Open 212--Hard Boiled Mafia (Game Over)

[semioldguy]

... semioldguy purposefully tried to get away from taking a stance on evilsnail when I asked him a direct question about evilsnail.

No. I wanted evilsnail to partake in more posting to see whether a tell I was seeing could be given validity by potentially being repeated. I didn't want to mention such a tell and alert him to its presence.

Today, he is accusing me of “tunneling” on the sole fact that my second suspect (evilsnail) is not around for me to question. semioldguy’s posts look written to try to downplay my posts and therefore downplay my suspicions, and I think it is because my suspicions are dead-on.

So evilsnail isn't around for me to question either. You can't use this as both a point against me and a point to exonerate yourself.

I am trying to downplay your posts and suspicions because I think your posts and suspicions are poor. Not that this is not necessarily the same as your suspects being poor. Even someone who agrees with your suspects doesn't have to suspect them for the same reasons you do or even agree with any of your reasons for why you suspect someone.

semiolguy claims to have a top two suspicions, and yet he is not even voting right now. What are you afraid of? Why can't you put your vote where your mouth is?

I don't feel that a vote on evilsnail would be very useful at this point.

My posts are quite the opposite of “unnecessary,” and the fact that you are going to these lengths to paint my posts.

Hmm...

I am quite done responding to you on these subjects -- we have both said our piece. Our posts by this point are just rewording things we have already said, and they are taking up space. It is not my job to convince

you

that you are scum.

Sounds a lot like you think your posts are becoming unnecessary.

semioldguy, I also find it patently ridiculous how your top two suspects are my top two suspects (see Post 336), and yet my posts to you are "tunneling and unnecessary." If you think I am attacking

scum

, how are my posts unnecessary when I am covering a subject-ground that this town has somehow completely ignored up until this point? And how am I supposed to attack evilsnail at any length when he obviously is not here to respond?

My top two suspects are not your top two suspects. chauchaudotcom and evilsnail would currently make up my top two suspects. I don't think you are attacking scum. And again, are you going to use me not attacking evilsnail as a point against me but not against yourself? How am I supposed to attack him at any length when he obviously is not here to respond?

[semioldguy]

Yeah you implied you had reason's to suspect MMM but not for reason's others put forward. Which I also see to mean you had other reason's to suspect MMM.
What reason's do you have to suspect MMM?

Don't twist my words. I implied no such thing. The reason I found him slightly suspicious had been mentioned (though I didn't realize this at the time of my mentioning it), but most of what has been brought against him I disagree with.

The reason (singular) I found Mysterious Mystery Man to be slightly suspicious was because of his post 105. Go look at my ISO-20.

[Confucius]

semioldguy:

@chauchaudotcom
evilsnail is my leading suspect currently, but I'd really like to see some more posts from him first. Mysterious Mystery Man is slightly suspicious to me, but not for many of the reasons others have put forward as mentioned, and I am looking at you as my third suspect mostly for reasons brought up against you.

This post of yours makes it pretty clear that your top suspects were (i) evilsnail, (ii) Mysterious Mystery Man, and (iii) chauchaudotcom. It is fine if your top two suspects are

now

evilsnail and chauchaudotcom, but at the time you called my posts "unnecessary and tunneling" our top two stated suspects were exactly the same.

For what reasons are you suspicious of Mysterious Mystery Man? Apparently you have reasons different from what "other have put forward." So let's hear them.

Pre-post edit: I see you have answered this question just now. Now to check up on that answer.

[semioldguy]

My questioning of Ythan and MMM were because they were both pushing false cases on people which is ultimately distracting town. As for questioning of gamer, it did lead to something. I vote him.

How did you determine them each to be false cases?

MMM - MMM was going off about the wagon and pushing a case for it. I was using questioning to point out how unlikely a quicklynch would occur during rvs.

This is the sort of reasoning for a question that I dislike. It looks like asking a question for the sake of asking a question. A statement would have done much better for the purpose you were asking the question.

MMM - Again, using questioning to point out that MMM is accusing people of things that aren't necessarily scummy.

Ditto.

I like the rest of your explanations and they make sense.

[semioldguy]

This post of yours makes it pretty clear that your top suspects were (i) evilsnail, (ii) Mysterious Mystery Man, and (iii) chauchaudotcom. It is fine if your top two suspects are

now

evilsnail and chauchaudotcom, but at the time you called my posts "unnecessary and tunneling" our top two stated suspects were exactly the same.

Again, suspects are not the same as reasons/suspicions. Even though I might have the same suspects as you I never agreed with your case on Mysterious Mystery Man. It was tunneling (an observation which isn't scummy to me, but isn't helpful either) and it had gotten to the point that your repeated posts were becoming unnecessary.

Just because we have the same top two suspects doesn't mean that your posts can't be unnecessary and/or tunneling. The two are not mutually inclusive.

[Confucius]

semioldguy, you never mentioned Post 105 until Day Two when you commented on my initial post against Mysterious Mystery Man. Did Post 105 not strike you as scummy on Day One?

Did Mysterious Mystery Man only become a suspect for you on Day Two? Exactly when did you find him scummy? If you found him scummy on Day One, why didn't you mention it or pursue it?

I see while reading your posts in isolation that chauchaudotcom has asked you pretty much this exact line of questioning, but I would certainly like to be clear here.

~

What in my reasoning is "poor"? I have just read over Mysterious Mystery Man's Newbie game where he was nominated for a Scummie for his performance as scum, and his play in that game is matching the patterns of his play in this game practically perfectly.

~

I

do not

like this:

The reason (singular) I found Mysterious Mystery Man to be slightly suspicious was because of his post 105. Go look at my ISO-20.

This leads me to believe that you yourself did not remember your “reason” for finding Mysterious Mystery Man scummy, so you had to

isolate your own posts

just to find one. Why else would you happen to know (or bother to check) which post in isolation you were referring to?

This makes me think that when you originally said you suspected Mysterious Mystery Man “but not for the reasons others have presented,” it makes me think you were just covering your bases. You were essentially agreeing that Mysterious Mystery Man could be scum (in case he got lynched), while at the same time you were saying all of the reasoning against him is bad (to deter his lynch).

I am really thinking you were just using a throwaway “hedging” line there, and that you have since been forced to fill in the blank with a pretty weak reason that you had to search your own posts for to fill in.

FoS: semioldguy

. I am calling it: Mysterious Mystery Man + semioldguy scumpair.

[Confucius]

Actually, let me make that into a

small FoS: semioldguy

. It just hit me that you might have isolated your posts just so you could reference your own post where you did mention your reason (as opposed to simply looking for a reason).

However, I still think your comment looks like a pretty classic hedging comment.

[semioldguy]

semioldguy, you never mentioned Post 105 until Day Two when you commented on my initial post against Mysterious Mystery Man. Did Post 105 not strike you as scummy on Day One?

As mentioned already. I did not notice it previously.

Did Mysterious Mystery Man only become a suspect for you on Day Two? Exactly when did you find him scummy? If you found him scummy on Day One, why didn't you mention it or pursue it?

Yes, on day two. When I made that post.

What in my reasoning is "poor"? I have just read over Mysterious Mystery Man's Newbie game where he was nominated for a Scummie for his performance as scum, and his play in that game is matching the patterns of his play in this game practically perfectly.

Have you considered looking and analyzing games in which he is town? Or have you already done this? If/After you have done this, how does your read change or stay the same. When this is done I am more willing to accept a meta argument.

(If you want to make a case on meta, be complete about it and look at it from all angles)

This leads me to believe that you yourself did not remember your “reason” for finding Mysterious Mystery Man scummy, so you had to

isolate your own posts

just to find one. Why else would you happen to know (or bother to check) which post in isolation you were referring to?

It is easier/faster to find my post in ISO that it is to find the page and post number it is on. It isn't my fault that others ask me questions which already have an answer in the thread. An example would be the first question you ask up above. It already has an answer (ISO-25).

This makes me think that when you originally said you suspected Mysterious Mystery Man “but not for the reasons others have presented,” it makes me think you were just covering your bases. You were essentially agreeing that Mysterious Mystery Man could be scum (in case he got lynched), while at the same time you were saying all of the reasoning against him is bad (to deter his lynch).

I don't agree with most of the reasoning, which is why I was not on his case day one at all. The reasoning against him is bad simply because it is bad. The above contains a fair amount of speculation until Mysterious Mystery Man actually flips.

I am really thinking you were just using a throwaway “hedging” line there, and that you have since been forced to fill in the blank with a pretty weak reason that you had to search your own posts for to fill in.

This doesn't even make sense to me. What blank am I filling in that was ever blank?

[Jeffcole1]

Vote Count 2.14:

evilsnail (2): Deer, farside22
havingfitz (2): chauchaucotdom, Mysterious Mystery Man
chauchaudotcom (1): havingfitz
Mysterious Mystery Man (1): Confucius

Not Voting (3): evilsnail, hitogoroshi, semioldguy

One week to deadline.

[Confucius]

semioldguy, my first thought when you mentioned one of your own posts in isolation was that you had to look through your own posts in order to "fill in the blank" for your "other reason" that you found Mysterious Mystery Man suspicious. I then immediately retracted that statement in my very next post when my very next thought was that you might have just wanted to point to what post where you did mention such a suspicion.

I just cannot recall a single instance where I've seen a player refer to their

own

posts in isolation, and I thought that was very strange. This is what led me to my first thought.

~

If Mysterious Mystery Man wants to claim that he consistently attacks those who vote for him as Town, he can link

me

to those games. He should know his own meta better than I do. I only happened to have read that Newbie game because I saw it in the Scummies thread, and I noticed his play there was very similar to his play here.

[havingfitz]

@ havingfitz: Would you have preferred a Nick lynch or a no-lynch D1? Because that was the decision CC.com had to make. There was no time for discussion, no time to convince anyone else to vote for mindgamer. I really don't see anything scummy about it at all. Check the time on her vote if you aren't convinced. It was deadline, and nobody else was online. Nobody else had time to vote for me, so I was NOT as likely to be lynched.

I would not vote someone I did not have suspicions on to avoid a no lynch. I did not have suspicions D1 towards Nick. So no. Why are you bringing up mindgamer? And at the time chau moved off your wagon there was still a shot at you (ie someone chau had at least expressed suspicions towards as opposed to Nick whom she did not, iirc) being the lynch...which is the point I am making.

OK, I had 4 votes on me. Nick had 6. It was deadline, actually it was past deadline, thanks to mod for counting the last vote anyway. Anyway, the only way I could be lynched is if both CC.com voted AND two other people magically appeared in the next fifteen minutes and voted me as well. Are you saying CC.com should've taken that chance? THERE WAS NO TIME for anyone else to vote, CC.com had a matter of minutes to vote either Nick let there be a no-lynch.

True...when we were down to the deadline it was 6-4 and a lynch on you would have been hard to obtain. My suspicions on chau are mostly sue to the fact she got off your wagon when she did...after two fairly quick votes on you had brought you up to L-2...and when you were an equally strong candidate for the D1 lynch. Then to hammer someone she had voiced little or no suspicions for just seemed too convenient....especially when pulling out the ‘avoid a no-lynch’ reason. Should players get a bye from suspicion just because they were ‘avoiding a no lynch?’ Wouldn’t that be convenient for scum.

There was no other option. And a no-lynch is almost always bad for the town, it's basically giving the scum a free kill. I mentioned mindgamer because that was who CC.com would have liked to lynch, but the bandwagon wasn't going anywhere.

OK...you say almost. That means it isn’t always the best option. Since you said almost...what situations are no-lynches acceptable?

You are saying that the day should have ended in a no-lynch, which is quite scummy. You are also spreading suspicion on a player because she thought that a no-lynch was bad. Please explain how a no-lynch D1 benefits town.

I do not support no-lynches, I would never vote for a no-lynch, and given the choice of two or three players I was suspect of...I would move my vote from one or the other to avoid a no-lynch; however, I would not put a vote on a player I did not have suspicions towards to get a no-lynch.

Ex...if we were getting close to a no-lynch today and a chau-wagon (haha) did not have a lot of support...I would gladly move to a MMM wagon. Because I suspect you too

[chauchaudotcom]

How did you determine them each to be false cases?

Not false cases per say as I'm unsure of their alignment, but really weak ones.

MMM was voting because "They're trying to pressure me or they want a quicklynch. Either way, they're drawing most of my attention, and that's not a good thing."

It takes seven people to lynch someone d1. Meaning that in order for a scum motivated quick lynch to successfully occur during RVS, half of town would have to be really really stupid. Given that I like to have faith in mankind, I conclude that an rvs quicklynch is simply not probable (or a smart move for scum). MMM was trying to push this as a legit case against Bio when it's far from it.

Ythan was voting because "Somewhere between lynch all liars and there's a roughly 50% chance this is the thread he's lying in."

Lying =/= scum tell. Lying may hurt your credibility but there are plenty of times where I have seen town lie. Whether or not they should is a completely different question but in general, cases

solely

built of policy lynches or meta are considered very weak in my eyes.

This is the sort of reasoning for a question that I dislike. It looks like asking a question for the sake of asking a question. A statement would have done much better for the purpose you were asking the question.

Simply because you dislike it does not make it a scum tell. I don't know how to better explain it then say it is merely a difference in play style, really. I've learned that sometimes merely pointing things out doesn't always work. If you 'lead' the person into it with questions, they are more likely to follow your train of thought. Furthermore, by asking questions in this manner you are not only able to make your point but you can observe the person's reactions in the process and come to understand their train of thinking. Pointing things out is easy but will give a null for the most part whereas asking questions always has the potential of giving more information. It all boils down to preference. They both lead to the same result through different methods.

My suspicions on chau are mostly sue to the fact she got off your wagon when she did...after two fairly quick votes on you had brought you up to L-2...and when you were an equally strong candidate for the D1 lynch. Then to hammer someone she had voiced little or no suspicions for just seemed too convenient....especially when pulling out the ‘avoid a no-lynch’ reason./quote]

To be fair, I initially had a town read on MMM. I then doubted myself after his umpteenth omgus but then wound up back at my initial town read. So it was either lynch someone I didn't think was scum or lynch Nick and avoid a no lynch.

In any case, to be clear, does that mean that you suspect an MMM/Chau scum pair? Because following your reasoning, that's the impression I'm getting but prior to you were saying that your cases are independent from the other correct?

Also, can you expand a bit on why MMM's suspicions on mindgamer before made him suspicious to you?

Sigh...this game is frustrating to play when we have so many players missing.

[Mysterious Mystery Man]

@ havingfitz: Would you have preferred a Nick lynch or a no-lynch D1? Because that was the decision CC.com had to make. There was no time for discussion, no time to convince anyone else to vote for mindgamer. I really don't see anything scummy about it at all. Check the time on her vote if you aren't convinced. It was deadline, and nobody else was online. Nobody else had time to vote for me, so I was NOT as likely to be lynched.

I would not vote someone I did not have suspicions on to avoid a no lynch. I did not have suspicions D1 towards Nick. So no. Why are you bringing up mindgamer? And at the time chau moved off your wagon there was still a shot at you (ie someone chau had at least expressed suspicions towards as opposed to Nick whom she did not, iirc) being the lynch...which is the point I am making.

OK, I had 4 votes on me. Nick had 6. It was deadline, actually it was past deadline, thanks to mod for counting the last vote anyway. Anyway, the only way I could be lynched is if both CC.com voted AND two other people magically appeared in the next fifteen minutes and voted me as well. Are you saying CC.com should've taken that chance? THERE WAS NO TIME for anyone else to vote, CC.com had a matter of minutes to vote either Nick let there be a no-lynch.

True...when we were down to the deadline it was 6-4 and a lynch on you would have been hard to obtain. My suspicions on chau are mostly sue to the fact she got off your wagon when she did...after two fairly quick votes on you had brought you up to L-2...and when you were an equally strong candidate for the D1 lynch. Then to hammer someone she had voiced little or no suspicions for just seemed too convenient....especially when pulling out the ‘avoid a no-lynch’ reason. Should players get a bye from suspicion just because they were ‘avoiding a no lynch?’ Wouldn’t that be convenient for scum.

The problem is, town would be just as likely to vote to avoid a no-lynch. So it's a null tell. Actually, one could argue it's a town tell, since scum would probably like a no-lynch since Nick would likely be lynched D2, and the town would waste time. I'm not sure about that, but I am sure that the lynch was good for the town as a whole, since a lot of us did have suspicions on Nick. For CC.com not to hammer would be unfair to the town as a whole.

There was no other option. And a no-lynch is almost always bad for the town, it's basically giving the scum a free kill. I mentioned mindgamer because that was who CC.com would have liked to lynch, but the bandwagon wasn't going anywhere.

OK...you say almost. That means it isn’t always the best option. Since you said almost...what situations are no-lynches acceptable?

No-Lynch is a viable play in a three town/one scum endgame, since the odds of hitting scum go from 1/4 to 1/3 overnight.

You are saying that the day should have ended in a no-lynch, which is quite scummy. You are also spreading suspicion on a player because she thought that a no-lynch was bad. Please explain how a no-lynch D1 benefits town.

I do not support no-lynches, I would never vote for a no-lynch, and given the choice of two or three players I was suspect of...I would move my vote from one or the other to avoid a no-lynch; however, I would not put a vote on a player I did not have suspicions towards to get a no-lynch.

Whether or not CC.com had suspicions on Nick, the town would suffer from a no-lynch. Therefore, it was in the best interests of the town for her to hammer.

Ex...if we were getting close to a no-lynch today and a chau-wagon (haha) did not have a lot of support...I would gladly move to a MMM wagon. Because I suspect you too

Aw... Thanks!

[farside22]

Note to all game:
I got swarmed at work. Will be on tempory leave for the next 2 days.

[Confucius]

I decided to skim some of Newbie 885. I truly hate to say it, but it is probably the case that Mysterious Mystery Man just blows up every time people pursue him in earnest. The pinnacle of his posts in that game was most assuredly his claim post, where he called the people voting for him (summarized) the stupidest imbeciles he has ever come across in his entire mafia career.

I am going to give you some advice, Mysterious Mystery Man. Insulting players who vote for you

does not

make them want to unvote you. Yelling at players

does not

make them want to unvote.

I have not insulted your intelligence, or insulted you as a person through this entirety of this game. You might not

like

my reasoning, but that does not make me “illogical” or stupid. As Netopolis made clear in Newbie 885 in Post 92 of that game, simply because you have responded to something once, it does not “dispel” it.

Your reasoning for voting BioHazard was not valid – that is not something I am going to change my mind on. I still do not like your response to NickF227’s entrance vote on you -- even with your meta. I am suspicious that BioHazard was killed last night, since he was obviously going to go after you today. I do not like how difficult it has been for me to even a second vote on you today when you were a pretty substantial bandwagon yesterday, and the three dead town players were all on it.

But. I am going to

Unvote: Mysterious Mystery Man

, and I am going to try to read this game over again, hopefully by Saturday.

[Jeffcole1]

Vote Count 2.15:

evilsnail (2): Deer, farside22
havingfitz (2): chauchaucotdom, Mysterious Mystery Man
chauchaudotcom (1): havingfitz

Not Voting (3): Confucius, evilsnail, hitogoroshi, semioldguy

I don't know why I have such a hard time finding replacements (or why I end up needing so many to begin with)...If anyone wants to help scare some up, I'd be very grateful.

[havingfitz]

Your reasoning for voting BioHazard was not valid – that is not something I am going to change my mind on. I still do not like your response to NickF227’s entrance vote on you -- even with your meta. I am suspicious that BioHazard was killed last night, since he was obviously going to go after you today. I do not like how difficult it has been for me to even a second vote on you today when you were a pretty substantial bandwagon yesterday, and the three dead town players were all on it.

But. I am going to

Unvote: Mysterious Mystery Man

, and I am going to try to read this game over again, hopefully by Saturday.

Confucius...if you still suspect MMM (as I do )...why unvote? Because other's aren't hopping on as well? That doesn't seem to be a very strong reason, especially given the solid points you bring up against him.

Agreed...the game is in the doldrums atm.

When is the deadline Mod?

[Mysterious Mystery Man]

@ havingfitz: Why do you suspect me?

@ Confucius: You just had to try and SLANDER me, didn't you? I knew you would, you TROLLS are all the same. Well, you got enough ATTENTION to get to respond to you for another three minutes today. Good job. Consider your EGO massaged. In fact, I'll throw you a bonus treat: exactly WHY was my vote on BH invalid? Please answer this time, or wait, you'll probably just post some more "HAHA look at the newb" drivel. Oh, and another thing, if I say something is illogical, that's generally because it IS ILLOGICAL, not because I have some pathetic vendetta against the player.

Wow, look at that paragraph you got from me! But no more troll food for you anymore. I'm cutting you off.

[Confucius]

havingfitz, I unvoted Mysterious Mystery Man solely because my largest reason for voting him was his reactions to being voted. However, his reactions in this game seem to be on par with his reactions every time he is voted.

@ Confucius: You just had to try and SLANDER me, didn't you? I knew you would, you TROLLS are all the same. Well, you got enough ATTENTION to get to respond to you for another three minutes today. Good job. Consider your EGO massaged. In fact, I'll throw you a bonus treat: exactly WHY was my vote on BH invalid? Please answer this time, or wait, you'll probably just post some more "HAHA look at the newb" drivel. Oh, and another thing, if I say something is illogical, that's generally because it IS ILLOGICAL, not because I have some pathetic vendetta against the player.

Wow, look at that paragraph you got from me! But no more troll food for you anymore. I'm cutting you off.

Wow. Slander is an

oral

communication of false statements made to be harmful to a person's reputation. Although you clearly meant libel (written communication that), that still requires a

false

statement -- nothing I have said is false in the slightest. All I have done is link to a post that you have made which obviates how you react to people who vote for you.

If you think the meta I have presented on you is

false

, then feel free to disprove me instead of slapping on the conclusion that I am trolling, illogical, and trying to "massage my ego."

Do you

seriously

think I am trying to troll you? Although it is becoming increasingly difficult, I have refrained from insulting you. I am not trying to get a rise from you. I have better things to do, because I am trying to hunt scum.

I have said exactly why your vote on BioHazard was invalid multiple times, but let me see if I can reword it:

In our current meta, games do not truly begin until a few players start trying to make their votes "serious" votes. BioHazard was trying to do exactly that in order to push the game from the random stage. Your vote on him was based on him trying to "build a case on you" on page two of the game. If anything, trying to push the game out of the random stage is a town tell, and not a scum tell.

Furthermore, it is illogical to fear a "serious" vote early in the game. You claimed that you thought either yourself or BioHazard would be lynched by the end of Day One because his vote on you was "serious." As I have pointed out, suspicions change, and votes change, and they

especially

change on Day One. You jumped to a ridiculous conclusion. Not only is this conclusion flatly

wrong

, but as I said from the beginning, it strikes me as a scare tactic, ala, "you better unvote me now, or one of us will be lynched!"

Even

if

your conclusion was correct that BioHazard's vote on you meant that one of the two of you was going to be lynched, that does not make sense for scum to do

precisely because

that only increase's scum's chance of being lynched. As I have said probably three times now, when this game began, the scum had a 25% chance of being lynched. If they narrow down the lynching targets to a scum and a town, that increases the chances to 50%. Such a move would

not

make sense. Nevertheless,

you

claimed that it does not make sense as town.

Here's the deal: eventually, all townspeople have to stick out their necks and vote people they find scummy. Yes,

if

they are wrong, they might get lynched for it eventually. But that's how playing mafia works.

[Jeffcole1]

Vote Count 2.16:

evilsnail (2): Deer, farside22
havingfitz (2): chauchaucotdom, Mysterious Mystery Man
chauchaudotcom (1): havingfitz

Not Voting (3): Confucius, evilsnail, hitogoroshi, semioldguy

Deadline in 5 days.

[semioldguy]

Vote: chauchaudotcom

[chauchaudotcom]

So what in my last post pushed you to vote seeing how you've held out for so long?

[hitogoroshi]

Apologies for my absence. If it's any consolation (probably isn't) I did very well on my tests that I studied for instead of doing this. xP

I'll finish the ISO's tomorrow. In the mean time, despite me not finishing the ISO's, deadlines in five days and I'm alright with picking a lurker that others have found legitimately scummy. Obviously I might switch with more research but for the moment it's important to at least get votes in play.

Vote:evilsnail

[Jeffcole1]

Vote Count 2.17:

evilsnail (3): Deer, farside22, hitogoroshi
chauchaudotcom (2): havingfitz, semioldguy
havingfitz (2): chauchaucotdom, Mysterious Mystery Man

Not Voting (2): Confucius, evilsnail

Deadline in 4 days.

[farside22]

Mod: I saw you were in need of 3 replacement. Can we get an extension for at least one week if this is correct.