Mini 749 - Antarctic Mafia [Game Over]

[DraketheFake]

Objection! Coaching the witness.

Your inability to parse out a reasonably simple compound statement and your subsequent attack when I tried to point out that it was obvious make me think you were, indeed, intentionally misrepresenting his statement.

I object. You have not proven that normal scum tells, such as "scum claim their kills" and "doctors praise themselves" apply to me. Claiming book won't cut it.

What? Are you actually suggesting that scum only make normal scum tells? Or that "doctors praise themselves" is a

scum

tell?

Or are you merely trying to dodge a slew of accusations by telling me that you won't respond to them unless I prove that they're "normal scum tells?"

Because either way you're ridiculous.

Also, suggesting I don't calculate for every possibility is stupid... that is to say, if I wasn't pressed to claim, I would not have. Therefore, saying a vig would insta-claim his kill is completely moronic. I figured that by painting this up to sk, the mafia wouldn't look for usual vig tells from anyone but me. I figure I crossed those out, so if they attack me, they would hack me as sk, but the odds someone out there who is more likely to look like sk than myself seems high. I am usually kept alive afterall. *Sighs* this didn't play out, of course, but was my planned course of action.

Where exactly did I suggest that you didn't calculate for every possibility?

You were pressed to claim because you were obsessed with the source of the second kill and actively attacking players who said we should discuss other things, as well as because of your spotty play throughout D1.

There are two pro-town ways (in my opinion) to play the vig in the position that you would have, hypothetically, if you were the vig. One is to continue to scum-hunt and use your own ability as you saw fit, basically to treat it as a power role. The other was to claim immediately and let the town decide how to proceed. You seemed to be cognizant of the fact that the numbers were looking a little grim if the kills continued at the rate they were, and so I would not have faulted you for coming out to alleviate the stress of where the second kill came from and allow the town players to discuss something else.

I'd expect that normal vig play follows along the first line, but I think the second line is just as pro-town. Your play falls near neither of those possibilities: you actively confused the town by bringing up as many possible explanations for the second kill as you could think of, and then you acted put-upon when people tried to get you to explain why you were so obsessed with it.

Oh, and to get this monkey off the thread's back: It's about time for you to address JereIC's interpretation of why else you might lie about your role claim. If indeed you are not a killer whale, and were trying to draw out scum, now is the time to admit that. Now is also the time to address if you did NOT do this.

How did we get here, when I used to know you so well?

JereIC - 1 (Netlava)
FishytheFish - 3 (Light-kun, JereIC, Looker)
Looker - 3 (HowardRoark, FishytheFish, DraketheFake)

Not Voting - 2 (tubby216, Jazzmyn)

Fishy & Looker are both L-2

9 alive, 5 to lynch

-Mod

(Vote Count accurate as of Post 745)

[Fishythefish]

Define the accusation. (By whom/why flawed).

This is

completely

obvious. Looker attacked me for buddying with you. I have already explained why this is flawed, though it is rather self explanatory.

[Fishythefish]

What about the other cases? You did post something along these lines for other people too.

I don't quite know what you mean.

I think the strong suspicions I have voiced today were on Drake, Jazz and Looker. My concerns with Drake's day 1 play still stand, but other concerns now override these (the wagon on me is, from my pov, very likely to some extent scum-driven, and that's my primary focus), and I think he has played pretty pro-town today, particularly in dropping his suspicions on me at a time when I was a very good target (if Drake was still suspicious of me, I would be dead). My concerns with Jazz were largely to do with his case, which has since been clarified in a way I find genuine, and so I am much less suspicious of him than when I attacked him. My concerns with Looker are to do with absolutely no useful content, together with OMGUS votes, and that I suspect him of trying to escalate me vs. Jazz. Looker has an unexplained action meta, and I think he is using this to excuse pro-scum play. These concerns are entirely unanswered, and that's why my vote is on him.

Also, Fishy now thinks LK is pro-town?

I don't know where you got this from? I still think the odds of LK being the SK are very good. He's pro-town right now in the sense that he wants to lynch mafia, but I doubt he wins with the town.

Drake; particularly if L-k is going to no kill, a lynch on him at this stage isn't going to be good, unless there a serious chance he is scum. It is WIFOMy, but it's pretty unlikely scum shot DDD. The chances of LK being SK or vig are very high indeed. And either way, he's a pretty good kill for the mafia tonight, particularly if we mislynch, as then L-k will never get lynched. If we can lynch scum today, that is far better than lynching L-k, and even a mislynch isn't much worse.

[JereIC]

Fishy- you think the mafia are going to kill LK over the claimed doc?

[Fishythefish]

Fishy- you think the mafia are going to kill LK over the claimed doc?

I had forgotten the claimed doc. Assuming Drake is real:
Drake has a lot of suspicion on him, and L-k is extremely dangerous to the mafia. I think if we mislynched, they would have a very difficult decision on their hands. L-k would then be pretty well unlynchable, and has the potential to do a lot of damage. In effect, from the mafia's point of view, he becomes a confirmed vigilante (he'll always be shooting for scum, and he'll never get lynched)- so the question is fundamentally would mafia rather kill an unconfirmed doctor or a confirmed unprotectable vigilante? Not obvious. If we lynched scum, I imagine they would simply blow the doc's brains out and try to lynch L-k.

[DraketheFake]

Well, I guess we're just going to have to take it on faith that L-k even can no-kill, since nobody seems as sold on these arguments as me and I've brought them repeatedly to everyone's attention.

After re-processing the post I made about Jazzmyn, and taking into account the play D1 of pacman vs. na85, I think I'm more comfortable going after Jazzmyn right now. No, I don't like Looker's play: however, I find it more likely that Looker's play is that of a badly-playing townie than Jazzmyn's. What do I mean by that? I mean that there appears to be no ulterior motive to Looker's play, just poorly thought-out one-liners and a total lack of contribution. Jazzmyn's continually drum-beating, on the other hand, has done a lot to distract the town from fully considering its options, and I think that that is not accidental.

Unvote, Vote: Jazzmyn

.

[Light-kun]

Define the accusation. (By whom/why flawed).

This is

completely

obvious. Looker attacked me for buddying with you. I have already explained why this is flawed, though it is rather self explanatory.

Oh yeah. This wasn't suspicion on you, my mind just blanked.

Fishy:
Telling mafia that Drake won't protect me ensures my death. Keep it a mystery and let the Doctor, if he is in fact that, reason out what to do. If he is Doctor, he should make the best possible move.

[Fishythefish]

Fishy:
Telling mafia that Drake won't protect me ensures my death. Keep it a mystery and let the Doctor, if he is in fact that, reason out what to do. If he is Doctor, he should make the best possible move.

The last thing I would ever presume to do is order the doctor around. I don't think my predicting what the mafia are likely to think/do tonight helps them in the slightest. Also, the mafia shooting you tonight is a result I'd be pretty happy with.

[JereIC]

Netlava, I know you think I'm scum, but can I ask what you think of Fishy's position(s)?

[Jazzmyn]

In Jazzmyn's first content-ful post (367), she fingers ZEEnon, me, Light-kun, and Howard.
Most of this feels fair to me. There are individual points in the case against me that I don't like, but her point about my 14 joke posts (which I counted upon her notation of them, much to my chagrin) is solid and there's nothing horribly out of line. What I don't like is her treatment of Howard, and what she says about him the player could apply to a smattering of different players in the game at this point. But that's pretty minor, too.

And for the sake of completeness, you left some things out in what you quoted there, which have some bearing on your (mild) criticism. Namely, that I also specifically said: "NOTE: The following is based on Day 1 posts only. I will add more later re: Day 2 posts" and "So, those are my top suspects as of the end of Day 1. I won't post the rest of my analysis of other players, or my town reads, etc., as it wouldn't be in the best interests of the town to do so at this point, but I will catch up on the Day 2 posts asap and post more soon, hopefully tomorrow."

Regarding Light-Kun's vigilante claim, it's plausible and it is certainly testable, so we should be able to ascertain soon enough whether he really is town aligned or not. But I think that we should test LK to ensure that he will follow town consensus, whether that consensus is to take out a particular target tonight or to no-kill tonight, rather than have him act alone.

Nary a comment on L-k's conduct at the beginning of the day - which I still find completely contrary to the idea that L-k is a pro-town vig - coupled with acceptance of the claim.

By the time I got back to the thread, Light-Kun had already claimed, and perhaps I over-analyze things sometimes but what I got from Light-Kun's conduct at the beginning of the day was that he was deliberately trying to garner suspicion and votes for the purposes of claiming. My game notes indicate that after reading Day 1 a few times upon first replacing in, I thought that he might be a town power role angling to look suspicious enough not to get NKed on Night 1 (which I wasn't going to post in the thread, for obvious reasons) so I was viewing his conduct at the beginning of Day 2 in that light, and then when I looked at Day 2, I thought his conduct was consistent with that of a somewhat overzealous player with a power role who was anxious to claim his role. So, since that fit my read on him, and since his claim could be tested, I didn't really feel the need to comment more explicitly on his early Day 2 conduct which had already been discussed at some length by that time.

The rest is just a basic re-hash of the detailed analysis that Nuwen posted of the wagons yesterday, boiling it down to just the vote-switches that, conveniently, finger Fishy, me, and Jere.

Not true. That was actually a

correction

to posts by Nuwen and Fishythefish, not a rehash.

At the end of her 418:

There is overlap among Fishy, Drake and Jere on the early DDD wagon and the late freeko wagon. On the early DDD wagon were 1, Drake; 2, freeko; 3, Jere; and Fishy came later at #4. On the late freeko wagon were 4, Fishy; 5 Nuwen; 6, Drake; 7 Jere. I think it most likely that there is scum among the overlap.

Again, that was actually in response to a specific post in which another player queried whether there any alignment among the players on the early DDD wagon and on the late freeko wagon. It wasn't a rehash, but an answer to a specific point.

She declares her intent to vote for Fishy pending a votecount, then posts to say she realized that Fishy has only one vote, but will wait until he returns from V/LA to do so, which seems overly cautious to me.

Ahem. You complained when Fishy voted for you while you were V/LA when you had no other votes on you at all, so this seems rather contradictory coming from you. (See your posts 463 and 467)

So the accumulated crimes:
1. Tunneling.
2. Tunneling.
3. Tunneling.
(Har.)

Yeah, I know. I've already said that I have to make conscious efforts to avoid tunneling as it's something I struggle with.

I actually might find this sort of replace-in conduct okay if she hadn't essentially been parroting what Nuwen first set forth all day,

Except you are wrong about that, as I have pointed out above.

It's her initial suspicions that make me suspicious: the fact that she never again mentions ZEEnon's many replacements' conduct specifically in context of continuing to be suspicious of that player chain

Except that I have, indeed, mentioned ZEEnon's replacements (hohum, by calling him out to participate, which he never did, and Netlava, by commenting on her lack of posts and her poorly crafted case on Jere) but I do agree that I need to pay more attention to Netlava - and others - since my focus has been too narrow.

and the fact that she seems so ready to accept L-k at his word,

I have always said that his claim should be tested, as have others.

and especially that she felt the need to feebly finger Howard at the beginning of the day.

I have already addressed the parts of my initial post that you left out, and it appears that you deliberately selectively quoted that post in order to try to paint that post in a negative light, when it didn't deserve it.

Jazz is taking her time with that reread, although I can't blame her.

Yeah, it's slow going, but I'm getting there.

In the meantime, I am going to

Unvote

pending the rest of my re-read.

Regards,
Jazz

[HowardRoark]

@Netlava:

@Netlava: I understand that you want to focus on one player at a time, but if JereIC were not in the game who would your target be and why?

You have yet to respond to me.

@DraketheFake: I can see where you are coming from with your case on Jazzmyn. However I disagree on the point that Looker's play is less scummy than Jazzmyn's play. I would have to call it a draw.

mod: prod Looker

Last post: Sun May 03, 2009 7:32 pm (US Eastern)

Speaking of prods . . . I realize that tubby216 has a RL issue, but how long are we going to wait for his return?

[Light-kun]

This day is dragging on in a giant circle...
I vote fishy lynch.

[Fishythefish]

This day is dragging on in a giant circle...
I vote fishy lynch.

I disagree.

The cases on me are largely due to my odd (but not pro-scum) positions on some issues today, and my changes of stance- some real, some imagined. I really do think I have explained my pro-town thought processes on all of these points, and I think it's fairly clear there are no outstandingly good points against me. If my play was the enormous mess of contradictions that the attacks on me imply, surely there would be one point on me that I hadn't got a reasonable explanation for. I am not being voted for being scummy, I'm being voted for a few differences of opinion, and for changing my mind.

Aside from my incorrect arguments about vote analysis early in the day, I do not think there is a single point against me where the scum explanation is more convincing than the (correct) townie explanation I have given.

[JereIC]

For everyone who's on the fence, Fishy's position is that LK is the Serial Killer because flavor matters and a guy with a gun is obviously bad news. LK is obviously a guy with a gun, as seen in the death descriptions and in LK's earlier comment that he had a "nice shiny gun to shoot people with." When LK was forced to claim species, LK thought that flavor mattered and a man with a gun would look anti-town, so he made a false species claim. For the fake species claim, he went with killer whale because the krill=commuter role showed that flavor is BS when species are in the same food chain as penguins. Apparently he thought that because penguins eat krill, it'd be ok for him to claim an animal that ate penguins. That is, he false-claimed because he thought flavor and appearances mattered, but when making the false-claim he wasn't as concerned about appearances and flavor. And LK wasn't concerned about the appearance of a guy with a gun when he said he had a "nice shiny gun to shoot people with."

From this, Fishy concludes we should keep the serial killer alive. At first it's because if the SK keeps killing, town has a better chance of winning since the SK is likely to kill off a mafioso or two. But then he insists that LK not kill tonight, and threatens to vote for LK if he doesn't promise to no-kill tonight. Apparently that was an empty threat, because he later said he never wanted to lynch LK. Now he believes that LK is going to be the mafia's prime target tonight, over the claimed doc, and since LK has promised not to kill tonight, we shouldn't waste our lynch on him today.

Instead, he believes Looker is scum, mostly because of the weak case Looker made against Fishy. For that, I think he has to explain who Looker's scumbuddies could be - Fishy was at L-1 for a looong time until Jazz unvoted, so why didn't a scumbuddy hammer him for the mislynch? If he's assuming all the scum are on his bandwagon already, does that imply he thinks Jazz and I are both scum too, since he thinks LK is the SK?

That's why I'm voting for Fish.

[Fishythefish]

Fishy's position is that LK is the Serial Killer because flavor matters and a guy with a gun is obviously bad news.

False. That is why I believe he falseclaimed.

LK is obviously a guy with a gun, as seen in the death descriptions and in LK's earlier comment that he had a "nice shiny gun to shoot people with."

Well, he is obviously something with a gun (though I never mentioned that comment)

When LK was forced to claim species, LK thought that flavor mattered and a man with a gun would look anti-town, so he made a false species claim. For the fake species claim, he went with killer whale because the krill=commuter role showed that flavor is BS when species are in the same food chain as penguins. Apparently he thought that because penguins eat krill, it'd be ok for him to claim an animal that ate penguins.

You are putting words into my mouth. I have never said why L-k made the specific claim he did, only that he claimed falsely. I stated that I found the inconsistency of man=town different to that of killer whale=town. You asked why. I explained.

That is, he false-claimed because he thought flavor and appearances mattered, but when making the false-claim he wasn't as concerned about appearances and flavor.

This flatly contradicts what you said before. You don't rephrase your previous point, you change them

completely

. When making his falseclaim, he wanted to claim a species which was realistically a killing protown species, which other players in the game were unlikely to be. I think Killer Whale plausibly does this, he just forgot he'd shot someone. So, he was thinking about flavour and appearances. He just forgot one particular aspect of this.

And LK wasn't concerned about the appearance of a guy with a gun when he said he had a "nice shiny gun to shoot people with."

This detracts from my argument, as it shows awareness of kill method. You have never mentioned this point before, except in the context of your pathetic explanation of

why L-k falseclaimed

. Your points apply just as much to this argument- L-k's thought process is just as obscure if L-k falseclaimed as vig.

From this, Fishy concludes we should keep the serial killer alive. At first it's because if the SK keeps killing, town has a better chance of winning since the SK is likely to kill off a mafioso or two. But then he insists that LK not kill tonight, and threatens to vote for LK if he doesn't promise to no-kill tonight. Apparently that was an empty threat, because he later said he never wanted to lynch LK. Now he believes that LK is going to be the mafia's prime target tonight, over the claimed doc, and since LK has promised not to kill tonight, we shouldn't waste our lynch on him today.

No, no, no no and no.
- I wanted to keep the SK alive because a killing serial killer is better than a lynched one. At this time I was more certain than I am now about flavour being important. I was saying that

given

that L-k would not listen to us and would carry on killing, he's still not worth lynching. You also fail to note that I weakened my conclusion with one intervening post.
- Telling L-k to no kill tests his claim, because SK's are frequently compulsive. This is compounded by the fact that I became less certain of the importance of flavour.
- The threat to vote for LK is he doesn't promise to no-kill does not in any way mean I ever wanted to lynch him. I've said this before, and I can only imagine you aren't reading my responses. If put in a "promise to do this or die" position, any player of any alignment will promise to do this.
- The mafia is going to shoot him point is an extra point, and I've said that over the claimed doc it is going to be a tough decision (and with an innocent lynch, it really would be. Also, future killings on L-k are likely). Just because I have more than one reason not to lynch LK doesn't mean they contradict each other.

Why

would I have done any of the things you say I did as scum? You don't give a single pro-scum motivation for my play.

Instead, he believes Looker is scum, mostly because of the weak case Looker made against Fishy. For that, I think he has to explain who Looker's scumbuddies could be - Fishy was at L-1 for a looong time until Jazz unvoted, so why didn't a scumbuddy hammer him for the mislynch? If he's assuming all the scum are on his bandwagon already, does that imply he thinks Jazz and I are both scum too, since he thinks LK is the SK?

Not only because of the weak case. Because he hopped onto first Jazz and then me for no reason after we voted him, because he attempted to set up a conflict between me and Jazz, and yes, because of a ludicrous attempt to justify his vote.
Possible scumpartners for looker:
- You, obviously
- Jazz, obviously
- tubby, who is effectively voting me
- Netlava (who, having said I was probably innocent when I had 5 likely voters, has a bit of repositioning to do before being able to justify voting me- and seems to be doing this). He would be in no position to hammer.
- In fact, even DtF and, particularly, Howard, are possible. They both supported me when my lynch looked likely without their help, and couldn't hammer given their previous positions. DtF less so, since he jumped off my wagon at a key point.

You clearly haven't actually thought about looker's potential buddies, probably because you already know who they are. You say a scumbuddy would be hammering. From a "Fishy is probably innocent position", when my lynch looks likely anyway, and attracting huge suspicion tomorrow? I hope I'm never scum with you

[Light-kun]

I think if Fishy's scum, based purely on his comments about DTF and Howard, that these two are likely scum buddies, and DTF in particular wouldn't surprise me.

Still, I'm sticking with Fishy, who looks like scum.

[Looker]

...and...the fish...is still...alive...

[JereIC]

...and...the fish...is still...alive...

Yeah, he's slippery like some sort of aquatic animal.

BTW, why are you voting for Fishy?

[DraketheFake]

BTW, why are you voting for Fishy?

Not the kind of question you want to be asking someone you share a wagon with.

...and...the fish...is still...alive...

This is honestly all you can contribute after calls for a prod?

Unvote, Vote: Looker

.

@Netlava: It's about that time of day where you need to make certain decisions about popular wagons. JereIC: unlikely to be lynched today. Do you really not think that either of Fishy or Looker has acted more suspiciously than JereIC?

[JereIC]

BTW, why are you voting for Fishy?

Not the kind of question you want to be asking someone you share a wagon with.

Care to expand on that thought?

[orangepenguin]

Activity Check

DraketheFake - Sun May 10, 2009 3:42 pm
HowardRoark - Sun May 10, 2009 10:05 am
Looker - Sun May 10, 2009 7:58 am
Fishythefish - Sun May 10, 2009 7:34 am
JereIC - Sun May 10, 2009 5:53 am
Netlava - Sun May 10, 2009 2:29 am
Light-kun - Sat May 09, 2009 11:34 pm
Jazzmyn - Wed May 06, 2009 9:28 pm
tubby216 - Fri May 01, 2009 6:13 pm (V/LA for an extended amount of time)

tubby is V/LA at the moment, so I won't prod him at the moment. If he doesn't post by May 14 (two weeks), then I will consider prodding and/or replacing him. Jazzmyn will be prodded.

-The Mod

[Light-kun]

BTW, why are you voting for Fishy?

Not the kind of question you want to be asking someone you share a wagon with.

This statement is stupid. You seem desperate to make a case against him, and this charge just isn't going to stick.

[Netlava]

Ah shoot, I really want to reread before I post anything. So I will reread. Just not now, of course.

[Netlava]

Guy with a gun could be a wildlife research who has a gun for self-defense, or a vet who has a gun for euthanasia, or a hunter who's here to hunt albatross or seals. There's lots of not-quite-anti-town possibilities.

Killer whales eat penguins. There's not a lot of flavor wiggle room with that.

You do realize that it's just a theory, an elaborate one at that, with some questionable connections. I think it's a little strange that you think him town just because of some theory considering that you were pretty strongly on his initial wagon and you revoted him later.

Also, @ Light, I'm not sure if you've addressed this, but what do you think of JereIC's theory? Did you by any chance address his theory yet?

@Netlava: I understand that you want to focus on one player at a time, but if JereIC were not in the game who would your target be and why?

My target? I don't like to think that I have some sort of "target" - that makes it seem like I'm just picking someone to accuse. But to answer your question, lemme answer it a little later. (I'm kinda unsure right now)

What about the other cases? You did post something along these lines for other people too.

I don't quite know what you mean.

I meant that you said you were convinced someone was scum multiple times earlier. I was a little confused where you stood.

[JereIC]

Aight.

Vote: Deadline

I don't think we're getting anything else out of this day.