Mini 380: Artifacts- Game over

[Stewie]

Random

Vote: GreenLiquid

[Stewie]

Perfect, could you mention which post(s) you missunderstood/read incorrectly and how?

I'd like to know that too. Even if not scummy, at least it'll keep me entertained.

[Stewie]

I kinda hate doing this shit from memory, but I'm pretty sure that I was startinting to find jules suspicious. My question to jules is, why did you decide not to vote for Nai in your first post after the crash - but still mentioning you found him suspicious - and later changed your mind with no explanation?

[Stewie]

I put FOS in all my games on the person I had voted on because all the evidence was lost. We're not going to get anywhere if we don't start putting pressure on again though so I the vote went on

Putting pressure? What are you pressuring him to say or do? There's nothing for him to defend against.

[Stewie]

I put FOS in all my games on the person I had voted on because all the evidence was lost. We're not going to get anywhere if we don't start putting pressure on again though so I the vote went on

Putting pressure? What are you pressuring him to say or do? There's nothing for him to defend against.

Your defense of Nai is noted.

It wasn't so much of a defense on Nai, but rather an attack on Jules. But I don't really think Nai did anything voteworthy. You can make a note of that if you want.

[Stewie]

Vote: Jules

I understand why he voted Nai (ok, not really, but I accept the premise that he actually had a reason pre-crash), but I don't understand why he initially FOSed Nai and later changed the vote with no substantial change in the information known. Also, This is the first time since last time I posted that I have been able to check the thread, and no substantial shift in the conversation occurred, so I might aswell try to get something started.

[Stewie]

Haha. Read post 89 to see why I find that a crappy explanation.

[Stewie]

That doesn't really explain why you initially FOSed and later upgraded to a vote.

[Stewie]

Um, it's perfectly reasonable imho. He says "I remember I was voting him, I probably had a good reason

FoS

" Then he comes back later does a reread to decide what the best lead is and

votes

It looks like you're trying to pull stuff out of your rear end.

I'd answer that, but Nai already did.


On a side note, say "ass"

[Stewie]

It also looks more like Stewie is placing something in his rear-end, rather than pulling something out.

???

[Stewie]

Hacker, he didn't state it as an opinion. That's the problem I have with that statement about Jules' vote. He states it as if its Jules reasoning for the vote, NOT as his own opinion why Jules placed the vote. The fact he got it COMPLETELY wrong from how Jules had ALREADY explained it is very suspicious.

You might be right. My suspicion of Coron might be affecting how I see his game. Then again, he might be scum and I'm the only one seeing it.

Of course it's an opinion. What else does 'imho' mean? No one (scum or town) knows exactly what someone's intent was unless they have some special daytime chat power.

OK, so now you're stating that you're concern with his quote is that he is misrepresenting what Jules said when Jules explained his own actions. That is quite different from stating that he must have some kind of inside information. I can understand the former, but not the latter.

That's all very nice, but can you clear up the point you made earlier about me putting stuff in my ass? Thanks.

[Stewie]

Haha, I didn't think you were talking about my avatar.

Anyways, I still think that Jules is our better option, but Coron is also a good choice, particulary for the way in which he is defending Jules.

[Stewie]

Still here.

[Stewie]

Nightfall, there you go with your overdefensiveness again, he said he'd like to hear more from you not that you were scum.

Interesting that in post 169 you accuse Nai of overreacting and in this post you overreact yourself.

I'm close to changing my vote to Coron. Half his arguments against Nai are based on the premise that Nai overreacts or is overdefensive. I find this premise to be itself an overreaction. I'm neutral about his two other points on post 169, meaning that I do not think that they are suspicious points to make but neither do I believe that he actually has a case against Nai, but rather a different idea on how the game should be played.

Furthermore, as Nai said, he sounds confident without reason.

[Stewie]

Stewie I'm trying to figure out how the premise of overreacting or overdefensiveness being scummy can be seen as "overreacting" please enlighten me.

There are different degrees of overreacting, depending on how much you blow the facts out of proportion. Nai's 'overreactions' where mild, if overreactions at all. Your interpretation of these 'overreactions' were overreactions in that you started with nearly nothing (a mild 'overreaction' by Nai) and blew it out of proportion (to "Nai is most certainly scum," to be exact - paraphrased).

You don't think these are scum tells? You think I should just throw these scum tells out the window? I don't really understand.

Yes, I think they are scum tells (ie: overreacting is a scum tell) but not to the degree in which Nai was 'overreacting.'

[Stewie]

oh yes actually I remember something I had seen in a reread.
In Nai's fourth post this appears:

My main argument is that he's far too sure of himself, and I really don't see, in any way, how he can be like that. I mean, I can see how it would be a joke to begin with that he calls me and Nightfall scum buddies (me included ONLY because Nightfall voted for me), but he hasn't let it go.

That suggests to me that he has some sort of outside information here.

And there's no way he would have given an item so broken as to say "You have a one-shot chance to find a scum and all his buddies", or any such thing. To hold onto a belief is playing like Fritzler, and I find that Fritz is often wrong. So...

Bolding mine.
So, why would she think I have outside information? Guilty concience much?
Also, I don't see why it would be out of the question for me to have been cop/tracker/whatever, and trying to get reactions from people in conjunction with my result. Even without it I don't see how it's at all out of the question for me to be trying to get reactions.
Basically the idea is this: I threw out a completely oddball theory, acted sure of myself and saw how people reacted. Nai reacted EXACTLY like RUH ROH THIS GUY KNOWS SOMETHING BETTER GET RID OF HIM.
Of course you're free to have your own opinions on this, but yeah.

A few notes:
1. I find it perfectly reasonable to assume that you have some sort of information. If, for no apparent reason, you are sure Nai is scum, then it follows that you have some extra information (either that or you are nuts ). Cop sounds unlikely because, as Nai explained in the very same post you quoted, you didn't just say that Nai was scum, but that Nightfall was scum with him. Furthermore, given that being so confident with no apparent reason, and that it follows that you have extra information, it would not be a smart thing for a cop/tracker/whatever to let the scum know, because scum like to get rid of anyone with any extra information, other than themselves.

Ok, I guess it was one big point.

[Stewie]

oh yes actually I remember something I had seen in a reread.
In Nai's fourth post this appears:

My main argument is that he's far too sure of himself, and I really don't see, in any way, how he can be like that. I mean, I can see how it would be a joke to begin with that he calls me and Nightfall scum buddies (me included ONLY because Nightfall voted for me), but he hasn't let it go.

That suggests to me that he has some sort of outside information here.

And there's no way he would have given an item so broken as to say "You have a one-shot chance to find a scum and all his buddies", or any such thing. To hold onto a belief is playing like Fritzler, and I find that Fritz is often wrong. So...

Bolding mine.
So, why would she think I have outside information? Guilty concience much?
Also, I don't see why it would be out of the question for me to have been cop/tracker/whatever, and trying to get reactions from people in conjunction with my result. Even without it I don't see how it's at all out of the question for me to be trying to get reactions.
Basically the idea is this: I threw out a completely oddball theory, acted sure of myself and saw how people reacted. Nai reacted EXACTLY like RUH ROH THIS GUY KNOWS SOMETHING BETTER GET RID OF HIM.
Of course you're free to have your own opinions on this, but yeah.

A few notes:
1. I find it perfectly reasonable to assume that you have some sort of information. If, for no apparent reason, you are sure Nai is scum, then it follows that you have some extra information (either that or you are nuts ). Cop sounds unlikely because, as Nai explained in the very same post you quoted, you didn't just say that Nai was scum, but that Nightfall was scum with him. Furthermore, given that being so confident with no apparent reason, and that it follows that you have extra information, it would not be a smart thing for a cop/tracker/whatever to let the scum know, because scum like to get rid of anyone with any extra information, other than themselves.

Ok, I guess it was one big point.

1. I find it unreasonable to assume I had some sort of information or especially information on more than one other person.
A. If I had info on more than one person, I'd just make the game about half over right now by claiming that info.
B. If I were scum or cop I wouldn't nessisarily want to out myself by doing something I wouldn't normally do(see: other games where Coron has done this)
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2793 - Technically I was cop, but I didn't have a result. Guy turned up scum.
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2498 - Doctor, guy didn't turn up scum but wouldn't have been a bad lynch anyway...
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2363 - Nurse, guy was town.
I'm sure there are more examples all over, but these were the ones I could remember to look up.
2. As tracker/Cop/whatever one might press for info THEN claim, before the day is over so they can get any possible protection from doctors.

For A, you might have some reason for not claiming said info. For B, I have no intentions of reading old games to see how you usually play, because I don't have the time nor memory. Besides, you might be playing differently. You say that you would not act differently as to not atttract attention to yourself. Who said you were doing this on a concious level
(ie: on purpose)? If you wouldn't act differently than usual if you are a cop or scum, why would you act differently if you were not cop or scum?
Also, even if I were to give all these arguments your way, you still don't explain why you acted a certain way, ei: why you acted as if you

knew

that both Nightfall and Nai were scum when, without outside information, you couldn't have possibly known.

[Stewie]

Oh, come on. It would be impossible to be THAT much like that without thinking about it conciously. I would act differently as cop or scum the same way. The idea is that it DOESN'T mean ANYTHING that I do that. Actually off hand I can not remember any instances of me doing this as scum in forum mafia, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't or even haven't, that's for sure.

The idea is to generate discussion, often games die in the first 4-5 pages and it's hard to get intrest restored. By making accusations I both jumpstart the game AND get information that will help later in the game. It also allows me to do the same thing as cop without giving away the fact that I am cop.

I believe that for a defense by playstyle you MUST have 2 things: 1) show your track record of doing this thing and 2) be willing and able to defend your playstyle.

I believe that I have now done both of these.

From this I am to understand that you purposely bring attention to yourself in order to get the discussion flowing?

CTD: you missed me

[Stewie]

Haha this must be some kind of joke Nai. Base your argument on fact next time please...

Jules - He's been playing for Coron most of the game. He's also shown that he's vote-hopped, as well as trying to (in the quoted post at the top of this post) throw suspicion on me for nothing. He has also deliberately defended Coron, after Coron defended him.

As for how he's been batting for your team? Really simple. He's sided with you this entire game. His vote has rarely left me. He, very early, voted for you, which might have been a newbie-style (since, I'm not sure, but I think he's a newbie) distancing tactic. After that vote, he's basically argued against me (when he posts anything but "I'm here"), argued for Coron, voted me, and that's just about it. There were a few votes, if I remember correctly, of him voting for someone that was arguing against Coron.

You're not even arguing with me, you're arguing with yourself.

One post says Jules is vote hopping. The next says my vote has rarely left you. (I should point out, the second is correct. I initially placed a random vote on you, voted for Coron when it looked like he may have information about the number of mafia, then moved back to you sometime during the crash and have stuck with you).

Why should it when I believe you to be scum?

So are you trying to say that when more than one person thinks you're scummy, only one is allowed to argue?

There were a few votes, if I remember correctly, of him voting for someone that was arguing against Coron.

You made this bit up aswell.

I've never voted for anyone apart from you and Coron. Worrying how you claim to be townie and yet you use phrases like "if I remember correctly", when if this is the case,

you obviously have the memory of a goldfish. Looks more like a contortion of facts however

Emphasis mine

Does nobody else find any of the bolded bits typical of a new player as scum?

Coron, do you not find this post by Jules to be overreacting to what Nai said?

[Stewie]

Hey Stewie, don't you think the votes cast by perfect and luna are typical for new scum?

Yeah, he's overreacting a bit, but I'm not seeing it as typical of new scum...

You are basing you vote on perfect on two posts which, although suspicious, I see them coming from newbie town. Even if I considered perfect's posts newbie-scum, there's still only two of them, against 20 newbie-scum posts from Jules. Furthermore, there's more written in Jules' posts than in Perfect's, meaning more scumminess to extract from them.

Likewise, most of luna's posts are one-liners, and only one of which I really find suspicious (the one voting for Coron). Could have been a newbie mistake and if it wasn't then once again we have much more of these suspicious posts from Jules than from luna.

Finally, what I think is the most important reason as to why we should lynch Jules and not luna or perfect, Jules is still here and can answer questions, while luna and perfect cannot. I still didn't get a satisfactory answer as to why he FOS'ed Nai and later changed that FOS to a vote without any new evidence or explanation.

[Stewie]

Stewie, no, I don't find that being typical newbie scum play. I see that as a player ACTUALLY MAKING SENSE FOR ONCE.

I've asked a separate question which I would also like answered.

[Stewie]

Hey Stewie, don't you think the votes cast by perfect and luna are typical for new scum?

Yeah, he's overreacting a bit, but I'm not seeing it as typical of new scum...

You are basing you vote on perfect on two posts which, although suspicious, I see them coming from newbie town. Even if I considered perfect's posts newbie-scum, there's still only two of them, against 20 newbie-scum posts from Jules. Furthermore, there's more written in Jules' posts than in Perfect's, meaning more scumminess to extract from them.

Likewise, most of luna's posts are one-liners, and only one of which I really find suspicious (the one voting for Coron). Could have been a newbie mistake and if it wasn't then once again we have much more of these suspicious posts from Jules than from luna.

Finally, what I think is the most important reason as to why we should lynch Jules and not luna or perfect, Jules is still here and can answer questions, while luna and perfect cannot. I still didn't get a satisfactory answer as to why he FOS'ed Nai and later changed that FOS to a vote without any new evidence or explanation.

Posts 79 and 101. If I added anything to that I would be lying

Ill quote those:

I put FOS in all my games on the person I had voted on because all the evidence was lost. We're not going to get anywhere if we don't start putting pressure on again though so I the vote went on

That doesn't really answer my question, because when you put pressure on someone, you do it so that they explain something that's actually there, much like the 5 votes on you actually pressured you into responding to anyone. However, there was no evidence against Nai at the moment, therefore nothing to put pressure on. At first I thought you may have meant "to get the game going" but that is not logical, because to get the game going the best thing to do is vote the person with the most votes, who at that time was Coron (not gonna double check, but I'm pretty sure that's how it was).

I'm back

Ok, my vote for Nai...

The evidence I had gathered and had posted was lost in the first crash. I had gathered enough evidence to come to my own conclusions that Nai looked the scummiest out of what we had seen so far. I don't expect others to follow me in voting because I don't have any reasons I can show you, but just now we are lacking in anything concrete to go on. Thats as deep as my explanation goes I'm afraid

The response from others has been interesting though...

That explains your vote, but it doesn't explain why you went from FOSing Nai - and explicitly saying that it would be unfair to vote without any evidence- to voting for him after a couple of irrelevant posts, ie: with no new evidence.


My Argument, Condensed:
My main problem is that you said:
1. There is no evidence against Nai.
2. It would be unfair to vote without any evidence
3. FOS: Nai because you know that you found him suspicious pre-crash

... and then you voted for him without any new evidence, claiming that it was to put pressure, which doesn't make sense because, as you said, there is no evidence for him to defend against.

[Stewie]

My Argument, Condensed:
My main problem is that you said:
1. There is no evidence against Nai.
2. It would be unfair to vote without any evidence
3. FOS: Nai because you know that you found him suspicious pre-crash

... and then you voted for him without any new evidence, claiming that it was to put pressure, which doesn't make sense because, as you said, there is no evidence for him to defend against.

At the point where I put my vote on, the game was as dead as a dodo. Maybe putting pressure on was the wrong term, but we needed to get people to speak. I had had my reasons for thinking Nai was scum therefore it was only logical that he would be the one I would target. I quite clearly said that I didn't expect anyone else to follow me in the voting as there was no evidence. However, from that sprung the Coron Nai debate. I placed FOS's in all my games. In this one, I took it to a vote because I can remember that at that point, I did have a case against Nai

(Deleted most of my post for sanity)

As I said before, if what you wanted to do was get the game going, the right thing would have been to vote for Coron, who at the time had the most votes. You even go as far as to admit that you didn't expect anyone to follow you in voting... so how does that get the game going? PS: the Nai-Coron argument did not come from your vote.

[Stewie]

I didn't find Coron particularly, so I didn't vote for him

But you weren't trying to vote for someone suspicious, you were trying to get the game going. If you were trying to vote for someone suspicious, then we go back to the fact that there was no evidence against Nai, and it would be unfair to vote for someone without evidence, so your argument goes in circles.

When you look back, you will find that the Nai Coron debate did flow from my vote. Not solely my vote but that was one of the factors leading up to it. Before my vote, there was precious little. After my vote, Nai started saying stuff, as did others, which Coron latched on to

I looked back, and I didn't find anything which led me to believe that your argument sparked the Coron-Nai debate, even in part. If you want to convince me, you'll have to go back and quote some posts which make it clear that your vote was a factor leading up to the Coron-Nai debate.

Nai: six. Six votes to lynch. Point stands though.

[Stewie]

Jules, do you have any artifacts? You did not mention that with your claim.

Not any more. I started with one which I used and passed on

Ok... what was it, when did you use it, who did you use it on (if applicable), and to who did you pass it on?

[Stewie]

Care to explain how so?

If Jules is in fact telling the truth, then it wouldn't surprize me if someone had the ear of the diviner.

Coron, please say ass. It would mean a lot to me.

[Stewie]

What happened between these two posts? His claim came before the first one.

I see no reason not to lynch this guy.

Unvote

Have to think his claim over.

You need an answer to this question? He claimed an item between those two posts.

FOS: HackerHuck

Can ShadowLurker confirm what the item does? I have some difficulty imagining that scum would start out with an information object. They wouldn't have incentive to pass it around, I don't think.

I used to think that the items were given out randomly regardless of role or alignment, but upon reading the rules I didn't find anything which said so, so now I'm confused. It could be that they are both scum, but I doubt that is the case (both jules and shadowlurker). I think I'll have to sleep on this one.

ShadowLurker, what's with the quoting without adding any information. It seems like you are trying to make some sort of a point, but I can't figure out what it is. (not the post before this one, but the one before the one before this one).

Thanks Coron.

[Stewie]

If Jules is in fact telling the truth, then it wouldn't surprize me if someone had the ear of the diviner.

That's a given, do you mean the mouth of the diviner maybe?

lol, that's what I meant.

It was hypothetical, however. Now everyone is taking as if there certainly is. However, if there is then I agree that they should not claim they have it. It's quite possible that scum has it anyways.

I'm against the artifact-claim, mainly because there might be something with a name that is a giveaway, ie: if an artifact is called "the drug of the pharmacist" then it would be quite obvious that it has some sort of protecting power.

[Stewie]

Who's "we"? You and Jules?

[Stewie]

Ok, I misunderstood then, but I'm still doubting that's the way it works.

I'll bite: how do you think it works?

HH: I like my arguments spoonfed. Also chewed, if possible. I can't see what you are seeing.

[Stewie]

AFAIR I have never actually had one of these "slips" as scum.

AFAIR?

I should also do a reread. Meanwhile, I might as well

unvote

. Once I get a chance to do a reread (I have the time now, just not the energy) I'll place a vote. There's an interesting discussion between SL and HH/Zindaras, so I should be able to pick something out.

[Stewie]

Apologies for that. I had to work when I wasn't doing something for the holidays, and then I had to start classes so there books to buy and material to read over. My bad.

[Stewie]

And a day too late too. That's some lousy luck.