Mini 455 - Mafia in Theoville - Game Over who won?

[ChaosOmega]

Out of your 35 posts, 7, 20, 21, 23, 24, and 28 have useful content.

[YogurtBandit]

Out of your 35 posts, 7, 20, 21, 23, 24, and 28 have useful content.

Out of your posts... Thats tough. Maybe 243.

[Adel]

The last sentence is an Oxymoron.

Or it is a

contradictio in adjecto

(contradiction in terms or in definition) to be a little more precise, which is an err in logic and therefore false in the western tradition, but it is also a doorway to truth in the eastern tradition.

[DogMom]

And aren't you voting Guardian? How does that make sense in light of your newest proposal?

Oh, yeah. I was holding a grudge, and expecting to be 0-for-3 with this crowd.

unvote

Fos: ChaosOmega, Nekka-Lucifer, Nanosauromo, Erotomachia, MeMe, YagamiLight

for being behind the curve in posting content, pretty much in that order. YagamiLight gets another special notice for being almost perfectly non-scummy, which I am beginning to think is a scum tell.

Do something scummy or I will be forced to think you are scum.

*snert*
I'm assuming you're talking tongue-in-cheek.

The Too Townie Logical Fallacy. I've never been happy with that argument anyway. How can one be "too town to be town"? That's like saying (as the WikiEntry points out) that someone's being "too scummy to be scum".

[DogMom]

The last sentence is an Oxymoron.

Or it is a

contradictio in adjecto

(contradiction in terms or in definition) to be a little more precise, which is an err in logic and therefore false in the western tradition, but it is also a doorway to truth in the eastern tradition.

Can you be a little more explicit with this? Sorry, Western Tradition Brane here, and from where I sit

Voting Guardian because you believe you had zero scum on your high-content list

and

Putting Guardian on that list, hence he's not scum

Don't compute with me. Or did I misread your "I thought I had zero-for-three" comment? If I misread that, then I guess I need

that

explained better, because my Western Tradition Brane doesn't get THAT part.

[DogMom]

And hey, everybody, computer access going away for the night, so please don't expect me to be answering any more posts / questions / whatever directed at me for the next...mmmm....14 hours or so.

[Adel]

Not at all. I think it is worth considering, and putting on the record for the days to come, that his posts are careful, precise, and absolutely do not stand out. That wiki page is crap, a strawman argument, is the expected behavior of scum is to act perfectly average than he is meeting that criterion. I'm not voting for him, and I'm not suggesting that anyone else do either, I am just wary of perfect play. He says that he can stand out when he chooses to, and I want him to choose to. By posting some content. By going out on a limb and generating the best argument he can for why a particular person is guilty. Staying hidden in the middle of the herd is not helping town. Taking risks would.

[Adel]

Can you be a little more explicit with this? Sorry, Western Tradition Brane here, and from where I sit

Voting Guardian because you believe you had zero scum on your high-content list

and

Putting Guardian on that list, hence he's not scum

Don't compute with me. Or did I misread your "I thought I had zero-for-three" comment? If I misread that, then I guess I need

that

explained better, because my Western Tradition Brane doesn't get THAT part.

I didn't immediately act on my new Superduper theory, because of the cool reception each of my previous theories got. My vote had been on Guardian for a while, and I didn't feel like changing it right away. -5 to lynch is not an emergency. I thought the "Oxymoron" statement was referring to how I made a special note at the end regarding YagLite acting. That was the only part that bore an eastern influence.


I never said that I have zero scum on my active list. I said that I expect between 1 and 3 scum to be on the inactive list. The assumption is that it is possible that there are no scum on my active list while it is nearly impossible that there are no scum on the inactive list.

Voting Guardian because you believe you had zero scum on your high-content list

and

Putting Guardian on that list, hence he's not scum

How did you get that out of my post?

Fos:

Dog_mom for being much more dense that I know her to be.

[MeMe]

Fos: ChaosOmega, Nekka-Lucifer, Nanosauromo, Erotomachia, MeMe, YagamiLight

for being behind the curve in posting content, pretty much in that order.

Hehe. Glad you used the "behind the

curve

" as your measurement -- as everyone knows that a curve can be thrown off artificially. In most games, there'd be no way someone would accuse me for posting at my current level. Basically: I'm here, reading, and contributing when I think I should and with

restraint

when I do. If all pro-town players did that, finding scum would be quite a bit easier as we wouldn't have to sift through town-generated noise. There's a reason that many experienced players

apologize

when they submit a lengthy post.

To summarize: attempting to bully everyone into playing it your way is not helpful. Choose one person you think is the most scummy (and, sure, use your "least content" method to determine who that is, if you desire) and pressure that person. If scum is in your list, I doubt they're very nervous as that's a

big

list.

[Adel]

I'll take that note for immediate action. For now on I will try to be restrained and concise. Sorry Guardian.

Vote:ChaosOmega

[theopor_COD]

Keep up the content guys and girls, all I can say is I'm glad I'm not playing.
No one requires a prod from what I can gather. Votecount coming

Votecount 5.
Nekka-Lucifer 1 - MeMe
YogurtBandit 1 - ChaosOmega
NanookTheWolf 1 - Nanosauromo
ChaosOmega 1 - Adel

Not voting everyone else. 7 to lynch

[Adel]

ChaosOmega: why isn't YB a cop?

[Adel]

8 people need to vote

[Guardian]

Vote: ChaosOmega

Please answer Adel's question.
Also, please point to any reasons that you are suspicious of YB that you came up with independently.

I am still suspicious of DogMom for my above (poorly articulated?) reasons, and I feel that there is something else that bears replying to, but I am entertaining company tonight so I will not be able to address those issue(s) until later.

[Erotomachia]

Phew, finally finished reading the last 4 pages.

Hmm...DogMom's reply to Guardian seems like a bit of an overreaction to me. But perhaps it's her posting style.

Anyway, I agree with Adel that there are undoubtedly mafia members among the less active players. As I said before, I think that townies are overwhelming the game with posts. This makes it easy to for the mafia members to lie low.

By going out on a limb and generating the best argument he can for why a particular person is guilty. Staying hidden in the middle of the herd is not helping town. Taking risks would.

I disagree with this. I read a guide about being a townie somewhere (I guess it was in the wiki), and it explained that there's no need to grab so much attention if you're just a townie. Otherwise you'll confuse the town into thinking you might be a power role (thereby drawing unnecessary doc protections). So I've come to the conclusion that sometimes mediocrity is needed.

Post #258 by MeMe is excellent, in my opinion.

Fixed.

[Erotomachia]

Well, I haven't mastered the complexity of quote tags, but I have thought about my vote some more.

vote: Nanosauromo

who has not posted since post #135, page 6 (although he has posted in other games on the site).

[Nanosauromo]

Do something scummy or I will be forced to think you are scum.

Okay, that just doesn't sound right. You're asking someone to act like scum. If they oblige, you will have the perfect opportunity to pounce on them and declare them scum. No matter what he does, YL is losing. Adel's atop my "scummiest" list now, with Nanook coming in at a close second.

Unvote: Nanookthewolf
Vote: Adel

Sorry about not posting often. I check the thread constantly, but most of the time have nothing significant to contribute.

[Streeflo]

Do something scummy or I will be forced to think you are scum.

Adel, this statement is fundamentally flawed. What is YagamiLight supposed to do in this situation? I find this scummy as hell.

Adel, your theory on the most "talkative" players was also nulled by MeMe's explanation in post 237. You're trying to help the town with new ideas, but most of them seem to either favor scum or have no benefit whatsoever. Could be scum trying hard to act town, but the effort seems genuine. I think this is what MeMe meant by town noise.

And whoever brought it up, I'm not buying the case against YagamiLight.

[Guardian]

An interesting thing that I note is that DogMom also chastised me about this, and then said that she couldn't see Nanook-scum or Guardian-scum .

Sorry - I wasn't clear. I

meant

that I couldn't see you two as scumbuddies, doing this as a concerted / coordinated effort.

Jury's still out on which one of you I think is scummier. I'm thinking Nanook, but only because I'm inclined to believe your claim...

FOR NOW

.
But YB has a lot of 'splainin to do, so I'm going to set aside the "Guardian / Nanook" thing for now.

I will try and say this as concisely as possible. DogMom, I find you as really scummy for this post. Though you denied it later, you strongly implied in this post that one of either Nanook or I must be scum. You set it up as an either or choice, and said you weren't sure which was scummier - either I, the at that time only claimed cop, or Nanook, who outed the at that time only claimed cop... The way you phrased it makes it seem to me like you were trying to paint a target on both our backs even though it at the time seemed obvious to me that we both were town.

Official

FOS: DogMom

for this.

[Guardian]

@Streeflo:

Hmm. I guess I just want more content from the inactive players so I liked Adel's third theory. It too may be flawed as well. I am just trying to look throughout the town for potential non-Adel scum, as I became fixated on her as being scum for a bit. I would still at this point like some answers from ChaosOmega.

I indeed see no meaningful case against YagamiLight, as well.

[Adel]

A vote for YL at this point would be silly, let alone a lynch. I expect town players to make mistakes though, because they aren't as motivated to avoid mistakes as scum are. YL said that he can stand out, and I think it would be good for the town if he did. YL's posts are excellent so far, but I think he could help the town more by some taking some personal risks by publishing theories and strong opinions.

Streeflo: My attempt to promote more published content from all players was not nullified by MeMe's post: I believe her problem is that my list is not specific enough. Note her post at #241- I am promoting content not word count. Judging by that summary, the wiki guide for playing town is crap: the same document can serve as a how-to guide for playing scum. All of its conclusions are therefore suspect.

For the record, I am not and never have been calling for a vote for YL. He is at the bottom of my scum list. He could be helping the town some more than he has been though, by posting more content.



Nanosauromo: a vote for me is something significant. Thanks for voting. I understand the case against me, what is the case against Nanook?

[Nekka-Lucifer]

Ok, sorry for the inconveniance... You obviously seem like the long posting type and I can't take it... Everytime I get close to the end, theres another few pages just posted, and so

Mod: I would like to be replaced please...

[Erotomachia]

This sort of makes me think that Nekka-Lucifer is just a bored townie, not scum. Or is wrong to draw conclusions from players asking for replacements?

[DogMom]

Not at all. I think it is worth considering, and putting on the record for the days to come, that his posts are careful, precise, and absolutely do not stand out. That wiki page is crap, a strawman argument, is the expected behavior of scum is to act perfectly average than he is meeting that criterion. I'm not voting for him, and I'm not suggesting that anyone else do either, I am just wary of perfect play. He says that he can stand out when he chooses to, and I want him to choose to. By posting some content. By going out on a limb and generating the best argument he can for why a particular person is guilty. Staying hidden in the middle of the herd is not helping town. Taking risks would.

Ah, OK, I see where you're getting at now with the "too townie" comment. Sorry about that. Hm. I'll have to go back over his posts and see what I can see, I think.

[DogMom]

Can you be a little more explicit with this? Sorry, Western Tradition Brane here, and from where I sit

Voting Guardian because you believe you had zero scum on your high-content list

and

Putting Guardian on that list, hence he's not scum

Don't compute with me. Or did I misread your "I thought I had zero-for-three" comment? If I misread that, then I guess I need

that

explained better, because my Western Tradition Brane doesn't get THAT part.

I didn't immediately act on my new Superduper theory, because of the cool reception each of my previous theories got. My vote had been on Guardian for a while, and I didn't feel like changing it right away. -5 to lynch is not an emergency. I thought the "Oxymoron" statement was referring to how I made a special note at the end regarding YagLite acting. That was the only part that bore an eastern influence.


I never said that I have zero scum on my active list. I said that I expect between 1 and 3 scum to be on the inactive list. The assumption is that it is possible that there are no scum on my active list while it is nearly impossible that there are no scum on the inactive list.

Voting Guardian because you believe you had zero scum on your high-content list

and

Putting Guardian on that list, hence he's not scum

How did you get that out of my post?

Fos:

Dog_mom for being much more dense that I know her to be.

I didn't understand the 0-for-3 comment in the context it was presented. The high-content list was under discussion, and you said that it was likely that anywhere from 1 to 3 scum were in the "lurker" group (i.e. - the ones NOT on the high-content list) then it was followed up by the 0-for-3 comment. I

thought

that meant you decided you were 0-for-3 on finding scum in your list. I associated the numbers in 0-for-3 with the numbers in 1-to-3; I didn't realize you were addressing an entirely different section of the post.