/in-vitational Game 8 - Nito City (over) after 1015

[Charlie]

Hello nice people!
VOTE: Porochaz for being closely resembling medicine for depression.

[Charlie]

I'm interested to see the effect of increased pressure on Sando to see how he responds.

UNVOTE: Porochaz
VOTE: Sando

[Charlie]

Do you know something about Sando and how he will react? What info will it give you. either way?

No, it is an argument between Jack and Sando. I'm taking one side and seeing how it goes and nothing else.

Jack looks pretty much exactly like he did in (I believe) the only previous game I've played with him, where he was town.

Keeping my vote on Charlie, saying "this vote is to increase pressure" ensures that you add exactly no pressure.

This is true but when a wagon forms quickly and largely enough, then reactions are gained. These are analyzed to form conclusions.

[Charlie]

@Charlie: I get your view there about the argument and taking sides but do you think Sando's wrong in his thoughts on what Jack was saying there?

Based on what I'm seeing now I don't see the rolefishing. Jack's been making quick decisions but they aren't bad at all. In fact they are decisive, which I think is generally a pro-town move. His next move however confuses me...

Jack came up with a list of reasons why Sotty7 is scummy. After Sotty7 responded with counter points + questions in #79, Jack drops off 2 FoS without reasoning (which is fair enough, perhaps he has good intentions for this) but subsequently switches his vote to Locke Lamora.

This is how I read the above events: with no counter point to keep the debate going, he pretty much accepted Sotty7's defense. Problem is, half of it are questions and the other half are not incredibly good defense points. Seems like they were made for more elaboration.

I generally don't find Sotty7 defense very convincing at this point. As for Jack let's see what more surprises he'll come up with Today. Sando didn't really participate in the argument above so he'll be left alone for now.
UNVOTE: Sando
VOTE: Sotty7

[Charlie]

Do I have my foot in my mouth now?

[Charlie]

What isn't convincing about my defense? What don't you like in particular about it? What points needed elaboration in your mind?

Could you elaborate more on this particular point:

Pretty sure I haven't complained about the pressure on me. But I am surprised by the negative reaction some pressure on you considering the silly rolefishing claim you made that is now all but forgotten.

Regarding this:

If I really wanted to shift pressure I would have voted him. I wanted his scum meta in this thread so if I die and he lurks there is some reference that should provide pressure.

That is a 'what if...' scenario and I feel that lacks credibility. Sorry, but I can't take your word for it.

You've come in, slapped a vote on me for what seems like a general criticism of my defense without asking me any questions to clarify my position which is what your post seems to beg for. If you are going to vote me, I'd like to know why. You are being very vague with your accusations here. I don't like it.

^This is good counter-point/defence. That's how we keep the discussion going. I've decided to place my vote where my mouth is; I find that it generally produces results. Solid reasoning may or may not follow and go ahead and criticize me for that.

I take it from this post you find Jack’s points convincing. I myself don’t find them overwhelmingly powerful evidence that Sotty is acting scummy. Please elaborate on why you find Jack’s points (especially the third and fourth points) convincing.

I'm sorry, you misunderstood me. I do not find them convincing. I'd like to think that Jack's actions in that post is like a fisherman throwing cheap bait on the ocean to get reactions from people; like a catalyst for discussion. I like that action. I'm not too fond of cheap bait. I voted based on my point in #101. As an added extra, I've decided to not hold back on votes this game (I'm trying a playstyle shift; trying to play more aggressive).

Someone else asked what the effect of said pressure would be. You never answered. Are you satisfied with Sando’s statements since this post?

Odd. I did answer in #48, but you don't seem to find it adequate or you missed it completely. Here it is:

Keeping my vote on Charlie, saying "this vote is to increase pressure" ensures that you add exactly no pressure.

This is true but when a wagon forms quickly and largely enough, then reactions are gained. These are analyzed to form conclusions.

Magna, instead of asking the question that you did, how about you offer some analysis on the subject matter itself? (Or a brief recap, if you already did)

He needs to get in here and answer my questions to him.

Your 'vote prod' has been received!

@Farside22: What, you just defended me with what i just said above in your #121. I'm not going to erase the above just because I took the time to type it out.

Responding to a question does not automatically make it a response.
Emphasis added. The bolded portion, as you originally noted, clearly states he is looking for a specific response to his ‘pressure’.
That’s clearly not in line with his original statement. He didn’t say ‘I believe Jack’s opinion is valid, and thus I’ve voting for Sando’. The answer he gave was a non-answer and I want to know what he was looking for from Sando.
Charlie’s vote is not well reasoned as follows –

His stated reason for voting Sotty is that he doesn’t feel Sotty’s responses to Jack are strong. Not that Sotty’s been scummy. He even says that he feels Jack has accepted the reasoning. As I stated in my questions to Charlie – I want to know why he feels Jack’s reasons are compelling.

I'd like to dismiss this off as you overthinking things. But I'll go along with it. My response is: I've just explained above that my reasoning was in my #101. If you are looking for solid reasons (I assume you're going to say my reasons are poor), I'll tell you what I said to Sotty7: that they may follow later. D1 is rife with accusations flying around.

Keeping in line with decision to be more aggressive, I'm going to place MagnaofIllsuion at L-1 now.
UNVOTE: Sotty7
VOTE: MagnaofIllusion
I have a divided opinion on him, but there are so many instances that I hesitated to place someone at L-1 for fear of a quickhammer by scum. I'm over that.
I ask that none of you hammer him without first stating intention to hammer.

[Charlie]

And it made no sense because I wasn't complaining about how people were pressuring me, just noting how everyone was against the pressure on Jack.

Everyone was against the pressure on Jack? I'm sorry but could you point this one out to me?

As for the “what if” situation, umm... Sorry. But my word is all I have, there is nothing I can say here to change your mind.

Try me, I'm easy to persuade.

Basically all I see here is very rubbish reasons for you to have placed your vote on my wagon. You come back and see no one is interested in me much anymore and move MOI to lynch -1? Yeah, very happy with my vote.

I accept responsibility for my actions.

Come on. The bold is distancing from your vote and the last sentence is shifting responsibility for the danger you just put MOI in.

I will be compiling a short case on MoI later. I'm just a little bit lazy at the moment.

I feel like charlie just missed out on some points to stall because he has no answer.
I also dislike his vote on MOI. Putting someone at L-1 with barely a case. Not really thinking he is scum. I sense more scum trying to get a claim at this point.

I'm "stalling" because I'm lazy. We have lots of time and an active playerlist (with some V/LAs, but that does not pose a problem).
I accept responsibility for putting him at L-1. I've been meaning to step up attacks in more games to try a different playstyle.

[Charlie]

Charlie: what was the point of that L-1 vote if we have lots of time and your opinion is divided on him?

The point was whoever hammered (although the chances were slim) would be under intense scrutiny the next Day. You're going to have to take my word for it that I was confident that this would not happen. I cannot explain it any other way unless I lie.

I'm shit for analysis on D1. Charlie is acting scummy, but not enough so that I would feel confidant lynching him.

Say what???

I didn't take in enough of the Magna situation to judge his lynch-1 vote, but at the moment I'm keeping my vote on Charlie

Aha, good. This reaction I find normal. Notice the glaring discrepancy of opinion/playstyle between Zajnet and ChannelDelibird. This makes me think that if actions are done as I expected, then one of them is manipulative and thus more likely to be mafia. Am I making sense here?

I’m not quite sure I’m following your logic here.

1. You find Jack’s tactics to be something akin to weak reaction fishing.
2. You like catalyzing discussion but aren’t ‘fond’ of Jack’s tactics.
3. You voted for Sotty to based on tactics that aren’t convincing purely to increase discussion.

If this summary is correct I don’t see a Pro-Town reason for you to have chosen to vote Sotty over Jack. You didn't feel his reasons were credible but felt Sotty's defense was less so? This combined with your wishy-washy jump onto my wagon looks more like Scum looking for a popular wagon as opposed to Town looking to ‘stir’ discussion.

I am sorry, but you have either misunderstood me or put words in my mouth again. Let me make this much clear: I have no idea what the heck is going on between Jack's apparent silliness/strange tactics and this is me expressing confusion over it. I did the best I could to interpret it at that time and posted it. You just make conclusions for me and I'm slightly uncomfortable with that. The summary is incorrect.

The vote on Sotty was to 'take a side' and develop a 'wait and see' reaction, which is to glean discussion from it. You may not see a pro-town action from this because I am confused. Do you accept this explanation?

I’m looking forward to this.

Yes sir! I shall ISO you right now and see what I an come out with...

Okay, you start with a random vote on Zajnet with the reason being a previous game. This is okay. You generally pose questions to everyone for everything. This is also okay. Looking at ISO #3, you specifically said that your vote stays until there is someone you want to apply pressure to. In ISO #5, it appears that you've chosen me. BUT! You said I never answered a question. Which I'm pretty sure I did. I queried if this was a misunderstanding. You kept pushing the matter to where we are now. I find this slightly disingenuous.

You said your top suspects are 'Locke, Zach, and Charlie' in ISO #3. You continue your follow-up questioning on them accordingly. This is okay. You've 'appeared' to rule out Jack based on your previous experience with him. Your last ISO #9 showed no attack on me with my placing you at L-1.

In conclusion, you've done some pretty good things but also some weird things that I personally find suspicious. I'm inclined to agree that they may be better lynches out there. On Day one, we all have to work with what little information we have.
UNVOTE: MagnaofIllusion

First of all, UNVOTE: Magna. That was a random vote which has now become a wagon (at L-1, now L-2 if I'm not mistaken), and I am unsure that such a quick lynch would be helpful at this point.

Aha, a cautious approach. And a case on Jack to boot. Your response is noted.

Also, vote-hoping is null, it is not pro-town, depending on the reasons for it, it could be either scummy or pro-town. The act itself is null, the motivation can be a tell either way.

Um, I believe you just commented on a statement made by Jack that is best left not commented on (somewhat like a rhetorical comment) because what he said was invalid due to the fact we don't know a faked explanation:

vote hopping is pro town, fake explanations are anti-town.

[Charlie]

EBOWP: Wait, why did I unvote Magna?? I am playing aggressively this game! No fear!
VOTE: MagnaofIllusion

[Charlie]

You could try reading the thread? But look back and see the reaction to the pressure on Jack, only a few people were interested in pushing him.

I didn't see much on that side.

Any particular reason you are continuing with this pointless line of questioning?

I dunno.

So you felt it was worthwhile to put me at L-1 and risk a quick / accidental mislynch because you felt the chances were small? And why should that person face more scrutiny than you, who voted for someone you didn’t even have a solid scum-read on (based on your I’m conflicted statement)? Finally why can’t you explain your confidence without lying?

You make it sound like it is a bad thing.

So you are stating one of CDB or Zaj is more likely to be Mafia but aren’t willing to explicitly say which. I assume you are finding Zaj scummy but it’s not clear. Looks somewhat like an attempt to postion yourself to go in whatever direction the wind blows regarding those two. And if you do find them more likely to be Mafia why aren’t you following up with that person? Please don’t respond with ‘I’m lazy’.

How do I figure out which is mafia..it is like Day 1. Again, you make it sound like it is a bad thing.

So Jack’s actions you found confusing and the best way to sort that out is to take his ‘side’ and vote for Sotty? If you were confused why didn’t you question Jack? Why are you uncomfortable about others drawing conclusions based on your play? That’s the essence of the game of Mafia at its most basic. Didn’t you chide me for not expressing opinions about people’s play earlier? You can't credibly call out someone for not expressing opinions and then attack them when they do.

Certainly better than sitting around to the point that I get accused of active lurking! Which I am glad it has not come to that.

So there may be other, better lynches. You’ve hinted at others playing in a manner that indicates they may be Mafia. But your ‘aggressive’ play is not to question or pressure others? I think this borders on Cognitive Dissonance, which only further enhances my scum-read on you.

Actually if I were to go on this statement alone I think it justifies my vote on you (Over-complication of simple things = mafia-ish). Would you kindly tell me more about this Cognitive Dissonance and how it fits on me being mafia?

Crap, I missed this. You don't put someone at L-1 without thinking that there's a risk they'd be hammered. There's every chance that there's some other jackass posting the same thing at the same time. Also, there's the assumption that the person who hammered would be under intense scrutiny tomorrow. There's only 1 reason they'd be under intense scrutiny, and that's if they hammered town, someone who hammered scum in that situation wouldn't be under scrutiny. So you are assuming that the person you put at L-1 is town...

I put faith that this /in-vitational game is jackass-free (we were somehow selectively selected by each other and all...). Anyway, I'm having trouble understanding the logic above... I would think that both the person who hammered and the person who put the lnychee at L-1 would be under scrutiny.

@farside22: I'd like to give a response to you specifically by way of images since a picture paints a thousand words but I felt that inserting a picture here would ruin the neatness of the thread that is mostly text. So I'll just say that in response to you, the picture would be that of one dog (I think it is a husky) expressing disapproval in the direction of the camera with a wrinkled forehead and he appears to be saying: "You're a special kind of stupid, aren't you?" This is in no way an insult or whatsoever; I felt this is appropriate in response to you because I remember this picture being your avatar for quite some time a while back.

[Charlie]

EBWOP: I meant your signature, not avatar, farside22.

[Charlie]

I see there are questions that need answers from me here, allow me to respond to them at a later time (maximum 36 hours from this post).

Farside, you should replace 'scummy, scummy, scummy' with strange or different.

[Charlie]

[quote"Locke Lamora"]Charlie: how do you go from agreeing that there are better lynches out there to putting your vote back on? Are you trying to prove to us that you can play aggressively for some reason?[/quote]
Could it be that I'm simply stumbling about trying to get some discussion going on when in actual fact I'm doing just that: stumbling about? A different playstyle should get different reactions so I can proceed accordingly.

Only if the person hammered is town, you seem to be assuming that there would be scrutiny tomorrow, and that will only happen if the person is town...

Therefore, you are assuming the person is town.

If I'm lucky, that what will the scenario be? This is a WIFOM trap. You're suspicious for this!

At this point I think Charlie and Zach are both probable scum. Farside is giving me a town read everyone else is kinda mixed in there.

Not a bad point. I'd look into it but I'm there so...uh...

After reading Charlie's play, he's done some strange things... but I can't really classify him as likely to be scum. His actions just seem too blatant to me, actions that draw a lot of attention, which is something scum generally don't want.

The process of playing differently is somewhat bad for my psyche as well...I have to consciously remember that I'm purposely not playing how I normally play here! Experimenting is tech.

When you vote for Sotty at 101 it is your first mention of her. When you placed your vote on her (in the dreaded third slot) she was competing with Jack and Poro for wagon leader. You’ve repeatedly stated that you wanted to take a side in the Jack / Sotty debate but didn’t choose the side of the player who ‘confused’ you. This seems off to me.

Stop right there. There is a flaw. I wanted to take a side, but in no way can you said I'm inclined to pick one based on YOUR assumptions. These are mine and only mine to make. You are putting words in my mouth and I can't highlight this enough so perhaps

you

are ever so

bold

.

You can’t for certain determine when they are Mafia or not. That’s a straw-man attack. You commented that one of the two is exhibiting behaviour that you expect from a Mafian. You do not indicate which player it is. That’s fence-sitting, which I believe is a bad thing.

You've mistaken cluelessness for fence-sitting! I for one am not ashamed to admit that I have no general direction of who is REALLY the mafia and am going on the concept of a dangling carrot. Thing is, if I hit the carrot hard enough people are bound to notice and maybe said carrot will hit others too and cause a domino effect of accusations thus generating discussion (is this a good or bad analogy?).

But hopping on a popular wagon as opposed to questioning / putting pressure on the player whose behavior you find confusing or scummy is much worse than actually following up on suspicions.

You may be right and honestly I was hoping that is not the case. Oh well, what's done is done and I cannot defend against this point now.

Why are you uncomfortable about others drawing conclusions based on your play?

Didn’t you chide me for not expressing opinions about people’s play earlier? You can't credibly call out someone for not expressing opinions and then attack them when they do.

Firstly, I did not ignore it...I just wasn't sure this war warranted a reply because of the nature of the question. It can be viewed as rhetorical, but that is the problem with duality of things.

A proper answer: I'm not really sure of what I'm doing. Any conclusion I give out would be dishonest because I myself am unsure/not very confident of it. All the players here know how to handle questions thrown at them and all seem to follow a 'textbook' style of play. To effectively throw the mafia off balance, one should do the unexpected and get unexpected replies. These are cross-referenced by other players who know said players from previous games and their input combined to draw a solid conclusion. I'm somewhat unorthodox, but am trying to do it right. The method isn't important, the end result is to lynch mafia.

I realize the thought process above is convoluted but that is generally what is going on right now.

Then you don’t question said players and lazily slap you vote back on me. Your actions are in conflict with your stated opinions. Scummy.

Hmm. If you say so. I've already said my peace above.

Ok? That's it! Let's get lynching people.

[Charlie]

EBWOP: 1 out of 9 quote tags broken. You can easily make out the first broken one.

[Charlie]

You are missing the whole point of Sando’s statement.

There would be no pressure on the person who hammered if the lynched person was Town

. It’s not a WIFOM trap.

Why is this true?

My perspective is approaching the game from a logical, Town oriented perspective. I don’t see that in your thought process. Thus I’m asking you about it. That’s not putting words in your mouth. That’s trying to determine why you are playing in an illogical manner.

Each player has their own playstyle. What you perceive as illogical may not be to others who choose to think laterally. Really, I

can

see your thought process somewhat logical, but not Town orientated. For simple matters, I take the simple solution. Adding a little bit of extra thought in post goes a long way, but there is a time for just going for it.

Do you think stating that you can’t defend your action in this case mitigates suspicion?

Certainly not. You and anybody else are free to use said point against me, of which I offer no defense.

Yeah, English is my first language. Perhaps the last post demonstrated a very different way of thinking that it may be confusing, I apologize for that. But that's how it is.

Charlie if this isn't your

normal

play style what is? Also, why experiment if it is going to adversely effect your play? It smells like an excuse to act scummy.

1) My first two newbie games, 889 and 888 long since completed were "normal" for me. Unfortunately in both those games I was mafia, both lynched. My subsequent newbie game 919, in which I was VT, was relatively "normal" and I got lynched D2 (side note: farside22 was the mod). Later, as a VT in newbie game 934 I played differently by making inane comments, poking fun at others, making jokes and references to silly things... I made it to the D3 endgame (I lost it by making the wrong decision, but that's beside the point). So what I am doing now is...well, somewhat aggressive, as reflected in my voting. Next time maybe I should try to play like Jack!
2) Oh my goodness. I don't like this line of questioning, but the answer is already covered in 1).

[Charlie]

EBWOP: Sorry, I missed this one:

Charlie: so do you think Magna is mafia? It took me a while to decipher some of that post and I'm still not sure what the point of most of it is, other than to be obscure.

At this point in time, yes I believe that he is mafia. He continues to put press on the same matter without giving much room.. I would say he'd have a counter-point for every point I make. This seems too good to be true. Vote stays.

[Charlie]

Dont like Charlie 204.. he is trying to draw attention away by basically saying he is changing his playstyle... basically to avoid being metta'd I believe.then declares lets get lynching.

Actually I was hoping that any meta would be verified by what I said previously.

People! There is a little problem. I will be busy tomorrow and quite possibly won't be around for discussion towards near deadline.

So I would need to throw all my thoughts here now. In note form:

- For today's lynch: MagnaofIllusion, Porochaz, Zajnet
- I'd bet 1 lunch that farside22 isn't mafia.
- Jack's erratic, but I don't see it as mafia-ish.
- Not impressed by jasonT1981's long post (maybe it is because he votes me).
- Everyone else: does not stand out.

[Charlie]

MoI wagon is no longer an option? No, I WANT his lynch today!

[Charlie]

Oh no.

[Charlie]

Hm, yes. Having a list of three people listed as mafia looks more impressive than just one. First impressions count!

[Charlie]

Sad! So very sad.

Good game anyway

[Charlie]

Incog: Aside from the vital game stuff, don't forget to fill in the flavour. I want to know what the heck is going on with the dog.