TV Mafia Game Over - Scum Win

[David Xanatos]

If he's the "star of the show", why did you rank Pine as #1, and specifically mark Marco and Meran as tied for #2?

Will respond in the morning to your answer, if needed, going to bed for now.

[Junpei]

But silver...

*glances at previous post he posted*

I think your misunderstanding me. He's the 6th person on my list... that doesn't mean he's ranked 6.

There are no other spots to rank him other than sixth or worse. How can he be the start of the show if he is ranked any lower than that?

[silverdrummer]

-Dave
I'm not seeing a vote dave...

I specifically said why I dropped Pine vote for the moment.

Marco has been 2, latest interaction with meran bring him to 2 also.

What does any of that have to do with me and my Nero vote?

-Jun
Are you actually asking me this... I'm going to count on your intelligence to figure it out for yourself but feel free to request an answer again and I shall.

[vollkan]

Rodion > Bit of idiocy on my part there I'm afraid. I was JK in a two-scum player game in which the first died night one.. so any unblocked kill ended up confirming someone. Didn't quite think about the mechanics of it when not applied to that.. I feel a bit prattish now. >_<

And I note that MoI still hasn't responded to my reply, and now ThAdmiral is using his post to justify a vote on me.. once again, skimming or an actual attempt at misrepresentation?

Zinger 10 - Vezo,Leonshade, Junpei, 3isFrench, Izak, Pappum,Cherve, KillerJester, DavidX, Vollkan
Silverdrummer 5 - Slate, Oversoul, Nero, Meran, MoI
DavidX 4 - CHKBallin,PeregrineV, Rodion, ThAdmiral
Izak 3 - ZeL1nk, Pinky
Pine 1 - Silver
Chkballin 1 - Andrew

DX+5

THad's point was a reiteration of MOI's point that your reasoning for lynching Zinger appeared to be not that he was prob-scum but that he was "prob-town who needs to be taught a lesson". How does this respond to that? (and the 4.30am excuse in your next post doesn't cut it)

Survival mode isn’t more likely to come from only scum. Sorry, a Town PR is just as likely to enter survival mode after a grandly stupid move because lynching them is very damaging to Town. You’ve been around to have seen this and that you still are pushing it as a scum-tell based on your own personal standard troubles me.

This much is true, but I would emphasise the point I made earlier about the number of contortions between his alleged gambit blowing up in his face, and his town JK claim. Even if I could see town making this as a gambit, and I can't, the "oh shit, oh shit, need to come up with something" mentality is, pretty much by definition, scummy. If such a gambit fails, town is far more likely to simply come clean about the whole thing - which is still a survival instinct, in a sense, but without the jettisoning of truth in desperation.

What do you think of Pappum’s “Newbie Escalator” theory?

You're implying that the zinger case is an example of Newbie Escalator theory?

I think the theory is valid, in a sense. Pressuring newbies is not bad in and of itself. The problem is really just poor scumhunting abilities - ie. people don't take account of inexperience in evaluating a person's reactions. So, for practical purposes, it is generally better not to pressure newbies so much, if only because other people are liekly to misconstrue.

I don't see what the relevance of that is here, though. I've already said repeatedly that I think his actions are irrational no matter what his alignment. The point is that the initial claim was anti-town, and the subsequent contortions are scummy. Obviously, I'd be remiss to ignore the possibility that he is simply a monumentally terrible VI, but, as I keep saying, if he had initially claimed SK, we would have lynched him 10 pages ago.

Moreover, you claiming that town has a survival motive undermines your own argument in this context. It's simply ludicrous to suppose that a town-JK would think "Oh, maybe I should claim neutral with a permanent RBing power. That way, nobody will perceive me as a threat and nobody will question me and I'll be able to coast on by". That sort of strategy is about as suicidal as can be imagined.

Now.. try to keep up here. I asked you for an IMPERSONAL description of what each said the role did and the limits thereof. In other words, "Person A said this, Person B said this.". From that, we'd have a basic grounding, without names, to say "Well, X, Y and Z in Person B's post look out of place.." (Psst, I said this in post #711 by the way)

DX+5

Huh?

(as I see MOI has already noted) You specifically asked for their names in 694. Which is about as PERSONAL as you can get.

[Junpei]

-\
-Jun
Are you actually asking me this... I'm going to count on your intelligence to figure it out for yourself but feel free to request an answer again and I shall.

I request an answer again.

[silverdrummer]

Ok Jun.. ok... i'm disappointed in you but ok.

How many people did I list as tied for 2nd?

The answer? Officially two!

So can someone also tie first!? NO WAY THAT'S TABOO NO FRACKING WAY!....

[Junpei]

Silver I don't understand. Just be straight and non-sarcastic with me.

[silverdrummer]

....

Nero is the 6th person on my list. This does not mean he's ranked sixth as scummy.
Just as I have 2 people tied for second. I have 2 people tied for first.
Do you understand...

[Junpei]

....

Nero is the 6th person on my list. This does not mean he's ranked sixth as scummy.
Just as I have 2 people tied for second. I have 2 people tied for first.
Do you understand...

Then why did you arrange your list in such a terrible way?

Why would you include someone in fourth place but not the person who is tied for first? No where do you indicate that he is tied for first in that post. The seems mostly arbitrary.

[silverdrummer]

I DIDN'T

SUMMARY OF THAT POST

HERE ARE THE PEOPLE I WANT TO DIE
*LIST OF PEOPLE*
HOWEVER THE STAR OF THE SHOW IS THIS GUY FOR THIS AND THIS AND THIS

[end caps lock]

seriously though... I can't honestly believe that is causing this much discussion.

[Junpei]

Silver. You said that you had two people tied for first but according to your list this isn't he case. So this leads me to imply that you left someone out who was tied for first.

As far as your Nero vote goes it doesn't make sense as your 1 quote logic for it is poor. You took a snip of his ISO and called him scum without regarding the rest.

[Chevre]

silverdrummer: Properly rank the six players on your list, from 1 to 6 where 1 is the scummiest player and 6 is the least scummiest, without any ties, and present a larger case on Nero Cain, since he is the "star of the show."

[vollkan]

silverdrummer: Properly rank the six players on your list, from 1 to 6 where 1 is the scummiest player and 6 is the least scummiest, without any ties, and present a larger case on Nero Cain, since he is the "star of the show."

Why are you insisting that he not include ties?

[Junpei]

silverdrummer: Properly rank the six players on your list, from 1 to 6 where 1 is the scummiest player and 6 is the least scummiest, without any ties, and present a larger case on Nero Cain, since he is the "star of the show."

Why are you insisting that he not include ties?

Not everyone uses your point system.

Tell me vollkan, if two people have 62 on your scorecard does that mean they are both equally scummy to you? If you think about it and from what I've examined from your points you are inconsistent with what warrants how many points. There is always a rank you can give people if you must.

[Chevre]

silverdrummer: Properly rank the six players on your list, from 1 to 6 where 1 is the scummiest player and 6 is the least scummiest, without any ties, and present a larger case on Nero Cain, since he is the "star of the show."

Why are you insisting that he not include ties?

Because there were obviously some discrepancies in the last list. I don't care if its the smallest twinge of the gut, just fiind something that differentiates between one rank and another.

[vollkan]

silverdrummer: Properly rank the six players on your list, from 1 to 6 where 1 is the scummiest player and 6 is the least scummiest, without any ties, and present a larger case on Nero Cain, since he is the "star of the show."

Why are you insisting that he not include ties?

Not everyone uses your point system.

Tell me vollkan, if two people have 62 on your scorecard does that mean they are both equally scummy to you? If you think about it and from what I've examined from your points you are inconsistent with what warrants how many points. There is always a rank you can give people if you must.

If two people have the same score, then that means that they are equally scummy.

That doesn't mean my choice is then "random" - it then goes to relational tells, information, claims, etc.

As for inconsistencies: if there are any, I will always correct them if pointed out. The flipside of the added certainty that I get from my system is that I tend to receive a lot more flak for any discrepancies.

silverdrummer: Properly rank the six players on your list, from 1 to 6 where 1 is the scummiest player and 6 is the least scummiest, without any ties, and present a larger case on Nero Cain, since he is the "star of the show."

Why are you insisting that he not include ties?

Because there were obviously some discrepancies in the last list. I don't care if its the smallest twinge of the gut, just fiind something that differentiates between one rank and another.

I don't think that's helpful. Making artificial demands of people just creates a form of the Newbie Elevator - you demand contrived reasons ("the smallest twinge of gut") and then, invariably, will hold the person to account for something that they weren't actually confident enough in their opinion on to say to begin with. Having a "tie" is as much about saying "I cannot confidently distinguish these people" than about saying "These people are exactly equal"

[ThAdmiral]

I'm going to have so much to catch up on when I come back...

I'm liking the move away from zinger and towards david/silver. Keep it up guys!

[jasonT1981]

Day 1 Vote count 10

Zinger 9 - Vezo,Leonshade, Junpei, 3isFrench, Izak, Pappum,, KillerJester, DavidX, Vollkan
Silverdrummer 5 - Slate, Oversoul, Nero, Mera, Cherve
DavidX 4 - CHKBallin,PeregrineVTHAdmiral, MOI,
Izak 3 - ZeL1nk, Pinky, Zinger
Chkballin 1 - Andrew
Nero 1 - Silver

V/LA - MOI (weekend), Mera (back 29th) Izak (Back 31st)

With 27 alive it takes 14 to lynch with a deadline of 12th August 12pm EST

[David Xanatos]

Going back to bed in a moment (damn postman..) but will respond to this before I do.

Rodion > Bit of idiocy on my part there I'm afraid. I was JK in a two-scum player game in which the first died night one.. so any unblocked kill ended up confirming someone. Didn't quite think about the mechanics of it when not applied to that.. I feel a bit prattish now. >_<

And I note that MoI still hasn't responded to my reply, and now ThAdmiral is using his post to justify a vote on me.. once again, skimming or an actual attempt at misrepresentation?

Zinger 10 - Vezo,Leonshade, Junpei, 3isFrench, Izak, Pappum,Cherve, KillerJester, DavidX, Vollkan
Silverdrummer 5 - Slate, Oversoul, Nero, Meran, MoI
DavidX 4 - CHKBallin,PeregrineV, Rodion, ThAdmiral
Izak 3 - ZeL1nk, Pinky
Pine 1 - Silver
Chkballin 1 - Andrew

DX+5

THad's point was a reiteration of MOI's point that your reasoning for lynching Zinger appeared to be not that he was prob-scum but that he was "prob-town who needs to be taught a lesson". How does this respond to that? (and the 4.30am excuse in your next post doesn't cut it)

I'm under the impression here you didn't bother reading either. Firstly, that post was mostly a response to Rodion. As was my next post with the "4.30am excuse" as you put it.

That was post #742. I explained in post #744 I clicked "submit" too soon instead of "preview". See post #744, and in a very similar vein, #746 for this. I've already given my full reasoning. To reiterate, it's nothing to do with "prob town that needs lesson", it's "dodgy as hell, now claims town, but has changed claim 4 times. I see no reason to believe his latest face-saving claim either."

Now.. try to keep up here. I asked you for an IMPERSONAL description of what each said the role did and the limits thereof. In other words, "Person A said this, Person B said this.". From that, we'd have a basic grounding, without names, to say "Well, X, Y and Z in Person B's post look out of place.." (Psst, I said this in post #711 by the way)

DX+5

Huh?

(as I see MOI has already noted) You specifically asked for their names in 694. Which is about as PERSONAL as you can get.

Way to mis-quote. Let's add in the lines before, shall we?

Now.. try to keep up here. I asked you for an IMPERSONAL description of what each said the role did and the limits thereof. In other words, "Person A said this, Person B said this.". From that, we'd have a basic grounding, without names, to say "Well, X, Y and Z in Person B's post look out of place.." (Psst, I said this in post #711 by the way)

The full quote would be:

Now.. to address "my and Meran's observations", this is what you had to say on the matter at the time:

"2. Not at this stage. On the off chance that one of them isn't Mafia scum (aka Third Party or the unlikely possibility both are Town) then I'm not directly handing over either identity."

At which point, I took a step back, and said the following - "What flavour/mechanics did they give you for it? Even if you don't name them, the differences might hint towards the non-town, assuming they aren't both Town.."

Now.. try to keep up here. I asked you for an IMPERSONAL description of what each said the role did and the limits thereof. In other words, "Person A said this, Person B said this.". From that, we'd have a basic grounding, without names, to say "Well, X, Y and Z in Person B's post look out of place.." (Psst, I said this in post #711 by the way)

In other words, you just cut out a pretty damn key part of narrative, namely

"At which point, I took a step back, and said the following"

That is the IMPERSONAL description I refer to. MoI gave a reason for not wanting to name, and I took it at face value, so I then asked for some details that would NOT implicate anyone, but that Town could work with MoI on, to determine which, if any, looks forged/edited.

[jasonT1981]

I am taking the decision early to replace Crappy. It looks like he has flaked the site. He has not been online since his confirm post, and has only made 3 site posts. If anyone has objections to this, PM me. However, I feel he has flaked.

[ZeL1nK]

Of the current wagons, Zinger is town, Silver is town, DavidX is most likely town.

Needs less votes on those wagons.

[Zinger2099]

@MOD, V/LA until Monday.

[Zinger2099]

Actually, make that Tuesday, just in case (will probably be back Monday though).

[Junpei]

Of the current wagons, Zinger is town, Silver is town, DavidX is most likely town.

Needs less votes on those wagons.

You can't just say that, you have to explain why. There's a pretty strong case against Zinger.

[ZeL1nK]

Well I can just say it. I did, too. It was very easy.

There's a pretty strong case against you, too, but most people are ignoring it because you claimed tracker. What's your point?

Are you saying I haven't explained why I think Zinger is town? Or are you asking me to explain the other two?

I'm more interested in why people

aren't

reading them as town. DavidX votes I could maybe understand, but Silver hasn't really done much to warrant the votes IMO. I've played with the cj head of silver a few times, and he has a tendency to make really scummy posts, regardless of alignment. The silver head, on the other hand, reads pretty strongly as town.