Mini 988 - Small Town Mafia GAME OVER

[Exilon]

I agree with SSBF and with Zach. I didn't like that post by Concerned which seems to be a little fake. He's putting "discussion", but isn't moving the vote to show he wants to pressure a certain player.

Also this

Eh, look back to my previous posts, I was awaiting the town's go-ahead to hammer as well as some input from antonio, as far as I'm concerned we aren't quite done discussing day 1.

I am for the butterfly wagon and I am willing to hammer, I was just letting discussion take it's course. How Jason and Zach found that scummy is really beyond me.

Your post felt fake.

Also felt like you're putting pressure on another player to hammer while supporting a different lynch with your vote.

Your spidey-sense is way off.
My vote was on antonio from way back didn't mean anything, there was hardly any reason to unvote when he was in no danger of being lynched. I hadn't even thought about where my vote was, as it was going to be on butterfly in any case.

You're really stretching with this and I'm trying to figure out why, what's your motivation for suddenly backing off butterfly hmmm?

Is shitty defense. He's strawmanning and his last line is, to put it simply, wrong.To start, he isn't really reaching for the case on concerned, and where did he show signs of backing off from Butterfly? He never said Butterfly was acting townish, he changed his vote to reflect his thoughts and he did so with very good reasoning, in my opinion. Correct me if I'm wrong, though.

UNVOTE: AntonioVOTE: Concerned

I want to see how you do with a little bit more pressure.

---

I don't see the problem in proposing scumteams Day 1. Apart from being succint, it's also a way to show where your top suspicions lie.

Originally giving him a n00bie town read, he quickly changed that to a scum read. This is scummy and I don't like it.

SSBF, could you please show some evidence of this?

[0x1de]

I just don't get your incentive here oxide, at best butterfly's chances of being town are the same as any other player, and he's clearly not going to be a productive member of the town.

Why are you against the lynch?

You are right, but I'd rather lynch someone I think is scum. I've seen a couple of policy miss-lynches and it just seems like a wasted opportunity to hit scum. Mind you I don't have a read either way on Butters so I'm not strongly against his lynch. Whichever way he flips, we'll know more. If it was close to deadline, I'd probably even hammer him myself rather than risk a no lynch. But we're a chatty crowd and the game's only a week old.

[0x1de]

@0x: If you could lynch anyone today who would it be?

Well I'm voting for Dave at the moment for his lurking and bandwagon jumping. He's upped his posts since, but nothing to make me change my mind.

Nacho has raised my hackles, but nothing I can really back up. And I want to hear more from Antonio and Cueti.

[Zachrulez]

Concerned's recent post looks really scummy to me and is making me start to doubt whether Butterfly will actually flip scum.

I still wouldn't mind seeing Butterfly, Concerned, Parker, or Nacho eat the noose today. I'm kinda thinking that Concerned's recent post warrents a bandwagon on him, but I'm a bit weary of pulling pressure from Butterfly, running someone else up, and then starting to see more demands for a claim.

Which raises another point I wanted to make. DON'T ASK FOR A CLAIM unless you're in a position to actually hammer the lynch. The result of acquiring a claim in any other way results in premature claiming, and puts pressure on lynching on policy rather than because it's the best move. It also makes it strategically shaky to run someone else up to a lynch as it risks multiple claims. (Which is the conundrum I am in now because I feel that developments warrant pressure on a different player but Butterfly has already claimed.)

[Concerned]

Anyway, Concerned's last post was extremely scummy. He's pushing for the lynch, but isn't on the wagon, presumably cause he wants someone else to hammer.

Zachrulez made a very good point here. Also people, note that Concerned has been distancing from The Butterfly. Originally giving him a n00bie town read, he quickly changed that to a scum read. This is scummy and I don't like it.

Firstly I've addressed Zach's point, I did want to see butterfly lynched I was just waiting for more discussion, I wasn't going to put my vote on him when I was the

hammer

and I wanted

more information

. The fact that YOU of all people are making this point agaisnt me is ridiculous and sets of alarm bells for me, because you have the benefit of being in the the other game I am playing in, where I threw a little hissy fit when someone hammered before enough information was gathered from the lynch
Game linked here in case anyone is interested - http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... =2&t=14234

And secondly the "distancing from butterfly" you are misrepresenting me COMPLETELY here is the original post I made about butterfly.

The butterfly does appear to be a fairly obvious vote at this point, he's said a few silly things.

However I'm going to assume he's fairly inexperienced and I can't count how many times both town and scum have jumped on the newbie early on simply because he/she isn't careful enough about what they say.

Also I feel like the whole "rolefishing" angle is a dead end, I think butterfly read the word "investigate" in Exilon's preceding post and his mind immediately jumped to cop which is why he mentioned it, null tell.

I just feel like I've gone down this road all to often with players like butterfly, and

I'm not convinced he has any more chance of being scum than newb town.

Vote : Antonio

In the hopes that he'll say something.

I have bolded the part I am referring to I don't say I think butterfly is newb town like you claim here:

Also people, note that Concerned has been distancing from The Butterfly. Originally giving him a n00bie town read

I said I'm not convinced he has any MORE chance of being a newb town than scum, I fully acknowledged the possibility that he could be scum. I then changed my mind when butterfly made virtually no attempt to scum hunt or correct his ways; as I have since mentioned I feel the difference between village-idiot town players and village-idiot scum players is that townie's tend to at least try to scum hunt, usually their cases are based on crap-logic but it's an attempt, whereas I feel the only attempt butterfly has made to scum hunt has effectively been "token" scum hunting. You saying I said butterfly was newb town is blatant scum painting.

My first reaction to this forming wagon was that it

has

to be scum fueled but I suppose that's a bit of an overreaction, I wouldn't be surprised however if either Exilon or SMBF are being opportunistic, but I'm not quite sure it's worthy of a FoS just yet.

Also what's straw manning? I also have a big problem with lines like "this post felt fake" please outline exactly why you find it fake so I can argue my point, making a point like "player x is acting fake" just subtly paints me as scum with no argument which I can argue agaisnt.

Anyway since Zach has unvoted I'm going to put my money where my mouth is and

unvote

;

vote : Butterfly

[Zachrulez]

^ He's afraid of hammering.

[Exilon]

Firstly I've addressed Zach's point, I did want to see butterfly lynched I was just waiting for more discussion, I wasn't going to put my vote on him when I was the hammer and I wanted more information. The fact that YOU of all people are making this point agaisnt me is ridiculous and sets of alarm bells for me, because you have the benefit of being in the the other game I am playing in, where I threw a little hissy fit when someone hammered before enough information was gathered from the lynch
Game linked here in case anyone is interested - viewtopic.php?f=2&t=14234

I think this against the rules and warrants a modkill, Concerned. Also, stupid defense. I don't think the main issue Zach had with you was the fact you were refraining to hammer, yet you talk like that's the issue. Personally, I saw the first post of this argument as very blatant teaching while "keeping appearances". None of what you said so far as shattered that belief.

My first reaction to this forming wagon was that it has to be scum fueled but I suppose that's a bit of an overreaction, I wouldn't be surprised however if either Exilon or SMBF are being opportunistic, but I'm not quite sure it's worthy of a FoS just yet.

Lol No Concerned. I've expressed some "itches" I had with you from a while back. I'm not being opportunistic, if I wanted to, I would have hammered Butterfly a while ago. That would be being opportunistic. However, you started off bad and you're only getting worse. Not helping your case.

Also what's straw manning? I also have a big problem with lines like "this post felt fake" please outline exactly why you find it fake so I can argue my point, making a point like "player x is acting fake" just subtly paints me as scum with no argument which I can argue agaisnt.

Straw manning is basically taking a piece of an argument or change it a little bit so it becomes easy to defend, also sometimes using it as a reason to invalidate the rest of the case. It's bad in the sense that you're not actually arguing against the point made against you, but rather a side-point which seems to be the right one; but isn't.

The post FELT fake to me. The POST. Zach addressed what he thought you were really doing with that post, which basically shows how the post could be seen as fake-concern.

[jasonT1981]

I think this against the rules and warrants a modkill,

Concerned. Also, stupid defense. I don't think the main issue Zach had with you was the fact you were refraining to hammer, yet you talk like that's the issue. Personally, I saw the first post of this argument as very blatant teaching while "keeping appearances". None of what you said so far as shattered that belief.

I want EVERYONE to pay attention to the red and bolded....

I feel this is an extrmely scummy play.... he knows Butterfly (his hypo scum partner in my book) is near lynch and calls for a mod kill, this saving his partner....

not only is it scummy as hell but in very poor spirit of the game requesting a modkill.

[jasonT1981]

Also, I beleive linking to an active game is only a warning at best, Ex.. I did it once and recieved only a warning.... a mod kill is too exteme.. but since the heat is on your scum partner, i see why you are calling for it.. easy way to get to the night, without losing your scum buddy

[Exilon]

Woo, hang on - You're reading it wrong. How is "I think this is against the rules and warrants a modkill" = "modkill this player"? I'm stating a fact, a violation of the game's rules, and a possible consequence of it - that by the way I have seen happening.

Pointing out rules and blatant disrepect for the rules isn't in poor spirit, what is in poor spirit is violating and disrepecting those same rules, furthermore attempting to use it as a viable defense.

Thanks for misrepping it, though. By the way, if you feel that was an extremely scummy play, (which is obviously scummier than what butterfly as been doing), why the hell didn't you move your vote? Right.

[jasonT1981]

because I am content to lynch butterfly today, and build a better case on you tomorrow on you, but reardless, you made a suggestion of a modkill... that is not misrepping you. That is pointing out a solid fact.

Regardless of what way you meant it.... it seemed suggestive and something you wanted to happen... your even bringing it up shows that to me.

Sorry, but I do not like anyone bringing up modkills on anyone. you could have let it slide or maybe said im pretty sure you are not allowed to do this... but you spacifically said this warrents a mod kill... no misrepping ffom me about it. it is your own words..

I think this against the rules and warrants a modkill,

.

no misrep about that...

[Concerned]

Firstly I've addressed Zach's point, I did want to see butterfly lynched I was just waiting for more discussion, I wasn't going to put my vote on him when I was the hammer and I wanted more information. The fact that YOU of all people are making this point agaisnt me is ridiculous and sets of alarm bells for me, because you have the benefit of being in the the other game I am playing in, where I threw a little hissy fit when someone hammered before enough information was gathered from the lynch
Game linked here in case anyone is interested - viewtopic.php?f=2&t=14234

I think this against the rules and warrants a modkill, Concerned. Also, stupid defense. I don't think the main issue Zach had with you was the fact you were refraining to hammer, yet you talk like that's the issue. Personally, I saw the first post of this argument as very blatant teaching while "keeping appearances". None of what you said so far as shattered that belief.

Ok well I didn't realize that it was agaisnt the rules? I apologize profusely if it is, although I think calling for a mod kill is a tad extreme...

My first reaction to this forming wagon was that it has to be scum fueled but I suppose that's a bit of an overreaction, I wouldn't be surprised however if either Exilon or SMBF are being opportunistic, but I'm not quite sure it's worthy of a FoS just yet.

Lol No Concerned. I've expressed some "itches" I had with you from a while back. I'm not being opportunistic, if I wanted to, I would have hammered Butterfly a while ago. That would be being opportunistic. However, you started off bad and you're only getting worse. Not helping your case.

Oh ho ho, and how do you know that hammering butterfly is an opportunistic scum move? Know something about butterfly's alignment that I don't hmmm? Also substantiate this : "I've expressed some "itches" I had with you from a while back." because I don't see what you mean at all, a quick skim backwards has you agreeing with me on a few points actually.

Also what's straw manning? I also have a big problem with lines like "this post felt fake" please outline exactly why you find it fake so I can argue my point, making a point like "player x is acting fake" just subtly paints me as scum with no argument which I can argue agaisnt.

Straw manning is basically taking a piece of an argument or change it a little bit so it becomes easy to defend, also sometimes using it as a reason to invalidate the rest of the case. It's bad in the sense that you're not actually arguing against the point made against you, but rather a side-point which seems to be the right one; but isn't.

The post FELT fake to me. The POST. Zach addressed what he thought you were really doing with that post, which basically shows how the post could be seen as fake-concern.

Ok lets look at the posts in question:

Zack post 1.

Anyway, Concerned's last post was extremely scummy. He's pushing for the lynch, but isn't on the wagon, presumably cause he wants someone else to hammer.

Zach post 2.

Your post felt fake.

Also felt like you're putting pressure on another player to hammer while supporting a different lynch with your vote.

Maybe I misunderstood why exactly Zach was suspicious of me in the first place, he originally posted with the first post, which made me feel like his argument was based on me not hammering etc, you're saying that that's a separate issue and I need to address the alleged "fakeness" of my post? I'll do that.

I just don't get your incentive here oxide, at best butterfly's chances of being town are the same as any other player, and he's clearly not going to be a productive member of the town.

Why are you agaisnt the lynch? Do you think him acting as he has increases his chance of being town? In other words do you have a town read on him? I agree that he a lot of the things he's said could be written off as immature or newbie comments but I still think he has more chance of being scum then anyone else at this point, I've observed that newbie town at least try to scum hunt, granted it's usually fairly poorly with liberal usage of crap-logic, but attempts are made. I just want to know your motivation here.

All I was doing here was trying to establish a read on oxide for day 2, I wanted a clear stance from him on exactly how he felt about the wagon, and I wanted to know exactly why he was defending butterfly purely for the sake of day 2 information. Then when butterfly flipped and his alignment became apparent I could reference his responses and determine how scummy he was, I was suspicious of oxide defending butterfly at the time because I suspected he may be scum, and therefore had knowledge of butterfly's alignment, whether that meant he was defending his buddy or he was defending a townie in hopes of making himself look better on day 2 was still to be determined post-lynch, either way I wanted his reasons.

If I've missed anything you want addressed please tell me, I have no desire to "strawman" Zach's case, and if you interpreted my responses as if I was, then it was purely based off me misunderstanding of exactly what Zach found scummy about me.

Edit: Ninja'd by a few posts, gimme a sec.

[Concerned]

Ok well ninja posts don't change anything I said except I do feel I need to add:

Woo, hang on - You're reading it wrong. How is "I think this is against the rules and warrants a modkill" = "modkill this player"? I'm stating a fact, a violation of the game's rules, and a possible consequence of it - that by the way I have seen happening.

There is a huge leap between "suggesting a possible consequence of it" and "I think this is agaisnt the rules and

warrants

a modkill"

By saying you think it WARRANTS a mod-kill you are giving your opinion which is - I should be mod-killed.

[Exilon]

you could have let it slide or maybe said

im pretty sure you are not allowed to do this

... but you spacifically said this warrents a mod kill... no misrepping ffom me about it. it is your own words..

"I think this is against the rules and warrants a mod kill" = "you're not allowed to do this".
I fail to see how they're different.

I never REQUESTED OR ASKED FOR A MODKILL WHICH IS WHAT YOU SAID. THAT IS EFFECTIVELY A MISREP.
I did not address the mod, I did not "suggest a modkill", I mentioned a fact based on my own experiences, proven by the usage of the particle "I think". Modkill is a grave consequence, but bringing it up is a way to denote how bad I believe his assessment was.

Also,
It is very bad for a player to just ignore another player's explanation in detriment of his own subjective evaluation.

Regardless of what way you meant it....

it seemed suggestive and something you wanted to happen... your even bringing it up shows that to me.

= Whatever, dude. You're still scummy to me.
AMAZING reasoning there.

[Exilon]

aaah, I see it. Thanks. Well then, here:

I think

I believe, according to my general experience, that doing this is against the rules and therefore

generally

warrants

results in / gets the player rewarded with a modkill

the 'generally' is a term that often gets supressed in sentences.
you're reading it like this

I think that doing this is against the rules and

warrants

therefore you should get modkilled.

In my defense, I didn't refer that

you

should get modkilled or specifically asked for it. I apologize for any confusion as well.

anyway, back on topic,
UNVOTE: .

[lobstermania]

Day One Vote Count #6

(as of post # 340)

Cuetlachtli - [0]

Exilon - [0]

Zachrulez - [1]

Nachomamma8

jasonT1981 - [0]

0x1de - [0]

DavidParker - [1]

0x1de

Nachomamma8 - [0]

Super Smash Bros. Fan - [0]

foobert - [0]

The Butterfly - [6]

foobert, Super Smash Bros. Fan, jasonT1981, DavidParker, Cuetlachtli, Concerned

Concerned - [1]

Zachrulez

Antonio - [2]

Exilon, The Butterfly

Not Voting - [2]

Antonio, Exilon
With 12 alive, it takes 7 to lynch....

Note

: No one is getting mod-killed....yet. The rules do state that Concerned's mention and link to an on-going game is a no-no. However, so is posting in my chosen color

RED

. I will let both of these go as warnings. Discussion and links to games that have ended is fine, but please, let's not open any time-paradoxes.

[jasonT1981]

= Whatever, dude. You're still scummy to me.
AMAZING reasoning there.

What are your reasons for finding me scummy again, sorry with no ISO available atm... I can not find them.

Also, if I am still scummy to you, why is your vote on Concerned (Mod has it listed as Antonio).

In my defense, I didn't refer that

you

should get modkilled or specifically asked for it. I apologize for any confusion as well.

anyway, back on topic,
UNVOTE: .

Ah, but the fact is.. it is not the players job to point out rule breaks, it is up to the mod to moderate the game... not players. Players are meant to scum hunt. It does not matter how you say you meant it, the fact is you brought up the posibility of a mod kill on a player. And that shows to me you were looking or fishing for one.

[jasonT1981]

ohhh ok ISOs are back now

[Zachrulez]

Saying Exilon was actively calling for a modkill is a stretch.

[jasonT1981]

ok, even if Ex is telling the truth about how he meant it... I still think it is in quite poor game spirit to say that... and even though he may not have been actually wanting a modkill... it came across as sugestive towards the mod that con maybe should be modkilled... hence why i thought he was looking for a modkill.

[Zachrulez]

I doubt we're all going to agree on what is in good game spirit, and even if everyone agreed on that, there's the matter of whether or not it's scummy... and I think it's reaching to say it is in the context of what exilon actually said.

[Exilon]

= Whatever, dude. You're still scummy to me.
AMAZING reasoning there.

What are your reasons for finding me scummy again, sorry with no ISO available atm... I can not find them.

Also, if I am still scummy to you, why is your vote on Concerned (Mod has it listed as Antonio).

The "=" there is expressive that the sentence was how what you said actually reads as. I meant to say that, even though I've explained myself and gave proper reasoning, your post expressed the idea that you still find me scummy regardless of what I said. which is, in all efectivty equal to saying "whatever, dude. you're still scummy to me."

What I found interesting now is that, as soon as Zach posted, you start backing off a little. His explanation is basically the same as mine- the difference is that you took it to heart. Is this an Appealed Authority back-pedalling I see?
How nice.
+1 on Jason scum.

Right now I'm not voting anyone because I'm waiting for Antonio to post something substantial. I found concerned's explanation to be fairly good, and therefore do not think it needs a vote. If by tomorrow or in two days Antonio/other lurker hasn't posted, then I'll hammer Butterfly so the replacement can read through the night.

[jasonT1981]

I decided to back off that because others didnt find it as big a deal as I did... I don't agree with what you said, I think it is in poor spirit but whatever.....

you are right on Antonio, I will give you that

[jasonT1981]

OK, the post rate in this game is horrible Prods are needed, based on last post on

Last post by Antonio » Mon Jun 14, 2010 1:35 pm - 5 posts,

5 days with no posting

Last post by Cuetlachtli » Sun Jun 13, 2010 11:14 pm - 4 posts,

6 days with no posting

LastPost by Nachomamma8 » Sun Jun 13, 2010 12:19 am - 9 posts,

6 days with no posting

Last Post by foobert » Wed Jun 16, 2010 6:01 pm - 19 posts (not too bad actually)

3 days with no post

Last Post by The Butterfly » Thu Jun 17, 2010 3:30 pm - lots of posts, no content

2 days now with no post (48 hour prod rule)

Prods needed by end of today

Last post by Super Smash Bros. Fan » Thu Jun 17, 2010 6:35 pm - good post rate though, prod due in 3 hours
Last post by Concerned » Thu Jun 17, 2010 10:40 pm - decent post rate, prod due in 7 hours
Last post by by 0x1de » Thu Jun 17, 2010 8:22 pm decent post rate, prod due in 5 hours

Antonio, Cuet, and Nacho are needed ASAP or replacements should be sought out, to keep this game flowing as there only seems to be myself, Zach, Ex and Ox are interested in this game.. that is only 4 out of 12 activly involved in this game.

[jasonT1981]

oh, and Concerned, sorry