<Mini 435> Julius Caesar Mafia, Player Abandoned

[Simenon]

Unvote
Vote Eteocles

[Illumina]

Unfortunately you're not directly addressing my question, Miztef. None of what you cited suggests that he's scum rather than an inexperienced or defensive townie. (I'd also like answers to the other questions I posed, when you have time.)

Ryan

: It might be better to stop acting defensively and provide more input on who might be scum and why (including players other than Miztef and Sarcastro, as well).

[Lawrencelot]

Woa, the restriction was fake? Sorry for the late reaction, I had exams today. This is big, I really believed it was real. This throws my thoughts on some players completely upside down.

Unvote: phoebus

. I found phoebus scummy all the time, for reasons I stated often enough, but he did not believe the restriction was real, and now we see the result.

Simenon, I now see why you thought phoebus was pro-town, I hope you understand why I thought he was not (now I also think he's prow-town).

Lawrencelot:
Let me preface this by admitting I am *not* sure at all about the details of this tell; I’ve only witnessed it once, in N326. I believe the tell is trying to rush the portrayal of consensus. You seem very eager to show that either Phoebus or ryan should be lynched. Which feels especially odd considering you don’t appear to have strong feelings regarding ryan.

I never said ryan should be lynched, if I said it you can quote me. I said phoebus should be lynched, and that I would vote ryan if he would be at lynch-1 or so. Why? Because if ryan would be at lynch -1, that would mean the town wants him dead, even if the mafia voted him, and I would listen to the town, because my thoughts on ryan were neutral.

Now that Simenon's restriction turned out to be real, I don't find him very pro-town anymore. But a fake restriction also is not that scummy, because of the explanation he gave. I will not vote you, but

IGMEOY: Simenon

.

My thoughts about Ryan:
In a mafia game I was giving a reaction to every small accusation someone gave to me. Ryan said he doesn't want to keep defending he's pro-town. In the game where I was trying at my best to defend myself, I was mafia. This would make Ryan look a bit pro-town to me, if this logic wasn't so faulty, and Ryan's play does have a lot of scummy features. But my thoughts about Ryan are still neutral, therefore I won't vote him yet. I would IGMEOY on Ryan if he didn't have that many eyes looking at him already.

Now, Miztef is having some scummy features too. I always protected Miztef, because of his first post, but there is still the possibility he is scum with a rolename of course.

IGMEOY: Miztef

. I just didn't want him to be lynched that soon, because of the risk. Now it's different. Not worth of voting yet, though.

[Lawrencelot]

Sorry for double post, but I think I'll answer this.

Lawrencelot

: You mentioned earlier in the game you found Phoebus, Ryan, and VanDamien the most scummy. What did you find scummy about each, and what are your current thoughts on them (or anyone else)?

Well my thoughts about Phoebus changed as stated above. But I never said I found these three the most scummy. I found Ryan and VanDamien neutral (not to confuse with "no opinion", that's what I thought about some others). If the town would want to lynch either of them I would cooperate, because my thoughts on them were not pro-town. But next time you ask me a question like this please quote it, because I don't exactly remember what I said, but I hope this made it clear. Always happy to answer questions though.

[Miztef]

Unfortunately you're not directly addressing my question, Miztef. None of what you cited suggests that he's scum rather than an inexperienced or defensive townie. (I'd also like answers to the other questions I posed, when you have time.)

Ryan

: It might be better to stop acting defensively and provide more input on who might be scum and why (including players other than Miztef and Sarcastro, as well).

I believe I did answer the question directly.

Anything

he does could be interpreted as an inexperienced player mistake. Therefore, I take everything at normal scum value. No one else in this game do I find nearly as scummy as ryan.

Also, about the other questions:

Elaborating on everyone seems a bit redundant at this point, my opinions of others seem to be along the same lines as most others, and are expressed in a easy manner in post 389.

Right now, not even looking at my old opinions of you, I'm finding you mostly neutral. I'd like if you'd be a bit less vague about your suspicions and express them more often instead of just asking questions, but that is a playstyle issue, not scummy in itself.

Lastly, I'm an inpatient person at heart. I try not to let it leak out so much in mafia, but it's an ingrained part of my personality. You may read other game's posts by me and find that I am impatient in most of them. I still would be happy with a lynch happening right now. 14 pages is good enough for me, and if we go on too much longer, unnessasary claiming could happen.

[ryan]

I'm still confused on who a player can admit a "post restriction" and not have any fingers pointing his way. I still consider that a mistake that it was admitted but apparently I am in the minority on that. I've at least been consistent with my claims for Miztef and Sarcastro to be scum and given my reasons for both, which you can agree or disagree with but those are what I've seen

[Patrick]

Apologies for low activity, which will continue for at least a week due to my exam period/coursework deadlines. I won't need replacing, this is just a heads up.

[Miztef]

I'm still confused on who a player can admit a "post restriction" and not have any fingers pointing his way. I still consider that a mistake that it was admitted but apparently I am in the minority on that. I've at least been consistent with my claims for Miztef and Sarcastro to be scum and given my reasons for both, which you can agree or disagree with but those are what I've seen

well, to be honest, why would scum fake a restriction? If a scum did fake a restriction, they wouldn't reveal it imo. This revealing actually makes me believe he is much more pro-town rather then more scummy.

[ryan]

Revealing could be done to throw off the rest of us as well

[EmpTyger]

ryan:
I think Simenon is suspicious ad rem postrestrictionem. But I find you much more suspicious. When I find suspicious activity I want it addressed, not ignored.

Vote: ryan.

Lawrencelot:

<snip>

Lawrencelot:
Let me preface this by admitting I am *not* sure at all about the details of this tell; I’ve only witnessed it once, in N326. I believe the tell is trying to rush the portrayal of consensus. You seem very eager to show that either Phoebus or ryan should be lynched. Which feels especially odd considering you don’t appear to have strong feelings regarding ryan.

I never said ryan should be lynched, if I said it you can quote me. I said phoebus should be lynched, and that I would vote ryan if he would be at lynch-1 or so. Why? Because if ryan would be at lynch -1, that would mean the town wants him dead, even if the mafia voted him, and I would listen to the town, because my thoughts on ryan were neutral.<snip>

To be overly syntactic, I was commenting about “either (phoebus or ryan) should be lynched”, but the subtle distinction is almost not worth making. But, yes, I was referring to what you paraphrased.

Why would you feel the need to spell out that you would be willing to go along with the town? In fact, your “I would IGMEOY on Ryan if he didn't have that many eyes looking at him already” seems the exact opposite. You seem overeager to have the record show both that you find ryan protown and antitown, and that you don’t want to vote him yet leaving the way open for you to vote him later. This kind of hedging is rather suspicious to me. Especially this contradiction:

<snip>We have no deadline, so we don't need to rush the lynch. I would have the least problem if ryan or phoebus are lynched, but I think the votes on ryan appear a bit too much as a bandwagon. As I said before, I'm not voting ryan unless he would be very close to a lynch.<snip>

You seem overly careful to avoid committing on ryan- yet when you finally do, and say that you think he’s being bandwagoned, you then turn around and advocate bandwagoning him yourself? You are right behind ryan in my suspicions.


Simenon:
In maximo periculo, Simene. You may have replaced into an unfortunate situation, but that will not excuse your predecessor’s actions.


Miztef:

<snip>well, to be honest, why would scum fake a restriction? If a scum did fake a restriction, they wouldn't reveal it imo. This revealing actually makes me believe he is much more pro-town rather then more scummy.

Ave, WIFOM.

[ryan]

[quote="EmpTyger"]ryan:
I think Simenon is suspicious ad rem postrestrictionem. But I find you much more suspicious. When I find suspicious activity I want it addressed, not ignored.

Vote: ryan.

I've addressed my "so called suspicious behavior" I'm not sure how many more times I have to show my innocence

[Lawrencelot]

EmpTyger, it's true that I don't vote him while I leave my way open to vote him later. However, in this situation it is not scummy. I don't vote him because I don't think he is that scummy, and I would vote him later if the town would want him dead because I don't think he's that protown. And I don't advocate bandwagoning him, if I would I would have already voted him. Btw, I wasn't entirely sure he was bandwagoned, even at that time it just looked a bit like a bandwagon but I'm not sure if it was.
A votecount would help me in deciding wether I should vote ryan or not.

Mod, can we have a votecount please?

[Miztef]

my reasoning is a bit WIFOM, I admit, but faking a restriction in itself is not scummy imo.

Let's say any random player faked a restriction. If that player is scum, why bother, it just adds more work, and if your caught faking it more people would suspect you. If your pro-town, then maybe you just wanted to make your role more interesting, and decided to fake a restriction for fun. I believe that's what guardian did. A scum could too, of course, but I just don't see it as likely.

[TBuG]

Just for reference, I never confirmed the restriction, just poked fun at it vote count

ryan

[4] VanDamien - Sarcastro - Miztef - EmpTyger

Miztef

[1] ryan

Phoebus

[1] Patrick

Simenon

[1] Phoebus

Sarcastro

[1] Eteocles

Eteocles

[1] Simenon

7 to be deadalicious.

Prodding Nightfall, Eteocles, Phoebus, and VanDamien.

[Sarcastro]

my reasoning is a bit WIFOM, I admit, but faking a restriction in itself is not scummy imo.

Let's say any random player faked a restriction. If that player is scum, why bother, it just adds more work, and if your caught faking it more people would suspect you. If your pro-town, then maybe you just wanted to make your role more interesting, and decided to fake a restriction for fun. I believe that's what guardian did. A scum could too, of course, but I just don't see it as likely.

Sorry, Miztef, but I don't buy that at all. Have you heard of the "Lynch All Liars" rule? It's part-meta, part-theory that pro-town players should never lie. While not everybody would agree that pro-town players should

never

lie, most would agree that lying about your role is not something pro-town players normally have any good reason for doing.

There are plenty of reasons for scum to fake a restriction. The most obvious one is to make themselves look more pro-town. While scum can have restrictions as well, they are far more common among pro-town roles. In addition, a restriction can often add credence to a roleclaim in some situations.

Pro-town players, on the other hand, have no good reason to fake a restrictions. It is simply bad play, and it impairs the town in so many ways. If what Simenon says is true and Guardian was indeed a pro-town player faking a restriction, it was absolutely

terrible

play on Guardian's part.

I don't want to lynch Simenon, however, because as stupid as it would be on Guardian's part, I actually buy that he would do that just for fun. But yes, faking a restriction is most definitely scummy. It just so happens that in this situation I'm inclined to believe that the person is still pro-town.

[VanDamien]

Gah, fuck this. It's way too obnoxious to have to put up with this awful "restriction".

Guardian got a role which he found boring, and decided to make a restriction out of it. And he told me to follow by that restriction.

Now, generally, I always agree to do what the replacee tells me, as long as I'm not ruining the game. But I can't legitamitely play this game with this.

So, I apologize for giving up this soon Guardian, and wagon me at will. I fall the victum of a really, really bored townie (and, for some reason, the mod kinda confirmed).

Watch the oppurtunistic scum.

Bah

That sentance interests me. It seems to set up a counter rush on anyone who goes after Simenon after revealing the fake restriction. That hasn't happened, and I'm wondering if it is because of that sentance or not. I was fairly sure of Guardian's towniness with the restriction, and Simonon hasn't said anyhting else particularly scummy, but I'm less sure now than I was.

As for ryan, I find him scummy for most of the reasons already stated, but I'll go back and do a reread later, with commenting.

[ryan]

Please re-check your vote count as you have me voting for myself

Modedit: Fixed, the coding in 335 made it appear as if you self-voted.

[ryan]

Post 335 looks to be what is confused, that was me quoting another player who had voted me but for some reason the quote didn't come out right, my vote remains for Miztef (Post 240)

[Miztef]

my reasoning is a bit WIFOM, I admit, but faking a restriction in itself is not scummy imo.

Let's say any random player faked a restriction. If that player is scum, why bother, it just adds more work, and if your caught faking it more people would suspect you. If your pro-town, then maybe you just wanted to make your role more interesting, and decided to fake a restriction for fun. I believe that's what guardian did. A scum could too, of course, but I just don't see it as likely.

Sorry, Miztef, but I don't buy that at all. Have you heard of the "Lynch All Liars" rule? It's part-meta, part-theory that pro-town players should never lie. While not everybody would agree that pro-town players should

never

lie, most would agree that lying about your role is not something pro-town players normally have any good reason for doing.

There are plenty of reasons for scum to fake a restriction. The most obvious one is to make themselves look more pro-town. While scum can have restrictions as well, they are far more common among pro-town roles. In addition, a restriction can often add credence to a roleclaim in some situations.

Pro-town players, on the other hand, have no good reason to fake a restrictions. It is simply bad play, and it impairs the town in so many ways. If what Simenon says is true and Guardian was indeed a pro-town player faking a restriction, it was absolutely

terrible

play on Guardian's part.

I don't want to lynch Simenon, however, because as stupid as it would be on Guardian's part, I actually buy that he would do that just for fun. But yes, faking a restriction is most definitely scummy. It just so happens that in this situation I'm inclined to believe that the person is still pro-town.

ryan's gonna butcher me for this one, but I was thinking along thesame lines as sacastro here.

I'm well aware of lynch all liars, but to me, guardian seems the type to put in a restriction for fun, it did not seem like a player as new as him would fake that eleborate of a restriction and be scum. Guardian's play overall was quite terrible imo. So this follows that pattern exactly. The way simenon revealed it adds to my belief that is was a fun faked restriction.

[ryan]

Nope it's your opinion and I won't butcher you on it. I had the same suspicions on Guardian when he played as well, it just seemed strange to admit a restriction by a new player when he attempted to continue with it and than all of a sudden POOF admitted and that is what raised my level of suspicion

[Lawrencelot]

I agree with the latest post that Simenon's explanation for the restriction is believable (and to VanDamien, not because of that sentence, I didn't even notice it until now, but it is interesting). But this doesn't mean that we should just leave it with that, there is a not so low chance that Simenon is still scum, and that Guardian made up the restriction for fun (or even because of scum play) while he was mafia anyway. But to me, Simenon is not the most scummy, in fact his scumminess is even below average to me. Ryan is to me the most scummy now, aside from the ones who don't post anymore, but still not that scummy to have my vote. I don't know who to vote yet, while it's already page 14, sheesh.

Mod, I unvoted Phoebus in the second post of this page.

[Nightfall]

*Posting in all my games*
I will be away until tuesday because of the long weekend.
I dont believe I will have internet access, but if I find that I do, I will be sure to post something.

I'm still confused on who a player can admit a "post restriction" and not have any fingers pointing his way. I still consider that a mistake that it was admitted but apparently I am in the minority on that. I've at least been consistent with my claims for Miztef and Sarcastro to be scum and given my reasons for both, which you can agree or disagree with but those are what I've seen

Why is having a post restriction so scummy? Pro town members could have restrictions too.

Revealing could be done to throw off the rest of us as well

Just as any claim can be used to throw us off a lynch. The fact someone has a restriction doesn't make someone any more likely to be scum. Unless your in some odd scummy restrictions theme game where all mafia have restrictions.

I would vote for Ryan but Im not sure I want to put him 1 from lynch just yet. Consider this an

FOS with an intent to vote: Ryan

If a lynch hasn't happened when I get back, and Ryan hasn't posted anything to sway me, I will place my vote then.

[Illumina]

I may be going out on a limb here, but am I the only one who sees Ryan's play as indicative of his inexperience? Sure, inexperienced play doesn't mean he isn't scum, but I can understand a new pro-town player getting frustrated the way Ryan is and using the same sort of (faulty) logic. I don't intend to give him a free pass because he's new, but perhaps he isn't the best lynch choice for today.

I propose we give him an opportunity to give us more constructive analysis in his posts, and reserve the option to lynch him later if he continues to act scummy or unhelpful.

[ryan]

I haven't ever said I'm not new to the game and sure my logic is different from the typical player but what I've done to get 4 votes on me already is still surprising to me, guess I'll have to "prove myself" quickly eh?

[Phoebus]

My opinion in this is that this is day one and I'm fine with semi random lynches on day one because anything and everything that can be said on day one can be WIFOM. It is only after we have kills that we can get concrete information by correlating outcome to action.

Having said that, this is what I have come up with after going through the game from page 8 onwards.


I feel vindicated about Guardian. That was a shitty restriction and subsequently found to be fake. I mentioned that while PBuG is strange, he's not an idiot.
I am fine with my vote.

I don't care tuppence for faked restriction. This is especially true when you are pro town and are being ridiculous.
Look at Pooky for some self imposed restrictions that are actually elegant. This was idiotic.
I believe in Lynch All Liars, especially more so when I was being attacked for being unhelpful, when all I was expressing was disgruntlement at the restriction.

As I see it, there are two things:

Guardian was a hypocrite for attacking me for being unhelpful when he was doing the same thing himself. The particular style of posting he chose, apart from the bold and red, was that he could post only one sentence, with confusing punctuation.
This is patently unhelpful for the town because it precludes decent contribution and only confuses matters.

As scum with a faked restriction, this actually limits the possibility of "foot in mouth" disease because people can be led to believe that no scum could be given such a ridiculous restriction. Therefore only a townie could be given this restriction and furthermore, he should be a power role and since this restriction was hard, the poster would be given leeway to post less.
You post less, less chance of getting in trouble.

Simenon's frustration at the reveal could be genuine given that this could be exactly the sort of WIFOM described above, which could be effectively (?) attempted by scum.
Perhaps Simenon's style of play just stops him from being effective for someone else's idiocy.

In my opinion, the sort of explanation which Simenon was ready with (bored townie) is best left until questions are asked. When one is far too ready withe excuses, as Simenon seemed to me, it is more likely that the whole thing is something which has been cooked up for plausibility's sake.
When I'm ready with too many explanations, I'm trying to avoid trouble which i deserve. This is not limited to my mafia games. This happens offline too.

Sure, one can say - why are you making excuses later, when accused of being scum? Why not explain everything at once?

Well, this is WIFOM central and a lose-lose situation either way.

the moral of the story: don't lie


Other people on my radar as of now are Sarcastro and Miztef.

There seems to be just too much tandem tag team stuff going on between the two.
However, if I were to pick someone to vote other than Simenon, I'd chose Sarcastro.
He seems more the instigator and Miztef a hanger-on.
Something makes me feel that he is a misled hanger on or rather, a hanger on with misplaced trust/beliefs.
However, Miztef's posts from 293 onwards have eroded some of my beliefs about him.

Illumina and EmpTyger seem most rational to me at this time, though I could do without Tyger's latin.

Lawrence and ryan both strike me just as being different kinds of inexperience.
I don't care to vote for either of them.

I can't seem to get a read on Patrick but for now, I'm happy to file him under "not bad"

Nightfall and van Damien fall in a grey area and I am undecided on both.

Eteocles could really post more or be replaced.
There is not much to go on to make any sort of case on him at all for me