Mini 380: Artifacts- Game over

[CrashTextDummie]

Hello again, everyone. Thoughts:

probably scum

:
Jules - for playing the whole game like newbie scum. His second post of the game (where he jumped on the Coron wagon) in particular felt very overeager to me.

suspicious

:
Nightfall - for being a fence-sitter while being comfortable parking his vote on a player who was clearly inactive rather than lurking. Also for seriously suggesting that conflux (and myself by association) was suspicious, while other no-shows didn't seem to bother him.
Zindaras - for similar reasons. He says he's sure that both Luna and perfect were scum (or reassured, at least), when neither of them has contributed even remotely enough to get an opinion on them, even less reassurance.

questionable

:
Nai - he's looking worse in his argument with Coron, IMO, but I could see his play coming from a townie as well. I'd appreciate it if he voiced his opinion on someone other than Coron.

neutral

The rest. I didn't pay too much attention to HackerHuck on my readthrough, and will have to look into Kelly's analysis some more. I didn't get any major bad vibes from Coron and there's not enough material yet for me to get a read on ShadowLurker, Kelly or GreenLiquid.

Did I miss anyone?

My vote stays on Jules.

[Kelly Chen]

You don't disagree with what I said? then how do you explain you comment?

I do disagree with what you said. But I think you know what I meant, so I don't see any point in having a fight about it.

[Coron]

Honestly, I do not see the distinction.

[Nightfall]

suspicious

:
Nightfall - for being a fence-sitter while being comfortable parking his vote on a player who was clearly inactive rather than lurking. Also for seriously suggesting that conflux (and myself by association) was suspicious, while other no-shows didn't seem to bother him.

The reason I stayed on Conflux was because he would visit ocasionally but when he did, he would not contribute anything. I dont think you could call him "clearly" inactive. And for the record when you joined I said that it wasnt you I had a problem with and I unvoted you.

I was really voting Conflux, not CTD.
I was voting Conflux because he seemed to be willing to come by and say hi, but still contribute nothing. To me he seemed intent on trying to lurk his way through.
Now that CTD is here my vote can go. Assuming he posts more often.

unvote

But because of Conflux I have to say I feal a little guarded about whatever CTD's role is.

[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

[CrashTextDummie]

CTD: you missed me

Right.

I guess that puts you in the

probably scum

neutral category.

[Nai]

Interesting how Nai no longer has anything to say...

OMG! Le gasp! Nai actually has a life outside of this game! There's also been a part that I didn't have much to post on so far, though I'm catching up now. Way to jump on a two day absence as if it actually means something.

Nai - he's looking worse in his argument with Coron, IMO, but I could see his play coming from a townie as well. I'd appreciate it if he voiced his opinion on someone other than Coron.

I generally go after one person that I have a feel on until either someone else is lynched, or until that person is lynched, then either stay with them the next day or, when circumstances make need, change my vote.

However, I do tend to voice on other people when asked, and I'll do so now:

The people I think scummiest in this game are as follows:

Coron - For the aforementioned (read; entire argument against him) reasons. As well, he just keeps acting as if no argument can possibly affect him, that he'll be town even when he's scum, that sort of deal.

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.

Hackerhuck - Not as much of a vibe from him, though he seems to be on Coron's side, and has said a few words for Coron. However, I'd believe he's just a town. I needed a third person on this list, though, since I'm assuming there's a 3 person mafia (given the game size).

Elsewise, there's not much for me to include on. The game, now that a lot of other people are involved, seems to have, against all reason, slowed down. Instead of arguments for scum, we've gone from rushing rapids of rapid accusations and defenses to a Mississippi of a discussion. Odd.

[Coron]

though, since I'm assuming there's a 3 person mafia (given the game size).

OMFG!!! IT'S A SCUM SLIP LOLZ.

Though I would like an explanation of what you mean by "playing for coron most of the game".

Not that I'm denying it true, not yet at least, since I do not yet understand what you mean by it.

[HackerHuck]

though, since I'm assuming there's a 3 person mafia (given the game size).

OMFG!!! IT'S A SCUM SLIP LOLZ.

Nai, you set yourself up with that one. I wondered whether Coron would catch it.

Should we be reading around the lines with this comment?

I guess that puts you in the

probably scum

neutral category.

[Zindaras]

suspicious

:
Zindaras - for similar reasons. He says he's sure that both Luna and perfect were scum (or reassured, at least), when neither of them has contributed even remotely enough to get an opinion on them, even less reassurance.

*shrugs*

That's what they always say. Then I turn out to be right and I get a good laugh.

The posts I quoted from perfect are classic scum-behaviour. Hopping on a bandwagon, then getting off as quickly as possible when it turns out people don't like your bandwagoning.

Luna put Coron at Lynch-1. I don't think any Townie would've done that.

[Coron]

Strikethru is generally used when you're making a joke so pretty much if you read it as "I guess that puts you in the probably scum category" it's funny and joke like, while what he seriously means is what is not struckthru.

[Nai]

Yeah, I set myself up for that, and I knew he was going to do it. I said it anyways, since that seems most likely in a game this size. I don't think I've played a 12 person game yet that didn't have a 3 person mafia. I think there MIGHT have been one with 2 2-person scum groups, but I don't think that should count, given the set-up.

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.

So, basically, he's been playing like he's your bodyguard the entire time, and you threw him a bone once or twice.

[Jules]

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

[Nai]

I call the initial bit of changing votes between me and Coron vote hopping, thank you very much. I also recall, during the crash, that you HAD changed your vote to someone else before returning to me. Can't remember who at the moment, and we can't check, unfortunately. I never said that you CONTINUED to vote hop. Just that you did, which implies at least once, which is the case.

And I'm not arguing with you at all, and that wasn't the intention. I was first asked my opinion on other players, which I gave. Then I was asked by Coron how you were playing on his team, and I gave answers to that, too. Who's arguing with you?

And no, I'm not saying only one can argue against me. But you weren't doing that. You were jumping in front of an argument against Coron and defending him. Not arguing against me, just defending Coron. There IS a difference.

And the phrase "if I remember correctly" was used because I can't get the posts anymore, due to the crash. Much of my statements against you can be found in posts you've made. The only thing I can't show is that second time you vote hopped on another person, which was pre-crash.

You seem to be trying to discredit my arguments by attacking ME, not my arguments, which is known as an 'ad hominem', which is a fallacy itself. That's nice and all, but if you can't make a good argument, just don't, hmm?

[Jules]

I call the initial bit of changing votes between me and Coron vote hopping, thank you very much. I also recall, during the crash, that you HAD changed your vote to someone else before returning to me. Can't remember who at the moment, and we can't check, unfortunately. I never said that you CONTINUED to vote hop. Just that you did, which implies at least once, which is the case.

That was at the start of the game. I random voted you, then changed to Coron, then back. Maybe later on, an accusation of vote-hopping would be credible but not at that stage of the game

Unfortunately, I can't remember either how my voting went during the crash but this would've carried more weight had you brought it up when we first returned

And I'm not arguing with you at all, and that wasn't the intention. I was first asked my opinion on other players, which I gave. Then I was asked by Coron how you were playing on his team, and I gave answers to that, too. Who's arguing with you?

Good point. No-one. I should've said accusing

And no, I'm not saying only one can argue against me. But you weren't doing that. You were jumping in front of an argument against Coron and defending him. Not arguing against me, just defending Coron. There IS a difference.

Where have I defended Coron?

And the phrase "if I remember correctly" was used because I can't get the posts anymore, due to the crash. Much of my statements against you can be found in posts you've made. The only thing I can't show is that second time you vote hopped on another person, which was pre-crash.

I've explained everything you've hit me with. Apart from this...

Interesting how Nai no longer has anything to say...

...which I felt was perfectly reasonable given I had seen you post elsewhere during that time and that, with the incoming of replacements, your argument with Coron had slipped from being the main discussion point of the thread and we now had the opinion of the replacements to consider

You seem to be trying to discredit my arguments by attacking ME, not my arguments, which is known as an 'ad hominem', which is a fallacy itself. That's nice and all, but if you can't make a good argument, just don't, hmm?

Apologies if that's the way you took it. Looks like you're trying to give as good as you got

[Nai]

Just had a reread. I find it slightly ironic how you can come out with this Nai...

Well, there's also this other small thing. See, you built an entire case against me off of absolutely nothing (i.e., the reaction I made to your post in the beginning), and then have been subsequently adding things to it as if they make your argument any more valid. You made stuff up to begin with, and are adding things to it to make it seem like more than a house of cards.

I'm just voting you because you're doing that, and have been doing that, and your overconfidence about absolutely nothing is part of that.

...when you've built up your case against Coron in exactly the same way. Your biggest reason for voting for him is because he is being overconfident haha

My biggest reason? Being completely overconfident in himself with absolutely no reason to be so, probably, followed by defending Jules with a made up story.

That would be the defense in question. It would have really been an 'under the radar' thing if Coron hadn't defended you a page or so earlier in the thread. I didn't bring up the vote hopping earlier because I was busy with Coron, and wasn't sparing much of a mind for you. Really, you didn't seem much of an issue until the defenses between you and Coron, at which point it started to seem like you two were pitch hitting for each other, intercepting each other's pitches.

[Norinel]

Prodding GreenLiquid.

[Jules]

That wasn't so much a defence of Coron as an attack on your argument. In this case, they equate to the same thing, but I would have made exactly the same point no matter who made the comment about whoever. The argument looks flawed in that I interpret what you accuse Coron doing as being exactly the same as what you yourself did. I hope you understand what I'm getting at.

You've given me food for thought. I'm not as sold on you now as I was at the start of this page, I can say that

[Coron]

I find it ironic that Nai brings up the term Ad Hominem.

[Nai]

"Ad hominem" refers to attacking the person. As far as I'm aware, being me, being the person making these arguments, I've attacked your playstyle, your actions, etc. Not you. Care to continue?

[Coron]

Hm, I don't see how any of his attacks were even as directly attacking your characters as your attacks on my playstyle.

[Nai]

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

It's not necessarily attacking the character of the person. It's just attacking the person to make their points seem invalid, instead of defending against the points themselves. "Why should we go to a marriage counseling with a priest; what does a priest know about marriage?" is not attacking the character of the priest, but his qualifications. That's how the ad hominem works. (I took an extended set of classes on fallacies.)

Jules was saying that, for instance, that since I can't pull up the missing posts, it must be my memory that's the problem. He also says that my arguments are just made up, for the same reason. As well, the "base your argument on fact" is not targeting the argument. It targets my ability as a debater and a player, saying that I don't base my arguments on fact.

[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?

[Zindaras]

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...

[Nai]

I agree with the thought of new scum here. He is a new player here, with three games (that I saw) under his belt. I did not check to see if his games had him as scum or not. So I would agree with the "new scum" title applied to him in this case. That was the assumption that I was making about him, too.