Mini 872: Mafia in Belgrove - That's All Folks

[Mr.Jester]

unvote

[Faraday]

Darkstrike_11 (2) (JereIC, kikuchiyo ]
Malpascp (2) [crypto, afatchic
cyrpto (2) [ Malpascp, U.N. Owen]


Not voting: (6) [Darkstrike_11, Walrus Helmet, Gyro, Ectomancer, Netopalis, Mr. Jester]

[Netopalis]

AFC - Yes, but if you're going to call something scummy, you're implying that it either is a freudian slip or that it is something that would advance the scum's game. Therefore, attacking something as scummy then refusing to explain why it advances the scum's game by calling it WIFOM is rather silly, IMHO.

[Faraday]

Rule 11) re: prodding has been changed slightly.

[Ectomancer]

I feel my focus waning.

Crypto is claiming to have been fishing for reactions, and that is a tried and true method. What he is complaining about, and I understand, is that he was looking for reactions from malpascp and by jumping in as you all did, it disturbed the pristine environment by tainting it with your own reactions first.

For me, you also disturbed the pristine environment that I had for observing Crypto and his straight reactions to Malpascp's response.

So, let it be no surprise that I will find my next vote on members of that wagon, and no longer being on it will not spare you. I'll be analyzing. If there is anything that you want to clarify about your positions on that wagon, feel free to do it now before the grilling begins.

[kikuchiyo]

Mr. Jester: You are not following me. You FoS'd someone with your vote still in its random place. Now you have unvoted the random placement. Why did you not simply move your vote in the first place? As it stands, you have an FoS on the player you described as scummy, and a vote in limbo after belatedly removing it.

Are you avoiding the Owen wagon? What do you hope to achieve with your FoS? and again, for clarity: Why did you not simply move your vote in the first place?

[crypto]

In re: Crypto, I still maintain that it's bad play, but I do appreciate the analysis of his play and understand what he was attempting to do.

Can you piggyback on other players' suspicions more please? You're going with the flow way too much.

AFC - Yes, but if you're going to call something scummy, you're implying that it either is a freudian slip or that it is something that would advance the scum's game. Therefore, attacking something as scummy then refusing to explain why it advances the scum's game by calling it WIFOM is rather silly, IMHO.

This is a stupid argument. Can you please drop it?

[Netopalis]

Ecto: To who was your post directed?

Crypto: For the love of all that is good and holy, give me some analysis to work with! "This is a stupid argument" is not analysis. It is a statement. Deconstruct it, tell me why it is bad, do SOMETHING. I can't respond to simple assertions such as "X is scum", "Y argument is bad" or "Z is helpful to town."

And as for the accusation that I have went with the flow, I feel rather the opposite - I've went against the flow of public opinion for most of the time - against Owen's lynch, criticizing your play and criticizing AFC.

[Ectomancer]

You may replace you with ya'll or you all if you prefer.

[Netopalis]

Fair enough, although I think that what Crypto's post actually accomplished is better than what it intended to accomplish: He intended to get reactions from one player, but we've started getting reactions from a variety of them.

[crypto]

Netopalis, regarding going with the flow:

Nobody, if my memory is correct, jumped on Owen for his posting style. Hell, nobody even wanted to lynch him. Ecto and I were the only ones who voted for him. The point was that (boldfaced for the skimmers)

he did not random-vote after subscribing to Kiku's argument, which was pro-RVS

. Less importantly, I didn't like his humor. Ninety percent of humor that involves alignment is stupid and suspicious. Deliberate injection of a WIFOM-demanding element like that into the game is anti-town.

Next up is calling us "silly" well after Jester calls me out for my vote switch. I.e., you found it uninteresting. Then, after Jere pins more suspicion on me, and immediately afterward you vote for me based on vague intuition and revolving around the vague term "erratic." You followed Jester and Jere; you didn't go against popular opinion.

Then when Jester accepts my explanation and shifts to Owen, you back out as well. Yes, that is going with the flow.

Fair enough, although I think that what Crypto's post actually accomplished is better than what it intended to accomplish: He intended to get reactions from one player, but we've started getting reactions from a variety of them.

So suddenly reaction-fishing isn't bad? Speaking of which, I don't think I mentioned this before, but between posts 83 and 86 you go from claiming my reaction-fishing was scummy to claiming it was useless for the town. And yet you keep your vote on me, when the notion that it was scummy was ostensibly the reason for your suspicion.

In re: Crypto, I still maintain that it's bad play, but I do appreciate the analysis of his play and understand what he was attempting to do.

How does this clear me of being scum? Can't scum be self-analytical as well? They can wriggle their way out of trouble just as well as townies.

Unvote. Vote: Netopalis.

[Ectomancer]

So malpascp is an omgus that is really watered down because Crypto didnt provide a reason and doesnt look all that omgussy.
Owen looks more like omgus to me to be quite honest, and it comes at the perfect opportunity to lend momentum to the wagon.
Netopalis abandoned the wagon in a manner that I felt was pretty weak. I was also disappointed that he jumped off the first wagon with momentum and it felt due to pressure, not because of a change of mind.

Im wrong. I thought I would be ready to vote but I'm not yet. Net was my front runner, but I just dont think he is scummy at this point. Owen, if playing in character, needs a different type of look too. Hohum.

[Mr.Jester]

Mr. Jester: You are not following me. You FoS'd someone with your vote still in its random place. Now you have unvoted the random placement. Why did you not simply move your vote in the first place? As it stands, you have an FoS on the player you described as scummy, and a vote in limbo after belatedly removing it.

Are you avoiding the Owen wagon? What do you hope to achieve with your FoS? and again, for clarity: Why did you not simply move your vote in the first place?

Why haven't I voted for Owen?

Because he hasn't convinced me that he is scum yet, but he is border lining. He is playing that thin line between scum and poor arguments.

Am I avoiding the Owen Wagon?

No.

What do I hope to gain with my FoS?

Answers and hopefully more insight into whether he is really scum or just makes poor arguments.

We need to see what he does next.

[Netopalis]

Crypto: First of all, "erratic" is not a vague term. It has a very specific meaning. According to Webster's, it is "Having no fixed course" or "characterized by a lack of consistency." In other words, I felt that your play was lacking in any reason at the time, because I didn't understand what you were doing. Now that you've explained it, I understand it but do not agree with it. My later post did not say that fishing for reactions was good, but that the results of your actions accomplished it better than what you originally intended, contrary to what Ecto was saying. Further, I think that his "acceptance" of Kikychio's argument for RVS was not really saying that he subscribed to that philosophy, just an acknowledgment of it being the best argument for the opposing position that he has read as of yet. Finally, my backing out was not in response to Jester's backing out, it was because I begrudgingly understood what you were doing. Had I been online before Jester, I would have posted the same thing and you would be attacking him for "going with the flow". Finally, the fact that I understand what you are doing does not clear you of being scum, it merely means that there was at least something resembling logic behind your play, which was the problem that I originally had with you - your actions made no sense because I did not know what your hidden motivation was.

Ecto: To explain a bit, I unvoted Kikuchyo because it was a random vote. I voted for Crypto because I felt that his play was erratic and illogical. I unvoted him once he explained himself. I apologize if this wasn't exactly stated in each of my posts, I'll try to be a bit more explicitly specific with each of them in the future.

[Ectomancer]

Actually, reading your response, it is apparent that I was the one being unclear.

Leaving Crypto's wagon was the one I thought was a rather weak hop off, and it was Crypto's wagon that I felt was the first to have momentum. Rather than a lackluster unvote, I would have liked to see you wait to see what else developed. In this case, I'm criticizing you for quashing an opportunity to advance the game. I do appreciate that you acted when your view changed though.

[Ectomancer]

Mr. Jester: You are not following me. You FoS'd someone with your vote still in its random place. Now you have unvoted the random placement. Why did you not simply move your vote in the first place? As it stands, you have an FoS on the player you described as scummy, and a vote in limbo after belatedly removing it.

Are you avoiding the Owen wagon? What do you hope to achieve with your FoS? and again, for clarity: Why did you not simply move your vote in the first place?

Why haven't I voted for Owen?

Because he hasn't convinced me that he is scum yet, but he is border lining. He is playing that thin line between scum and poor arguments.

Am I avoiding the Owen Wagon?

No.

What do I hope to gain with my FoS?

Answers and hopefully more insight into whether he is really scum or just makes poor arguments.

We need to see what he does next.

He hasn't convinced you yet hey? Perhaps he just isn't trying hard enough
The original fos didn't flag my attention, but this response is so much worse in its phrasings. It looks like a warning to a buddy.

*note to self - possible Owen and Jester connection. Only for review should one turn up scum later.

[Netopalis]

Ah, I see. Yeah, I'm still extremely tempted to vote Crypto, as I find his play very scummy, but I wanted to reward behavior which explains actions by unvoting to encourage others to explain their play as well. I try to play the game in an orderly and organized fashion, and I find players who don't explain themselves to be extremely hard to read. They also usually tend to be scum. Like I said, though...Crypto is still high on my list.

[Netopalis]

Jester's post is...odd, but not what I'd call scummy, just because I've done similar things. There's one player in particular that is absolutely terrible at the game, but who I always try to help out by explaining why he's wrong....I still do vote for him eventually, but I like to give a warning to newer players. Although, with Owen's statement that he's played 5-6 games on here, I don't know whether we should consider him new or not.

[malpascp]

I didnt complete any game yet, and Im playing in 7 games by now
Am I new?

[crypto]

Wow.

Unvote.

Malpascp, entering multiple games as a new player is a bad idea. I suggest you replace out of a couple. And you shouldn't ever be in seven games at once

ever

. Period.

Sigh.

The OMGUS is still questionable, but I agree that it's not a scum tell and my attack on Malpascp after he committed it didn't produce squat. Knowing that he's in so many games at once nullifies a lot of this.

---

Crypto: First of all, "erratic" is not a vague term. It has a very specific meaning. According to Webster's, it is "Having no fixed course" or "characterized by a lack of consistency." In other words, I felt that your play was lacking in any reason at the time, because I didn't understand what you were doing. Now that you've explained it, I understand it but do not agree with it.

By "vague" I meant that you said I was erratic without pointing out why. You still have not. And if you didn't understand what I'm doing, how could you call me erratic? You would need to grasp the meaning of my actions in order to call them erratic. Perplexing ≠ erratic.

Further, I think that his "acceptance" of Kikychio's argument for RVS was not really saying that he subscribed to that philosophy, just an acknowledgment of it being the best argument for the opposing position that he has read as of yet.

But he didn't state his own view on the matter, which makes no sense if he's going to go against the explanation he's giving props to.

Finally, my backing out was not in response to Jester's backing out, it was because I begrudgingly understood what you were doing.

Er, yeah, I never expect a player of any alignment to admit to piggybacking.

Had I been online before Jester, I would have posted the same thing and you would be attacking him for "going with the flow". Finally, the fact that I understand what you are doing does not clear you of being scum, it merely means that there was at least something resembling logic behind your play, which was the problem that I originally had with you - your actions made no sense because I did not know what your hidden motivation was.

Fair enough. But concealing your motives or objective still is not a suspicious move. It's certainly a vital part of scum hunting, along with deception, gambits, etc. (though all of these should be used with extremely judicious frequency). Stuff like this is a major reason that traditional scum tells are worthless. Townies do ostensibly scummy things to fish for mafia. Hell, particularly enterprising mafiosi do ostensibly scummy things to look like townies fishing for mafia.

---

Netopalis's post 117 strikes me as town-like; that said, my unvote is more representative of my need to do a reread, and a quick meta on a player or two.

[Ectomancer]

Ah, I see. Yeah, I'm still extremely tempted to vote Crypto, as I find his play very scummy, but I wanted to reward behavior which explains actions by unvoting to encourage others to explain their play as well. I try to play the game in an orderly and organized fashion, and I find players who don't explain themselves to be extremely hard to read. They also usually tend to be scum. Like I said, though...Crypto is still high on my list.

Until maybe just last game this would have gotten a vote from me.
Ye gods Neto, don't you even know a scummy statement when you make one? If you find his play very scummy, then why in hell did you unvote? Because you want to encourage some mini-meta activity in this game? That is not only a poor reason, but a misguided one as well. We're trying to find scum here, not get everyone to open up to the group, yeesh. If you think you found one more likely to be scum than the others, squuuueeeeze.
Now I'm even more irritated now that you prematurely unvoted before we got a good wagon to wrangle over...

[Netopalis]

Crypto: As for your erratic play, I guess I should have explained it a bit better. The following post numbers refer to posts read in isolation: 3,4, 7 and 8. - After your 8th post, I post the erratic comment. These posts represent drastic changes in opinion for no real stated reason. To me, at the time, it looked as if your play was lacking in any general direction and that you were just eager to lynch somebody. To me, that reeks of scum. The last two points about Owen and fishing are really differences in style - my style directly opposes them, but I do understand the theory behind them - I'll just agree to disagree on those points for now, since an argument over them would take several pages and would really go nowhere.

Ecto: I understand what a scummy statement is, but I feel that it's more important to tell the truth than to lie in an attempt to look "more town". Also, if you'll notice, Crypto is giving us more than enough to work with now - he's explaining his posts and reasoning, making logical criticisms of other players and is generally improving. Therefore, I consider my unvote to have achieved the desired effect - he has changed his actions in a way that is beneficial to the town. Honestly, the more I hear from him now, the less I'm suspecting him, since it seems that he actually does have a plan.

[crypto]

Neto, are you an alt?

[crypto]

Forget that question. Real question: At what website did you play Mafia before you came here?

There was no change between 3 and 4 and no change between 7 and 8. Post 3 was my first serious vote and post 7 was a switch to another player. How is that erratic, or even drastic, especially at the beginning of the game?

And no, my play did not signal haste for a lynch and it certainly did not reek of scum. Quick lynches out of RVS are impossible outside newbie games.

As for your erratic play, I guess I should have explained it a bit better.

I asked you (repeatedly?) to do so.

[Netopalis]

I am not an alt, I previously played on a site called Acumencia which sadly closed down...it was a site for forum games like Mafia and other puzzles, but sadly it never really got to be that big. I also meant that there was a drastic change between post combo 3 and 4 and between post combo 7 and 8. Your first serious post didn't give a lot of meaning behind it, nor did your subsequent switch. To me, the two actions seemed to imply something that would be a general theme of your play. I'm pleasantly surprised to see that it's not.