Mini 1073: Autumn Mafia - Game Over!

[Xine]

I love how exreemly overly deffensive you are Llam is getting too. he is so scum. another thing thathas set my scum-dar off with him is that he feels the need to constantly reitterate the idea that his play style makes him easy to read. I don't see that town would feel the need to point this out.

[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.

[Netlava]

Xine, could you clarify your case on llama? I don't quite follow it.

Request prod on cruelty and shattered viewpoint

[Netlava]

Also, I noticed a couple of players saying my case on fernando is reasonable or what not. Does that mean you agree with it?

[Me=Weird]

Me and PA were the first to people I thought of who'd barely posted. I don't get why it's odd.

Odd because the reason Llamarble singled out Zinive was not the same reason you brought up yourself and PerArdua.

I thought the pairing was strange, but your explanation seems reasonable.

Me and PA were the first to people I thought of who'd barely posted. I don't get why it's odd.

As someone else stated, the reasons for being suspicious had nothing to do with you and Per, so it did seem odd.

@both: I simply found it weird that he wanted one players opinion when other people didn't give opinions either.

Unvote, Vote: 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.

So he thinks third votes are scummy, but only unvotes Oso, and didn't vote llama. He also made 2 posts after the third vote before commenting on it.

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

This seems to imply he thinks Oso's reasoning is good because he's happy about the way it's going, but I don't consider this a strong point.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I'd still much rather vote cruelty, but he seems to be

second

or not on people's scumlist.

[Llamarble]

I agree that Fernando is scummy because of his lurking, fence-sitting, and hedging behavior.
The discussion of Zinive does seem like fence-sitting to me, and could indicate scumbuddies.
So yes Net, I tend to agree with your case on Fernando and want to hear more from him.
I do think there are a couple of other players with strong cases against them whom I have mentioned before and I want to hear from them too.

@Xine and Oso:
Oso's latest post telling me I'm not giving your "cases" enough credit is useless and again sounds like he didn't bother reading my rebuttals.
If somebody thinks I have contradicted myself, I go back and look to see if I did.
If I had indeed contradicted myself, I would have explained how that had happened.
In these cases I didn't contradict myself, so I said so and explained why the "contradictions" were bogus.
I sound defensive because I am irritated with you for wasting my time with your logical fallacies and then ignoring their refutation.
How on earth is it relevant whether I think my playstyle is easy to read or not?
I mentioned that because M=W wanted to know why I said his playstyle was making it trickier for me to read him and several other players.

[Equinox]

I have limited access until Tuesday. Also, this week is a busy one overall for me, so my posting frequency will be a bit on the low side. I'll do my best to given the deadline.

I can't do any back reading or any verifications of things right now, so whatever I've promised to do, I need to delay until further notice.

Oh, and sorry about the wall.

---

@Equinox The player slot needs to request replacement for any changes to take place.

Thanks, AGar.

---

One way to analyze a play such as a making a vote or a case is to ask
"why would a scum do this" and "why would town do this"
Usually both questions have reasonable answers (hence the statement you asked me to elaborate on).
If the specifics make one answer look more believable than the other, then the statement is a tell.

That makes sense. For a moment there, I thought you were saying that each action has both town and scum motives, which sounded funny.

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.

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

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.

I'll ask this straight, then.

Why did you need to tell Llamarble this?

Based on these experience I'm willing to vote on someone for there playstyle and voting based on playstyle is policy to me.

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

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.

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.

Let's look at your case, though.

Furthermore his vote was still on ICE as he said that ICE is most likely town.

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.)

Also, I noticed a couple of players saying my case on fernando is reasonable or what not. Does that mean you agree with it?

In a nutshell, yes.

---

Confession: I read Xine's case, Llamarble's rebuttal, and Xine's jab, but I haven't done any digging in detail. Consider this a (campaign) promise to do it later.

Also, PerArdua apparently isn't coming back.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Zinive

[AGar]

Cruelty has requested replacement, I will be searching that out. In the event that a replacement isn't found quickly (although I have one in mind) there will be a slight deadline extension. Votecount incoming.

[AGar]

Antihero replaces cruelty, effective immediately.

[Antihero]

Hi Equinox, M=W.

I will be doing a catchup post soon.

[Equinox]

Welcome, Antihero.

[AGar]

The hottest part of the day had passed, and the sun was beginning to set behind the mountains as the cold, autumn night began to sweep into town. Time was short, but the town could not come to a decision yet.

Votecount 1.7

Antihero (0)

-

FeRnAnDo (1)

- netlava

ICEninja (0)

-

Llamarble (3)

- cruelty, Oso, Xine

Me=Weird (0)

-

Netlava (0)

-

Oso (0)

-

PerArdua (1)

- Llamarble

Shattered Viewpoint (2)

- FeRnAnDo, Zinive

Equinox (0)

-

Xine (0)

-

Zinive (3)

- ICEninja, Me=Weird, Equinox

Not Voting (2)

- PerArdua, Shattered Viewpoint

With

12

alive, it takes

7

to lynch.

Two players

are the current wagon leader(s), at

L-4

Deadline is October 29th, 2010 @ 11:59 PM EDT

@Netlava

Prods have gone out on FeRnAnDo & Shattered Viewpoint. Cruelty has been replaced by Antihero.

[Shattered Viewpoint]

I was pretty sure that Equi was scum due to her constant "more later LOL" comments. Now, not so sure. Must re-read that.

Truthfully, I have to take the time and iso everyone. I've not been paying enough attention to this game. Today is rather pressed, but I will have Real Content throughout Tuesday.

[Equinox]

I was pretty sure that Equi was scum due to her constant "more later LOL" comments. Now, not so sure. Must re-read that.

I give you permission to think the first statement if I haven't delivered by November. Right now, just be patient.

[Xine]

Equinox, are you male or female?
deadline in 4 days
I could move my vote to fernando, or Netlava.

[ICEninja]

I was pretty sure that Equi was scum due to her constant "more later LOL" comments.

Today is rather pressed, but I will have Real Content throughout Tuesday.

Am I missing something, or did you just say "more later LOL" in the second part of the post you just declared that scummy? I'd also like to point out things you have said before:

I refuse to participate in Random Voting, so let me know when you're done with that.

More later today, kinda rushed right now.

You've only made 11 posts, very few of them containing real content, and 3 of them promise content at a later time. I don't like this at all.

[Me=Weird]

The discussion of Zinive does seem like fence-sitting to me, and could indicate scumbuddies.

What do you mean by this, Llama?

I was pretty sure that Equi was scum due to her constant "more later LOL" comments. Now, not so sure. Must re-read that.

Looking through your ISO,

I refuse to participate in Random Voting, so let me know when you're done with that.

More later today, kinda rushed right now.

Truthfully, I have to take the time and iso everyone. I've not been paying enough attention to this game. Today is rather pressed, but I will have Real Content throughout Tuesday.

The first one wasn't as big, but that last one was in the same post. Hypocrisy noted.
Equinox, I don't get why you keep apologizing for not much time and saying more later, and then making(and being aware of it, judging my your apologies) huge wall posts.
Xine, please vote zinive instead. I'm pretty sure Equinox is a "she".
Hi AH. Vote zinive. Redeem your slot.

[Netlava]

I could move my vote to fernando, or Netlava.

Then pick one................

[Netlava]

I could move my vote to fernando, or Netlava.

Then pick one................

I have no idea how my post ended "up there." Requote, just so people so it.

[Antihero]

I could move my vote to fernando, or Netlava.

Then pick one................

LOL glitchy posting.

Obligatory UNVOTE:

Immediately, I'm getting scumvibes from Netlava. I'm all for leaving the RVS, but Oso isn't antsy.

I like to start games off by asking a few questions.
1) What is your timezone? This can be important if you live overseas and we're waiting for a post from you.

Eastern

2) What is your mafia experience, here and elsewhere?

A good bit

3) How frequently do you expect to be able to post? This is exceptionally important this game.

Probably at least once a day.

Post 20: Wagoning for pressure while admitting to doing so = fail; still, I'm not with the people who says this makes llama suspicious.
Post 26: lolwat? What's Ice's "excuse" and does it make him scummy? Active lurking and spaghetti flinging much?
Post 30: It's not the RVS anymore. IGMEOY
Post 32: This = goodposting
Post 35: Actively discouraging bandwagoning = yikes!
Post 45: Why are you just now reaching back for that sentence, Zinive? You made 4 posts since SV wrote that sentence; are you just trying to divert attention to an easy target?
Post 61: OK, if you don't like the lurkers, then why isn't the vote going on anyone?
Post 85: Still not seeing any real opinions...

At this point, I'm getting too lazy to make links, but Zinive is still active lurking + fencesitting. I read the latest post about SV and none of it made sense. At all.

This is a great wagon.

VOTE: Zinive

[Oso]

[Apoligies for the lack of posts last few days. Busy weekend plus a busy work Monday.]

@ICEninja, haven't looked over your (and now it seems several players) case against Zinive. Will do so and make a post on what I think.

It seems that no one is interested in lynching or even really pressuring Llamarble so I'm thinking I'ma have to back-burner that until some other point. Make no mistake though, call it gut, intuition or just plain stubbornness, I'm convinced he is scum. But getting you folks see that as well might take a while.

[Oso]

Double Post.

Oh, and welcome to the game Antihero, glad to have you.

[Equinox]

Oh, fun. Post farts. Just what I needed. (I don't really mind, though.)

Equinox, are you male or female?

Female.

I could move my vote to fernando, or Netlava.

Do you disagree with our cases on Zinive? Why or why not?

Equinox, I don't get why you keep apologizing for not much time and saying more later, and then making(and being aware of it, judging my your apologies) huge wall posts.

I don't get why you felt the need to confront me about this. This game runs on short deadlines; every time I can't dedicate myself fully to this game, I feel guilty. Do you have a problem with the "huge wall posts" (besides having to read them)?

---

Preview edit:

Is it just me, or did Oso post this much earlier already?

This is mildly funny.

[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

[Antihero]

^OMGUS much?

Yeah, talking about theory=active lurking. And I can't ignore something I don't understand (your vote).