Mini 1073: Autumn Mafia - Game Over!

[Zinive]

Yeah a game *happy face*

So we are going with random voting fine then

VOTE: Oso

There is a TV show on I believe Nick Jr. with this name and my niece sometimes forces me to watch this horrible show so my anger is on you little yellow teddy bear.

[Zinive]

Lol Oso for changing you avatar and yep your right thats exactly the one I meant.

1) UTC+01:00 currently its 3:20 where I live
2) This is around my 9th game. I played a lot of different formats on this side I have played 3 newbie games prior to this game.
3) I can't give a time since its extremely random but at least once per real life day should be doable.

Interesting start to mix RVS and a tiny bit of RQS together. I personally don't mind larger walls of text as it gives much more to work with.

[Zinive]

Its AM

[Zinive]

I also thought that the 3rd vote was scummy since this is most of the times the point where random voting can turn into a bandwagon. The reasoning given for why also doesn't satisfy me. Oso is talking currently adding pressure now just seems odd.

UNVOTE: Oso

[Zinive]

I can understand your reasoning Llamarble but I need to make clear that I have simply given my opinion on the matter at hand and I will continue doing it throughout the game.

This being said I did find Osos reasoning appealing and correct so I have no complains there.

I think we still don't have a good reason to start moving a bandwagon to already make a lynch but assuming the short deadline and the low amount of content we have right now I don't think your vote on me is too suspicious Llamarble.

I will try to put up a larger post in around 7 hours.

[Zinive]

Llamarble I did not vote for you since I thought it isn't justified just yet and I simply sounded my opinion.

I'm better than all of you, and the sooner you realize that and treat me as such, the easier this game will be.

Shattered could you please tell me your motivation to write sentences like this?

[Zinive]

Shattered Viewpoint I have played two games with people acting like insufferable assholes and it became a problem to me in both. A playstyle like this gives a cover for future suspicious behavior and can disturb the flow of the game by emotionally 'distracting' players. So I ask you could you please change just for this game your playstyle?

I have taken my vote of off Oso because our RVS has ended and I was satisfied with his response. I have not made a vote for someone else because there is not enough against anyone at the table at this point. If forced to vote I would have to decide between either shattered or Llamarble.

My vote for shattered would be a policy one, as I have stated I think his playstyle will be bad for the town in the long run.
My vote on Llamarble would be because of his vote hoping.

[Zinive]

Zinive, How long do you feel is appropriate to wait between a vote and an unvote?

I don't get this question. Outside of the RVS I vote if I see it fit. Meaning if there is enough on the table to warrant a vote for someone I make my vote. I have stated who I would vote if I had to and stated my reasons why I would do so.

Oso you brought up an interesting point. He really seems now to be emphasize the ruleset. However we should also take into consideration that our time is rather short and some people still seem to believe that once per day is enough where it is not.

[Zinive]

I believe we should not focus on the lurkers to much care of the lurkers as we can't do anything about it and the ruleset is pretty strict in this regard. Of course it would be favorable if everyone keeps talking as much as possible but at this point its only wishful thinking.

Do I think ICEninja is suspicious because of him pressing this matter?

No, not really. I believe his motivation was not to make us lynch the lurkers but simply make everyone aware of the special deadline limit. I also didn't feel that it was pressuring me into somekind of OMG I have to vote fast mode.

Do I believe Oso is suspicious because of him making this case?

No, I think the point is valid and him bringing up what could be a scum plot seems like honest scum hunting.

M=W post towards Cruelty

Cruelty made statements I can not follow. Calling the scum lists anti-town for example. It was just a listing of players without going into detail about why who was on the place. I can see the possibility to abuse a detailed list for scum but I personally think the benefit for the town having more easily readable player outweighs the abuse possibility by far.
For this I can follow M=W argument and Cruelty has become a possible target for my vote at this point.

Another think I could not understand was Cruelty saying it is a mistake that Llama placed himself on the list, is this somewhere on the line with congratulating a doc?

To FeRnAnDo
His rhetorical question seems odd to me as I thought at that point the RVS had ended already since a discussion had started which is for me the aim of RVS or RQS. His vote on shattered is interesting. People that play like willing and knowingly like assholes are often abused by scum if they are not scum. However as I have stated I am willing to vote on shattered since I consider this kind of play as distracting for the town and thus its a playstyle (shattereds) I consider scummy. If I had to decide now I still would think FeRnAnDo is a townie given the timing of his push against shattered seems unfavorable.

Llamas point about ICE is interesting I will think about it a bit longer before I make a statement to it.

[Zinive]

Zinive, you don't have your vote on anyone yet you've made a few statements suggesting you suspect people. Are you waiting for an opportunistic time to vote?

Interesting question and if you mean if I would vote for them when a bandwagon starts then yes if the deadline draws close.

The wording in this post really, really bothers me. Why aren't you even trying to refute Llamarble's vote? You've just validated it instead, which... really irks me.

The logic Llama used was partly one I have stated previously against him. This simply means I can understand why it appeared this way.

A question it is, then. What's your stance toward Llamarble?

I think his scum hunting is genuine and therefor I lean towards town.

While I can see not wanting to push lynches on lurkers purely on policy, I disagree that we shouldn't focus on them. This ruleset deals out very harsh punishments, and Oso makes an excellent point: People with relatively uninteresting roles (e.g., Vanilla Townie) are more likely to lose interest, and if we don't push posts from these people, we're going to get very damaging modkills.

The ruleset deals with lurkers through mod kills. I don't see why we should use up a day to lynch someone that gets most likely mod killed anyway. It feels like a waste to me. This doesn't mean I like lurkers and that we should just leave them be. If there is a chance to make one or two lurkers post more frequently then please go ahead. ICE has mentioned several times how crucial it is to post and if they did not get it by now I assume they won't change there behavior if we keep repeating the need of frequent posts.

All right, answer me this question: Do you see pro-scum motivation behind SV being as antagonistic as he's being?

Now that I know shattered is nobody special (whom I have played with already) I assume this whole think is just a show. This means he knowingly decided to play in a way that does help when being scum. This does not mean that I think he is scum nor that he is town. He is pretty much neutral for me right now but I could vote for him based on a policy to vote for players that actively try to confuse/annoy the town.

[Zinive]

1. If there is no bandwagon, but you find the person suspicious anyway, would you vote?
2. If the deadline is not drawing close, but you find the person suspicious anyway, would you vote?
3. If there was neither bandwagon nor looming deadline, but you found the person suspicious anyway, would you vote?

To make it short yes to all these questions.

I believe its good to discuss as long as possible and going as close as possible to the deadline. There are exceptions however for example a major mistake, a chain of many small mistakes or a cop points out someone guilty. Having my vote on someone just for the sake of having my vote on someone seems pointless to me and could potentially help scum to end the day before it should be done.

I'm having a little trouble wrapping my head around this. Just because Llamarble happened to use the same logic you'd used against him before doesn't necessarily make his logic correct, and if you're town, you know for a fact he's just wrong, regardless of appearances. Why did you accept Llamarble's vote just like that?

I said this already I saw no threat in this vote and his argument on this case did not seem to be made up by scum but a genuine try to scum hunt.

Why would this be a policy lynch?

In the games I have played I found myself most of the times against someone playing a 'crazy' way. Its generally hard to get a good read of such players until the end. Further more I found that they easily appeal to emotions making there scummy behavior less significant. In my last game before this one I played with someone who was obviously scum to me. But the rest of the town brushed all this way with sentences like: Hes just ridicules not scum. Based on these experience I'm willing to vote on someone for there playstyle and voting based on playstyle is policy to me.

[Zinive]

VOTE: Shattered Viewpoint

Since people want me to take a 'clearer stance' I place my vote. I don't get the argument that waiting till the deadline draws close could just remotely be twisted into something scummy as I believe more time equals more discussion but I guess it is a way to force my vote out for whatever reason.

Why Shattered?

The points have been named already and discussed but I will repeat them to make my point more transparent. Out of those people I lean towards scum he get the highest 'score'. Its because of the posts he made and my believe that people who will most likely try to piss of the town should be lynched early.

Xine is obvTown; I know of her meta through the site and she certainly doesn't strike me as a liar. Since she claims she has "not yet" played as scum, I believe her.

ICE is most likely town.

This was interesting he added a reason to why Xine is town although I don't like the reason much but on ICE nothing. I'm always suspicious of people saying thinks like this seemingly random and without a reason. Furthermore his vote was still on ICE as he said that ICE is most likely town. If I get to the conclusion that someone is a townie I would take in the same moment my vote off that one. This whole think has a tone of budding to me. Especially since ICE and shattered conflicted earlier. Its like shattered extended his hand, to use a more lively description.

Aside from this he has not given much of his opinion. For example who are his suspects. Who would he vote for?

He hadn't; I was cautioning him not to glom onto me and pursue something that, in the long run, would be unproductive.

This feels strange to me. Its one think to say any case is unproductive. While I have to disagree with as I believe even without a lot of content each word written tells something about the writer. But at the same time he didn't add anything that could be discussed or tried to advance one of the existing discussion. He just threw a vote against the ICE who has made a case against him. It felt like he simple wanted to kill the discussion at this point.

Granted he offered a question towards Xine which resulted in the ominous statement that Xine is a townie but this as well felt like a cheap way to get the discussion away from him with little to no reason.

I need to look over the latest post about and of Llamarble.

[Zinive]

M=W
I stated why I haven't voted so I will skip the first two quotes as they are answered already.

This was 10 day's before the deadline. And how is making a first vote on a person "moving a bandwagon"? We also had a unusually high amount of content for 2 pages.

Its a simple fact that we have less time in this game and the deadline was extended wasn't it? Besides there are different reasons to vote for someone. You can use it to force someone to make his move or you can vote to get him lynched. At this point it was to early for a lynch.

I thought that third votes were scummy? Maybe he's scum not wanting to make a ill-reasoned vote.
He expresses suspicion of cruelty, but doesn't vote him and instead votes SV later.

This is strange I have explained why I voted SV if my explanation was not understandable please say so.

A few things I find wrong here:

1. Days going to deadline are usually a matter of town being indecisive; it's not necessarily a good thing.
2. You go from this stance to "a major mistake" or "a chain of many small mistakes" to being enough to shorten a day. There seems to be a gap somewhere. (This is more of a theoretical observation; this contradiction doesn't point to alignment.)

I disagree with point 1. Of course its bad if the town can not reach a consensus but what does that have to do with short or long days? Longer days lead to more discussion and thats good for the town. I don't get point 2 do you mean I should have added a wording that includes medium mistakes?

I'm interested, though, in why you feel having a vote on helps scum end the day faster.

Because of the possibility of reaching the needed votes.

You previously stated that he's a neutral read. Does your willingness to "policy-lynch" him mean you don't have any scum reads?

I pointed out who is scummy to me and for what reasons haven't I? My vote on SV is not purely a policy one.

Uh... You don't take clearer stances because people want you to. You take clearer stances because you just do. While I appreciate that you finally took a stance, you taking it because we're pressuring you to do so is scummy.

I thought I made a clear stance as I called who I thought is scum but based on the reactions that was not enough and people wanted to see my vote. That is why I repeated my suspicion towards SV and made a vote.

Post 95 implies it was a mistake.

This observation is interesting, though, particularly given this response to a question I asked him about his vote. (I'm still waiting on that answer.)

I do not see the point of this. Judging the mistakes of others is a point in this game. Scum is often if not always caught through mistakes they do even if they admit it later and excuse it with an oops post.

@Antihero

You also call me lurking and fencesitting while I have given my opinion and made my vote. You ended your analyze pretty early and instead said that my posts was not understandable, I assume you mean the one I was voting in. If it isn't understandable okay, but why did you ignore my vote?

Besides this you ignored some of my statements. For example the Lurker thematic. I feel its a waste to lynch lurkers since they will either be replaced or mod killed and I clearly said so. Because of this my vote isn't on a lurker.

I believe you simple pile now on me because you are diverting the attention away that cruelty made with a really weak case and word twisting. This makes you look more scummy then SV in my eyes.

UNVOTE: ; VOTE: Antihero

[Zinive]

Roleclaim: Town Jailkeeper

Now to my thoughts on Fernando. The possible connection many of you see is non existent since I'm not scum therefor this case against him has no substance. I believe he made a simple mistake and therefor I think he is a townie.

To Antihero

While more then just he made a case against me. He was the one that used the most lofty and at some point even false (like the lurker think) reasons. His whole statement felt rushed to me ending it fast enough to still vaguely allow him to place a vote but don't giving anymore then this. Cruelty was suspicious as people already voted for him namely Xine and M=W. That is why there is a need for Antihero to get attention away from him.