Seemingly Normal Mafia (Over)

[farside22]

Mod-Edit Votecount 1-8

Toon fighter - 7

(Anon, Flareonage, Kyle99, Jack, magnus_orion, Nul, farside22)

magnus_orion - 7

(Kairyuu, danakillsu, Primate, DocPotter, Seacore, Toon Fighter, ElectricBadger)

Farside22 - 1

(bv310)

Not Voting - 5

(Kise, DeeJayCee, Konowa, Haschel Cedricson, RichardGHP)

With 20 alive, it takes 11 to lynch.

---

The only reason I'm staying on TF is as I said rereading this game and his other game his OMGUS vote and backtracking doesnt' make sense.

which is the only reason you voted for him in the first place.
@TFvoters
WHY????!!! Why would you stay on a wagon that started with a single OMGUS vote??? THREE people voted for TF based on this, which I just don't understand. Then, TF broke down under pressure. You can't blame a guy for breaking down when three votes immediately pile on because of something like that.

TF hasn't changed anything in my view. At first I was like are you kidding with the OMGUS vote and then explanation. Then he shows a game he was lynched day 1 which is nothing like his play in this game if you looked.

[farside22]

far:
He's also very hypocritical as far as I can see. Talks down to any player making a case but doesn't post a clear case himself.

I realize people have called me a hypocrite for a while now, but I fail to see an actual statement of mine where I condemn an action, and then another quote where I actually commit the action I condemn. Could someone do this for me? Or quote a post where someone does?

Magnus case on EB at whole:

This is why you're scum.
You're immediately taking the situation, and turning it to try to corner me.
The reason that you're scum is that you suspected flareonage while not having a theory as to what was behind primate's actions. I'm not going to press this heavily though, since it isn't logical so much as gut.

The reason I say that its not random, but I don't say what it is, well, I have a good reason for it, even if I don't say my reason.

comment on farside case

Farside's post doesn't show an attempt to continue a conversation with me in order to gain evidence to further gauge my alignment. Instead, its written with a purpose to convince other people to follow his ideas.

hypocrite ^

I still think you're scum. Your post didn't do anything to change my mind. Its your job to convince me I'm wrong now.

Quote:
Vote:magnus_orion

[quote="magnus answer]If your implicitly saying I'm scum, fine, I'll do my best to convince you otherwise.
If you want me to disprove that you voted me... well... you just did, I can't disprove that. [/quote]

If you're just trying to prove a point, that's rather silly, we only have 18 days once jebus says the day has officially started, so I'd rather not fool around with that sort of thing. I'm used to longer day phases.
Your job to convince me I'm wrong.

hypocrite

I'll tell you what I'm interested in. I'm interested in finding scum. Your reactions have been knee jerk, and lack the critical thought of someone really interested in finding scum.

This is just hypocritical on general principal of his game play thus far. He's had knee jerk reactions when interigated, lack of critical thought when discussing his "case" and mostly making accusations that don't make sense based on what he is saying.

[farside22]

Mod: please fix my quotes and prod any player that hasn't posted in the last 3 days.
Thank you!

[Seacore]

First of all, to those people who haven't liked my reason of just jumping a bandwagon for the sake of it, I've found it's useful in the past to make a secondary bandwagon more of a competitor (without of course putting it in hammer range). It makes scum more anxious about which to jump on. Do they keep bussing, to they get ready to hammer, etc.

Anyway, I've read through and have decided to keep my vote where it is, for actual reasons this time. Magnus is all scummy all over the place, lots of contradictions and hypocracies that have already been pointed out.

[magnus_orion]

far:
He's also very hypocritical as far as I can see. Talks down to any player making a case but doesn't post a clear case himself.

I realize people have called me a hypocrite for a while now, but I fail to see an actual statement of mine where I condemn an action, and then another quote where I actually commit the action I condemn. Could someone do this for me? Or quote a post where someone does?

Magnus case on EB at whole:

This is why you're scum.
You're immediately taking the situation, and turning it to try to corner me.
The reason that you're scum is that you suspected flareonage while not having a theory as to what was behind primate's actions. I'm not going to press this heavily though, since it isn't logical so much as gut.

The reason I say that its not random, but I don't say what it is, well, I have a good reason for it, even if I don't say my reason.

comment on farside case

Farside's post doesn't show an attempt to continue a conversation with me in order to gain evidence to further gauge my alignment. Instead, its written with a purpose to convince other people to follow his ideas.

hypocrite ^

I still think you're scum. Your post didn't do anything to change my mind. Its your job to convince me I'm wrong now.

Quote:
Vote:magnus_orion

If your implicitly saying I'm scum, fine, I'll do my best to convince you otherwise.
If you want me to disprove that you voted me... well... you just did, I can't disprove that.

If you're just trying to prove a point, that's rather silly, we only have 18 days once jebus says the day has officially started, so I'd rather not fool around with that sort of thing. I'm used to longer day phases.
Your job to convince me I'm wrong.

hypocrite

I'll tell you what I'm interested in. I'm interested in finding scum. Your reactions have been knee jerk, and lack the critical thought of someone really interested in finding scum.

This is just hypocritical on general principal of his game play thus far. He's had knee jerk reactions when interigated, lack of critical thought when discussing his "case" and mostly making accusations that don't make sense based on what he is saying.

And now I will show how the claimed hypocrisy isn't me being hypocritical, but rather a misunderstanding of what I am saying.

The first part, my "case" on EB, was designed with the express purpose of provoking reactions, which is why the action condemned in relation to farside does not apply. I don't think anyone can disagree that reactions did in fact result. Whether or not you feel the post was designed to provoke reactions is up to you, I can only evidence this by saying that it was.

How am I being a hypocrite in that second one exactly? As I take it, the first condition was the one that happened, namely, where I said I would do my best to convince him he's wrong. Is that not consistent with what I said?

The third one is mostly unsubstantiated opinions, however, I will indulge despite the liberties taken with my request (btw, its "interrogated").

I have thought critically, and have reached conclusions, spread all over the thread. Critical thinking is simply reading while considering motivation and action, as well as objections to the material being read. I don't think anyone can say I haven't been doing that.

My "knee jerk reactions" have been explained and elaborated in quite some detail, as I have carefully considered and explained what is wrong with them. Despite the fact that I have ended up voting people who were voting me, its not knee-jerk, but the careful wisdom of EXP that leads me to do what I do. As I have said numerous times, there was a game in which I used a similar tell to catch scum. Since I've reiterated this point a few times now, I shall elaborate on this evidence.

The game is a mini normal called cubic mafia, I accused one "Dougrim" of making a case with merely the intent to persuade, an accusation to which he made numerous increasingly aggressive attacks in response, including "hypocrisy", "lying", "backpedaling", and "fabrication of tells" (the last may be paraphrased). This Dougrim eventually replaced out, but, after I had been killed on night 1, his predecessor was, eventually, lynched, and was revealed to be scum.

For some reason, I've been drawing parallels from that game to this one, although, I can't imagine why. /sarcasm You're free to look it up, or I could link it if people want me to.

Dattebayo

[magnus_orion]

Looks like my quote tags got screwy too...

Mod: Could you please fix my quote tags as well? It would be greatly appreciated

Dattebayo

[farside22]

How am I being a hypocrite in that second one exactly? As I take it, the first condition was the one that happened, namely, where I said I would do my best to convince him he's wrong. Is that not consistent with what I said?

Jack's post may have been after yours I would have to look but it's doesn't come off as hypocritacal telling EB to convince you then telling Jack is actually wishy washy not hypocritical. My mistake.

My "knee jerk reactions" have been explained and elaborated in quite some detail, as I have carefully considered and explained what is wrong with them. Despite the fact that I have ended up voting people who were voting me, its not knee-jerk, but the careful wisdom of EXP that leads me to do what I do. As I have said numerous times, there was a game in which I used a similar tell to catch scum. Since I've reiterated this point a few times now, I shall elaborate on this evidence.

So all your knee jerk reactions is based on one game in which you were aggressively attacked for saying a player that was persauding people that you were the lynch.
Did you ever actually say how my post and orginal comment was persuading players to vote on you.
You have yet to be clear on that little issue.

The first comment and corollation is hypocritical you can pretty up your words and say all the BS in the world but in fact it's hypocritical

I pointed to 3 games in which scum glide by and just BW vote so far you have 1 game in which a player did something of convincing and yes I would like a link provided for said game to see if it's close to the case I made you called out as "convincing others to vote"

[magnus_orion]

So all your knee jerk reactions is based on one game in which you were aggressively attacked for saying a player that was persauding people that you were the lynch.
Did you ever actually say how my post and orginal comment was persuading players to vote on you.
You have yet to be clear on that little issue.

Well, I don't exactly know what you are referring to with "All your knee jerk reactions", but none of my reactions have been just an impulse response to what was said.

The first comment and corollation is hypocritical you can pretty up your words and say all the BS in the world but in fact it's hypocritical

Except, they're not. And no matter what words you use, or what you call it, you can't change that my express intent was to provoke reactions, and your intent was not.

I pointed to 3 games in which scum glide by and just BW vote so far you have 1 game in which a player did something of convincing and yes I would like a link provided for said game to see if it's close to the case I made you called out as "convincing others to vote"

Yes, but the tells aren't mutually exclusive. Both tells can indicate scum, since scum can play different ways. I'm not disagreeing with your "gliding" scum-tell.

Link: http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10974
The case doesn't have to be similar, the intent does, but I digress.

Dattebayo

[Jack]

Knee jerk reactions are more of a townie tell, unless there are specific circumstances that make it suspicious.

Somehow this is one of those games where discussion about who is mafia turns incredibly clunky.

I say we lynch Toon Fighter.

[farside22]

[

The first comment and corollation is hypocritical you can pretty up your words and say all the BS in the world but in fact it's hypocritical

Except, they're not. And no matter what words you use, or what you call it, you can't change that my express intent was to provoke reactions, and your intent was not.

I'm sorry where did you get your license as a mind reader exactly?
You can say my intent was to provoke reaction but yours wasn't till your blue but you have yet to say how.

Link: http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10974
The case doesn't have to be similar, the intent does, but I digress.

Anyone want to tell me where the intent in these two are even close to be the same point?

I've read the thread through a few times, and I've noticed a couple of things:

BB says in one post that he never plays the same way twice, and then later talks about his % method of scumhunting. These are contradictory, but this is minor. I'm more bothered by the "boredom" comment, although I know that's been beaten into the ground somewhat.

This brings me to nocmen, who I think is right to question active lurkers... but criticizing short posts themselves is foolish. Not everyone writes long posts as a regular part of their playstyle, and expecting everyone to post large amounts of content per post is unrealistic, not to mention difficult to read.

My suspicion right now is on magnus_orion, however. He was pushing pretty hard on nocmen there for a bit, and then when questioned himself backed off FAST, complete with apologies and phrases like "from my POV" and "I was hoping," which sound like backpedaling without conviction. Bad mojo, and worth pressing the issue on IMHO.

unvote: PhilyEc

vote: magnus_orion

Looking at the Magnus/EB exchange

Magnus ask EB for her views on what primate is doing. When EB answers he says this:

yep, electric badger is scum.

And for the record, I don't think primate is doing this entirely randomly

Implies more that there is something here:

First things first. If I'm right, primate should know what I'm thinking already, so, primate, am I right?

The reason that you're scum is that you suspected flareonage while not having a theory as to what was behind primate's actions. I'm not going to press this heavily though, since it isn't logical so much as gut.

The reason I say that its not random, but I don't say what it is, well, I have a good reason for it, even if I don't say my reason.

Suspect flare! umm not sure about that at all. And EB stated a theory on primates actions so where do you get that he didn't have a theory on it from?
The second part of this is you want EB to answer but either refuse to answer or don't have an answer

And... uh.... you won't hear much more about it... don't expect me to fully elaborate... This is something you'll just have to take my word for. It doesn't make that big a difference anyway

It doesn't make a difference, he doesn't want to talk about it and he votes EB for stating an opinion on it. Or for Flare comment.
ummmmm
What?

You seem mostly interested in defending yourself against my accusations. So, do you have any suspects yet? Why aren't you interrogating them?

Just on page three and saying he isn't looking for scum. Cool story bro did you notice most of the joke comments, and RVS votes or did I completely miss out on something there?

Why would I push a case against primate? I don't even suspect him. I asked you why you thought he did what he did. But you decided flareonage was scummy even though all flareonage ever did was ask if people were serious. Then you began trying to corner me when I called you scum for it.

Again I don't see EB saying flareonage was scummy for anything of this nature.

magnus is making absolutely no sense with his attack on EB. He's calling EB scum for either post 40 which I took as a joke or because of the primate theory which he's seems to think it's something more.

vote: Magnus

[farside22]

Knee jerk reactions are more of a townie tell, unless there are specific circumstances that make it suspicious.

Somehow this is one of those games where discussion about who is mafia turns incredibly clunky.

I say we lynch Toon Fighter.

This just in magnus tried to call EB scum for this reaction.

News at 11.

[magnus_orion]

You can say my intent was to provoke reaction but yours wasn't till your blue but you have yet to say how.

It was a rather outrageous accusation with very little substance, thus it would produce reaction.

Anyone want to tell me where the intent in these two are even close to be the same point?

Both don't try to draw the conversation out to gather evidence. What I had said originally.

This just in magnus tried to call EB scum for this reaction.

?
Explain how everything from now has to a reaction from that, or for that matter, how I would plan what the reactions were?

Dattebayo

[farside22]

You can say my intent was to provoke reaction but yours wasn't till your blue but you have yet to say how.

It was a rather outrageous accusation with very little substance, thus it would produce reaction.

basically magnus admitting to pushing BS cases as though they were real.

Anyone want to tell me where the intent in these two are even close to be the same point?

Both don't try to draw the conversation out to gather evidence. What I had said originally.

How did I not draw out conversation. You can keep changing the wording from saying I'm trying to convince players to not drawing conversation all you want but you can stop not answering this question

This just in magnus tried to call EB scum for this reaction.

?
Explain how everything from now has to a reaction from that, or for that matter, how I would plan what the reactions were?

? How does this relate to my response to what you said about EB. It's just back to calling you a hypocrite again.

[farside22]

You can say my intent was to provoke reaction but yours wasn't till your blue but you have yet to say how.

It was a rather outrageous accusation with very little substance, thus it would produce reaction.

basically magnus admitting to pushing BS cases as though they were real.

Anyone want to tell me where the intent in these two are even close to be the same point?

Both don't try to draw the conversation out to gather evidence. What I had said originally.

How did I not draw out conversation. You can keep changing the wording from saying I'm trying to convince players to not drawing conversation all you want but you can stop not answering this question

This just in magnus tried to call EB scum for this reaction.

?
Explain how everything from now has to a reaction from that, or for that matter, how I would plan what the reactions were?

? How does this relate to my response to what you said about EB. It's just back to calling you a hypocrite again.

comments in bold as I forgot to seperate quotes

[magnus_orion]

Ah, yes, thanks for reminding me, that too. Sorry, I didn't fully elaborate, that's a slip up on my part.

The entire wording:
"They don't try to draw out the conversation to gather evidence and, instead, they attempt to convince other players of a position."


Dattebayo

[farside22]

Ah, yes, thanks for reminding me, that too. Sorry, I didn't fully elaborate, that's a slip up on my part.

The entire wording:
"They don't try to draw out the conversation to gather evidence and, instead, they attempt to convince other players of a position."


Dattebayo

How?

[magnus_orion]

by just providing evidence toward a conclusion, and nothing else...

Dattebayo

[farside22]

by just providing evidence toward a conclusion, and nothing else...

Dattebayo

I provided evidence and commented on the evidence I presented and questioned you on said evidence.
Basically this answer doesn't fly so far as a response and still doesn't explain how me and dour's post is in anyway similar especially as dour didn't provide any evidence of his comment to you.
So how again are you seeing anything similar with Dour and mine post?

[magnus_orion]

We've been over this, well, at least part of this.
I still don't think that you were asking those questions with any intent in mind to actually get answers in your original post.

If you want to separate "comments" from "evidence", that's fine. However, while he doesn't use quote tags, he does use quote marks, and those are quotes. Basically, just because he was more concise than you, it doesn't mean that his intent was any different.

Dattebayo

[farside22]

We've been over this, well, at least part of this.
I still don't think that you were asking those questions with any intent in mind to actually get answers in your original post.

If you want to separate "comments" from "evidence", that's fine. However, while he doesn't use quote tags, he does use quote marks, and those are quotes. Basically, just because he was more concise than you, it doesn't mean that his intent was any different.

Dattebayo

1) seriously are you a mind reader or you just making this crap up now?
2) not seeing it and I think your now officially just making crap up.

All I see this post is making things up that are not there. There is no similarities you got caught in a lie and you can't get out it's just that simple to me.
Second you keep saying things that are almost like back tracking your position without backtracking.
Well you asked question but I don't see they had intent. That makes no sense.
I point to 2 other people that didn't provoke anything as far as question or engaging you in talks and you pretty much poo, poo it with reason's that are faulty in comparison to your attack on me.
Now your using a past game saying well player X did this and that is what you remind me of and when showing the 2 quotes side by side you just dig further into this "convince players" with no substance.
You have lied twice now and misrepresented your position on a player twice.
Basically your action are just like watching a magician to me trying to pull a rabbit out of thin air. (there is other words I would like to use or analogies but it would be more rude)

unvote:
vote: magnus

[Jack]

Actually, I disagreed with magnus when he first questioned that post (he said something about it only asking rhetorical questions), but I agree with him now.

His basic case is: mafia are less likely to start in on someone and poke and prod and get them to reveal something about themself. They are more likely to look for something to vote on. One is scumhunting, the other is scumvoting.

Now, that's a fairly high standard. Lot's of times as townie I'm not really feeling it, and just vote instead of getting into someone. Lots of townies do that.

But it is a legitimate case and a legitimate comparison, if you are attuned to it your gut can make the judgment call.

Your post was similar to the dougrim guy in that the main thrust of it was "this is why magnus is suspicious".

[RichardGHP]

Mod, vote totals please.

Muchos gracias.

[farside22]

Actually, I disagreed with magnus when he first questioned that post (he said something about it only asking rhetorical questions), but I agree with him now.

His basic case is: mafia are less likely to start in on someone and poke and prod and get them to reveal something about themself. They are more likely to look for something to vote on. One is scumhunting, the other is scumvoting.

Now, that's a fairly high standard. Lot's of times as townie I'm not really feeling it, and just vote instead of getting into someone. Lots of townies do that.

But it is a legitimate case and a legitimate comparison, if you are attuned to it your gut can make the judgment call.

Your post was similar to the dougrim guy in that the main thrust of it was "this is why magnus is suspicious".

No my post was in regards to the EB/magnus argument outline magnus faultiness with his case on EB and calling him scum for said argument.
It was based on substance in the game.

[magnus_orion]

Actually, I disagreed with magnus when he first questioned that post (he said something about it only asking rhetorical questions), but I agree with him now.

His basic case is: mafia are less likely to start in on someone and poke and prod and get them to reveal something about themself. They are more likely to look for something to vote on. One is scumhunting, the other is scumvoting.

Now, that's a fairly high standard. Lot's of times as townie I'm not really feeling it, and just vote instead of getting into someone. Lots of townies do that.

But it is a legitimate case and a legitimate comparison, if you are attuned to it your gut can make the judgment call.

Your post was similar to the dougrim guy in that the main thrust of it was "this is why magnus is suspicious".

No my post was in regards to the EB/magnus argument outline magnus faultiness with his case on EB and calling him scum for said argument.
It was based on substance in the game.

You think dourgrim wasn't voting based on substance in that game?

1) seriously are you a mind reader or you just making this crap up now?
2) not seeing it and I think your now officially just making crap up.

All I see this post is making things up that are not there. There is no similarities you got caught in a lie and you can't get out it's just that simple to me.
Second you keep saying things that are almost like back tracking your position without backtracking.
Well you asked question but I don't see they had intent. That makes no sense.
I point to 2 other people that didn't provoke anything as far as question or engaging you in talks and you pretty much poo, poo it with reason's that are faulty in comparison to your attack on me.
Now your using a past game saying well player X did this and that is what you remind me of and when showing the 2 quotes side by side you just dig further into this "convince players" with no substance.
You have lied twice now and misrepresented your position on a player twice.
Basically your action are just like watching a magician to me trying to pull a rabbit out of thin air. (there is other words I would like to use or analogies but it would be more rude)

Okay, okay, let's do it this way, explain why your post is fundamentally of different intent to that of dourgrim's, because I don't see that. I suspect we'll reach an impasse here, though.

(Your vote looks like omgus [though I'm not voting you atm] to me, but I suppose you'll make the case that it was motivated by my supposed "lying", despite that already being your position well before voting for me, so I won't bother pursuing that path, unless you want to.)

Dattebayo

[farside22]

dour

dour post the cast page 5 after 4 days into the game
He used " with very few words and not actual quotes that show his case
his suspicion is with no questions at all and 1 paragraph with 4 lines

farside

post the case on page 3 after 2 days into the game
Uses quote
asked questions
the post has 17 sentences with 1 paragraph


now onto the meat of this
How does this question not prove a comment from you?

And EB stated a theory on primates actions so where do you get that he didn't have a theory on it from?

You think dourgrim wasn't voting based on substance in that game?

It was but it certainly wasn't an indepth case. It was a few he did this and it looked the most suspicious.

(Your vote looks like omgus [though I'm not voting you atm] to me, but I suppose you'll make the case that it was motivated by my supposed "lying", despite that already being your position well before voting for me, so I won't bother pursuing that path, unless you want to.)

hypocrite again

OMGUS is similarly ridiculous. I gave a reason that was independent of you voting me. If I hadn't then, yes, it is a scum-tell, however, if that is not the case, then the OMGUS accusation shouldn't give you a shield from ever being attacked by someone you are voting

Okay, okay, let's do it this way, explain why your post is fundamentally of different intent to that of dourgrim's, because I don't see that. I suspect we'll reach an impasse here, though.

Aren't you supposed to prove it does in some way? Because so far your not doing that and I asked to have anyone show me anything that is related in with that post.
Jack said:

Your post was similar to the dougrim guy in that the main thrust of it was "this is why magnus is suspicious".

Which I never used those words like Dour did and I showed reason's I found your logic and case faulty on EB.

Now you go off and show the similarities in the 2 cases and how they same in any way.