

However, when you accused me, you clearly did not know that Philly was lurking, so you could not have noticed the evidence you cited at the time of your accusation, meaning your evidence is not related to the case against me.

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.

1. How is that strawman, at all? I directly disproved your argument.

2.

This

is strawman. Rather than proving I was following (your original case, which I countered) you try to switch your accusation to active lurking. Now you're just trying to find a scumtell you can cling to.

3. You're going to accuse me of actively lurking? NO DUH. Did you see my signature? I was too busy all weekend to make a long solid post. Friday (when I posted my alleged "following/active lurking" post) I spent all day doing homework until I went to work that night.

So, yes I was technically "active lurking."

Due to being V/LA...

Your argument is holding less weight by the minute.

Also, we are damn near deadline. I'm personally against lynching lurkers, and I even less like the idea of lynching a non-existent player (who do we lynch? Phillyec or the replacement? Omg it's like mafia no-lynch limbo!?!?!? lol). However, a no-lynch is most definitely unacceptable, for blatantly obvious reasons.

I'd say this new reaction by Walnut is extremely suspicious. Part of me feels like my judgment might be clouded and OMGUS is just talking here, but switching accusations to find one that fit better is definitely rubbing me the wrong way. I'm comfortable with a

Vote: Walnut

[magnus_orion]

Well, y'know, nobody is going near him at the moment either. I guess I just don't see the utility of your vote and I think it could be better put to use elsewhere.

By leaving my vote on Seraphim and explaining why, I have drawn attention to the fact that Flame/Seraphim accounts for 2 (now 3) posts, for a total of "Hi, I am here", an in-joke with RBT, and now his most recent post to say he is still re-reading. That is insfufficient for a Day 1 contribution- we will go into Day 2 knowing nothing about him.

@Caf19, magnus:

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.

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.

I see what you are getting at, but the answer is simple. I felt I had a decent read on him (which was largely that he was showing more newb than particularly scum); his not posting for a long time after that was not consistent with the read that I had made, so he fell more into the lurker category.
And if you think I am trying to be too agreeable, I should mention that BB's last post was worthy of American Idol- y'know, the early rounds where they show people who think they can sing but really can't.

@MafiaSSK: Go meta me. I live for defense. I consider it a better scumhunting tool than groundless accusations

In accordance with that last point you make, your accusation of isacc may be groundless... But isacc's talking about that, and he's explaining pretty well.
Or at least, is not very well grounded, and your defene is merely verbaitum what has been pointed out by Caf19 to be the pro-town answer,

which you did not originally give

The fact that you had to figure this out in order to use it as defense means that this was not actually your train of thought, but an excuse, otherwise that would be your immediate response, because that would actually be the case.

And I don't understand your reference to american idol, as "can't sing" as well as "think they can" is subjective. The only thing I know about american idol is that it is quite possibly the most ingenious business venture I've ever seen: Take a process that normally costs the industry money, namely, the processing of people wanting to become stars, the good from the bad, present it as a game show, net a profit from advertising, and highly increase the success rate of those chosen to become stars, cutting costs by reducing failed stars, because the customers themselves were the ones who selected the stars. Truly brilliant, manipulative, and profitable. A business marvel.

[Dourgrim]

Sorry, guys, I had surgery Friday and have been recovering, and I forgot to post in V/LA to that effect. I'm (kinda) back but still recovering, I'll do what I can to keep up.

[Beyond_Birthday]

It's okay Dour, but do try and give a well reasoned vote by Friday.

Unvote; Vote: Walnut

If Walnut is scum, Phily is 30% likely to be scum.

Magnus' forgetfulness to include Phily and his near passive play in reference to.

If Walnut isn't scum, I would suggest Caf19 is scum with Magnus Orion.

Magnus found, in his post on the last page, a question Caf asked that he called scummy. Caf never responded and Magnus never pursued it. This is scummy on both.

A third partner could be Dourgrim, but this is far less likely. (But a more likely third partner to those two than anyone else.)

If Magnus did coach Caf as my last post alludes to as a possibility, it could be infered that he reminded Caf of something along the lines of: Don't suspect Dour without reason, even though you know he's scum.

I may, to be honest, be reading too much into this, but these are my thoughts at the moment, and why, if we do not lynch Walnut, I will pursue Magnus/Caf19.

Noc feels faintly town. Isacc feels faintly town. Everyone else is still on the border line, which is almost as bad as being a suspect. As in, so far from being "town like," its like being suspected of murder.

[Beyond_Birthday]

Ebwop: Walnut's forgetfulness*

[magnus_orion]

Dourgrim, get well soon.

Magnus found, in his post on the last page, a question Caf asked that he called scummy. Caf never responded and Magnus never pursued it. This is scummy on both.

Sorry, BB didn't include tags... lazy. Hope you don't mind.
I asked caf a question, and his response left nothing to pursue, nor gave me any reason to. My top suspect is phillyec, and caf responded with suspicion on phillyec. Its too early for bussing, I think, so caf's reponse ended my questioning for now...
Though I can see where you'd get this.

Noc feels faintly town.

Why?

[Riceballtail]

Yeah, I'm still confident with my vote right now. I like the wagon progressing.

[magnus_orion]

Walnut should claim.
L-2.

[magnus_orion]

Double post:
And lets try not to lynch anyone 'til seraphim talks some.
I know that suggesting this is normally considered a scumtell, but with recent circumstances I think its a protown move. I'd like to get at least something out of seraphim, so that we're not flying completely blind on him day 2.

[MafiaSSK]

BB, what if Walnut is indeed scum who is his accomplice(s)?

[Walnut]

At the same post you did two things: Accused me of following, and admitted not realizing Philly lurked.

No, this is simply not true. I accused you of following in post 313; I acknowledged that I had overlooked Phily's lack of posting in post 319.

In order to prove I was following, you then said that I copied Magnus by stating that Philly was lurking.

Again, simply not true. I was not setting out to prove it; you said it was an overgeneralisation, and rather than go back and point out all of the previous posts where it had happened, I said "Look, you are still doing it- take your most recent post

as an example

". The evidence was there from throughout the game.

How is that strawman, at all? I directly disproved your argument.

Do you know what strawman means? Apologies if I seem to be repeating myself, since you didn't seem to read it the first time. You started off by saying (paraphrasing) "By following, you mean...". You continue by saying "following is usually ..." and "in general, following is ...". In doing so, you have made an initial assumption that is wrong (whether intentionally or not), and from there proceeded off down the wrong path. The result is that you have not disproved my argument- you have not even addressed it. In post 319 (prior to your strawman) I expanded on "following" by saying

@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.

I would say it was scummy to do deliberately misrepresent it this way- not sure if means that Isacc, BB and magnus are all scummy as they all seem to think he has made a fine argument.

Alright, to re-read the whole game to prove a point:

Post 10: Isacc confirms.
Post 37: Random vote.
Post 47: Comment on Phily's post 42, which Walnut and Caf19 had already commented on.
Post 48: Asks a question in response to Nocmen's dislike of random voting, as magnus had already done.
Post 52: Aggressive in response to Nocmen, who magnus is already querying.
Post 66: Legitimate content.
Post 69 & 72: Clarifying.
Post 79: Defends his post 52.
Post 94: Will post later.
Post 98: Will post later.
Post 125: Sorry. Will post later.
Post 137 & 138: A long PBPA. Some original stuff, but by its nature a lot of it is expressing a view that someone else already has.
Post 145: Comment on Phily in response to magnus' question.
Post 149: Misinterprets or misrepresents something I said (sound familiar?)
Post 166: Vote Phily (which Nocmen, magnus and Walnut have found suspicous in terms of timing)
Post 173: Response to Nocmen, who called him out for this in post 170.
Post 180: Says Phily is defending against magnus as it is easier than defending against Isacc.
Post 200: Will post tomorrow.
Post 227 Will post tomorrow.
Post 259: Will post later.
Post 275 & 276: Catch up post; any content is carefully neutral.
Post 279: Clarification.

Isacc again misrepresents my case as arguing that he was lurking because he was V/LA, but I am not showing all the "will post later/tomorrows" to show he was lurking. I am showing them to include all of his posts, so that you can see that the "generalisation" holds and I have not just cherry picked examples that suited my case and left others out.

BB, magnus- I want you to say that you have read this post, and either still agree with Isacc's argument or stop voting for me.

MafiaSSK, RBT, ToD- I am not really sure why you are voting for me. Is everyone else clear on why they are? That is important stuff going into Day 2.

[Beyond_Birthday]

BB, what if Walnut is indeed scum who is his accomplice(s)?

Mentioned that is Walnut is scummy, odds Phily are scum go up decently. However, Walnut has made exceptionally little atention to others, so outside of that, I dunno.

Odds SSK is scum if Walnut is not went up very slightly. If Magnus and Walnut are scum, odds SSK is scum becomes incredibly low. (nearing 21%)

[Beyond_Birthday]

EBWOP: Walnut, I read your post and I am far too lazy to check out all those post. If he is town or trying to look town, I'm sure that Isacc will argue about the content of each post/agree. If he disagrees, then I can use what he put in writing to convict him. If he agrees, I'll review my opinion on le deux based on that.

[caf19]

If Walnut isn't scum, I would suggest Caf19 is scum with Magnus Orion.

Magnus found, in his post on the last page, a question Caf asked that he called scummy. Caf never responded and Magnus never pursued it. This is scummy on both.

I did respond to the question posed in that post, actually. Looking back, it's possible I misinterpreted somewhat and answered the question more 'at face value' rather than with reference to the magnus/Dourgrim debate. I don't think the accusations of me 'switching positions' on said debate are very strong. Asking magnus for reasons why he switched to calling Dourgrim town doesn't imply suspicion of Dour or a will for magnus still to be voting him. I asked about it because magnus's switch was rather abrupt and wasn't explained in much detail. I think it was a perfectly reasonable question to ask.

Anyway, I'm not really sure what to do with Phily now that he's being replaced, but I guess a lot will depend on how his replacement acts. A Walnut lynch wouldn't be terrible, but before taking it any further I still want RBT's reasons for voting. Her last post willfully ignores my previous request for them. RBT, how are we to know that you genuinely suspect Walnut and this isn't just another of your 'wagoning for reactions/the sake of it' wheezes?

And lets try not to lynch anyone 'til seraphim talks some.
I know that suggesting this is normally considered a scumtell, but with recent circumstances I think its a protown move. I'd like to get at least something out of seraphim, so that we're not flying completely blind on him day 2.

This.