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

[DemonHybrid]

Updating this since we've had vote changes and replacements and whatnot.

VOTE COUNT

Day 1 Vote Count (#6)

Sparx - 5 (iamausername, Debonair Danny Dipietro, TheJakalope, Quaroath, Quilford) L-2
Elsa von Spielburg - 4 (Thor665, chkflip, Sparx, don_johnson) L-3
TheJakalope - 1 (ThAdmiral)
don_johnson - 1 (Elsa von Spielburg)

Not voting - 1 (Amrun)

The deadline for Day 1 is April 23rd, 6:00 PM EDT. With 12 alive, it takes 7 to lynch and 6 to No Lynch.

[Amrun]

Oh, okay, good.

I'm going to go with gut here.

VOTE: ThAd

[Quilford]

... Was that the hammer?

No.


Elsa and Sparx, how many mafia do you think are currently on your bandwagon?

[Quilford]

Oh, okay, good.

I'm going to go with gut here.

VOTE: ThAd

“Gut” is a great way to sit on the fence for a read and flip at will when reasoning for or against the person is presented.

(thanks, Olinea!)

[Elsa von Spielburg]

I think between Spark, d_j, and chk, there's 1.5 scum. Point a gun to my head to make me choose and I'll be bold and round up to 2 scum.

[Amrun]

I'll get on the wagon when we are ready for a lynch; don't tell me I am fence-sitting when I just gave full reads of everyone in the whole game.

[Quilford]

I'll get on the wagon when we are ready for a lynch; don't tell me I am fence-sitting when I just gave full reads of everyone in the whole game.

The reads are fine, the use of gut is not. Especially when you gave ThAd a null tell.

[Amrun]

I can use gut whenever and wherever I want. ThAd's posts are null at the moment, but gut bumps it up. Sparx is leading over ThAd, but I do not support a quicklynch in this circumstance; therefore, I do not want to join the wagon until I feel like I have enough info for tomorrow.

[Elsa von Spielburg]

Humbug. I'll look at d_j later. Still okay with Sparx.

Unvote; Vote: Sparx

[Thor665]

Don_johnson: you seriously want to lynch someone for intimidating you as a player? Sad. You're still town, though.

Could you deepen this read please? I've got a touch of town mixed with scum on the don, and I'd love to push him over the edge into one camp and at the moment the camp I'm leaning is not the one you chose. Need input.

And ThAd gut? Could you check with the spleen, it might have a different outlook.

[DemonHybrid]

Sparx has been prodded.

[Amrun]

It's honestly closer to a null, but I lean town on him because this is honestly the most effort I've ever seen him put into a game. I skimmed his meta awhile ago, but checking to see if he puts more transparent effort in as scum is on my "to do" list.

[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"?

[Thor665]

@Amrum - do you stand by your other reads? I mean, we can ignore that kinda sadly scummy looking blither-blather Don_j just posted if you're more nullish on him (listen to what I 'meant' not what I 'said') I'm fine with that. But if I was to ask you about explaining any of your other reads would they be more rock solid or are there a few other kinda soft positions in there?

[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.

[Amrun]

Thor, it depends. I have some more solid reads and some that are still quite fluid. I'm actually somewhat amazed by the lack of content in this game so far.

I think the fact that I listed no strong scum reads should tell you that I'm currently in fluid-read mode since by matter of course there are scum.

I do have several stronger opinoins on people that I find town, but I purposefully did not explain those.

[Thor665]

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.

Quote the question I dodged please. I'll respond.

[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.

[Amrun]

I agree with don on this. I'd like to see a case on Sparx as I've already asked for.

I do find his reaction to pressure somewhat suspect, but that doesn't tell me why exactly he got pressure.

DDP seems to be somewhat basing his scum read on Sparx on his scumread of chkflip, which is...

Well. I want to hear him explain in his own words.

[Elsa von Spielburg]

That's 5 votes, right? In that, Sparx distances himself immediately from chkflip when DDD brings those two up. Sparx throws some vague suspicion chkflip's way (leaves his options open) and jumps on the biggest, most obvious wagon. Best reason for me to vote so far.

Unvote; Vote: Sparx

Sparx, what post of mine are you referring to as "defensive mode"? I'd like to know.

^^^
That was my reason, anyways. And nothing has changed from him so it still holds.

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

[Thor665]

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.

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

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.

[ThAdmiral]

Sparx: null leaning scum. Not much here to warrant an early bandwagon imho...

ThAD: null

I'm going to go with gut here.

VOTE: ThAd

Lolwut?

I can use gut whenever and wherever I want. ThAd's posts are null at the moment, but gut bumps it up. Sparx is leading over ThAd, but I do not support a quicklynch in this circumstance; therefore, I do not want to join the wagon until I feel like I have enough info for tomorrow.

This is more reasonable. But it still seems very fence-sittery (fence-sitteresque?).

And ThAd gut? Could you check with the spleen, it might have a different outlook.

Lol. The spleen is so much more reliable.

[Amrun]

I think I've been very clear that my reads are still liquid at the moment.

I should have noted my gut feeling in the original post, though; for this, I apologize.

[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.

[Thor665]

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.
Then you changed your vote to "even wagons".
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.

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.

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.

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;

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.
I guess you mean unreasoned is lacking a developed case?
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.