Mini 380: Artifacts- Game over

[Kelly Chen]

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.

Tough crowd. I just saw that he said he was eager to hear from me.

[GreenLiquid]

Tough crowd. I just saw that he said he was eager to hear from me.

How is that suspicious?

[Coron]

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?

Yes. Facts are facts, I was infact defending him. I also have no problem with this fact(especially now that I'm even more sure he's protown).

"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.

why would he think I have some sort of information that would make him look bad? Probably because he realizes it's a realistic situation. You think about that situation more as scum because you are worried you just got nailed by a cop. In your earlier analysis as I recall you even do mention that he keeps going back to the point that I seemed to have information. Why are you attacking me for pointing out something that it seems that you pointed out yourself?

"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.

..because it's reasonable

"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.

you mind clarifying wtf you're talking about?

"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.

it can't be both? Now you're being closed minded.

"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.

I acted a lot more sure of my random vote than most people and Nai hasn't played with me so Nai did not know that was one of my things that I do, it would be easy to mistake that for an information role with a result.


It seemed to me Nightfall is arguing against my playstyle of voicing my primary opinions at any point in the game loudly to keep the game from stagnating too much. I feel it is better to have a little bit of bandwagoning that a lot of lurking(even if it is on me, you could definately find better targets though). Most people don't respond to a FoS at that point in the game by getting all hyper and angry and bad about it.

It's a page one FoS

if you're protown there is no way that he's a cop with information on you or your partner(since unless you're mason you probably don't have one), but if you are scum there is that chance that it's the cop. This is basically why the reaction as scum is different than the reaction as town.

[Coron]

Tough crowd. I just saw that he said he was eager to hear from me.

How is that suspicious?

Have you ever heard of a joke?

[Jules]

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

I have answered the question. I said I didn't know my reasons because they were lost in the crash

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...

I have explained my ad hominem attack and mocking tone of my argument which only came in one post when it looked to me like Nai had made an argument against me which had no factual basis at all, when i thought he was trying to say there was

If your argument isn't based on fact, there IS no argument - not an attack on a person but an attack on an argument. When you posted the original post and I attacked it, there was no mention of the crash. The crash never even passed my mind - I searched the thread with just my posts to see what my voting pattern had been and found that what you said was incorrect and made that statement. I was assuming, incorrectly, that you were basing what you were arguing on having read the thread "remembering" but not bothering to actually check. Only in your next post did you bring up that you were referring to the crash and what was lost, at which point I realised what you had been referring to and agreed that yes, I may have voted elsewhere but I honestly didn't know

[Zindaras]

Tough crowd. I just saw that he said he was eager to hear from me.

How is that suspicious?

Have you ever heard of a joke?

1) It's not smart to answer questions for others.
2) That most definitely does not look like a joke.

[GreenLiquid]

I have answered the question. I said I didn't know my reasons because they were lost in the crash

If you can't explain yourself, don't vote. Simple as that. If you don't even know what the reasons are, how can you think someone is scummy? This makes absolutely no sense. On top of that, you didn't actually explain that you didn't remember the arguments until just now, when you could've said that a long time ago.

why would he think I have some sort of information that would make him look bad? Probably because he realizes it's a realistic situation. You think about that situation more as scum because you are worried you just got nailed by a cop. In your earlier analysis as I recall you even do mention that he keeps going back to the point that I seemed to have information. Why are you attacking me for pointing out something that it seems that you pointed out yourself?

This would have been a most excellent thing to say in that post back there. However, you said absolutely none of this. The only thing you said is that he has a 'guilty concience' (which implies that you think he has info). Unfortunately, I'm not buying it. Had you stated your ideas in a logical way, they would've made sense.

..because it's reasonable

Let me clarify. It's the second time you threw out that argument with almost the exact same wording. Which really sounds like breadcrumbing to me.

you mind clarifying wtf you're talking about?

Alright, I think my wording here isn't the best, so here's the full case:

Coron claims that his 'slip' post (where he claims that there are 3 scum) was in fact intended to fish for reactions. I do not believe this for two reasons:

1) Coron waits until pages later to actually say this. I'm not sure what the purpose of waiting that long would be, since direct reactions to the slip probably stopped around the third or fourth page.

2) Very soon after the 'slip,' Coron hastilly posts two posts (one after another) in his defense, in a very desperate fashion. If you are truly looking for reactions as you claim, then you would not have needed to have defended yourself.

it can't be both? Now you're being closed minded.

If it's actually a serious theory (no matter how strange it is), then it's not a *random* vote. But if it is, in fact, a random vote, then you're not basing it on a theory.

I acted a lot more sure of my random vote than most people and Nai hasn't played with me so Nai did not know that was one of my things that I do, it would be easy to mistake that for an information role with a result.

But if he has never played with you, then why would Nai try metagaming tricks like this? A lot of people act sure with their random votes to add humor.

[pre-post edit] Actually, it looks like Nai did play with you in Kirby Mafia. So that statement is not correct.

It seemed to me Nightfall is arguing against my playstyle of voicing my primary opinions at any point in the game loudly to keep the game from stagnating too much. I feel it is better to have a little bit of bandwagoning that a lot of lurking(even if it is on me, you could definately find better targets though). Most people don't respond to a FoS at that point in the game by getting all hyper and angry and bad about it. It's a page one FoS if you're protown there is no way that he's a cop with information on you or your partner(since unless you're mason you probably don't have one), but if you are scum there is that chance that it's the cop. This is basically why the reaction as scum is different than the reaction as town.

If the scum were that damn paranoid, then this game would be way too easy. Scum are not going to make it apparent when you random vote. Because probability says that you will get random voted by one person during the random vote phase.

*looks* Oh no! I got random voted by Stewie, so he's a cop with a guilty on me! I'm going to place my vote on him and keep it on him all day, and back it up with CrapLogic!

[Jules]

I have answered the question. I said I didn't know my reasons because they were lost in the crash

If you can't explain yourself, don't vote. Simple as that. If you don't even know what the reasons are, how can you think someone is scummy? This makes absolutely no sense. On top of that, you didn't actually explain that you didn't remember the arguments until just now, when you could've said that a long time ago.

I've said all along I don't remember what my argument was, but that I had had one

[GreenLiquid]

If you don't know why you find someone scummy, then voting for them is pointless. Plus, no, you never actually clarified anything until just now.

[HackerHuck]

If you don't know why you find someone scummy, then voting for them is pointless. Plus, no, you never actually clarified anything until just now.

Look at Post 101. Still not helpful, but he was open about it at the time. Jules' inability to support his vote is what got Nai worked up and had Coron coming in to his defence.

Speaking of Nai, are we still waiting on him to recover from his move or are there plans to replace him?

[GreenLiquid]

Continuation of the re-read.

First, a very interesting post by Coron:

Unless you think it's likely that the Nai-Coron thing was a distancing tactic then every % chance Coron is scum is a % chance Nai *isn't*.

I do not like this post, as it ties in almost perfectly with my scum-scum theory. This post is most certainly noted.

Nightfall:

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

It's been two days, thats hardly enough time to imply that someone has gone quiet.

Responding to questions and statements like these can be classified as lurking in plain sight.

Coron:

Scumminess=likelyhood of being scum.

Makin' generalizations.

Kelly posts next with:

also unvote, vote: Jules

Kelly seems to have a bad, bad habit of voting without giving any explaination.

Nai post:

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.

I'd like to snip out this:

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.

This is bad play. If your suspicion on someone changes, you keep voting them until the end of the day? This strategy is not particularly wise.

As Coron points out in the next post, Nai's comment on being three mafia is almost exactly the same as Coron's slip. However, the way it's worded makes me give a little leeway.

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.

Um, can you STOP ANSWERING QUESTIONS FOR OTHER PEOPLE!!??

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

Once again, Jules continues the mocking tone and ad hominem while posing a mediocre argument. Keeps on digging his own grave.

And his next post provides this very telling snippet:

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

So now, after being mocking and using ad hominem the entire game, once called out on it, you're suddenly apoligizing and being nice, even including a nice little smiley. Not buying it.

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

As for the ad hominem arguement:

Sure, he did mention that you had the memory of a goldfish, but he also presented the reasons that allowed him to come to this conclusion, he told you exactly why what you're saying is wrong and THEN moved on to the personal attacks. That might be unfriendly play(which honestly I might do a bit much of myself) but it's not ad hominem and it's not scummy.

IMHO we have a perfectly reasonable reason for him to change his FOS to a vote if we think instead of not thinking, if you want me to quote the post where I explain it I can, but I feel you are likely capable of finding it yourself.

What is the deal with the connection between Coron and Jules? Coron has gone out of his way to defend Jules twice now, with as far as I can tell no direct benefit to him. If one of them comes up scum, it would be a very good idea to take a very close look at the other.

Coron's defense of Jules continues in this post:

That's fine. But the issue is not whether we'll take it in-game or not. The issue is that he actively denied, then said 'maybe'. It's being wishy-washy about it, in addition to trying to evade my statements about him. He's been trying to discredit the statements BEFORE responding to them.

Yes, it might have happened because HE DOESN'T REMEMBER.

Also it seems your trying to pull me further into defending him and less into attacking your attack. Quit acting like I should defend all his actions (even if many of them are reasonable).

A post by Jules:

Posts 297-299

Not sure what to say to Stewie's. It comes over strongly and it was intended to come over strongly. My reaction was that Nai this was scum trying to make me look like scum. What other reaction do you expect when someone has posted evidence against you and it's completely false?

Just for the record - I have only completed 1 game on here, in which I was town

Discrediting Nai's arguments again in the first paragraph by out and calling them false again with no explaination. Second paragraph looks like it falls under this under 'Gambler's Fallacy.'

Now to do a little jumping. Jules original claim in post 326

I think that, at lynch -1, you should probably be claiming right now. So yeah, I'm requesting a claim.

I am a traveler, with no special abilities

Nobody unvotes though. Later, he is questioned by Coron about whether or not he has/had an Artifact. He responds (in post 349):

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

Hey! Nice of you to tell us that now! Sounds like a great claim revision. Unfortunately, townies don't suddenly change their claims.

Over the next page, Jules clarifies his claim, but does so over the course of many posts and much prodding by other players. This is very unsound.

The only point he has in his favor is this (from SL who replaced luna):

I can confirm luna receiving that artifact at the end of Night 1.

Which is a pretty big point, too.

I understood exactly what he was saying when he said that.

One other thing I forgot to adress is that I don't understand what you mean be 'he' or what 'he' said. Can you clarify?

the quote that you seemingly misunderstood. To me right now it seems like you are pulling things out of your rear end now.

More ad hominem...

HackerHuck post:

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.

I find Stewie's request for additional information to be quite scummy.

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?

FOS: Stewie

I find it odd that HackerHuck misunderstood the obvious fact that now SL had claimed to have recieved the artifact. Also, Jules' claim of possession of an artifact was clearly after the first of these two posts.

A lot of speculation about a potential Mouth of the Diviner is made in the next bunch of posts. I'm going to skip them for the time being, as I think they will warrant a reread later in the game.

Coron:

Can we get back to pressuring Nai?

Stewie in Response:

Who's "we"? You and Jules?

Coron in Response:

Who's "we"? You and Jules?

The town, a subset of which I believe to be Jules and Coron.

Trying to generalize as town and gain people's attention. Also suggesting more links between Jules and himself.

Jules:

I of course know I'm scum and don't think Jules is scum and do think Nai is scum

Ding ding ding

This is so blindly ignorant even a complete newbie would get the gist of it. Jules is looking more scummy by the second.

More speculation about the Mouth follows.

And, actually, we're about roughly back to where we started, so I guess this is a good stopping point. Here's a revised list of suspects, with scum numbers (1-100, 1 being confirmed town):

Coron

: Very Suspicious - 80
Use of craplogic and vendetta against Nai, coupled with use of ad homeinem and constant linking of himself with Jules, who I also find very suspicious.

HackerHuck

: Maybe Town - 50
Acts as the voice of reason early on, but gets a bit more opinionated later. My next reread will possibly be on him as I've spotted a very interesting pattern.

Nai

: Probably Scum - 82
Constant attacks on Coron; uses flimsly or wishywashy arguments; uses craplogic a lot; insinuations that coron has inside info.

Zindaras

: In the Middle - 55
Not really throwing much out there, and using very subjective opinions to attack. Seems to back up a lot of arguments with hunches.

Stewie

: Slightly Suspicious - 58
Can't say much. I don't agree with too much he says. A bit of lurking in plain sight, and some posts I don't like. Posting style overall seems suspicious.

Lunalovesgood/ShadowLurker

: Very Suspicious - 80
Early, early lynch -1 vote; poor logic and poor defense of actions, replacement SL being very agressive.

Jules

: Incredibly Scummy - 95
Has done absolutely nothing to redeem himself and is constantly mocking players, using ad hominem, or using faulty logic. Continues to form incriminating links with himself and Coron.

Conflux/CTD

: Slightly Suspicious - 60
Wasn't able to get much of a read on Conflux due to lurking. CTD continues the lurking in plain sight tradition. These two need to post more so I can get a read.

Nightfall

: Slightly Suspicious - 60
I don't like Nightfall's lurking or middle ground apporach. I suggest that he form a long suspicions list like this one and spend a good deal of time actually saying his opinions on everyone so I can get a read.

Perfect62834/Kelly Chen

: Suspicious - 73
Really fishy random vote by perfect, followed by lurking. Kelly has a nasty habit of not explaining her votes or FoS's unless explicitly told to, and is making posts that I don't agree with.

- - -

So, in conclusion, I think that Jules is our best lynch for today. I will outline the reasons why in a later post, which will come today if I have time, otherwise on Thursday.

[GreenLiquid]

Speaking of Nai, are we still waiting on him to recover from his move or are there plans to replace him?

I would really prefer we wait as I have questions for Nai that a replacement wouldn't be able to answer.

[Zindaras]

You are correct in me playing on hunches a lot in this game. It's a side-effect of my suspicions being based on hunches.

[GreenLiquid]

But hunches can't really be logically analyzed, which is a problem for getting a good read on you. You need logical suspicions just as much as hunches, if not more.

[Zindaras]

It's simple: if I'm wrong, I'm scummy. If I'm right, I'm towny.

[GreenLiquid]

But that doesn't logically work because a townie could still be wrong with his hunches, and a mafia correct.

[Zindaras]

Ah, yes. I don't usually bother with that, though. Scumcatching is the first priority of the townie, and it's always my first priority. When all the scum is dead and the game is over, you don't have to worry about looking like town anymore.

[Jules]

I used ad hominem ONCE. You've duplicated you're argument against me.

If you don't know why you find someone scummy, then voting for them is pointless. Plus, no, you never actually clarified anything until just now.

What I said just now is what I've being saying all along

If you don't know why you find someone scummy, then voting for them is pointless. Plus, no, you never actually clarified anything until just now.

I used ad hominem ONCE. You're making it out that I use it every time. I didn't know what it was at the time, now that I do, I know that I used it. I have explained it. You've also duplicated that point against me. In two of your arguments, you use the post that starts "haha" against me

Jules:

I of course know I'm scum and don't think Jules is scum and do think Nai is scum

Ding ding ding

This is so blindly ignorant even a complete newbie would get the gist of it. Jules is looking more scummy by the second.

In what way is that ignorant? Coron says "I am scum". If I’d actually believed someone would come out and say this, I would’ve put a vote on. It was a joke. You neglected to mention that immediately following this, Nightfall makes an ad hominem attack on me by making out I’m too stupid to spot Coron’s slip

I’m also wondering why the sudden burst of activity when prior to you jumping on my bandwagon, you had only posted thrice in 12 pages?

[GreenLiquid]

I used ad hominem ONCE. You've duplicated you're argument against me.

This is wrong. Almost every single one of your posts has had a mocking tone, and many have had ad hominem argument.

I used ad hominem ONCE. You're making it out that I use it every time. I didn't know what it was at the time, now that I do, I know that I used it. I have explained it. You've also duplicated that point against me. In two of your arguments, you use the post that starts "haha" against me

This is what could probably be classified as 'appeal to repetition,' first off. Secondly, ignorance of a scumtell is not an excuse. Does that mean that I can vote hop, be wishy-washy, and use faulty logic, then use 'I didn't know that was scummy' as a get out of jail free card? Nien.

In what way is that ignorant? Coron says "I am scum". If I’d actually believed someone would come out and say this, I would’ve put a vote on. It was a joke. You neglected to mention that immediately following this, Nightfall makes an ad hominem attack on me by making out I’m too stupid to spot Coron’s slip

Maybe because you didn't say any of this earlier. Nightfall did indeed make a sort of ad hominem, and again, that's a point against him. I don't mention it in the summary because unlike you, he does it only once.

I’m also wondering why the sudden burst of activity when prior to you jumping on my bandwagon, you had only posted thrice in 12 pages?

The game was dying so I decided to do a re-read and post thoughts in some attempt to revive it an catch scum at the same time. Also don't like how this argument is well placed in an attempt to discredit me.

[Coron]

why would he think I have some sort of information that would make him look bad? Probably because he realizes it's a realistic situation. You think about that situation more as scum because you are worried you just got nailed by a cop. In your earlier analysis as I recall you even do mention that he keeps going back to the point that I seemed to have information. Why are you attacking me for pointing out something that it seems that you pointed out yourself?

This would have been a most excellent thing to say in that post back there. However, you said absolutely none of this. The only thing you said is that he has a 'guilty concience' (which implies that you think he has info). Unfortunately, I'm not buying it. Had you stated your ideas in a logical way, they would've made sense.

Sorry for implying that he know's he's scum. That is unless you mean something else. This was basically an expansion of the "guilty concience" comment, since I believe this is the first time someone has asked for clarification I do not see what your problem is.

..because it's reasonable

Let me clarify. It's the second time you threw out that argument with almost the exact same wording. Which really sounds like breadcrumbing to me.

I can find you another game where I did something similar and was definately not cop or other investigation role. If you want me to find it for you I can.

you mind clarifying wtf you're talking about?

Alright, I think my wording here isn't the best, so here's the full case:

Coron claims that his 'slip' post (where he claims that there are 3 scum) was in fact intended to fish for reactions. I do not believe this for two reasons:

1) Coron waits until pages later to actually say this. I'm not sure what the purpose of waiting that long would be, since direct reactions to the slip probably stopped around the third or fourth page.

2) Very soon after the 'slip,' Coron hastilly posts two posts (one after another) in his defense, in a very desperate fashion. If you are truly looking for reactions as you claim, then you would not have needed to have defended yourself.

The 'slip' was NOT pressing for reactions, the 'slip' was me making an assumption that is while not 100% confirmed, not too bad of a guess(I'd say around 95% accuracy). My attacks on the three in particular, in connection to each other was fishing for reactions.

it can't be both? Now you're being closed minded.

If it's actually a serious theory (no matter how strange it is), then it's not a *random* vote. But if it is, in fact, a random vote, then you're not basing it on a theory.

AH I see what you're saying, and NO it was clearly NOT a true random vote I did NOT go to random.org or any similar sites, no dice were used, it was not even psuedorandom. It was taking the best lead I saw so far(which was almost nothing) and voting based on it. I was thinking that you were meaning "random vote" in that it was a vote during the portion of the game where there is little to no information to vote off of, which is in fact the case.

I acted a lot more sure of my random vote than most people and Nai hasn't played with me so Nai did not know that was one of my things that I do, it would be easy to mistake that for an information role with a result.

But if he has never played with you, then why would Nai try metagaming tricks like this? A lot of people act sure with their random votes to add humor.

I haven't actually seen this done often by people other than me, Internet Stranger(before your time I think), and a couple others.

[pre-post edit] Actually, it looks like Nai did play with you in Kirby Mafia. So that statement is not correct.

I posted like two times or something in that before being replaced(I think), and I didn't use this tactic(again as far as I recall), it is not suprising that I do not remember this.

It seemed to me Nightfall is arguing against my playstyle of voicing my primary opinions at any point in the game loudly to keep the game from stagnating too much. I feel it is better to have a little bit of bandwagoning that a lot of lurking(even if it is on me, you could definately find better targets though). Most people don't respond to a FoS at that point in the game by getting all hyper and angry and bad about it. It's a page one FoS if you're protown there is no way that he's a cop with information on you or your partner(since unless you're mason you probably don't have one), but if you are scum there is that chance that it's the cop. This is basically why the reaction as scum is different than the reaction as town.

If the scum were that damn paranoid, then this game would be way too easy. Scum are not going to make it apparent when you random vote. Because probability says that you will get random voted by one person during the random vote phase.

it wasn't a random vote and it didn't look like a random vote, in fact it wasn't even a VOTE on Nai, so this is all getting kind of silly with talking about it as a vote, it was a vote on Nightfall and a FoS on Nai. Also, what keeps the mafia from being that paranoid if you don't nail them when they do. Also, I find, often yes they are that paranoid.

First, a very interesting post by Coron:

Unless you think it's likely that the Nai-Coron thing was a distancing tactic then every % chance Coron is scum is a % chance Nai *isn't*.

I do not like this post, as it ties in almost perfectly with my scum-scum theory. This post is most certainly noted.

Perfectly reasonable, I aplaud your efforts. What I said is true anyway, though, but clearly you think it was a distancing tactic.

Coron:

Scumminess=likelyhood of being scum.

Makin' generalizations.

Sorry for stating a definition?

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.

Um, can you STOP ANSWERING QUESTIONS FOR OTHER PEOPLE!!??

As soon as you stop being a complete and utter retard(ad hominem for any of you people keeping track). To me it was 99.9% likely that what I said was exactly what he meant, and seriously, it you think he's going to slip up on something like "what does this strikethru mean" you might as well go back to newbie games.(sorry, that's very very very ad hominem, but I can't help myself, the comment is so retarded).

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

As for the ad hominem arguement:

Sure, he did mention that you had the memory of a goldfish, but he also presented the reasons that allowed him to come to this conclusion, he told you exactly why what you're saying is wrong and THEN moved on to the personal attacks. That might be unfriendly play(which honestly I might do a bit much of myself) but it's not ad hominem and it's not scummy.

IMHO we have a perfectly reasonable reason for him to change his FOS to a vote if we think instead of not thinking, if you want me to quote the post where I explain it I can, but I feel you are likely capable of finding it yourself.

What is the deal with the connection between Coron and Jules? Coron has gone out of his way to defend Jules twice now, with as far as I can tell no direct benefit to him. If one of them comes up scum, it would be a very good idea to take a very close look at the other.

I believe I benefit because I think Jules is town.

A post by Jules:

Posts 297-299

Not sure what to say to Stewie's. It comes over strongly and it was intended to come over strongly. My reaction was that Nai this was scum trying to make me look like scum. What other reaction do you expect when someone has posted evidence against you and it's completely false?

Just for the record - I have only completed 1 game on here, in which I was town

Discrediting Nai's arguments again in the first paragraph by out and calling them false again with no explaination. Second paragraph looks like it falls under this under 'Gambler's Fallacy.'

I would respond to this idiocy if you wouldn't get mad at me for it. Actually I would have to go over the specifics of what happened in the posts leading up to it, but as a recall, the gambler thing is an idiotic comment.

Hey! Nice of you to tell us that now! Sounds like a great claim revision. Unfortunately, townies don't suddenly change their claims.

turns out he didn't. (damnit, you're probably going to get mad at me again)

The only point he has in his favor is this (from SL who replaced luna):

I can confirm luna receiving that artifact at the end of Night 1.

Which is a pretty big point, too.

Biggest. Point. Ever.

I understood exactly what he was saying when he said that.

One other thing I forgot to adress is that I don't understand what you mean be 'he' or what 'he' said. Can you clarify?

the quote that you seemingly misunderstood. To me right now it seems like you are pulling things out of your rear end now.[/quote]

More ad hominem...[/quote] except I've explained why it's not. It's being mean, not ad homing(to ad hominem). You have me on "being mean and saying exactly what he thinks about things", but usually I find that honesty is a strong protown trait.

Coron in Response:

Who's "we"? You and Jules?

The town, a subset of which I believe to be Jules and Coron.

Trying to generalize as town and gain people's attention. Also suggesting more links between Jules and himself.

do you think I'm scum with him and am just that retarded? Do you think one of us is scum latching onto the other? I mean the whole both of us are scum thing should probably be considered less credible(by far) than my point about Nai's reaction.

I honestly don't think you're scum that much GreenLiquid I think you're just playing very poorly in your suspicions, suspecting both me(who I know to be protown) and jules(who I feel maybe 90% sure is protown).

[Coron]

Because you seem to be nitpicking everything GreenLiquid, the "biggest. Point. Ever." thing was an exageration(perhaps even a hyperbole), but it is a rather big point.

Also, it turns out I'm bad with tags.

[GreenLiquid]

Responses to the following will be in colorful

red

for your enjoyment.

why would he think I have some sort of information that would make him look bad? Probably because he realizes it's a realistic situation. You think about that situation more as scum because you are worried you just got nailed by a cop. In your earlier analysis as I recall you even do mention that he keeps going back to the point that I seemed to have information. Why are you attacking me for pointing out something that it seems that you pointed out yourself?

This would have been a most excellent thing to say in that post back there. However, you said absolutely none of this. The only thing you said is that he has a 'guilty concience' (which implies that you think he has info). Unfortunately, I'm not buying it. Had you stated your ideas in a logical way, they would've made sense.

Sorry for implying that he know's he's scum. That is unless you mean something else. This was basically an expansion of the "guilty concience" comment, since I believe this is the first time someone has asked for clarification I do not see what your problem is.

But 'guilty conscience' does not mean the same as your paragraph long explaination. It's not detailed enough, it doesn't share the same meaning, etc.

..because it's reasonable

Let me clarify. It's the second time you threw out that argument with almost the exact same wording. Which really sounds like breadcrumbing to me.

I can find you another game where I did something similar and was definately not cop or other investigation role. If you want me to find it for you I can.

Sounds like WIFOM to me. Either way, it's really not helping.

you mind clarifying wtf you're talking about?

Alright, I think my wording here isn't the best, so here's the full case:

Coron claims that his 'slip' post (where he claims that there are 3 scum) was in fact intended to fish for reactions. I do not believe this for two reasons:

1) Coron waits until pages later to actually say this. I'm not sure what the purpose of waiting that long would be, since direct reactions to the slip probably stopped around the third or fourth page.

2) Very soon after the 'slip,' Coron hastilly posts two posts (one after another) in his defense, in a very desperate fashion. If you are truly looking for reactions as you claim, then you would not have needed to have defended yourself.

The 'slip' was NOT pressing for reactions, the 'slip' was me making an assumption that is while not 100% confirmed, not too bad of a guess(I'd say around 95% accuracy). My attacks on the three in particular, in connection to each other was fishing for reactions.

Allow me to point out this post by me:

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.

To which you respond:

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

Now it appears that your story has changed.

it can't be both? Now you're being closed minded.

If it's actually a serious theory (no matter how strange it is), then it's not a *random* vote. But if it is, in fact, a random vote, then you're not basing it on a theory.

AH I see what you're saying, and NO it was clearly NOT a true random vote I did NOT go to random.org or any similar sites, no dice were used, it was not even psuedorandom. It was taking the best lead I saw so far(which was almost nothing) and voting based on it. I was thinking that you were meaning "random vote" in that it was a vote during the portion of the game where there is little to no information to vote off of, which is in fact the case.

OK, makes sense now.

I acted a lot more sure of my random vote than most people and Nai hasn't played with me so Nai did not know that was one of my things that I do, it would be easy to mistake that for an information role with a result.

But if he has never played with you, then why would Nai try metagaming tricks like this? A lot of people act sure with their random votes to add humor.

I haven't actually seen this done often by people other than me, Internet Stranger(before your time I think), and a couple others.

I wouldn't say comparing yourself to IS of all people is a smart move... lol

On a more serious note, I see it happen a lot. Almost all the time, people come up with fun little 'fake' arguments full of holes as their random votes. Too often to be ignored.

[pre-post edit] Actually, it looks like Nai did play with you in Kirby Mafia. So that statement is not correct.

I posted like two times or something in that before being replaced(I think), and I didn't use this tactic(again as far as I recall), it is not suprising that I do not remember this.

Sounds fair enough.

It seemed to me Nightfall is arguing against my playstyle of voicing my primary opinions at any point in the game loudly to keep the game from stagnating too much. I feel it is better to have a little bit of bandwagoning that a lot of lurking(even if it is on me, you could definately find better targets though). Most people don't respond to a FoS at that point in the game by getting all hyper and angry and bad about it. It's a page one FoS if you're protown there is no way that he's a cop with information on you or your partner(since unless you're mason you probably don't have one), but if you are scum there is that chance that it's the cop. This is basically why the reaction as scum is different than the reaction as town.

If the scum were that damn paranoid, then this game would be way too easy. Scum are not going to make it apparent when you random vote. Because probability says that you will get random voted by one person during the random vote phase.

it wasn't a random vote and it didn't look like a random vote, in fact it wasn't even a VOTE on Nai, so this is all getting kind of silly with talking about it as a vote, it was a vote on Nightfall and a FoS on Nai. Also, what keeps the mafia from being that paranoid if you don't nail them when they do. Also, I find, often yes they are that paranoid.

Again, that vote/fos could very easily be mistaken for random, as a matter a fact I even thought it was until you posted otherwise.

First, a very interesting post by Coron:

Unless you think it's likely that the Nai-Coron thing was a distancing tactic then every % chance Coron is scum is a % chance Nai *isn't*.

I do not like this post, as it ties in almost perfectly with my scum-scum theory. This post is most certainly noted.

Perfectly reasonable, I aplaud your efforts. What I said is true anyway, though, but clearly you think it was a distancing tactic.

But what this post quite easily does is makes people believe that one of you is scum and one is town. This makes the scum argument tactic very effective if done correctly.

Coron:

Scumminess=likelyhood of being scum.

Makin' generalizations.

Sorry for stating a definition?

That's not a definition, as other people use other definitions of the word scummy. Usually, when I say scummy I'm reffering to their behavior, not their percent chance of being scum. Don't generalize.

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.

Um, can you STOP ANSWERING QUESTIONS FOR OTHER PEOPLE!!??

As soon as you stop being a complete and utter retard(ad hominem for any of you people keeping track). To me it was 99.9% likely that what I said was exactly what he meant, and seriously, it you think he's going to slip up on something like "what does this strikethru mean" you might as well go back to newbie games.(sorry, that's very very very ad hominem, but I can't help myself, the comment is so retarded).

Pointing out your logical fallacies do not make them suddenly cease being logical fallicies. You do not know how a person will answer, and trying to answer before them can sometimes discredit their answer if it contradicts what the person was going to say. Again, answer questions asked specifically to you, and lot others answer their own.

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

As for the ad hominem arguement:

Sure, he did mention that you had the memory of a goldfish, but he also presented the reasons that allowed him to come to this conclusion, he told you exactly why what you're saying is wrong and THEN moved on to the personal attacks. That might be unfriendly play(which honestly I might do a bit much of myself) but it's not ad hominem and it's not scummy.

IMHO we have a perfectly reasonable reason for him to change his FOS to a vote if we think instead of not thinking, if you want me to quote the post where I explain it I can, but I feel you are likely capable of finding it yourself.

What is the deal with the connection between Coron and Jules? Coron has gone out of his way to defend Jules twice now, with as far as I can tell no direct benefit to him. If one of them comes up scum, it would be a very good idea to take a very close look at the other.

I believe I benefit because I think Jules is town.

But you're going waaaay too far out of your way just because you 'think' he's town. Townspeople have no need to do this.

A post by Jules:

Posts 297-299

Not sure what to say to Stewie's. It comes over strongly and it was intended to come over strongly. My reaction was that Nai this was scum trying to make me look like scum. What other reaction do you expect when someone has posted evidence against you and it's completely false?

Just for the record - I have only completed 1 game on here, in which I was town

Discrediting Nai's arguments again in the first paragraph by out and calling them false again with no explaination. Second paragraph looks like it falls under this under 'Gambler's Fallacy.'

I would respond to this idiocy if you wouldn't get mad at me for it. Actually I would have to go over the specifics of what happened in the posts leading up to it, but as a recall, the gambler thing is an idiotic comment.

Notice how Jules just up and says that the arguments are false. Is there any logical rebuttal? Nope, just flat out says 'hey, they're false, ignore them' with no defense.

As for the Gambler's Fallacy, it appears Jules is trying to imply that he is town in this game because he was town in another, which means absolutely nothing.

Hey! Nice of you to tell us that now! Sounds like a great claim revision. Unfortunately, townies don't suddenly change their claims.

turns out he didn't. (damnit, you're probably going to get mad at me again)

First, he starts off with 'I'm a townie with no powers,' then later it becomes that he had an artifact. Over the course of a lot of prodding, we finally get all the details. When a person claims, they need to outline the important details. And maybe it's just me, but I think having an artifact is classified as an important detail.

The only point he has in his favor is this (from SL who replaced luna):

I can confirm luna receiving that artifact at the end of Night 1.

Which is a pretty big point, too.

Biggest. Point. Ever.

Quite. Which is probably the one good thing about his claim, and is probably big enough to redeem most of my suspicion about the claim (though I could still easily see what he was doing as an attempt to not have to bother claiming an artifact).

I understood exactly what he was saying when he said that.

One other thing I forgot to adress is that I don't understand what you mean be 'he' or what 'he' said. Can you clarify?

the quote that you seemingly misunderstood. To me right now it seems like you are pulling things out of your rear end now.

More ad hominem.. except I've explained why it's not. It's being mean, not ad homing(to ad hominem). You have me on "being mean and saying exactly what he thinks about things", but usually I find that honesty is a strong protown trait.

But the way you say it makes it easy to make others who read it put classify the victim as desperate or inferior, and

discredits their argument

.

Coron in Response:

Who's "we"? You and Jules?

The town, a subset of which I believe to be Jules and Coron.

Trying to generalize as town and gain people's attention. Also suggesting more links between Jules and himself.

do you think I'm scum with him and am just that retarded? Do you think one of us is scum latching onto the other? I mean the whole both of us are scum thing should probably be considered less credible(by far) than my point about Nai's reaction.

No, I think you're trying to utilize a logical fallacy called guilt by association, which could be very powerful in setting up a quick double mislynch. I'm not really sure what to think, but a member of the town has no reason to continually attempt to link himself to another player unless said players are masons.

I honestly don't think you're scum that much GreenLiquid I think you're just playing very poorly in your suspicions, suspecting both me(who I know to be protown) and jules(who I feel maybe 90% sure is protown).

Why do you think Jules is pro-town? Why do you go out of your way to defend him? It isn't adding up, and I think Coron has cards he isn't showing.

In addition, I realize this last post could be an appeal to emotion/blackmailing. 'I don't think your scum, but I think you're playing poorly' looks like it quite easily translates into an attempt to get me to stop attacking you. Sorry, chester, but if I find you scummy I'm going to attack you, whether or not you find me scum.

[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." My post was not made because I wanted to have a 'slip', so your logic doesn't hold here, sorry. I answered the question as presented.

And yes, guilty concience does have the same meaning it's just very condensed. Guilty Concience means pretty much "feeling like you're being attacked for something because you should be attacked for something", with a little bit of reading comprehension it can easily be figured out how this connects to my explanation. I reallly don't like filling the thread with stupid stuff that people should be able to figure out, but you seem to me making me do it and then claiming that I should have wasted a whole bunch of everyone else's time earlier by insulting their intellegence and overexplaining.

Did I ever tell you that IS is my lord and savior? If not, IS is my Lord and Savior.

If I feel a question is a question of clarification instead of a question of like, content I will help clarify obvious things that someone else might not have noticed. I really see no problem with this and you will not make me change my opinion on this topic. I figured there was no reason for you to waste your time posting that they were logical falicies if I could point it out myself and have it done with, also if i point out that they are logical falicies people won't mistake them for real logic so it becomes less of a problem when pointed out.

Also, I'm still not answering that thing you directed at Jules because you'll still get all up in my face and I don't really feel like giving you more reasons to get up in my face, and I'm sure Jules can handle it on his own if things transpired the way I think they did.

Also he posted that he was a plain townie with no powers, he did not say ANYTHING about Artifacts, so he did not actually change his claim, in fact he claimed his role(that's what a roleclaim is right?), just not anything about artifacts. Also, saying after it was after a lot of prodding might be an exageration, it was fairly quickly after his claim that he told us about his artifact.

Sorry, but for that last little bit, I'm not understanding what you mean by guilt by association to set up a double mislynch. Guilt by association is where one person is scum so the second person is scum, right? I'm not sure exactly how this at all applies to a double mislynch. Maybe I am misunderstanding you.

I think Jules is protown because he has made reasonable posts(for the most part) and has had some really stupid worthless acuisations against him. I go out of my way to defend him because I think he's town. I may or may not have cards I am not showing.

This last post was "wow this guy is posting some really bad stuff and I want to vote him for that" then I realized man, some of this stuff is really really stupid, but not scummy stupid, just protown stupid so I probably shouldn't vote for him.

It is me posting as I am thinking, which is something I tend to do, though I do see what you're saying with appeal to emotion/blackmailing, I've definately had that one used against me in the past to varying degrees of success.

[Kelly Chen]

Kelly has a nasty habit of not explaining her votes or FoS's unless explicitly told to,

I don't think this is a nasty habit, or even particularly true. If I vote without comment this is probably just a response to whatever is going on. Your inability to make any sense of my Zindaras FOS baffles me, especially if you're actually going through the thread and not simply viewing all posts by X.

First, he starts off with 'I'm a townie with no powers,' then later it becomes that he had an artifact. Over the course of a lot of prodding, we finally get all the details. When a person claims, they need to outline the important details. And maybe it's just me, but I think having an artifact is classified as an important detail.

Assuming you don't doubt he had that artifact, is there a point to this or are you just scolding Jules?

Quite. Which is probably the one good thing about his claim, and is probably big enough to redeem most of my suspicion about the claim (though I could still easily see what he was doing as an attempt to not have to bother claiming an artifact).

How would that be advantageous at all to scum?

So, in conclusion, I think that Jules is our best lynch for today.

Somewhat suspicious.

[Norinel]

Seeking replacements for Nai and Stewie.