Mafia 87 - New Age Mafia - Game Over!

[Caboose]

Speculating about the setup doesn't seem like it would be a worthwhile move right now simply from the lack of information. We can draw a few likely conclusions from Night 0, but grasping for possibilities without any evidence to substantiate one notion over the other is the definition of Junk Science.

QFT
All setup speculation needed to have stopped on page 3.

Must I always state my reasoning behind a vote?

Yes, if you want anyone to take you seriously.

I'm not linked with Sheh in anyway, just a lowly vanilla. Look elsewhere good sirs and madams.

I don't like this post at all.

I know what sort of person Percy is. Arguing with him is going to waste town time. It's going to be more effective to defend myself against reasonable players who hold their own positions than against him. With the votes-to-lynch so high, I feel that I can do that if I need to, when the time comes.

This ad hom on Percy really, really, really pisses me off.

So, if you think it's role-fishing to speculate about the setup of the anti-town factions and to point out that there might be an anti-town doctor, then I guess I deserve your vote.

You did not once mention an anti-town doctor in your first few posts.

And finally, I don't think the "everyone's misreading me but I won't say how" "I'm too awesome to defend myself" "here's a link to a dictionary" "no-one reads my posts and that makes anyone who disagrees with me STUPID" arguments you've been making are productive at all. You're not being co-operative, you're not helping the town and that makes me even more suspicious.

Yeah, really.

I pointed out the advantage to even mentioning insane/CPR doctors: to alert them. Personally, I thought mentioning their existence as part of the set-up was less likely to evoke a "gee, that's me!" from someone than saying "doctors, consider that you might not be sane." Sure, if this were the primary purpose of my post, then I'd have used something like Percy's suggestion. I posted to open up discussion of setup.

S, you might be well-meaning by bringing up the "insane doc" thing, but I trust that people are smart enough to figure out their own roles, and I also trust that they don't need you to hold their hands while they do that.

And it's also risky to random vote somebody, because he might be a newb and say "No, wait, I'm the cop!" immediately.

It's risky to vote on little evidence because you might lynch a townie. It's risky to post long-winded defences against an attacker uninterested in scum-hunting but rather interested in hunting you.

Anyone who does that deserves to be banned from the game of Mafia forever. Even the most inexperienced players know not to do that.

As for the dictionary, I could either have ridiculed you about your use of the word 'hence,' which, by the way, your explanation doesn't explain, or I could have pointed you to a dictionary. I didn't think that poking fun at you would educate you any, so I didn't do that. However, the dictionary seems to have failed to educate you as well. I suppose it's just me failing to achieve my goals again.

I am not amused.

I've re-read all of the posts more closely, and come to the conclusion that the best place for my vote at this time is on Scheherazade.

I admit that I am influenced in this decision by the arrogance, rudeness and condescension in his posts but those factors do make me more suspicious of a player who has already behaved suspiciously.

In my view, if his initial game set up/rolefishing post was an innocent error, it would have been a simple matter to just say so and move on, rather than spending an inordinate amount of time and space arguing semantics, insulting other players, and posting links to a dictionary and to a logical fallacy site.

In other words, it is not the initial sin that bothers me as much as the follow up.

Vote: Scheherazade

Couldn't have said it better. While the initial post doesn't really bother me, the fact that you're actually sitting here debating semantics and using ad hom arguments on Percy really doesn't rub me the right way. His first post didn't bug me nearly as much as what he said after the first post.

This just stinks of trying to shoehorn people into only focusing on three players.

It wouldnt surprise me to see the three town, and you mafia knowing that we are the targets for a quick easy lynch.

Unvote:Percy, Vote: Strife

This post reeks of OMGUS.

Both Der Hammer and S are acting scummy, and I would like a little more time before I can see where my vote is best placed.

[Scheherazade]

@Caboose:

That's not ad hominem. It was a statement of fact borne out by what transpired. Readdressing Percy's statements would simply lead to an escalation that would ultimately waste the town's time, because, as has been testified, nobody wants to read all of that. Is that not exactly what happened?

I can only gather that this is the source of the accusation that I argued "I'm too awesome to defend myself." You'll note that I said that I would defend myself when someone presented a new case. Let me enter that as yet another example of Percy not reading my posts and supplying his own words for those of mine he ignored.

Furthermore, Percy introduced the "debating semantics" portion of the case against me. I refused to respond to it, a fact you've quoted above, until other players called on me to do so.

Lastly, the "anti-town factions" I referred to in my opening post were the serial killer and possible sub-divisions of the mafia element. You're right, I never talked about an anti-town doctor and I'm not sure why you are now.

[al4xz]

Scheh, I've answered your question; now I have one for you as well. Can I ask why you didn't admit your mistake when people accused you of rolefishing?

[Vi]

Scheherazade: Do I really have to read all that? I would much rather Scheherazade try attacking rather than defending. Voting would be a good start. I'm not thrilled with this as an excuse--

You can accuse me of giving responsibility for content to other people, but, as you can see, I'm having trouble communicating with this group as a whole.

------

I'll start with the first paragraph. No, that's not what I'm tyring to convey. I'm trying to get some kind of reaction so I can get a read out of it. Does it matter how I word it? Never mind, don't answer that, that's a dumass question. =.=

Actually, Vi, I was just looking for a general reaction to get a read.

I know what Slayer's Gambit is meant to do. But you were just looking to get "a general reaction" out of Juls? That's... kind of weak :v
Like, was there anything you were expecting to see, or would have considered scummy?

[Scheherazade]

@al4xz: Of course you can. The point of the post wasn't to role-fish, so there's no way I'm going to lie and say that it was. Looking at it, I still don't see how it could be read as role-fishing, so I'm not going to say that it is. In its effect, it wasn't role-fishing, because it didn't get anyone to reveal anything, so I'm not going to say it was a mistake on that account. If in its goal, execution and effect it isn't role-fishing, I'm not going to say "oh, my post was role-fishing."

If someone disagrees with me on any of those counts, then they can go ahead and accuse me of role-fishing. But it's not and I'm not going to say that it is.

My mistake has been in how I've responded. As I said, I thought the initial accusation was so off base that I made a joke about it to strife220. Then, I only explained my motives piecemeal. Of course I would have been more up front if I thought someone seriously considered my actions scummy. But that's probably where a decent accuser would have asked questions to gather evidence.

So the biggest mistake I think I've made so far is giving people an excuse to vote for me without having to look for scum, not role-fishing. Even now, people who suspect me have said that they don't consider my opening post suspicious. That's because it wasn't role-fishing and I'm not going to call it that.



@Vi: No, you don't have to read all of that. I'll change my tact if it'll help the game move along faster.

[Vi]

I would much rather Scheherazade try attacking rather than defending. Voting would be a good start.

This would help the game go faster more.

[Jazzmyn]

I know what sort of person Percy is. Arguing with him is going to waste town time. It's going to be more effective to defend myself against reasonable players who hold their own positions than against him. With the votes-to-lynch so high, I feel that I can do that if I need to, when the time comes.

This ad hom on Percy really, really, really pisses me off.

@Caboose:
That's not ad hominem.

Oh, yes, it is.

You, Scheherazade, have made an argument against the character of a person rather than against the argument. An ad hominen argument generally takes the form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on Person A.
Person B claims that, therefore, Person A's argument is false/should be disregarded.

You have done precisely this when you claimed that "I know what kind of person Percy is" and then suggested that Percy's arguments should be disregarded on that basis.

Classic ad hom.

Regards,
Jazz

[Scheherazade]

No, it isn't. The third part of your form doesn't even resemble my post. I didn't say that his arguments ought to be disregarded. I brought neither his credibility nor the validity of his arguments into question, just the use to the town of my addressing them.

[strife220]

I'll second the "Scheh should have a vote out"

I was trying to act like a scummy guy so you would make a bad reaction and try to push the shit to me.

Deja Vu. Aren't I already voting somebody for the 'oh I was intentionally acting scummy' line? Regardless, I find this type of defense hard to swallow.

[Percy]

Scheherazade,

Apparently, I'm the kind of person who you shouldn't argue with. To address my arguments, to argue with me, is a waste of time. I'm not reasonable,

because of who I am

. You've been arrogant, rude and hostile the entire time I was asking for an explanation which you've refused to give. I feel like my arguments have been dismissed by you without any engagement using ad hominem tactics.

Are you honestly trying to claim you've been a nice, objective, helpful pro-townie the whole way?

Vi asked you for a summary two days ago of your position,

to help the town

. Your defence has been that everything I said was a bunch of verbage, and is better off ignored. You have posted

four times

since that initial request, including a "do I really have to?" post.

Why don't you want people to know what your position is? Whilst some players have made the valiant effort of reading through everything (and have come to the same conclusion as me, I might add), but some people haven't, and possibly won't. Have you decided that it's better to keep those people in the dark? If so, why?

[Scheherazade]

@iamausername: Were you planning on following up on the questions you asked in the past two posts or do you feel like others have addressed them adequately already?

@Vi and strife220: I'm hesitating on placing a vote partly because that's my style, to wait until I have a reasonably solid case or until my vote will pressure a player into a defence, and partly because most of the people who actively post here have voted for me. I wanted to wait until I was cleared so that any case I brought could avoid the automatic "OMGUS" shoot down.

That being said, I think my wagon is too good to pass up for the mafia, so I doubt it was a complete waste.

@Jazzmyn: Your play so far has been to join a bandwagon and try to prove a point another player was making. Am I your only suspect? Also, given your vote post, what was your reaction to this?

Arguing with him is going to waste town time.

You know that I was responding to an overwhelming call for a lengthy defence. What in your mind justifies accusing me of being the cause of the time-wasting behaviour? Given the fact that your "if" statement in your vote-post was not true, how does your perception of the game change? Also, when you cite specific instances of actions you disagree with, what do you think the motives for those actions were?

@Percy:

First, I addressed your arguments head on in the first post I made directed at you and afterwards. Yes, I also mentioned that I thought you had misread my post. It didn't mean that I didn't address your concerns and I'm honestly sorry that you've fixated not on the reply but the criticism of your approach.

Second, no, I haven't felt like I've been a helpful pro-townie because I spent time posting unread replies to the posts you made against me. As I said, I felt that such posts would waste town time because my first explanation of myself to you went entirely ignored. I feel that my original prediction came true.

Third, I may have misread Vi. I thought "Do I really have to read all that?" was a rhetorical question speaking to the waste of time the "argument" between you and I is for the town. I thought the real point of her post was to encourage me to change my play style.

Fourth, you didn't ask me a single question during the entire opening exchange. You ignored a simple, gentle response to your charge. Don't pretend you asked me questions, don't pretend that you paid attention to my early responses; you were making statements, not making an investigation. That's what made me realise that responding to you was wasting the town's time.

Fifthly, I've responded with the truth since the beginning. My only deviations have been a joke, misinterpreted by you, and the prediction that my responding to you would not help my defence and not help the town find scum. If you'd like to change your tact and conduct a real investigation and thereby prove my prediction wrong, I'm open to responding. If you're going to continue posting polemics that pervert my words and ignore my responses to you, then I'm going to stop again. For the record, that has nothing to do with thinking you're a bad person and it has nothing to do with hiding something from the town. It has everything to do with using the town's time effectively.

[Vi]

I'm hesitating on placing a vote partly because that's my style, to wait until I have a reasonably solid case or until my vote will pressure a player into a defence,

And how is your reasonably solid case or pressure voting coming? Playstyle or no, you shouldn't spend the entire game playing hedgehog.

and partly because most of the people who actively post here have voted for me. I wanted to wait until I was cleared so that any case I brought could avoid the automatic "OMGUS" shoot down.

Don't look now, but I don't think you're going to be cleared for a while. I think I just got done expressing my opinion of OMGUS, anyway.

I thought the real point of her post was to encourage me to change my play style.

Nyeh, not really. I want you to post more stuff that ISN'T related to the giant clusterfrick that you've been tangled up in. And to that end, my patience is waning quickly.

[ribwich]

Ah, I already explained this. No matter.
Alright, here's the situation in a nutshell (or in a forum, however you wish to see it). Juls posts something kinda scummy. One or two people jump on the wagon in quick succession. I decide to join in but with a no reasoning vote so that I would appear scummy. In this way, if Juls was a scum, she might attempted to direct attention to me since I voted w/o reasoning behind it in that post.

I've seen people do these types of things all the time as townies, but I've never understood why. The biggest problem with it is how are you supposed to know if Juls is scum trying to divert a bandwagon or town that honestly thought you were acting scummy?

[al4xz]

Ah, I already explained this. No matter.
Alright, here's the situation in a nutshell (or in a forum, however you wish to see it). Juls posts something kinda scummy. One or two people jump on the wagon in quick succession. I decide to join in but with a no reasoning vote so that I would appear scummy. In this way, if Juls was a scum, she might attempted to direct attention to me since I voted w/o reasoning behind it in that post.

I've seen people do these types of things all the time as townies, but I've never understood why. The biggest problem with it is how are you supposed to know if Juls is scum trying to divert a bandwagon or town that honestly thought you were acting scummy?

As I already said, I was looking for a general reaction. I can't really classify anything for you. Apoligies.

Sceh Wrote:
@al4xz: Of course you can. The point of the post wasn't to role-fish, so there's no way I'm going to lie and say that it was. Looking at it, I still don't see how it could be read as role-fishing, so I'm not going to say that it is. In its effect, it wasn't role-fishing, because it didn't get anyone to reveal anything, so I'm not going to say it was a mistake on that account. If in its goal, execution and effect it isn't role-fishing, I'm not going to say "oh, my post was role-fishing."

If someone disagrees with me on any of those counts, then they can go ahead and accuse me of role-fishing. But it's not and I'm not going to say that it is.

My mistake has been in how I've responded. As I said, I thought the initial accusation was so off base that I made a joke about it to strife220. Then, I only explained my motives piecemeal. Of course I would have been more up front if I thought someone seriously considered my actions scummy. But that's probably where a decent accuser would have asked questions to gather evidence.

So the biggest mistake I think I've made so far is giving people an excuse to vote for me without having to look for scum, not role-fishing. Even now, people who suspect me have said that they don't consider my opening post suspicious. That's because it wasn't role-fishing and I'm not going to call it that.

Alright, thank you. That clears it up. It was a matter of either pride or your actual belief, and I won't argue with you on that.

[ribwich]

As I already said, I was looking for a general reaction. I can't really classify anything for you. Apoligies.

And I understand that. The way you did it didn't seem that scummy, so if Juls did attack you heavily for it it would have made her look suspicious. I mainly wanted to just express why I don't like it incase anybody else thinks of doing something similar. There's one thing I was curious about though. Were you already suspicious of Juls at the time, or did you just see an opportunity to try that out and wanted to see what would happen?

[al4xz]

As I already said, I was looking for a general reaction. I can't really classify anything for you. Apoligies.

And I understand that. The way you did it didn't seem that scummy, so if Juls did attack you heavily for it it would have made her look suspicious. I mainly wanted to just express why I don't like it incase anybody else thinks of doing something similar. There's one thing I was curious about though. Were you already suspicious of Juls at the time, or did you just see an opportunity to try that out and wanted to see what would happen?

The latter. Or so I believe at this moment. Allow me to do a brief reread of why people were even pressuring her to begin with.
Yes, I was correct. I merely wished to see her reaction. What I saw from her was not very scummy, in my opinion.

[Gerrendus]

I realize I haven't posted recently but I have been reading everything.

Scheh is really starting to get on my nerves. Every attack is simply a denial of the claims others are making, without any material to back up your claims. BWCS is that we lose a member of the town who is inconsistent on issues and states their claims without any proof. In the later stages of the game we will need people who are going to support their claims and arguments with details and facts and not just lash out in defense with ad hominems that get us nowhere.
I realize this may border on ad hominem here, but I can't think of another way to phrase this that isn't an ad hominem really.

[Juls]

And for the person who chose ad hominem as their word in the drinking game...they are now in a coma. Who'da thunk it?

[ZazieR]

Der Hammer, Scheh, and now al4exz have all said scummy/controversial things causing them to lead the vote count. Everybody should be weighing in opinions on all 3 of these people if they haven't done so.

This just stinks of trying to shoehorn people into only focusing on three players.

It wouldnt surprise me to see the three town, and you mafia knowing that we are the targets for a quick easy lynch.

Unvote:Percy, Vote: Strife

He didn't. He asked for our opinions on them as they have the main focus on them and in some games, some players ignore the top suspects. It's good to see that someone wants to hear the opinions of other players about them. Who do you see as most scummy, DH?

Zazier, got anything more to add on that? Seeing as you said you would. *glares*

Why the *glare*?

I don't see the case against al4xz. I don't like his action of his vote against Juls, but I don't find him scummy due to that.
My opinion about DH is already shown by my vote.
Which leaves Scheza. I first didn't see anything harmful with his first posts. I just saw a player wondering who could have done the killing. But he now focuses on defense of his actions. I want to see something useful from him regarding finding scum. From that, I hopefully can see what to think of him.

[al4xz]

Why the *glare*?

I don't see the case against al4xz. I don't like his action of his vote against Juls, but I don't find him scummy due to that.
My opinion about DH is already shown by my vote.
Which leaves Scheza. I first didn't see anything harmful with his first posts. I just saw a player wondering who could have done the killing. But he now focuses on defense of his actions. I want to see something useful from him regarding finding scum. From that, I hopefully can see what to think of him.

I glare because I enjoy posting that. =D

[OhGodMyLife]

Vote Count #6 of Day 1

Scheherazade (6) -- Gerrendus, Juls, Percy, al4xz, Jazzmyn, DoomCow
DerHammer (4) -- iamausername, ZazieR, ribwich, strife220
al4xz (2) -- Caboose, Vi
strife220 (1) -- DerHammer

Not Voting (3) -- Scheherazade, BobHiggs, TAX

With 16 alive, it takes 9 votes to lynch!

Dealing with prods and replacement issues today, sorry for the delay everybody.

[OhGodMyLife]

Prodded DoomCow and iamausername.

Seeking replacement for BobHiggs.

[DoomCow]

Still in the game, read up with everything and liking my vote where it is.

[iamausername]

Hey, posting a quick note in all my games to say I'm still here, but been rather unexpectedly busy the last couple of days. I should be back to full strength posting tomorrow.

[al4xz]

Not much to discuss, looking at the activity levels. We've hit a dead end, in a sense.

Doomcow, what is your case against Scheh? iamausername, if you have finished rereading, can you tell us your conclusions?

A reminder to everyone - Day 1 is going to end Nov. 8th, so do watch were you place your vote. I'd much rather No Lynch than Quick-And-Thoughtless lynch.