Mini 999 - Isolated Mafia (Game Over)

[AWA]

'cause it's a worthless question that adds nothing to the game other then noise.

Your concern over me voting you is noted and dismissed.

Aaand back to

Vote: TheButtonmen.

Why?

No question is worthless. If there is really a simple, innocent answer, then provide it. Do not attempt to handwave interrogatives by claiming them to be insignificant. You have not had a valid reason for a single one of your actions this game, yet you have voted for two players, each of which already had votes on them. To me, this looks like a scum trying too hard to start a bandwagon. At best you are a severe liability to the town.

AGar, you play

really

suspiciously to me... I want to say that the fact that you seem to want to use RVS as an excuse for building crap arguments and denying the utilization of logic and reasoning is a scumtell. That said, I still feel that TheButtonmen is more of a liability, though if it came time to hammer I would not hesitate.

Similarly to AGar, I'm suspicious of DavidParker's denial of analysis and reasoning. RVS is not a required stage, people.

I'm reserving opinions on MichelSableheart. So far, all he(?)'s really done is call AGar on his refusal to abandon RVS, which I support. This isn't a town-tell, though.

[chauchaudotcom]

Aw I was supposed to be on top of the page but I miscounted. =[ Booooooooo.
Fine then. Here's your votecount that's not cool enough to be the first post of the page. =P!

Votecount:

It takes seven to lynch!

Voting

AGar (1): MichelSableheart
AWA (1): TheButtonmen
Idiotking (1): remussaidow

MichelSableheart (3): Copper, AGar, DavidParker

TheButtonmen (1): AWA

Not Voting

Merlin, My Milked Eek, screl1, Guthrie, IdiotKing

Deadline is in

18

days. July 16, 2010 at 10:00pm PST.

[DavidParker]

I've seen people "ignore" or acknowledge questions and not answer them because of their redundancy/worthlessness in some of my earlier games, and have to agree that not every question has to be answered. How you interpret that is up to your own discretion.

[AWA]

I've seen people "ignore" or acknowledge questions and not answer them because of their redundancy/worthlessness in some of my earlier games, and have to agree that not every question has to be answered. How you interpret that is up to your own discretion.

The fallacies here are that a.) Prior events are not necessarily correct, and b.) No, there is no question too insignificant to be answered. If it really is a dumb question, then answer it and move on; if the person presses, it might be a scumtell, so it's still advantageous. By refusing to answer questions, you deny the town information and act anti-town, if not directly pro-scum.

[remussaidow]

What's with the huge essays on page 2. I'm not done with RVS. Or Random Bandwagon Stage.

I heard someone say a Michael bandwagon??

VOTE: Michael

Same thing I told you in our newbie game, DP. We're out of RVS, because discussion was started. I find it disconcerting as well that it happened quickly, but not alarming. Just odd. Mostly because I'm not terribly certain that everyone has posted yet.
Also, this might just be the worst reason to vote someone that I've ever seen, but I'm not quite sure. You seem to be claiming a pseudo-random vote, but for a legitimate reason against a target that has a case being built against him. This is elucidating the valid point that I feel that Michael has made about the RVS.

Also, Michael, I don't like the RVS either. But I participate, and I do it in the newbie games that I IC as well, because it IS the most effective way to start a game. A couple of random votes, you watch them pile in, and you monitor the reasons given for each one of them. Some of them may be really, truly random. A handful will have BS reasoning. And the rest are the scum, who are giving false reasoning. You go by that, if any bandwagons form, the discussions that people have, and the answers to questions about the reasons for the votes- or lack thereof.
And the reason you don't see more people starting the game like you do? You inherently look like scum when you try to start the game off of false scumtells. I believe the term Lynch all Liars comes to mind in this case...

AWA: I don't think that AGar and Michael's discussion is about refusal to leave RVS, its about the merits of starting it in the first place.

[AGar]

'cause it's a worthless question that adds nothing to the game other then noise.

Your concern over me voting you is noted and dismissed.

Aaand back to

Vote: TheButtonmen.

Why?

No question is worthless. If there is really a simple, innocent answer, then provide it. Do not attempt to handwave interrogatives by claiming them to be insignificant. You have not had a valid reason for a single one of your actions this game, yet you have voted for two players, each of which already had votes on them. To me, this looks like a scum trying too hard to start a bandwagon. At best you are a severe liability to the town.

AGar, you play

really

suspiciously to me... I want to say that the fact that you seem to want to use RVS as an excuse for building crap arguments and denying the utilization of logic and reasoning is a scumtell. That said, I still feel that TheButtonmen is more of a liability, though if it came time to hammer I would not hesitate.

Similarly to AGar, I'm suspicious of DavidParker's denial of analysis and reasoning. RVS is not a required stage, people.

I'm reserving opinions on MichelSableheart. So far, all he(?)'s really done is call AGar on his refusal to abandon RVS, which I support. This isn't a town-tell, though.

Pretty sure I abandoned RVS a while ago. People really need to start reading. Where have I used RVS as an excuse for building a crap argument? Yes, RVS does vote pointlessly. It also can be used to gain reactions. But oh wait, that's against your beliefs, I forgot. Still, MS is not only trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, but he has ADMITTED that he either MAKES UP scumtells or ACTIVE LURKS until he has something to go on. HOW is that pro-town. And you know what would happen if everyone waited around until logic and reasoning could be formulated? NO ONE WOULD POST. Newsflash - the only reason YOU have a reason to vote for TBM is that HE posted a RANDOM VOTE and YOU were able to draw from that. If he hadn't, you'd still be in the wings, waiting and lurking the thread.

Look, if you guys want to start some revolutionary new scum-hunting style, I'm all for it. But until it yields results, I'm going to stick with the things I know best. One of them is RVS/RQS to yield a reaction from a player and pressure them until they turn around and show that they're pro-town, or they break, and then (lo and behold) you start analyzing their play and finding illogicalities and unreasonable posts. Again, as I said, I am not denying that you need to use logic and reasoning to find scum, because you do. What I am saying is that MS is trying to make scumtells out of NOTHING, and you are defending him.

Which leads me into my next point. Class is in session.

Today's topic: Chainsaw Defense

AWA, you're attacking me with NO substance to your argument other than falsified information and misrepresentations of what I am saying. Funnily enough, you're attacking me for what I'm saying to MS. This is textbook chainsaw defense, and if MS flips scum, I'm positive you are too.

[screl1]

So far this is what I have analyzed of each person’s posts. Sorry if I mistake a girl for a guy, but my default setting is that if you are online you are a guy.

Players that have failed to post anything of interest:
Merlin
My Milked Eek
Guthrie
IdiotKing

Players worth analyzing posts:

Remussaidow

He voted for idiotking because he thinks there is a chance he is an idot. Analysis of action: can’t blame the guy – besides this was just a rv.

Copper

He voted for Michel because Michel has outwitted him in the past. Analysis of action: rv based on a previous game.

DavidParker

He voted for Agar on a OMGUS vote. Analysis of action: rv which is a common occurrence at the beginning of a game.

AWA

He originally voted for button because he believed that he was involved with a fake bandwagon which was really scum working to get someone bandwagon lynched. Then he starts to get into a bit of a pinch with AWA and then unvotes to appease Agar. Analysis of action: AWA is possibly worried about votes. From what I gather scum is usually more worried about votes than a townie would be. With his join date being back in 2008 I figure that a single vote would not really worry someone who was a townie. Then he was quite for a while until Agar shifted his attention to Michel. And now he is targeting Michel with Agar. The lack of posts during that time could be of course because people do have lives and they are not logged on 24/7, but I find it curious that he would back down just to get the vote dropped off. Because there

is

nothing concrete here

FOS: AWA

.

MichelSableheart

He was the first to begin an actual analysis which was directed over how fast people confirm. He then voted for milked. Michel then became the center of a cluster fuck of posts between himself, Agar, and now AWA. They all are arguing about logic, or lack thereof in some of the posts. He is arguing about what he believes should be done at the beginning of the game and is trying to make a transformation from what started as a random vote into a vote that is backed by logic. Because of this

FOS: Michel

TheButtonmen

He started by voting for Michel joining with copper to create a bandwagon. Button then voted AWA to appease Agar because joining in on the bandwagon was a scum move. He did not answer Michel’s question and said that it will distract from game and lead to ‘noise’. Although I agree the question is irrelevant, there is nothing else to discuss right now so is there an ulterior motive behind joining michel’s first vote? Is there a negative past history between these two? Just makes me curious but I do not think it has to deal with being scummy in this game… not yet at least

Agar

Agar already has a lot of things to analyze but I think the highlight is that he has already pointed fingers at rem, awa, and now Michel. From what I can see AWA and Button have already changed votes based on Agar. Lastly Agar is convinced Michel is a dumbass or scum (or both). Because Agar has pointed the most fingers and seems to have the most power over others

FOS: Agar

If anyone disagrees/has anything else to add/questions/expansions on ideas feel free to add

[Idiotking]

Good Lord, this game transitioned from RVS to wallposts

fast

.

So about the RVS thing. Voting the random voting stage does get reactions, but those reactions don't necessarily mean anything. Stupid scum will overreact, sure. Stupid townies will too, just as often. Smart scum will obviously keep quiet. I'm not really a fan of the RVS though, so that may affect my opinion of this, but ultimately, it seems to be more of an argument over the merits of RVS than whether or not anyone here is scummy. Such arguments are kind of pointless when there's a game going on.

[screl1]

Sorry for the double post but that was as of somewhere on the second half of the second page, I got distracted by a movie and didn't think to refresh before I posted.

[My Milked Eek]

I'm here. Just not at home. Give me a few hours to get home and catchup.

[MichelSableheart]

So why don't you IC then. Or write an article in MD? You seem to be complacent. As far as I'm concerned, this point is now moot.

Done, and close enough to done. (not entirely sure that last link works, as it links to the archives).

So you are admitting that at the beginning of every game you either: a) active lurk, or b) make up scumtells.

@a: In my very first post of the game, I'm doing everything I can to start discussion. That's the complete opposite of active lurking. What I was referring to is that I'm not the most active player in general, checking this site only twice a day, and as such usually am not the first player in a thread. That doesn't mean I'm actively avoiding a specific thread though.
@b: I definately make up scumtells, yes. That doesn't mean they aren't scumtells though.

You are repeatedly and consistently trying to make up scumtells to suit your needs and push a case that isn't there

in order to fuel a mislynch

.

And that is where you go wrong. There was no more intention to lynch in my vote of MMe then there was in your vote of DavidParker, DavidParker's vote of you, or remussaidow's vote of idiotking.

@remussaidow: There are 11 players other then me in the game. Assuming 3 scum, that means every player has a 3/11 chance of being scum. If someone does something that is slightly more likely to be done by scum, that means he has a slightly higher chance of being scum then the rest of the players. It's not a false scumtell, it's an extremely weak scumtell.

And you know what would happen if everyone waited around until logic and reasoning could be formulated? NO ONE WOULD POST. Newsflash - the only reason YOU have a reason to vote for TBM is that HE posted a RANDOM VOTE and YOU were able to draw from that. If he hadn't, you'd still be in the wings, waiting and lurking the thread.

Newsflash - the only reason YOU have a valid reason to vote for me is that I posted an actual reason for MME being scum. I find the insinuation that my behaviour discourages activity a complete misrepresentation.

---

@Screll: Any particular reason why you are FoSing everyone who starts discussion, while ignoring everyone else?

[TheButtonmen]

TheButtonmen

He started by voting for Michel joining with copper to create a bandwagon. Button then voted AWA to appease Agar because joining in on the bandwagon was a scum move. He did not answer Michel’s question and said that it will distract from game and lead to ‘noise’. Although I agree the question is irrelevant, there is nothing else to discuss right now so is there an ulterior motive behind joining michel’s first vote? Is there a negative past history between these two? Just makes me curious but I do not think it has to deal with being scummy in this game… not yet at least

A) Bandwagons aren't scummy.
B) Bullocks about appeasing AGar, I voted AWA because he's scum.
C) You agree the question is irrelevant but want to discuss it, that makes no sense.
D) No history why do you ask?
E) This game has had truck loads of scummyness already.

[screl1]

TheButtonmen

He started by voting for Michel joining with copper to create a bandwagon. Button then voted AWA to appease Agar because joining in on the bandwagon was a scum move. He did not answer Michel’s question and said that it will distract from game and lead to ‘noise’. Although I agree the question is irrelevant, there is nothing else to discuss right now so is there an ulterior motive behind joining michel’s first vote? Is there a negative past history between these two? Just makes me curious but I do not think it has to deal with being scummy in this game… not yet at least

A) Bandwagons aren't scummy.
B) Bullocks about appeasing AGar, I voted AWA because he's scum.
C) You agree the question is irrelevant but want to discuss it, that makes no sense.
D) No history why do you ask?
E) This game has had truck loads of scummyness already.

A.) I agree - AGar was calling it a scummy move
B.) That is just what it looks like to me
C.) Was just curious if you didn't like him from some past game or something and that is why you joined that bandwagon
E.) Agreed

[AGar]

Agar

Agar already has a lot of things to analyze but I think the highlight is that he has already pointed fingers at rem, awa, and now Michel. From what I can see AWA and Button have already changed votes based on Agar. Lastly Agar is convinced Michel is a dumbass or scum (or both). Because Agar has pointed the most fingers and seems to have the most power over others

FOS: Agar

One question - when did I point fingers at rem? I missed that.

So you are admitting that at the beginning of every game you either: a) active lurk, or b) make up scumtells.

@a: In my very first post of the game, I'm doing everything I can to start discussion. That's the complete opposite of active lurking. What I was referring to is that I'm not the most active player in general, checking this site only twice a day, and as such usually am not the first player in a thread. That doesn't mean I'm actively avoiding a specific thread though.
@b: I definately make up scumtells, yes. That doesn't mean they aren't scumtells though.

Just because you make up a scumtell and the person happens to be scum, does not validate your scumtell. It simply means you got lucky. If you can show me a long stretch where the same things

You are repeatedly and consistently trying to make up scumtells to suit your needs and push a case that isn't there

in order to fuel a mislynch

.

And that is where you go wrong. There was no more intention to lynch in my vote of MMe then there was in your vote of DavidParker, DavidParker's vote of you, or remussaidow's vote of idiotking.

Really? Because as far as I've ever played, when you say someone is scum, you mean that you want them lynched. Or are you just backtracking now? Is MME not scum maybe?

@remussaidow: There are 11 players other then me in the game. Assuming 3 scum, that means every player has a 3/11 chance of being scum. If someone does something that is slightly more likely to be done by scum, that means he has a slightly higher chance of being scum then the rest of the players. It's not a false scumtell, it's an extremely weak scumtell.

Why are you so set on assuming 3 scum? Scumslip?

And you know what would happen if everyone waited around until logic and reasoning could be formulated? NO ONE WOULD POST. Newsflash - the only reason YOU have a reason to vote for TBM is that HE posted a RANDOM VOTE and YOU were able to draw from that. If he hadn't, you'd still be in the wings, waiting and lurking the thread.

Newsflash - the only reason YOU have a valid reason to vote for me is that I posted an actual reason for MME being scum. I find the insinuation that my behaviour discourages activity a complete misrepresentation.

Newsflash - this was at AWA, not you. I never insinuated that your behavior discourages activity. I said that your behavior is a poor way to start the game and has revealed you to be scum. I didn't know getting lynched was part of the scum's wincon.

TheButtonmen

He started by voting for Michel joining with copper to create a bandwagon. Button then voted AWA to appease Agar because joining in on the bandwagon was a scum move. He did not answer Michel’s question and said that it will distract from game and lead to ‘noise’. Although I agree the question is irrelevant, there is nothing else to discuss right now so is there an ulterior motive behind joining michel’s first vote? Is there a negative past history between these two? Just makes me curious but I do not think it has to deal with being scummy in this game… not yet at least

A) Bandwagons aren't scummy.
B) Bullocks about appeasing AGar, I voted AWA because he's scum.
C) You agree the question is irrelevant but want to discuss it, that makes no sense.
D) No history why do you ask?
E) This game has had truck loads of scummyness already.

A.) I agree - AGar was calling it a scummy move

Wait what? Where did I call bandwagons a scummy move? I said AWA's hesitation about bandwagons was scummy.

[MichelSableheart]

Really? Because as far as I've ever played, when you say someone is scum, you mean that you want them lynched. Or are you just backtracking now? Is MME not scum maybe?

If I had to estimate the chance of MME being scum when I voted him, I would say that chance is about 31/110. You will notice that I unvoted him as soon as more information became available and stronger scumtells were present.

Why are you so set on assuming 3 scum? Scumslip?

I wanted to have a number there to make the chances explicit. In my experience, mini normal setups with 12 players are either 2-10 vanilla, or 2-1-9 or 3-9 with powerroles, with the last two happening far more often then the first.

I never insinuated that your behavior discourages activity. I said that your behavior is a poor way to start the game and has revealed you to be scum.

Let's look at the paragraph from which I quoted:

Pretty sure I abandoned RVS a while ago. People really need to start reading. Where have I used RVS as an excuse for building a crap argument? Yes, RVS does vote pointlessly. It also can be used to gain reactions. But oh wait, that's against your beliefs, I forgot.

Still, MS is not only trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, but he has ADMITTED that he either MAKES UP scumtells or ACTIVE LURKS until he has something to go on. HOW is that pro-town. And you know what would happen if everyone waited around until logic and reasoning could be formulated? NO ONE WOULD POST.

Newsflash - the only reason YOU have a reason to vote for TBM is that HE posted a RANDOM VOTE and YOU were able to draw from that. If he hadn't, you'd still be in the wings, waiting and lurking the thread.

If you look at the bolded part, you let your "no one would post" remark follow immediately on a description of what you consider to be my behaviour. That does create a link between my behaviour and no one posting, thereby insinuating that my behaviour discourages activity.

[AGar]

Really? Because as far as I've ever played, when you say someone is scum, you mean that you want them lynched. Or are you just backtracking now? Is MME not scum maybe?

If I had to estimate the chance of MME being scum when I voted him, I would say that chance is about 31/110. You will notice that I unvoted him as soon as more information became available and stronger scumtells were present.

I claim that my effective statement of "MME is scum" (yes, it was intended that way)

So now you're backpedalling. So was he scum, or did he have a 28% chance of being scum?

Why are you so set on assuming 3 scum? Scumslip?

I wanted to have a number there to make the chances explicit. In my experience, mini normal setups with 12 players are either 2-10 vanilla, or 2-1-9 or 3-9 with powerroles, with the last two happening far more often then the first.

So you're still assuming something, or are you saying you know something. Either way, you're creating problems for the town.

I never insinuated that your behavior discourages activity. I said that your behavior is a poor way to start the game and has revealed you to be scum.

Let's look at the paragraph from which I quoted:

Pretty sure I abandoned RVS a while ago. People really need to start reading. Where have I used RVS as an excuse for building a crap argument? Yes, RVS does vote pointlessly. It also can be used to gain reactions. But oh wait, that's against your beliefs, I forgot.

Still, MS is not only trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, but he has ADMITTED that he either MAKES UP scumtells or ACTIVE LURKS until he has something to go on. HOW is that pro-town. And you know what would happen if everyone waited around until logic and reasoning could be formulated? NO ONE WOULD POST.

Newsflash - the only reason YOU have a reason to vote for TBM is that HE posted a RANDOM VOTE and YOU were able to draw from that. If he hadn't, you'd still be in the wings, waiting and lurking the thread.

If you look at the bolded part, you let your "no one would post" remark follow immediately on a description of what you consider to be my behaviour. That does create a link between my behaviour and no one posting, thereby insinuating that my behaviour discourages activity.

You can't be serious with that stretch. You're going across a grand canyon of logic... I wasn't even addressing you. I was trying to point out to AWA how scummy you are, and you try and manipulate the context of that to say that I was accusing you of discouraging activity? I was saying if everyone followed AWA's lead, then no one would post. Ever. I thought that was crystal clear, considering I was on the offensive against AWA, not you. But apparently you either are really bad at building a false case as scum, or you've got a debilitating brain tumor because you can't comprehend something simple.

[TheButtonmen]

Conciseness is protown.

[chauchaudotcom]

Guthrie has failed to pick up his role pm. Looking for replacement.

Oh shi- Guthrie replaces Guthrie!

[Guthrie]

Hi everyone, sorry for the delay!! Will catch up tomorrow, got work today! Peace all.

[screl1]

Agar

Agar already has a lot of things to analyze but I think the highlight is that he has already pointed fingers at rem, awa, and now Michel. From what I can see AWA and Button have already changed votes based on Agar. Lastly Agar is convinced Michel is a dumbass or scum (or both). Because Agar has pointed the most fingers and seems to have the most power over others

FOS: Agar

One question - when did I point fingers at rem? I missed that.

Well this is what happens when you drink, watch a movie and write a review over the course of a couple of hours... You said, “Is it really a random reason? Doesn't seem like one.” I took that as pointing a finger, perhaps it was just playful banter?

TheButtonmen

He started by voting for Michel joining with copper to create a bandwagon. Button then voted AWA to appease Agar because joining in on the bandwagon was a scum move. He did not answer Michel’s question and said that it will distract from game and lead to ‘noise’. Although I agree the question is irrelevant, there is nothing else to discuss right now so is there an ulterior motive behind joining michel’s first vote? Is there a negative past history between these two? Just makes me curious but I do not think it has to deal with being scummy in this game… not yet at least

A) Bandwagons aren't scummy.
B) Bullocks about appeasing AGar, I voted AWA because he's scum.
C) You agree the question is irrelevant but want to discuss it, that makes no sense.
D) No history why do you ask?
E) This game has had truck loads of scummyness already.

A.) I agree - AGar was calling it a scummy move

Wait what? Where did I call bandwagons a scummy move? I said AWA's hesitation about bandwagons was scummy.

You were not calling all bandwagons scummy, but you did say, “I'm gonna move my vote, because your fear of a bandwagon mislynching someone in the early game is really scummy.” Again, alcohol and distractions got in the way. I was trying to say that you (Agar) were calling Button’s bandwagon views scummy, right after this happened Button unvoted, voted for AWA who you (Agar) had just voted for.

[AGar]

Agar

Agar already has a lot of things to analyze but I think the highlight is that he has already pointed fingers at rem, awa, and now Michel. From what I can see AWA and Button have already changed votes based on Agar. Lastly Agar is convinced Michel is a dumbass or scum (or both). Because Agar has pointed the most fingers and seems to have the most power over others

FOS: Agar

One question - when did I point fingers at rem? I missed that.

Well this is what happens when you drink, watch a movie and write a review over the course of a couple of hours... You said, “Is it really a random reason? Doesn't seem like one.” I took that as pointing a finger, perhaps it was just playful banter?

Ah just RVS banter.

TheButtonmen

He started by voting for Michel joining with copper to create a bandwagon. Button then voted AWA to appease Agar because joining in on the bandwagon was a scum move. He did not answer Michel’s question and said that it will distract from game and lead to ‘noise’. Although I agree the question is irrelevant, there is nothing else to discuss right now so is there an ulterior motive behind joining michel’s first vote? Is there a negative past history between these two? Just makes me curious but I do not think it has to deal with being scummy in this game… not yet at least

A) Bandwagons aren't scummy.
B) Bullocks about appeasing AGar, I voted AWA because he's scum.
C) You agree the question is irrelevant but want to discuss it, that makes no sense.
D) No history why do you ask?
E) This game has had truck loads of scummyness already.

A.) I agree - AGar was calling it a scummy move

Wait what? Where did I call bandwagons a scummy move? I said AWA's hesitation about bandwagons was scummy.

You were not calling all bandwagons scummy, but you did say, “I'm gonna move my vote, because your fear of a bandwagon mislynching someone in the early game is really scummy.” Again, alcohol and distractions got in the way. I was trying to say that you (Agar) were calling Button’s bandwagon views scummy, right after this happened Button unvoted, voted for AWA who you (Agar) had just voted for.

Ah ok. Yes, this did transpire.

[AGar]

Quote tags can rot in hell.

[screl1]

@Screll: Any particular reason why you are FoSing everyone who starts discussion, while ignoring everyone else?

I gave out 3 FOSs - AWA, AGar, and yourself.

I didn't give it to the others because I had no reason to suspect them at the time of my post. Continued lurking on their part will be considered suspicious activity. As of right now I am going to believe that they are simply busy people with lives outside of mafia.

[DavidParker]

3 FOSs??? who are you trying to impress??

VOTE: screl

[TheButtonmen]

I'm here. Just not at home. Give me a few hours to get home and catchup.

:Cough: