O299 - dh's mafia game of fun amazingness, for real (gaem)

[don_johnson]

vote: ddd

tough read. game is better off without him. he knows this.

[don_johnson]

tough to read because he always reads town. thats how he wins as scum. do you have a better choice for me to vote?

[don_johnson]

ok then.

[don_johnson]

whats with the sparx wagon?

[don_johnson]

What's with the DDDP wagon?

its an rvs wagon.

Didn't you see me call him a town read earlier?

must have missed it.

Either you should be after me for my blatant defense of someone scummy, or you should be after DDDP because he's acting scummy.

^^ fallacy. i'll ignore it as i don't see malicious intent.

Sparx is scummy because he spent time bashing chk and then voted someone else. Plus he has a scummy face. What's your read of him?

whats the scum motivation there? is he scumbuddies with chk? didn't you just say that sparx was "sliding down the scum scale"?

[don_johnson]

@don

1. LOL

??

2. And...?

and what?

3. So, the plan is to not do anything with the RVS vote, since certainly an RVS vote isn't to get reactions that you can address or pressure people you're voting. Buh?

its an rvs vote. not sure what you do with yours, but i am sufficiently satisfied with the game state at the moment. if

you

want to pressure ddd then join the wagon...

4. Scum motivation behind softly encouraging a wagon while not having to get on it yourself?

it would help if you phrase your answers in the form of answers. making them questions is not helpful to the communication atmosphere.

That would be the motivation of getting town lynched and hoping to get other people to do it so as to protect yourself from VCA of course. I do not foresee him as buddies with chk as I've said twice - once when I said chk was a town read and once when I said, well, pretty much that I didn't see them as buddies. And, yes, I did say Sparx was sliding down the scum scale - what has that to do with the price of tea in China? If you read my posts it will help you follow my opinions.

my bad. i thought you were voting sparx.

So, how's that basically useless RVS doing for you? What are you planning to do with it, and how do you see it helping town currently?

i use rvs retroactively, once we have a couple flips. i find it more useful in hindsight. its pretty rare that a scum lynch is originated in rvs on day 1. i plan on moving my vote when i have reason to move it. i am not sure if it is helping town currently. i can really only make that judgement in endgame.

Oh, and you dodged actually answering what your read on Sparx was. I'd still like that.

not "obvscum". i thought the fact that i was inquiring as to "whats with the sparx wagon?" was kind of a giveaway that i didn't get it. i'll try to be more clear for you.

[don_johnson]

Defending an RVS wagon by the time people are starting to make scum/town calls is lolworthy, because at the very least you should be doing something to get yourself into a point where you are making town/scum reads. Failure to do so doesn't help town and looks scummy. Hence - LOL.

i don't recall "defending" an rvs wagon. what i do with myself is my business. i don't feel like i've "failed" at anything.

and what?

And draw some conclusions now that you know I called him a town read. IIoA isn't a town tell y'know.

ok. i conclude that you are an overzealous douchebag.

its an rvs vote. not sure what you do with yours, but i am sufficiently satisfied with the game state at the moment. if

you

want to pressure ddd then join the wagon...

Herp - DDDP is a town read - derp.
I use my RVS to get reactions and catch scum. You apparently use it as justification for doing nothing with your vote. Whassup wit dat?

really? your rvs vote was on jakalope. then you moved it to iam without reason. what exactly did you accomplish with this? i already explained how i felt about rvs. i find it to be a better scumhunting tool in hindsight after a couple flips have occurred. going back and reading interactions is more helpful than trying to "catch scum" with an rvs vote.

Seriously dude? It's called restating the question. Since I quite

literally

followed this restatement by answering the question and you quoted and responded to that answer the purpose of this was...???

again, you make no sense. not sure what you are getting at here.

my bad. i thought you were voting sparx.

No. And just in case you missed it I've also called DDDP and ThAdmiral town. I've called Jakalope, Sparx, and Elsa scum. And now I'm calling you scum based simply on a policy lynch decision. You're not helping town, so I'd be fine with you being dead at this stage as at least an alignment flip might serve a purpose. You can go just a skintch above Jak and Sparx on my scum list. Say hi to them when you get there.

ok. you have called ddd town. which is entirely consistent with my "policy" regarding him. but whatever.

Okay...so now that the SParx wagon has been explained to you how about you react to it now as opposed to giving me a past tense answer. Do you find the wagon good/bad/burrito/what? What do you like about it, what do you hate. Go for the gold and comment on how other people are reacting to it too if you feel ambitious.

burrito. i like that it exists. i hate that i don't get it. i haven't noticed anything peculiar about the reactions to it. if she flips scum then i guess you could point to the players avoiding it as possible scum partners. kind of difficult to analyze on page 4 though.

And get your vote off DDDP unless you are honestly calling him scummiest person in thread.

thats silly. firstly, you're not the boss of me. second, calling him "scummy" in any way would completely contradict the "policy" to which my vote subscribes. oh mighty god of thunder, simmer down please.

If you want to keep your vote on him, claim that as so and offer whatever evidence you have (maybe at least assault other wagons as to why they aren't scummy/good). He's posted multiple times since you voted him without responding to that vote which proves the vote is about as useful as a one-legged man in the butt-kicking contest and looks like you're basically sidelining both your opinion and your vote.

this is a vicious attack on the handi-capped.

mod: requesting modkill on thor for insensitive comments regarding the physically disabled.

[don_johnson]

unvote, vote: elsa

competing wagons are good.

thor: i was kidding with the douchebag comment. didn't mean to hurt your feelings. i just hate getting into wot wars over minor points. ddd was my rvs vote and i found it silly that anyone would question it or think that it was anything more than a joke. in any case, your reaction is town and i'll leave it at that.

Incidentally, I think VCA is junk analysis and no more reliable than taking a diving rod, pointing it at the screen and letting it point to scum posts. Just as a for example, the last time I was scum we were all on the first lynch and all three of us within four spaces of each other. I have yet to see evidence that it work any more successfully than random chance.

VCA can be quite useful in endgame, but like rvs, is useless without flips to place votes into context.

[don_johnson]

competing wagons are good.

in general.

[don_johnson]

d_j, I read your posts over and you've given all of 0 reasons why you think I am scum, just a simple vote justified by "competing wagons are good". Please elaborate. Does that mean you'd be just as likely to vote on any wagon? Either way, feels like a weak post/reason to throw out a vote on.

i haven't given any reasons because i don't currently have any. if you want, i'm sure i can reread and put something together if it makes you feel better. and yes, i would be just as likely to vote any wagon for the same reason i just voted you. i wouldn't call "evening out wagons" a "weak" reason to throw out a vote by any stretch of the imagination. unreasoned votes are not scummy. scummy votes consist of bullshit. like when someone says, "hey that guys lurking, he

must

be scum," or "hey, that guy just voted without a reason, he

must

be scum," or "hey, heres the case on player x," but then when you read it, the case is full of holes and embellishments and such. i'm voting you for the clear purpose of evening out the lead wagons. period.

[don_johnson]

good luck with that. i like how you try to pigeon hole my post into the "no reasoning" or "bad reasoning" bs. thats awesome. you do realize its day 1, don't you? you do realize that you are voting me because i answered your questions

honestly

, right?

thanks for making me feel better about my vote.

[don_johnson]

when i say "unreasoned votes are not scummy", i am not making a blanket statement regarding

all

unreasoned votes. one must always look at the context of such votes in order to determine their scumminess. unreasoned votes

can

be scummy. but to say that the "lack of reason" is what makes the vote scummy, just doesn't fly. an "unreasoned vote" on a scum wagon would be less scummy than an "unreasoned vote" on a town wagon. an "unreasoned vote" on day 1 when it is later revealed that the voter is town, is not scummy at all. but whatever. is anyone going to explain the sparx wagon, or are we just playing "pile-on"?

[don_johnson]

i find it comical that you're trying to write me off when you, in fact, neglected to respond to my earlier post and hid behind the "oh, that was a personal attack," excuse. if you'd rather i not "clarify" the things i say, then there really is no point in me posting, is there? you need to forgive and move on. i apologized already.

sparx is at L-1 and has 4 posts. considering i am taking flak for saying "unreasoned votes are not scummy", i would think it pertinent that someone on the wagon should produce some reason as to why they are voting sparx.

[don_johnson]

i didn't say you "deodged" any questions. you simply failed to respond to my post. the one question that was directed at you was in regards to your statement about how you use your rvs vote. i pointed out that you actually did nothing with your rvs vote and asked you what you felt it accomplished. its not a big deal, i just don't feel i deserve the cold shoulder because i apologized. i also think the logic i have put forth about taking votes in their context is sound. i also am waiting for this "case" on sparx. if its in thread, then someone can point me to it, but i can't find it. so my original point here, about taking unreasoned votes in their context, should apply. i am okay with the players who say "i am voting sparx on gut", or "i am voting sparx for pressure," etc. but noone seems to be explaining what is "scummy" about sparx. its page 6 on day 1, the guy has 4 posts. if we're lynching him at random thats fine, but if this wagon is logic driven, i would like to see the logic. but whatever.

[don_johnson]

Legit question to don: Are you implying we should hold off on our votes until there are more posts from Sparx?

no.

1. You didn't make a case on me about my RVS habits so I saw little value in getting into a theory debate in thread.

you seemed to be using it as a main argument point with me. discrediting my rvs method as opposed to yours, which you said "I use my RVS to get reactions and catch scum. You apparently use it as justification for doing nothing with your vote. Whassup wit dat?" you seem to be implying that your rvs vote was more useful than mine, or that it somehow magically helped you catch scum. i called you on this. your rvs vote accomplished nothing imo, so where do you get off criticizing mine? but whatever, if its a theory debate, then thats what it is. i just don't appreciate your attitude here.

2. I did do something with my RVS vote, I generated reads - but i'd already said that.

no you didn't say that. what reads did you get from your rvs vote? why do you think i don't do the same thing but in a different way?

3. I am not giving you a 'cold shoulder' because I perceived you insulting me. I am calling you scummy because I perceive your actions as scum - I feel my posts reflect this. I'll toss in an apology accepted and no harm done commentary if it helps you refocus on treating my posts as purely game related. I am emotionally fine with you - I just find you scummy, and I really can't fault you for getting a role PM that I must destroy. That's the mod's fault.

whatever.

I am indifferent about your attitude towards votes being justified - I find it a tell neither way. I do have issue with your 'take what I mean, not what I say' explanation which sounds very much like scummy repositioning of yourself into a less controversial position.

ok. so rather than clarifying the things i say, i should just let people twist my words so they can generate a mislynch? grand plan that is. how am i "repositioning"? someone isolated one comment i made from the context of my posts and tried to make it look like i was laying down some sort of blanket statement. if you think unreasoned votes are scummy, then why are you content to let almost the entire sparx wagon slide without so much as offering opinions? you are a walking contradiction in that respect. but whatever.

i posted this:

i haven't given any reasons because i don't currently have any. if you want, i'm sure i can reread and put something together if it makes you feel better. and yes, i would be just as likely to vote any wagon for the same reason i just voted you. i wouldn't call "evening out wagons" a "weak" reason to throw out a vote by any stretch of the imagination.

unreasoned votes are not scummy.

scummy votes consist of bullshit. like when someone says, "hey that guys lurking, he must be scum," or "hey, that guy just voted without a reason, he must be scum," or "hey, heres the case on player x," but then when you read it, the case is full of holes and embellishments and such. i'm voting you for the clear purpose of evening out the lead wagons. period.

elsa cherry picked the bolded and ignored the context of the statement. so i clarified what i meant. in fact, this post is entirely consistent with my "clarification". if you disagree, then please explain all of your unreasoned votes today and why they shouldn't be seen as scummy. see how that works. its called logic. you can't have it both ways.

[don_johnson]

no you didn't say that. what reads did you get from your rvs vote? why do you think i don't do the same thing but in a different way?

I generate reads because I use my vote as a blunt instrument and batter people about the head with it like a soccer hooligan. You made your vote, didn't get a reaction from the guy you voted, and sat there silently not asking the guy you voted anything.

and you voted your guy, didn't ask any questions or make any comments, and then moved your vote with absolutely no reasoning attached. how is your rvs any better than mine?

Then you changed your vote to "even wagons".

which is a perfectly logical and justifiable reason to vote.

So...basically your vote did nothing, and I asked you what your vote was doing for you and your answer was 'nothing, but at some future date the stars will align and somehow a tell will develop from this' which i personally don't expect to happen - I'll be excited to see it happen if it does, but I'd be willing to put money on it as a wager because I'm that certain it won't. Please prove me wrong at this later point.

and your rvs vote did...? nothing as well. which makes your argument entirely hypocritical. so, from your perspective, any vote that doesn't "get reactions" is useless? and votes that are "useless" are "scummy"? please tell me where you're going with this. and yes, the thread is valuable in hindsight. once you have a scumflip, or a couple townflips, or whatever combination of flips you get, going back to reread the thread is a pretty popular method of scumhunting, so i will stand by my statement that rvs can be beneficial later in the game.

if you think unreasoned votes are scummy, then why are you content to let almost the entire sparx wagon slide without so much as offering opinions? you are a walking contradiction in that respect. but whatever.

Other than you deciding I must agree with Elsa's accusation on you - where is my contradiction? Please try to use words I've actually said.

you claim that my rvs vote did nothing and that this is somehow bad. yet your rvs vote did nothing. so is yours like mine or not?

elsa cherry picked the bolded and ignored the context of the statement. so i clarified what i meant. in fact, this post is entirely consistent with my "clarification". if you disagree, then please explain all of your unreasoned votes today and why they shouldn't be seen as scummy. see how that works. its called logic. you can't have it both ways.

1. I do disagree that it's entirely consistent. You went from unreasoned votes are not scummy and scummy votes involve BS logic to - unreasoned votes 'can' be scummy but this one isn't. That's a change of tune. It might be a clarification, but it might be scummy backtracking, and I know which I feel was there more than the other.

agree to disagree. any vote

can

be scummy. context matters. a change of tune would have been saying "unreasoned votes are not scummy", and then saying "unreasoned votes are scummy." i'm still working in the same line of reasoning. but whatever. you obviously have your mind made up.

2. I don't think I've made an unreasoned vote since maybe my first few games, but your definition of what a scummy vote is defined as is drastically different from how I would define a scummy vote and also has changed somewhat, so I'd like to make sure I understand your question so I can answer it properly. I'm going to work through this a bit;

start with explaining your first two votes in this game, neither of which had a reason attached to them.

You appear to define "unreasoned" as lacking a reason to vote - which doesn't even pare up with your own actions as you had a reason.

correct. but my reason was not the type of "reason" that was being asked for.

I guess you mean unreasoned is lacking a developed case?

no. "unreasoned" is a vote without a reason attached. my vote had a reason. it just wasn't the type of "reason" that was being asked for, which is what you are now defining as "reason". in other words, i may have mispoke, but it then becomes a semantics argument.

I don't see any issue with lacking a developed case to vote, and have never said as much, and I don't see why me disagreeing with the scumminess of your wordplay has to do with me justifying votes that lack a developed case. That's sort of like telling me - oh, you hate milk? Then stop drinking orange juice! Yeah, they're both liquids that people can drink but...
Double check your logic and get back to me on this one. You lost me and you still look scummy.

if you read elsa iso 12, i believe that is what spurred most of this discussion. so let's start over:

what is your issue with my posting? is it that i am not elaborating enough. i see where your issue is now, our definition of "reason" and i realize i may have misspoke, but my "logic" is sensible:

evening wagons is a perfectly ok "reason" to vote on day 1. agree or disagree?

votes without "reasons"(however you choose to define "reason") must be read in context in order to determine whether or not they are scummy. agree or disagree?

[don_johnson]

I would imagine at least one scum will be found off the wagon. Thor was my suspect with his fence sit. I'll have to reread.

[don_johnson]

I have been relegated to posting from my phone for a few days so I won't be able to catch up proper. Id prefer we wait to lynch anyone. Day 1 scum is anything but a sure thing. I should be at full capacity by the weekend.

[don_johnson]

^^ lolz.

connection is back up.

vote: chkflip

i noticed ddd's comment yesterday, and looking back, i'm ready to crown ddd as "scumhunter of the year" if chk flips scum.

I'm ready to vote chkflip if he doesn't come back soonish.

^^ uh huh.

[don_johnson]

vote: Thad

i am town roleblocker. i've blocked thad each night. unless some sort of odd no-kill gambit or other shenanigans exist, then this should be it.

[don_johnson]

gut.

[don_johnson]

Ddd policy was joke/rvs. I didn't like Thor, but gut had me block thad. Hammer was odd to me. Chk was not obvscum to me until reread. Game has potential for sk, so lack of xtra nk and second hammer has me stick with it. If we want to massclaim, that's ok, but I see no reason for town to show its entire hand. There are scenarios where I could be wrong, but add the night results to the play and I don't have an issue with the lynch.

[don_johnson]

i was just praying there wasn't a roleblocker. oh well. gg town.

[don_johnson]

breadcrumnbs? thats what i get for playing in typical dj fashion. i was barely reading the thread.