Mafia 63: Wolves - Game over!

[Phoebus]

Vote Count:

3 Battle Mage (~N9V~, Fircoal, TheJiveMachine)

2 Fircoal (Coron, Talitha)
1 Niempie (bird1111)
2 Pooky (Jingolaw, Twito)
2 Scarecrow (Ancalagon, Battle Mage)
1 Talitha (Niempie)
3 ThAdmiral (Pooky,The Goat)

3 not voting

9 to lynch

[Scarecrow]

Jingo: Good point. What does Pooky have to say about that? Why is he being so damn aggressive?

vote:pooky

[Ancalagon]

Unvote: Scarecrow, Vote: Pooky

Why is he being so damn aggressive?

QFT

[PookyTheMagicalBear]

I'm being aggressive because that's how you catch scum... The sit back and wait for them to trip up on their own plan usually doesn't pan out well unless your scum are terrible.

[PookyTheMagicalBear]

Oh and using a "joke reason" is different from using a trivial reason.

I still don't see what is funny about squiggles.

[PookyTheMagicalBear]

And even IF you decide to disagree with me on whether his "reason" was a joke or trivial, how do you refute my argument on reasons 2 3 or 4?

The strongest point I've raised against him is point 3, why do you choose to focus on point 1 and attack it on a manner of opinion alone?

[PookyTheMagicalBear]

In case you don't want to read back to see what point three was, I'll summarize for you.

If ThAdmiral geniunely cared about lurkers and people not participating, so much so that he would make a list of the people who have not posted a mere

2 days

into the game, how can he be so apathetic that he would let the players I've pointed out go

2 WEEKS

without posting? My point is that such an action is an inconsistency, that his apathy to the missing posts of those three players shows that his early post about people being missing after just 2 days is just an act.

His response is that those who have not posted in the thread are indeterminables while those that have are not and as such the two cases are entirely different. I think this response is complete crap because it is NOT possible to determine either whether those players who i've pointed out WILL ever post again or WHEN they will post. To say that one group is indeterminable while the other group is not is wrong in my humble opinion. If anyone here would like to show me a method for determining whether those players will post ever again or the time of their next post that is NOT applicable to those players that he had named previously, then I will accept that I am wrong and such a distinction exists.

[PookyTheMagicalBear]

Unvote: Scarecrow, Vote: Pooky

Why is he being so damn aggressive?

QFT

Oh and lastly, What does this mean?

How DO YOU QUOTE A QUESTION FOR TRUTHERY!?!?

IT ISNT A STATEMENT! A QUESTION CANT BE TRUE OR FALSE.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE WORDS THAT ARE COMING OUT OF YOUR MOUTH?

FOS Anca

[ThAdmiral]

As much as I am surprised to say this pooky is actually right in saying that being aggressive against some players can make them slip up if they're scum. However I think he may have gone a little too-far and is perhaps acting a little too single-mindedly. Why not put a bit of pressure on some other players as well? I see from the last post he is starting to do this but that smacks of desperation more than anything else.

About point 3: I guess I just put special importance on people first posts in a thread. After they've submitted one I feel more comfortable about their ability to post again.

[Scarecrow]

Er, react much?

[PookyTheMagicalBear]

What were you hoping I would do?

Did you expect me to react?

What do you think a protown player would have done?

What would YOU have done?

[Ancalagon]

How DO YOU QUOTE A QUESTION FOR TRUTHERY!?!?

IT ISNT A STATEMENT! A QUESTION CANT BE TRUE OR FALSE.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE WORDS THAT ARE COMING OUT OF YOUR MOUTH?

IT SEEMED LIKE A RHETORICAL QUESTION! I DIDNT KNOW WHY YOU WERE BEING AGGRESSIVE, AND I FELT THAT WHAT HE RAISED WAS A GOOD POINT. I NOW SEE I DIDN'T USE THE RIGHT ACRONYM. I LOVE POSTING IN ALL CAPS!

[PookyTheMagicalBear]

What was the point you thought he raised? Why do you think it is good?

[Fircoal]

FOs: Ancalagon

for the nice bandwagon vote.
I don't think Pooky trying to push isn't scummy, but the arguments for him are.

And Battlemage, I'm voting you because I like voting people named Battle Mage

[Ancalagon]

FOs: Ancalagon for the nice bandwagon vote.

Hm.... no bandwagons? And...

FoS: Fircoal

Not for that, but for this:
[quote="Fircoal]And Battlemage, I'm voting you because I like voting people named Battle Mage [/quote]

[Niempie]

I'm sorry not to post any sooner, but I forgot about this game.

And last week I had the flue and was in bed until today. Tomorrow I won't have time to be online, because my dauther has her 3th birthday, so that means visitors all day and evening.

But I will try to catch up on this game and participate more in the future.

For now I will

Unvote

.

[Battle Mage]

indeed. Fircoal must be either scum, or unco-operative town. Probably should be lynched either way. also, can the 2 other people on my wagon be prodded?

FOs: Ancalagon for the nice bandwagon vote.

Hm.... no bandwagons? And...

FoS: Fircoal

Not for that, but for this:
[quote="Fircoal]And Battlemage, I'm voting you because I like voting people named Battle Mage

[/quote][/quote]

[Jingolaw]

Oh and using a "joke reason" is different from using a trivial reason.

You’ll have to explain this further if you really want to stand by it. I see the reasons as synonymous, for all practical purposes.

And even IF you decide to disagree with me on whether his "reason" was a joke or trivial, how do you refute my argument on reasons 2 3 or 4?

I'm not refuting those arguments; I'm considering them, and ThAdmiral looks suspicious to be sure. It's just that you look worse to me, Pooky. Agression is useful, certainly; blind hyper-aggression is scummy.

[PookyTheMagicalBear]

A Joke reason is funny.
A trivial reason is not.

[PookyTheMagicalBear]

BLIND HYPERAGGRESSION?

WHAT PART OF MY AGGRESSION DO YOU BELIEVE IS BLIND!?

[Jingolaw]

Unvote: Scarecrow, Vote: Pooky

Why is he being so damn aggressive?

QFT

Oh and lastly, What does this mean?

How DO YOU QUOTE A QUESTION FOR TRUTHERY!?!?

IT ISNT A STATEMENT! A QUESTION CANT BE TRUE OR FALSE.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE WORDS THAT ARE COMING OUT OF YOUR MOUTH?

FOS Anca

Ancalagon was obviously agreeing with Scarecrow's sentiment. Obviously. Yet, you pedantically go after him (FoS, even) with the caps lock button. You also insist on maintaining this silly line of reasoning distinguishing subtle gradations of “jokiness,” AND basing a vote on it. That's blind aggression in my book.

Oh, and there's this:

BLIND HYPERAGGRESSION?

WHAT PART OF MY AGGRESSION DO YOU BELIEVE IS BLIND!?

NOTHING AT ALL!! YOU APPEAR COMPLETELY RATIONAL AND CALM!! HAHAHA!!

My vote stays.

[PookyTheMagicalBear]

1) What is scarecrow trying to assert then if it is so obvious?

2) I think I've made it quite clear that my vote is based on four reasons, I don't see how you can ignore three of them and say it is based only on the first reason. I'd say attacking me and saying that I'm basing my vote on ThAd on ONE reason when I've supplied FOUR is "blind".

If anyone is blind here, it is you.

[Battle Mage]

actually just a though on Twito: Ive seen him before quite recently as scum. In that game, he only made a couple posts for the majority of Day 1, including a poor reasoned vote that stayed for most of the day. It was only when he had a significant wagon on him that he started defending himself.
Maybe a wagon on him would get him contributing a bit more?

[Scarecrow]

Good point. In the one game I was with him in, he was a townie, and posted constantly.

unvote, vote:twito

[Jingolaw]

Oh, great reason there, Scarecrow. BM posts a mere observation, not even worthy of a finger, much less a vote, and you're ready to vote for Twito? Not that I don't think Twito might be scum, but that was an awfully quick vote justified by a thin meta-game assertion.

FoS: Scarecrow

.

oh, and can we get a confirmation that Twito is even going to be around for the next week?...Isn't he on Easter holiday?

[quote=”Pooky”]
1) What is scarecrow trying to assert then if it is so obvious?

2) I think I've made it quite clear that my vote is based on four reasons, I don't see how you can ignore three of them and say it is based only on the first reason. I'd say attacking me and saying that I'm basing my vote on ThAd on ONE reason when I've supplied FOUR is "blind".

If anyone is blind here, it is you.
[/quote]

1) What Scarecrow is, or was, trying to assert is no mystery. He was asserting that you were being aggressive to the point of being suspiciously so. This was recognized by several people, including me and Ancalagon. Ultimately, however, Scarecrow’s assertions are immaterial, since it wasn’t the content that you questioned, but rather the format.

When Ancalagon seconded Scarecrow’s posted suspicions, you attacked not his reasoning, but his terminology. Granted, you were already defending your aggression elsewhere, but it seemed to undermine your efforts to not simply refute the substance of the Scarecrow/Jingolaw/Ancalagon accusation, but rather go after Ancalagon purely on a procedural formality. That’s what looked bad, and still does: your all caps FoS attack on Ancalagon based on nothing more than your perception that an interrogatory should not be quoted for truthiness.

2) I’ll remind you that I’m not questioning your vote for ThAdmiral; it may be well-placed. I’m questioning your odd adherence to a nonsensical rationale, namely this whole random vs. joke / funny vs. not-funny meme. It’s silly, and you know it’s silly, which is why your continued defense of it makes me very suspicious. Your other reasons seem OK to me, but if number 4 in the list of reasons is completely baseless, that calls in to question reasons 1 through 3. You then trumpet that we’re not listening to reasons 1 through 3, and my answer is yes, that’s correct, we’re not listening to reasons 1 through 3, because reason 4 is the one we’re talking about.

In any case, my suspicion is that this is a case of throwing good logic after bad, and that the scum are just lurking and waiting...probably.

For now, I’ll

unvote: Pooky

.