Mini 568 - Nubigena (Game over!)

Imat · Post Post #14 (isolation #0) » Fri Feb 29, 2008 12:06 pm

Vote: Sammich

for rolling a die and voting himself.

Imat · Post Post #51 (isolation #1) » Tue Mar 04, 2008 6:04 pm

Don't act stupid, and answer the question. What is the exact name of your role? Its been asked several times now (More likely two, but several sounds cooler), and you have yet to answer. The stupid play is the worst play, don't do it.

Imat · Post Post #56 (isolation #2) » Wed Mar 05, 2008 12:30 pm

...Is this whole game going mad? Is every Townie going to claim right here and now and the Scum will have perfect cover? I can't believe the turn this game has taken. Why, Sammich, did you also play the stupid card and give a potential Scum an easy out? Can we just restart this whole game, theres very little chance of Town coming back from this...

Imat · Post Post #57 (isolation #3) » Wed Mar 05, 2008 12:32 pm

Sorry, forgot this: This now applies to Sammich as well: What is the EXACT NAME of your role?

Imat · Post Post #60 (isolation #4) » Wed Mar 05, 2008 3:10 pm

The problem comes in the name of the role when Mafia claim Townie. Sure, its been posted what the exact name is, but if they missed that they could get it wrong in their claim. The only problem with this reasoning comes when Power Roles are asked to claim, and for whatever reason they had claimed Townie and get the exact name wrong. However, if they are pressured, they could come out with their real role, and if nobody counters, we should have a Pro-Town role there. However, if they can't do any of those things, they are Scum who can no longer hide behind anything. It may be a stretch to assume the process is perfect, but it has its place when people claim Townie right off the bat.

Imat · Post Post #68 (isolation #5) » Thu Mar 06, 2008 10:46 am

I got angry jerubaal, stupid plays like Townie claims serve to point out the Power Roles that much faster. I didn't like where it was heading, I wanted to put a stop to it. I didn't actually mean we should restart the game, I wanted people to realize how bad claiming Townie is in this situation. Hopefully, and it looks to be true, I discouraged others from claiming. Nobody else would have, I can only hope, but on the off chance that somebody else felt inspired to ruin the game I tried to put an end to it. The "irreparable harm" isn't nearly as bad as it could've been, should we have continued and exposed a Power Role. So I settled down and back off of them, trying also to get them to perhaps explain why they claimed at all. You may disagree with my reasoning, but it makes sense when you think about it.

Imat · Post Post #72 (isolation #6) » Thu Mar 06, 2008 1:51 pm

Mafiaplayer wrote:
unvote, Vote:Y
It would appear that, quickly after replacing in, Y is ignoring some posts and focusing on others. For instance, Y ignored the post where I realized the question and got the name right.

You completely misunderstood Y's post. He said he read your explanation and that you answered the question (Posed 4 or 5 times...), but now Sammich has no real excuse for claiming. He ain't questioning you, hes questioning Sammich. He did, however, call your move stupid, which I agree with completely.

Imat · Post Post #84 (isolation #7) » Fri Mar 07, 2008 10:37 am

I don't really like lowell's read on near and y, he seems to be incredibly willing to jump to conclusions and hopes, perhaps, that we'll all follow him into this. Then he hops, still within his scumgroup, but at the whim of another player. This strikes me as very Anti-Town behavior.

As to the "Getting angry" that you still believe Sammich, I explained it, very poorly I'll admit, but I wasn't angry. If every player continued claiming I would've been angry. I always analyze this game as cooly as I can, trying to eliminate emotional bias as much as possible. Otherwise bad decisions are made.

Imat · Post Post #86 (isolation #8) » Fri Mar 07, 2008 12:11 pm

I see...I'll take a vote, but I'd like to know if theres anything else leading you towards me. I use hyperbole, so I'm Scum? I can't believe you'd vote based on that alone.

Also, its Imat, one m, not immat.

Also also, because I just though of this, is that statement anti-town at all? I don't like that the game is going to be much harder for the Town, so I'm Scum? Again,

Imat wrote:I can't believe you'd vote based on that alone.

Imat · Post Post #88 (isolation #9) » Fri Mar 07, 2008 12:20 pm

Thats also very poor logic. If hes town, thats one down because we wanted to know his role, not even his alignment. Lets not lynch somebody to find out their role unless we have strong suspicions of their Scum alignment.

Imat · Post Post #92 (isolation #10) » Fri Mar 07, 2008 2:22 pm

I don't buy that you voted me to see if I'd panic. Your evidence showed me to be Pro-Town, and you only had that one point. Hardly enough for even Scum to panic over. Also, that you were checking if I'd panic seems to be an excuse to not answer my questions. I'm really not liking your play here Near, unless you can come up with a very good defense I think I'll park my vote on you and be as confident as possible given the nature of the game.

FoS: Near

pending answers.

Also, I too would like to hear from the silent players. Silence tends to get players lynched for no good reason.

Imat · Post Post #98 (isolation #11) » Sat Mar 08, 2008 8:50 am

Voting to see if somebody will panic or fall into a trap is all well and good, not a tell for either side. Voting somebody with absolutely no evidence and then expecting them to panic is much more of a Scummy move. I don't like Near's voting habits, as I've stated, and I don't like how he ducked under my questions of him by saying "You didn't panic." Mafiaplayer I'm undecided on because of his role claim. Either he did know the name, or he looked in the first post to get it. I can't really know for certain. Sammich, however, had no reason to back Mafiaplayer up, which makes his actions all the worse. I don't like how either of them are playing, but that doesn't mean either of them are Scum. Some Scummy behavior cannot prove a players Scumminess.

Imat · Post Post #99 (isolation #12) » Sat Mar 08, 2008 8:51 am

Also,

Unvote: Sammich

I think hes at L-1.

Mod:

Votecount please?

Imat · Post Post #123 (isolation #13) » Sun Mar 09, 2008 5:35 am

I think Near's actions weren't to jump onto vote bandwagons but to get ahead of the game on suspicions. When somebody looks at another player with suspicions and has reasonable evidence to back it up, Near seems to vote for that other player based on other players suspicions and therefore provides little evidence of his own. I don't know if hes Scum trying to get others to vote based on the same small amount of evidence or if hes just easily swayed Town. I wouldn't take him off the Scum list for this, just watch for this behavior in the future.

Imat · Post Post #177 (isolation #14) » Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:05 pm

Woot, heads FTW!

But, on topic again, I don't like Near's post 164. Every player on his Scum list is there based on other people's evidence. 3 out of 4 players on his Town list were, according to him, there for basically no reason. I'm on there for "The benefit of the doubt," and while I enjoy being thought of as Pro-Town, any player putting somebody on their Pro-Town list for that reason is Scummy. He openly calls Incognito Scummy and only provides Scummy evidence, yet he is on the Town list. Thats even worse than my "Benefit of the Doubt." MP is on the Town list for being able to state the exact name, the fact that he could only do so after being reminded of the Mod's post doesn't figure into this at all. XreyOX is the only player on Near's Town list with relatively sound Pro-Town reasons. Otherwise the list seems to be buddying up to certain players and distancing from others. What disturbs me is the fact that he buddies up to the players who attack him. Question mark?

Also, the idea of a list doesn't sit well with me at all. A list helps Scum more than Town more often than not. If you want me to explain that, I'll do so, but the reasons seem almost obvious to me.

Imat · Post Post #205 (isolation #15) » Wed Mar 12, 2008 1:16 pm

Sammich, can you at least unvote yourself...Again...Now you're just being ridiculous.

However, I think we've narrowed the fields of possibilities down far too much to be certain of anything. I'm talking about the dice roll. There are several possibilities that explain it reasonably. Sammich hasn't said any of these yet, but that doesn't mean we can assume one way is the truth. I'd also, personally, like us to break off of the dice roll. Does voting with real dice and rolling yourself truly make one Scummy? If not, is there any real reason to pursue this line of thought? Just know that it happened and leans you towards Sammich, then continue with the game. Anything else happens, you can look at him with real suspicions. This current line of thinking seems rather distraction-prone.

Imat · Post Post #208 (isolation #16) » Wed Mar 12, 2008 1:35 pm

Near wrote:And if buddying up is considered scummy, scums would avoid it.

And if people thought that Scum would avoid buddying up, wouldn't Scum avoid it? Truth is, no Scumtell doesn't come with its own circles. We can, I think, safely assume that Scum aren't stupid. Therefore they'll know what we expect of Scum and do the opposite. However, they'll know that we know that they'll avoid this behavior, so they'll exhibit this behavior. Its all very circular in the end.

Also, gorckat, I'd like to hear your views on other players. Surely the three of us aren't the only ones who caught your eye.

And Near. Again, you're ignoring other possibilities concerning the dice throw. I won't point them out, because I want to hear them from Sammich, but you can't focus on one possibility of the event in question and form your opinions off of it. If it could only have happened one way, then I'd agree with you. But there are several ways this could have happened.

Imat · Post Post #215 (isolation #17) » Wed Mar 12, 2008 4:02 pm

Near wrote:
Imat wrote:
Near wrote:And if buddying up is considered scummy, scums would avoid it.
And if people thought that Scum would avoid buddying up, wouldn't Scum avoid it? Truth is, no Scumtell doesn't come with its own circles. We can, I think, safely assume that Scum aren't stupid. Therefore they'll know what we expect of Scum and do the opposite. However, they'll know that we know that they'll avoid this behavior, so they'll exhibit this behavior. Its all very circular in the end.
Your confusion originates from the fact that gorckat decided to quote only part of my paragraph. What I really said:

Near wrote: Why? Because it looks like I am trying to buddy up with people? Isn't this another WIFOM situation? Saying I think someone is less likely to be a scum COULD be an attempt to buddy up, but it could also be an expression of my opinion. And if buddying up is considered scummy, scums would avoid it.

I wasn't confused, actually. I was just pointing out that some consider Scumtells to be infallible when, as is usually the case, the Scum avoid those tells for that very reason. And when Townies finally get that point, they start looking at the opposite behaviors, leading Scum to go back to the original Scumtells. Its never a guaranteed thing, and to say that "Scum will do these things" is horribly condescending to our fellow players. You're mocking their intelligence when you say that, which comes down to personal rather than game jabs.

Imat · Post Post #234 (isolation #18) » Thu Mar 13, 2008 9:37 am

Lynch All Liars: And no, I don't think its a good policy. Certainly Scum have cause to lie, but so do Town Roles. Particularly Power Roles. If they didn't lie, they'd probably be more likely candidates for the NK. I don't particularly like having my Power Roles face death by Lynch or death by NK, no alternatives.

But, I don't really think this question should be here, its more general Mafia than this game specifically.

And Near, my understanding was that Sammich saying it was a joke was, in effect, a joke. I don't think he meant it, if I read the context right.

Imat · Post Post #245 (isolation #19) » Thu Mar 13, 2008 4:00 pm

His list was fine, he can go ahead and post a list. My problem with lists In General comes when people make a list of "Most Town/Most Scum," and provide little evidence. My opinion (Which I stated later) is that these lists help Scum more than Town.

Also, to comment on my second quote there: I considered it "Buddying up" because he gave absolutely no reason to consider three of us Town, yet we were on the Town list. The distancing, I'll admit, was placed in there just as an opposite, I felt his Scum list was fine, actually.

Imat · Post Post #285 (isolation #20) » Sat Mar 15, 2008 3:44 pm

My interpretation of Sammich's answer: He felt MP was Town and he didn't like everybody focusing on that one issue.

My Opinion: Claiming was not the right answer. You had the right idea, that we shouldn't focus on one stupid thing, but the execution was off. We definitely would have moved on from MP when we saw the rest of his bad play style, your intervention was completely unnecessary. However, that said, I don't think Sammich is Scum. Scum would have kept the argument over MP going, despite its lack of usefulness. Ending it was a Town move more than a Scum move.

Imat · Post Post #309 (isolation #21) » Mon Mar 17, 2008 1:02 pm

Ok, not to say move on, but we should consider multitasking right about now. We can't sit here and stew about the same thing whilst waiting for Sammich to return, lets find more leads and follow up on them, remembering to keep whatever it is you want to question Sammich about in the back of your mind until he returns.

@Ripley: I don't think we can dismiss the arguments against Near's list as much as you want. It doesn't seem at all odd to you that he put most of the players who attacked him on his Town list? And its not just that he puts those who attacks him on there, he openly states that the attacks against him aren't very good at all, yet we're still on the Town list. Or, at least, thats why I'm on there. I can't and won't ignore that, and neither should you. "Contrived" is not the right word for it.

In fact, Ripley's downplaying the significance of this kind of alarms me. Asking to ignore the dice thing is completely reasonable. Asking to think nothing of the list is downright suspicious.

Imat · Post Post #340 (isolation #22) » Thu Mar 20, 2008 5:03 pm

...Really? A Jester? There aren't anywhere near enough players to even consider a Jester. Even if there were, Why would you want to bring it up in the first place?

Possibly saving Scum partners bacon with a defense that looks reasonable at first but, when thought about, is weaker than any other defense in this game? In fact, the fact that you are pushing Sammich so hard based on not much more than the dice thing makes me feel this is likely. When people started questioning your partner, you jumped right on with them, seeing a chance to confirm your Towniness. However, when people realized there wasn't much reason to lynch him, you retract your attacks and call him the Jester, a weak call in such a small game. I don't like basing evidence off of pairs, but regardless of Sammich's alignment, you have acted Scummy all game IMO.

Vote: Near

I'm also fine voting Sammich, but I think Near is the better option for today.

Imat · Post Post #342 (isolation #23) » Thu Mar 20, 2008 7:56 pm

I doubt theres a Jester in a game this small. Its next to impossible. And putting a restriction on the Jester which only allows him to vote himself would be evil Modding. I'm assuming we don't have an evil Mod.

His first vote on himself was random, his second was sarcasm in response to people pointing out him voting himself. I don't know why he hasn't unvoted, but it was a sarcastic vote.

Imat · Post Post #351 (isolation #24) » Fri Mar 21, 2008 9:31 am

Y wrote:I haven't played with a jester either, but it seems like it wouldn't be balanced. It's too easy to get lynched with such a low lynching threshold.

I also thought about MP as jester, so Sammich's logic isn't so far off as you're trying to make it look like.

We all thought about a Jester. Most of us dismissed it immediately because its entirely unrealistic to have a Jester in such a small game. Much too easy to win. And its Near's logic, not Sammich's. So, I say again, Sammich is not a Jester, especially not one with a Vote restriction. Unless Destructor wants to openly admit to being an evil Mod.

Imat · Post Post #409 (isolation #25) » Tue Mar 25, 2008 12:42 pm

XReyoX wrote:#5,
#68, Imat“I got angry jerubaal, stupid plays like Townie claims serve to point out the Power Roles that much faster.”
#84, Imat“As to the "Getting angry" that you still believe Sammich, I explained it, very poorly I'll admit, but I wasn't angry. If every player continued claiming I would've been angry.”
So which one was it? Angry or not angry?

Wow, I didn't even realize this...I don't know how to answer to that...But, I think, honestly, I was angry at the time, though immediately cooling off isn't exactly what I'd say. I was angry, I got over it. There was quite a bit of time between my angry post and my analytical posts. But as for my contradiction...I don't even know how that happened...Sorry for the confusion. Its time for a reread...

Imat · Post Post #425 (isolation #26) » Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:18 am

Lowell, I like your posts, but I have a question. I can understand why you think 285 is off, I wouldn't say Scummy, but I made a leap in judgment that, looking back, I'm not so sure of anymore. But Whats off about 340? You say in your analysis that its good, but then you say its off? I felt that Near's actions towards Sammich seemed a lot like Scum Buddy taking advantage of a chance to look Pro-Town. I'd like to know your take on this, so I can understand how you found it to be "off."

Imat · Post Post #450 (isolation #27) » Thu Mar 27, 2008 11:48 am

Lowell wrote:Imat, I still don't buy the Near case nor those who are supporters of it. Vote stands.

Lowell wrote:Also I'm relatively sure I did this already, but:

unvote, vote Imat

Ok, I can see that you really want to keep your vote on me, so much so that you both confirm your vote and then revote, but you still haven't answered my questions regarding what you thought was off about 340. You've stated you don't buy the Near case, but you don't say which part(s) you don't agree with. Care to elaborate? Also, I think you sorta mentioned this but not really, is there a specific reason you picked me out of the Near lynch crowd? You're making it seem like you have heavy evidence against me, yet I don't see very much of it in your recent posts. You not mentioning your case against me makes it awfully hard to defend myself properly...

Imat · Post Post #465 (isolation #28) » Fri Mar 28, 2008 9:28 am

The term is "tunnel vision" I believe, unless you're referring to something different.

Again Lowell, you have yet to answer my recent questions. I can easily see why Y FoSed you, you don't really explain your votes too well. I don't know if that is Scum trying to mislead Town or Town trying to keep their arguments to themselves, but I'd say you need to start doing a better job of explaining your votes.

Imat · Post Post #511 (isolation #29) » Wed Apr 02, 2008 4:05 pm

Actually, Lowell, you didn't. You say myself and Niv are "Totally votable," yet you can't or at least have failed to mention why that is. I've seen very little in the way of Content from you. You come out with a mystical pairing read right off the bat and now you point at two other people with the same lack of evidence you've shown in the past. So why do you expect there to be an Imat wagon at all? If you have some strong evidence that can point to Any of your top suspects, we'd love to hear it. So far we've seen much of nothing, and that is not Hunting, thats throwing your vote around.

So, in case you've missed it every time, do you have any kind of evidence to back up Any of your suspicions? Any at all? If not, why do you keep accusing people?

Imat · Post Post #516 (isolation #30) » Thu Apr 03, 2008 9:12 am

Lowell, what I'm saying is that you have no reasons at all. Its hard to form an opinion on reasons which don't exist. If you can quote where your reasoning comes from, I'll back down. But so far you've given me no reason to do so.

Imat · Post Post #642 (isolation #31) » Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:06 pm

Well, there is one possibility. However, I don't really see that as being likely, so I also agree that revealing your target is a good thing.

Imat · Post Post #649 (isolation #32) » Wed Apr 16, 2008 9:59 am

...I'm not liking Near at all at this point...Honestly, he pushes the most useless questions, runs the Town 'round in circles, then comes up with this nonsense about some plan that had little chance of success to begin with. Gunsmith is an odd claim as well. And the bit about "loaded" and "Unloaded" is both intriguing and nonsensical at the same time...Its intriguing in that it may say even Godfather's are loaded, but then again why would Townies be "unloaded?" Do all the Townies secretly own weapons? I'm not sold on the claim one bit.

Imat · Post Post #653 (isolation #33) » Wed Apr 16, 2008 12:09 pm

I wanna hear an answer from Near on this: Did you really think your plan would work? If so, why? If not, why did you claim on a plan practically doomed to failure? Also, couldn't you have waited until Ripley was more active to spring this "trap" on him? And finally, when did you become suspicious of Ripley?

Imat · Post Post #659 (isolation #34) » Wed Apr 16, 2008 2:08 pm

If I was worried about turning up Scum, I would have been worried about those lines. I think the same goes for most of the Town. Sure he could've thought about himself from your PoV, that he hasn't really sparked your interest, but then again most of the players in this game can say the same thing, is what I'm trying to say. So maybe other Scum would've had the reaction you were looking for. More likely they'd play it off, which ain't hard to do. Then again, this is becoming WIFOM territory.

The fact is, you're making Scum out to be far more manipulatable than they are. Think about how this game works and you'll realize the Scum are the best manipulators, otherwise they'd never win. So your plan was, to quote myself, "Practically doomed to failure" from the getgo.

And Near, one more question: What kind of Cop role are you? If you truly are a Gunsmith type of role, I think an Unloaded may turn up on Townies and Docs and such, while Loaded comes up on Mafia or Vigs. I'm not sure where GF's may lie in there, but I'd assume, since they are Mafia, they'd be Loaded. Then again, it may also be Mod preference...

Gah, so much WIFOM...I'm sorry to all confused by my train of thought(s) there.

Imat · Post Post #660 (isolation #35) » Wed Apr 16, 2008 2:09 pm

EBWOP: Train(s) of Thought, its one of those wierd ones...

Also EBWOP: Didn't see the Godfather bit for the NPC...

Imat · Post Post #674 (isolation #36) » Thu Apr 17, 2008 1:25 pm

I've kept Lowell in the back of my mind all game, I think it had something to do with the way he vote hopped, though that may have been Near. But I'm pretty sure I had something on Lowell that I filed away for later use. I'll find that and come back with it later today.

Imat · Post Post #699 (isolation #37) » Sun Apr 20, 2008 8:51 am

Yes, Jerub looks very Pro-Town to us as well...That may or may not be because he's dead...

Imat · Post Post #713 (isolation #38) » Tue Apr 22, 2008 9:11 am

Indeed...Was I missed for any particular reason? If you're harboring some huge suspicions for me, It'd be kinda hard for me to defend myself. If you think I'm practically confirmed Town, its just as hard for others to give an opinion on your evidence. So I'd like to be included in this list, see where I stand compared to everyone else mentioned...

Imat · Post Post #722 (isolation #39) » Wed Apr 23, 2008 10:44 am

Ok, some more thoughts on Near and an answer to Incognito's question: First, Incognito: Yes, I found it. If you search the 20 or so posts behind 461 by Lowell you'll find his "case" against me. In 461, Lowell changes votes to Niv with little to no support. If you look past 465, my third post asking him to explain his case against me, he says pretty much nothing. Lowell has formed bogus cases and completely lurked all game. When questioned about his cases he reverts back to his lurking self, hoping to wait out the questions. So far he has been able to do so.

Vote: Lowell

Onto Near: Near, I found an interesting little gem of a post in which you state "I don't think Sammich is Scum," or someting to that effect. After that you continue to push questions, including the dice roll questions. Why? If you had thought, even this far back, that Sammich was a Jester, why did you not say your suspicions then and help us get past your circular arguments? Honestly, you've not done much in this game to make you Town, only your claim. You claim is the only thing holding anybody back ATM.

FoS: Near

Also, another question to Near: Do you have something against analyzing me? Every list you've made since I denounced your first one has not included me, its starting to make me feel ignored or something...

Imat · Post Post #780 (isolation #40) » Tue Apr 29, 2008 1:47 pm

Ok, why is there still no pressure on Lowell. Certainly everybody should be looked at, but honestly I can't see Lowell being Town the way he's played. What Ripley just said is Lowell's play summed up: He comes with firm pairings, provides little to no evidence, then agrees with whoever comes up with evidence for this. At least, thats what I saw happen with Gorckat. And the rest of his cases aren't explained at all, he just says he has this mystical read and never comes up with the evidence to back it up. Lowell deserves votes, unless of course he cares to explain ANY of the cases he has made. I've been reading carefully, not talking much (I never do), and yet still nothing comes of the excellent case against him. Just look back at his votes, you can't honestly tell me they look Pro-Town. His Posts are just about as bad as his votes, and they are fewer and further between than mine. I'll keep my vote on Lowell, thank you, until somebody claims Scum or a better case comes up, which is unlikely on both counts.

Imat · Post Post #788 (isolation #41) » Wed Apr 30, 2008 3:48 pm

Mizzy: I've made my case several times, if thats what you'e asking. If you want quotes/examples, I've somewhat left it to you to find them. I point to them, give a post number, I have faith any player truly Hunting for Scum would be motivated to find what I'm referring to, again usually given by post numbers, in order to Hunt properly. If you feel we should encourage people who don't have the strength to look backwards, I'll give specific quotes. Bear in mind this will allow for easier lurkability as they wouldn't have to actually do anything to know how to defend themselves from attacks. I prefer my method of forcing others to actually look back, to actually put some effort into this game.

If that sons hypocritical, so be it. I don't lurk on purpose, I truly don't like to discuss the minor details which make up the majority of the discussion here. I make bigger posts, usually, which give more details. Every once in awhile I'l get down and dirty with the nitpicky details, but those never seem to go anywhere. I look at the big picture, so I make fewer posts. To sum up: I don't lurk for the sake of lurking, I don't post often because I have nothing to say.

Imat · Post Post #789 (isolation #42) » Wed Apr 30, 2008 3:48 pm

EBWOP: And this keyboard is so ridiculous...sons=sounds...

Imat · Post Post #804 (isolation #43) » Sat May 03, 2008 2:31 pm

Mod:

I am officially requesting replacement, if its not too much trouble, due to the onset of Tests over the next few weeks. I'll try and play until you can find a replacemnt for me, but just know that I won't have as much time for awhile.

Sorry, but as the message implies I just don't have the time ATM.