Mini 380: Artifacts- Game over

[GreenLiquid]

I understand what you're getting at SL, but one important thing about mafia is that you just

can't

chalk everything down to newbness. It's just not something that works, because otherwise a newbie could defend every single one of his actions by saying he was new. However, there's one thing about it that I think would be a scum mistake, new or not:

A lot of times as scum, it can be a good idea to tag onto a bandwagon in order to avoid suspicion. Notice that luna doesn't have much enthusiasm as the vote is placed, in fact, she just quickly throws out two weak 'arguments' and votes. The way she does it makes me feel that the vote was less based on her personal suspicions, but on what others were doing (otherwise, she'd certainly have something to add herself). Giving reasons for your votes in mafia is very important, as it can be revisited later, especially if you turn up town, to give the rest of the town reasons to why you did what you did. It is crucial in mafia to have a good picture of people's stances on issues. The reason for this, simply put, to get a better understanding of

where you're coming from

, and, if in fact, you are simply following the crowd.

But I digress. All in all, I find luna's vote suspicious mainly because it seems like sheep behavior, but I find your defense at least convincing enough to give a little wiggle room (although I don't think it is wise to dismiss the concern altogether). And, uh, sorry if my post seems like a big wall o' text.

[ShadowLurker]

I understand not everything can be solved by saying you are new, so the case turns out to be, would scum be more likely to do this? Judging by Luna's past games which I have pointed out where she made similar posts, and the fact that no experienced players would do it regardless of alignment, makes me believe that you can't make too much of it. I'm not saying we should forget about it but we have 20 pages of posts, and the fact remains that I have already discussed that post in relation to other people and we can't base a whole lynch off 2 posts made early game. We need to move foward and things like that can be looked at later, but as far as Day 1 goes, I believe we analyzed them to the extent that any two line post can be analyzed to.

So far, if I had to guess a scum trio, it would be HackerHuck, Stewie, and Zindaras partly by scummy things they have done by themselves, and partly by process of elimination.

Hopefully that generates some discussion.

[Zindaras]

Not only did perfect and luna cast very scummy votes, they also attempted to get off the bandwagon without arousing more suspicion. Some huge scumtells right there.

[ShadowLurker]

Not only did perfect and luna cast very scummy votes, they also attempted to get off the bandwagon without arousing more suspicion. Some huge scumtells right there.

Can you find evidence for this? Luna voted Coron, made an attempt (although I agree it was inadequate) to explain why she thought Coron was scummy, and

stayed on

Coron even when other's stopped voting him so your assertion she tried to jump off without attracting attention is incorrect. The only case against her seems to be putting Coron at -1 on page 2, and I don't see at all why scum would be more likely to do that than town.

[Zindaras]

luna's unvote was lost during the crash.

[ShadowLurker]

luna's unvote was lost during the crash.

Sorry, don't believe it was considering she even specifically clarified she was voting Coron in her last post.

[Zindaras]

Luna's last post attacking Coron was on October 16th. October 27th, her vote has disappeared from Coron. According to my own post there, luna vote hopped in the lost posts.

[ShadowLurker]

Her last post: http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 743#472743

So it was a mod mistake just like where Jules was voting two people and the only post I see referencing luna and the crash is this:

I'm still voting luna, because I still think she was vote-hopping very blatantly before the crash. She hasn't done anything to convince me otherwise.

You accusing her of vote hopping when she only made ONE non-random vote and stuck with it is blatantly false and you tried contriving more reasons just now by saying she hopped off the wagon in a way as to not arouse suspicion. You still have not answered my point about how it is a scumtell and not a nulltell and frankly, this is getting tiring because I'm not even arguing anymore, I'm just proving your accusations are obviously wrong and constantly requesting you to answer my point.

[Zindaras]

*sighs*

I wish I could restore the posts lost in the crash. I'm 100% sure luna made me think she was scummy in the lost posts.

As I said, she vote-hopped in the lost posts. The fact that she went back to voting Coron later is irrelevant at that point.

She put the 5th vote on Coron, Page 2, Day 1, for being "scummy" and "too sure of himself".

That's a huge scumtell.

The game you linked to is not at all comparable to this game. Her early votes were random there, when here she came out with a random vote (note how she used a dice roll in the other game, and not here). She did not play in a similar way. Her voting behaviour is different.

[GreenLiquid]

I read the game SL mentioned, but there's a difference between not posting anything of value and placing the 5th vote on someone for crap reasons.

Sorry, but I doubt I'll have time today to continue the reread, so I'll keep going on Monday.

[GreenLiquid]

Mod:

I think we need some prods, esp. on Nai who hasn't posted since the 23rd.

[Norinel]

Well, I said mass prods for New Year's, and they'll be going out to CTD, HackerHuck, Jules, Nai, Nightfall, and Stewie.

Vote Count:

Nai- 2 (Coron, Jules)
Coron- 2 (Nai, Kelly Chen)
ShadowLurker- 2 (HackerHuck, Zindaras)
HackerHuck- 1 (ShadowLurker)

Not voting (4): CrashTextDummie, GreenLiquid, Nightfall, Stewie

6 to lynch

[GreenLiquid]

I continued my readtrough today. Let's begin by this post by luna (#51):

Well, I didn't realize he was lynch -1 but I really feel that he's scummy here are the posts that led me to think so:

Vote: Nightfall

isn't it too early in the game for you to start trying to distance from Nai, your scum partner? It's not really good plausible denyability if it's an FoS this early.

Right... And FOS and a Vote on me. Fantastic.

Vote: Coron

for an obvious scum tactic of throwing suscpicion on people for an FOS and... Well, nothing.

You're just mad because I have already caught 2 scum.

I don't have any partners and I'm not scum, so turns out that that's not the case, scum.

I got all three scum voting me this quick? Man I'm good.

Guys, what's taking you so long we have all 3 mafia caught you just need to vote them.

What I meant was all three mafia, my bad. In a mini it is usually fairly safe to assume 3 mafia, though there are some corner cases that have 2 sets of 2 or mountainous with just 2.

More like a slip of the scum- um I mean tongue...

Did I say something that didn't make sense or are you just trying to make me seem bad to get a town player lynched? If it's the first could you please explain instead of being stupid. K, thnx bai.

-Coron

What kind of player but scum would constantly be "I'm town don't vote fore me"? It's the weakest argument possible, and I really don't have any doubts that he's scum right now.

This post by luna essentially quotes almost every post Coron has made, then offers a weak argument, with the strong conclusion of "I really don't have any doubts that he's scum right now." Adds nothing to the Coron-wagon. This post is most certainly scummy.

Next is this gem by Nai (#52):

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...

I made a long post about this earlier that may have been lost to the crash. Remember, if you will, this post:

Lol. Anyway unvote, vote Coron because he seems to be acting a bit scummy

and too sure of himself

.

Refer again to Nai's post:

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...

In fact, allow me to disect this post:
- - - -

"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."

Flimsy, flimsy statement, not to mention that this is terrible grounds for an argument. If that's your main argument, everyone might as well discount the rest of your post.

"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."

WHAT? The only time at all he says that is in his very first, obviously random post. No further use of that argument is utilized at all.

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

Throwing an implausible scenario out there and fishing all at once. Bravo...

"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."

Suggesting yet another implausible scenario, in an attempt to further the argument. This would be like me saying "Nai's attacking Coron right now because Nai and Coron are probably siblings" and expecting that to further my argument.

"To hold onto a belief is playing like Fritzler, and I find that Fritz is often wrong. So"

And a dash of crappy metagaming to finish it off.
- - - -

The last thing I would like to say about the post is that you should read over it several times. It seems very very wishy-washy in the way it was written. So what have we here? A HUGE

FoS: Nai

for this 'winner.'

Coron's post #55 also caught my attention:

You're reactions, especially Nai's have buried the needle so to speak on my scumdar.
In early game I often play for reactions, if I see something worth pursuing I go for it.
And I take offense to the playing like Fritzer comment.
unvote Vote: Nai

Don't like this response, either. Nai's reaction isn't really scum reaction, it's stupid reaction. I don't consider it played as a reaction more as a 'let's try to start a bandwagon' ploy as scum. I suppose this post could be explained, so I'd like to ask

Coron:

Was the initial 'all three scum are voting for me' post made exclusively and entirely to get reactions? Once this is answered I can continue this comment.

HackerHuck adds this (post 58 ):

If I only had two votes. Instead, Im going to put the finger of suspicion on coron and nightfall for blatant misuse of the apostrophe!

Um, ok, nothing to add to what just took place? This post leaves me scratching my head, but I find it slightly suspicious, since it seems like it could be a distancing tactic from two scumbuddies coron and nightfall, though I somewhat doubt this. I find it fishy that Huck didn't stick a vote on one and an FoS on another. I'll keep an eye on his posts more as we proceed.

NOW, this is where the crash occurs, so a lot of material is lost here. Although there are some things I do remember, I'll ignore them for the purposes of the re-read since it opens up the possibility of scum fabricating evidence.

I for one in in favor of forgetting what happened in the crash. With that in mind, note post 68 by Jules:

I'm back on the site unvote Coron

FOS Nai - I can't remember the reasons for voting you before and I think it would be unfair to vote without any evidence, but I know you looked suspicious

It is possible that Jules fabricated this. It's possible he's telling the truth. We do not want to blindly take what people say happened as truth (note that this is an example post, so I don't think this makes Jules particularly suspicious).

However, further on, Jules does change that FOS to a vote. After some people ask what the reasons are for the vote (reasons that were lost in the crash), Jules posts soon after (post 79) with this explaination:

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

Way to avoid the question of why exactly you were voting Nai. This post is not very pro-town.

Now, even more people (Nai and conflux, it seems) post asking what was so suspicious. Jules' response in post 86 is:

The evidence was all destroyed in the crash

Way to avoid the question of why exactly you were voting Nai... again!

Fos: Jules

. He really should've answered the damn question by now.

Stewie posts some good logic in #89, saying:

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.

Coron responds to this by saying:

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.

This is yet another continuation of Coron's vendetta against Nai. This time, though, it uses CrapLogic (TM) to accuse another player who wasn't even defending Nai! It's quite obvious that Stewie was attacking Jules, not defending Nai. Bad logic here, so Coron scores a few ScumPoints (TM).

From post 93 by Coron:

FoI: conflux (finger of idiocy)

<snip>

Ad Hominem 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.

And here's Stewie pointing out that it was, in fact, an attack against Jules.

Here's a post by HackerHuck (#98):

We've had this discussion in the lost days, as far as I can remember. HackerHuck and I voted Jules for casting that vote, and Jules provided a good defense.

Something about that post rubs me the wrong way. It's a little too dismissive and relies on lost discussion.

Let's try and refrain from too much referencing of what we did pre crash, especially now that so much time has passed. I don't seem to recall placing a vote on Jules, but I can't really rule it out.

If this scenario did play out as Zindaras remembers, it would be nice if Jules could "re-explain" his vote.

This gets the :goodposting: award. It not only points out, correctly, that Jules needs to explain his vote again, but also points out something that got me thinking: the fact that Zindaras posted that Jules provided a good defense may have been an attempt to lower heat on him. Not major but something to look back at if either turns up scum.

Post #100 by Zindaras:

Something about that post rubs me the wrong way. It's a little too dismissive and relies on lost discussion.

Let's try and refrain from too much referencing of what we did pre crash, especially now that so much time has passed. I don't seem to recall placing a vote on Jules, but I can't really rule it out.

If this scenario did play out as Zindaras remembers, it would be nice if Jules could "re-explain" his vote.

Well, to be honest, with the second crash, I want a re-explanation as well, because my memory of what happened pre-crash has completely failed by now.

I do not consider Jules scummy, but a re-explanation would be useful for later.

If my above hypothesis about a hidden defense of Jules is true, this supports it. Zindaras suddenly, having been called on his bluff, turns around and concedes the issue. Again, this is only important if my hypothesis is correct.

Jules post:

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...

This post reeks. FOR THE THIRD TIME, our friend Jules fails to provide any reasoning for his votes. Quite interestingly, though, he keeps his vote. That last sentence seems like the perfect setup to attack someone based on reactions later on, or a possible defense that his vote was solely to cause reactions, so I'll keep a mental note of it.

BIG HUGE FOS: Jules

Coron post:

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.

This post makes me seriously think that there is in fact some mechanic based reason that Coron wants Nai to be killed. Now, he's attacking Stewie, who is attacking a Jules, who is voting for Nai. In the process, he defends the wrong thing. Not liking this.

And he ends with another Ad Hominem. I think at this point I may well have to concede and chalk it up to playstyle.

Here's some craplogic by Nai:

I remember being told, several times, that you should never defend someone unless you are absolutely sure of their role. If they're scum, and you're town, you'll be lynched. If you're scum, you know they're town, and you'll probably be lynched. I can't see a reason you would defend him unless you know something we don't.

Whoever told you, Nai, told you wrong. Think about it. That means that the only time townspeople should ever defend someone is if that person is their mason partner. So any defense, even the most basic, is a scumtell. Riiiight.

HackerHuck adds a very good point in the next post:

Nai sure likes to imply that Coron has inside knowledge of some kind. FoS: Nai

EXCELLENT point, and I strongly agree. That's also another reason why I suspect a mechanic based reason for their vendetta.

Nai says this:

I'm just working off of the advice I was given a long time ago when I started playing. Whenever I have tried defending someone off a hunch, I always get votes on me. I don't see why Coron is able to pull the same stunt and doesn't get the heat. Especially when he defends Jules with craplogic.

FOS: HackerHuck for his post right there. FOSing me after I actually give evidence that Coron defended Jules with craplogic? Amazing.

Yes, whenever you tried to defend someone on a hunch. When you defend someone with logic, or try to defend someone's logic with your own logic, then it actually looks pro-town. Chalking things down to a hunch is OK, but doesn't look pro-town and looks scummy in defensive situations. Hacker's FoS appears to be due to Nai's constant insinuation that Coron's got insider info. Although I'd like a clarification from

HackerHuck

on the issue.

Here's yet another Nai post:

As well, I'm also making a statement on how I was taught to play. I don't know exactly how you can force craplogic out of that, but...

Um, maybe because the way you were taught to play involves craplogic? Still not providing a very solid defense.

- - -

That concludes this section of my reread. I will now proceed by listing how suspicious I am of people at this point:

Coron:

Somewhat Suspicious
Uses Craplogic, continues vendetta vs. Nai.

HackerHuck:

Probably Town
Provides very good reasoning and logic. Kind of lurkerish early on, though.

Nai:

Probably Scum
Constant attacks on Coron; uses flimsly or wishywashy arguments; uses craplogic a lot; insinuations that coron has inside info.

Zindaras:

In the Middle
Nothing much I got a read on. Probably town overall.

Stewie:

Slightly Suspicious
Not much to comment on. Some of his posts I agree with, some I don't. No really scummy posts, but I get a negative vibe from the way he says things. Especially use of minor Ad Hominem.

Lunalovesgood:

Very Suspicious
Early, early lynch -1 vote; poor logic and poor defense of actions.

Jules:

Somewhat Suspicious
Poor logic and not answering questions posed to him while trying to skilfully dance around them.

Conflux:

No Read
Not getting any read whatsoever on Conflux. This isn't a good sign, however.

Nightfall:

In Between
Provides some good posts and some bad, but nothing particularly noticable.

Perfect62834

Somewhat Suspicious
Really fishy random vote, not much else to add.

- - -

And that's it, I think. More reread to come later. And sorry for the excessively long post, I'll try to make 'em smaller in the future.

[Coron]

Was the initial 'all three scum are voting for me' post made exclusively and entirely to get reactions? Once this is answered I can continue this comment.

Pretty much but not entirely(I mean there is a chance, certainly not ruling it out even now)

FoI(finger of idiocy) was NOT an FOS I came up with FoI because I didn't want it to be an FoS. I was not saying it was suspicious I was saying it was STUPID.

I count an attack on the arguement used to attack someone as a defense of that person. It really makes sense to me.

This post makes me seriously think that there is in fact some mechanic based reason that Coron wants Nai to be killed. Now, he's attacking Stewie, who is attacking a Jules, who is voting for Nai.

This is way more convoluted logic than that used by me to say Stewie was defending Nai.

And he ends with another Ad Hominem. I think at this point I may well have to concede and chalk it up to playstyle.

It's not ad hominem if I'm saying his actions rather than he himself is wrong, correct me if I'm wrong.

[GreenLiquid]

I count an attack on the arguement used to attack someone as a defense of that person. It really makes sense to me.

So if I point out craplogic in your accusation of someone, I'm defending them? This is bad play, since if I think the person you're accusing is scum, I would never want to point out the bad logic. Not a pro-town way to think.

This is way more convoluted logic than that used by me to say Stewie was defending Nai.

What I'm saying here is that the ends of almost all your posts is to discredit or attack Nai. I note that you're attacking people who are attacking opponents of Nai.

It's not ad hominem if I'm saying his actions rather than he himself is wrong, correct me if I'm wrong.

The way you're saying it appears somewhat insulting. I wouldn't have noticed anything if you had said it as such: "I think that you may be making up arguments," or at least something to that extent. Not necessarily true ad hominem, but fundamentally similar.

[GreenLiquid]

Also

Coron

: What do you think about my comments on Nai's posts?

In addition Coron, if we've now established that your 'all three scum' post was made to draw reactions, why did you immediately jump to defend it rather than let it run its course and read the reactions later? And why didn't your earlier defense state explicitly that this post in particular was intended to garner reactions?

[HackerHuck]

I like your observations Green Liquid. I find that you explained exactly how I felt about Luna - and why my vote is still there. I don't recall any of the vote-hopping that Zindaras mentions, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. I think ShadowLurker keeps trying to downplay the scumminess by oversimplifying my case on him. It's not just because Luna put Coron at lynch-1 on page two.

I can see why you believe Nai is probably scum, but given your conclusion why is he not worthy of a vote? A lot of words, but no action. You asked me about the FOS I placed on Nai. I think my quote summed it up pretty well. His case on Coron was also pretty weak and the continued implication that Coron had inside information just pushed it a little too far in my opinion. I really don't get the mechanics you keep referring to with those two. My take on it is that Coron's playstyle can be quite abrasive and he really enjoyed goading Nai.

After reading GreenLiquids posts and rereading some earlier posts, I still have a scum feel from Jules. I'm a little surprised that the wagon fizzled out so quickly simply because of his artifact.

[Coron]

I count an attack on the arguement used to attack someone as a defense of that person. It really makes sense to me.

So if I point out craplogic in your accusation of someone, I'm defending them? This is bad play, since if I think the person you're accusing is scum, I would never want to point out the bad logic. Not a pro-town way to think.

So, you're saying that we shouldn't note things that are true? Are you saying it's not defending? I'm confused here, personally I'm all for truth.

This is way more convoluted logic than that used by me to say Stewie was defending Nai.

What I'm saying here is that the ends of almost all your posts is to discredit or attack Nai. I note that you're attacking people who are attacking opponents of Nai.

I was just noting it not using it to draw a conclusion or anything, just noting, so mine was doing even less than yours.

It's not ad hominem if I'm saying his actions rather than he himself is wrong, correct me if I'm wrong.

The way you're saying it appears somewhat insulting. I wouldn't have noticed anything if you had said it as such: "I think that you may be making up arguments," or at least something to that extent. Not necessarily true ad hominem, but fundamentally similar.

Ok I guess I understand what you're saying.

[GreenLiquid]

I can see why you believe Nai is probably scum, but given your conclusion why is he not worthy of a vote? A lot of words, but no action.

I'm not going to vote for anyone until my reread is finished. Not sure why, just my OCD kicking in.

[Coron]

[qoute]Also Coron: What do you think about my comments on Nai's posts?[/quote] If I had a problem with them I would have mentioned it. Some of it looks VERY similar to some stuff I've already said.

In addition Coron, if we've now established that your 'all three scum' post was made to draw reactions, why did you immediately jump to defend it rather than let it run its course and read the reactions later? And why didn't your earlier defense state explicitly that this post in particular was intended to garner reactions?

I think somewhere in my later posts I do mention it, but it really shouldn't have been hard to figure out imho, there is no way I'm sure on three scum by that point in the game. Sure, I found them suspicious to varying degrees but yeah.

[Coron]

man, I'm bad at quote tags.

[Kelly Chen]

Attacking someone's attack of someone else could be a defense of the latter. I don't see any way around that. If it can serve to defend somebody then it's a defense, deliberate or not.

Jules does stink. But what I'm thinking is, what if he started with around half of our investigative capabilities? If so, I really don't think he's scum. And whether this is the case, that we have so little investigative power, should become clearer in time.

I feel that Nai's posts are taken very uncharitably.

Whoever told you, Nai, told you wrong. Think about it. That means that the only time townspeople should ever defend someone is if that person is their mason partner. So any defense, even the most basic, is a scumtell. Riiiight.

Not a scum tell, but bad play. Yes, that's a sweeping generalization.

Some of this is damn basic. If X is interrogating Y then let Y answer the questions. Z should not rush to Y's defense just because he thinks he knows the answers.

[Coron]

if the questions are retarded or already answered I definately have no problem with Z cutting in there.

[HackerHuck]

Attacking someone's attack of someone else could be a defense of the latter. I don't see any way around that. If it can serve to defend somebody then it's a defense, deliberate or not.

Jules does stink. But what I'm thinking is, what if he started with around half of our investigative capabilities? If so, I really don't think he's scum. And whether this is the case, that we have so little investigative power, should become clearer in time.

I feel that Nai's posts are taken very uncharitably.

Whoever told you, Nai, told you wrong. Think about it. That means that the only time townspeople should ever defend someone is if that person is their mason partner. So any defense, even the most basic, is a scumtell. Riiiight.

Not a scum tell, but bad play. Yes, that's a sweeping generalization.

Some of this is damn basic. If X is interrogating Y then let Y answer the questions. Z should not rush to Y's defense just because he thinks he knows the answers.

By this reasoning, if X makes a scummy accusation against Y, then only Y should call X out on it - since attacking X's scummy attack on Y is an indirect defense of Y. If that were the case, these games would die a slow painful death. Scummy behaviour is scummy behaviour regardless of who it happens to. I agree that the interrogation point is valid (e.g. Coron's answering for Jules), but it also makes perfect sense to call someone out on it if their interrogation is scummy.

[GreenLiquid]

I am now contining my reread...

Page 6 opens with an argument between HackerHuck and Nai. I don't like the way Nai's 'advice' involves outside information. I'd like to know exactly what it is with Nai and insinuating people have outside information. I don't know if it's fishing or rolebased, but it's not helping anything and should probably stop.

Here's a post by Luna:

Okay, first of all, Jules vote seemed to be a bit out of nowhere, and you should never vote if you can't state a reason behind it. And I still don't see your reasoning behind your vote. So I

Fos: Jules

for that. And Coron supports this, so I still find him scummy.

Then we have Nai, who says:

I remember being told, several times, that you should never defend someone unless you are absolutely sure of their role.

which is, obviously, idiotic. What if you're town, and you think they're town. That would be a good reason to defend them. Although I don't agree with either Jules's or Coron's reasons for voting for Nai, I think Coron can defend him stupidly if he wants, so

Fos: Nai

And for the record, I'm still

voting Coron

.

Notice the ad hominem in the third paragraph. I agree with these points but they seem to echo what others have said too much. What I don't like, though, is that he's slinging FoS's around but keeps his vote on Coron, without explaining why. Still, for Luna, this is a step in the right direction.

If you're town and their not, and you defend them and they end up scum, chances are you'll be lynched for defending them. That's the reason I've been told not to defend someone unless you know their role. If you're a town, you shouldn't defend someone unless you know their town. If you're scum, you can defend just about anyone, since you know they WON'T be scum. That's why I tend to be on the offensive with anyone that defends another person: Either they are town that know what they are defending (unlikely on day 1), or they're scum that know they are in the clear. See the logic?

Not good logic. Let's say that you attack someone with really crappy logic, and lets say that said someone is too stupid to point it out. That means that if anyone attacks your faulty logic, you could immediately go on the offensive against them when in reality

you're

the one that should be explaining themselves. Also, this kind of logic makes it easy for scum to set up quick double mislynches and is not a pro-town way of thinking.

After some conversation about Stewie's avatar, we get this post (by 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.

What I don't like about this post is that it echoes what others have been saying for the last couple of pages, and reflects popular opinion. Not that this is bad, but it seems that every post I see by Stewie seems to be pretty neutral and doesn't throw out any radical ideas or suspicions. People can agree with each other and I have no problem with it, but I think Stewie needs to form a few radical opinions and actually enter the spotlight for a change.

Nai post:

It's funny that HE can say something like that, and he doesn't seem to get nailed. Whereas I give reasons why I think he should be lynched, and everyone gets on my butt about it.

Sounds like an Appeal to Emotion if you ask me, only probably not in a good way.

Coron appears in post 169 and voices his suspicions. I'm not going to quote it since it's got a lot of quotes in it itself, but I think this may be a point in Coron's favor.

Nightfall poses a question:

Nai, I'm curious here, What would you say the one big reason your voting Coron is?

To which Nai responds:

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.

Despite all the other things, your biggest argument is overconfidence? *sigh* Not this again. These poor arguments are not helping my view of Nai at all.

In the next post I point out a possible scenario in which both are scum and the whole thing is in fact a tactic. I could really see it too with all of Nai's wishy-washy lack of arguments and how they both have a continual vendetta against each other. The scenario is simple: one is lynched and ends up scum, so it's concluded that the other is town. This makes sense, but even if one does turn up scum it would be unwise to base the lynch on this logic alone (since that's how scum usually go about setting up double mislynches). I'd rather see how things play out in the Nai/Coron debate some more instead.

Nai continues to debate vs. coron:

First of all, I have absolutely no idea how you are counting posts here.

Second of all, you didn't even random vote ME in your first post. You built a case off of me by the reaction of mine (a humorous reaction) off of an FOS onto me.

And by post 15 of yours, or of anyones, it's probably time to stop random voting. Any vote at that point is not random.

So you based your case off of a humored reaction from me following your FOS, and have been adding crap to it ever since to make a case. And you can't even cite the correct posts.

So yeah. I see a problem with this.

I also see a problem with the fact that Coron and I are the only ones posting any content whatsoever, and the rest of the game is lurking.

For the second paragraph, yes that was a random vote. People put serious sounding reasons behind their random votes to make them sound funny. Sometimes people will use really bad craplogic in their random votes, also in an effort to be funny. Does that make them scum? No.

And for the third paragraph, I'm entirely sure he's reffering to the post subject numbers, not the number of posts by an individual person. I'm not sure how you can screw that one up. In fact, if I go back and spot you citing post numbers any time before this, you may earn my vote by LAL.

Nightfall post:

Zin you think Im scum in everygame.

I would post more but
1- Coron and Nai have sort of taken over the thread with their debate. I dont find either overly scummy.
2- I have been very clear that I want to lynch Con, other than that Im not sure.

I think this is the second time Nightfall has stated he wants to lynch Conflux without explaining why.

Also, the statement that he doesn't find either scummy sounds like a classic scum excuse to lurk ('Nothing interesting/suspicious has happened so I'm not posting'). I'll keep my eye on Nightfall as we proceed, but remind me when I'm done to do a private reread just on nightfall. I think something may be amiss.

Here's Coron:

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

Wow. Um, Coron, you seem to like to call everyone out on overdefensiveness. Someone asks Nightfall to post, and then he comes out and defends himself. Granted, the circumstances (30 mins after that post even though he's been lurker) seem a bit scummy, but I'm not sure it's pure overdefensiveness. Then again, the 'you think I'm scum every game' comment seems odd when all Zindaras asked was for him to post more.

Finally, Nightfall explains his vote on Conflux:

Huck, My thoughts on Con came from the fact that when in a rare occurance he would actually post in this game, he would ignore everything that was going on and post something of absolutely no content.

Ie. "this is for the bump"

I got a lurking in plain sight feal from him.

Sounds fair enough, but I don't think a lurker hunt is a good idea in these circumstances. Don't you think luna or perfect or Jules is more scummy that Conflux? Seems like a way to avoid the spotlight.

Jules post:

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.

Points out something against Nai. Check my post 468 and you'll find that Jules is still posting in the same way and I still don't like it (specifically, the 'haha' comment). Jules is still not redeeming himself in my eyes.

Nai posts this 'gem:'

My case on him has been built on the fact that he is overconfident, and his building a case off of nothing is part of that.

It's worth noting that, when Coron was defending Jules before, Jules is defending him now.

Oh boy, time to set up another double mislynch by trying to link two people again! I'll point this out again: Jules was pointing out the hypocrite-like way that your own argument was worded, and was attacking you, not defending Coron. Actually, Nai, I think this article might be a good read for you. Definite

FOS

for this one.

Coron's next post includes this which I cut out:

And, yes, I suppose that would be interesting to note.

That's in response to the last sentence of Nai's post by the way. So, it looks like Coron is admitting he was defending Jules, although I guess this could be kind of a corner case, so Coron: could you clarify whether or not you were in fact admitting to defending Jules?

Nightfall post:

As time goes on I am starting to see this as more of a town vs town arguement that started over Coron's ussual ...um... agressive.. playstyle.

Well, this was actually a non-requested insight, and he actually took a somewhat novel stance, so I guess this post is a point in his favor.

Kelly, replacing perfect, posts this:

Hey all.

I have not been following very closely but I will get on it yeah?

FOS: Zindaras

Not liking the FOS without reason.

Nai:

You seem to be defending him. I say that because you are attacking my argument which is attacking him. It further seems like defense because he defended you a few pages ago, and it seems like scum returning the favor. Considering the way you've been playing, Jules, up to this point, I'd not hesitate to put my vote on you.

First two sentences are spewing CrapLogic. Third sentence is just plain ignorant. Scum do NOT want noticable links between themselves. Also liking the 'I'd not hesitate to put my vote on you' comment without actually doing so. Classic scumtell.

Ho boy, he's a real winner by Coron:

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.

This post deserves a dissection.
- - -

"So, why would she think I have outside information? Guilty concience much?"

Craplogic if I ever heard it. Yeah, lets turn everyone's attacks against them because they have a guilty concience. This =/= Logic.

"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."

Noting that this is the second time Coron has thrown out this scenario.

"Even without it I don't see how it's at all out of the question for me to be trying to get reactions."

Again, this falls under my previous argument of him waiting about until pages later to explain, and his hasty defense which sounds more like a slip and less like fishing for reactions.

"I threw out a completely oddball theory, acted sure of myself and saw how people reacted."

What oddball theory? Your random vote? It's quite clear to me that it was in fact random, and you saying otherwise sounds like a retrospective revision.

"Nai reacted EXACTLY like RUH ROH THIS GUY KNOWS SOMETHING BETTER GET RID OF HIM."

Uh-huh, everyone who Random Votes for someone is a cop with a guilty result.

- - -

Post by Nightfall:

(my opinion)

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.

Or it could be a pro town player who is a little annoyed at being labeled as scum for nothing at all by someone who seems so confident in what he is saying. And when someone apears confident enough to voice his opinions in that way, others may get convinced he is right.

Therefore the town player could be just interested in shuting you up or setting you streight so a mistake is not made by the rest of the town.

(This post is hypothetical of course, and comes from a distaste in the Coron/pooky/Fritz/Thesp playstile)

Good post by Nightfall, I'd say he's starting to look a bit more townish now.

Coron:

[sarcasm]Alright! Why don't we play mafia this way? LET'S ALL BE FRIENDS AND NOT ACCUSE ANYONE OF BEING SCUM AND SIT HERE AND STAGNATE FOR 3 MONTHS! Once all that is done the mod will put a 5 day deadline down and productivity will be up 600% for that but we'll still only get about 30 posts in that time and end up lynching someone mostly randomly. I love that style of play man. I wish we had more of that around here.[/sarcasm]

Poor, poor response.

Stewie post:

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.

I don't like this post by Stewie, as it furthers the implication that Coron has outside info but doesn't give any solid evidence. This post screams a link between Nai and Stewie. The addition of the smilies seems against Stewie's playstyle so far, and usually I find the addition of humor to lighten a post up a scumtell.

Alright, that's as much as I have the stamina to do at present, but I'll continue from page 10 later.

- - -

Suspicions List:

Coron:

Probably Scum
Uses Craplogic, continues vendetta vs. Nai, not defending himself in a logical manner.

HackerHuck:

Leaning Towards Town
There is something about HackerHuck that I will talk about when I finish my reread, but I'm not getting into it yet.

Nai:

Probably Scum
Constant attacks on Coron; uses flimsly or wishywashy arguments; uses craplogic a lot; insinuations that coron has inside info; trying to link people by calling attacks defenses.

Zindaras:

In the Middle
Nothing much I got a read on, yet again. Probably town overall, although the more I see no material coming from Zindaras, the more I doubt this.

Stewie:

Suspicious
Starting to not like the connections with Nai, also the attempts to stay out of the spotlight.

Lunalovesgood:

Very Suspicious
Early, early lynch -1 vote; still not liking Luna's lack of logical arguments.

Jules:

Very Suspicious
Poor logic and not answering questions posed to him while trying to skilfully dance around them, not liking ad hominem and mocking tone of arguments

Conflux:

Slightly Suspicious
Still avoiding the spotlight, not posting anything of value.

Nightfall:

In Between, Leaning towards Scum
Not really taking a novel stand, seems to only post when it's requested or when he's being attacked.

Perfect62834/Kelly

Somewhat Suspicious
Really fishy random vote, also some later posts by Kelly I don't agree with.