Newbie 523: (Game over!)

[BrettH84]

EBWOP: Sorry, it was only 7 minutes after the L-1 vote on Sint that you said it was suspicious of Scrapes not removing his vote. However I just realized he posted between the two. So I retract the statement that it was thin to be suspicious of him based on that. Although it may have been while he was typing. So I'm saying it's not reason to be suspicious of Scrapes, but I'm also saying that wasn't poor reasoning either.

[bird1111]

Vote Count:
Sint (2): BrettH84, reach42
reach42 (2): pinkkitten90, Paradoxombie

Not voting (3): Quagmire, brokenscraps, Sint

With 7 alive it is 4 to lynch.

[BrettH84]

Bird:

FYI, you're double counting Para and Kitten, and Scrapes is nowhere to be found in your vote count.

Fixed.

[brokenscraps]

Ok brokenscrapes, Paradoxombie, Quagmire, BrettH84, Reach and sint if you had to vote for two mafia now who would it be?

you all have my answer and i think its and even question.

If I had to pick two people as a mafia pair right now it would be BrettH84 and Sint.

Now the reason why I asked you who you'd pick: because I found something curious about your wordings. Brett made a random vote at first, no big deal there, that's pretty normal. Yet his second vote was NOT random. He voted for me and even used an elimination process to get to my name. He was going for a non-voter (that's pink, quag, reach and me), who was around a while (that's quag or me), ''and should either have another means of creating discussion, or should realize random voting usually works out well'' (now my guess is he picked me because I posted once and quag twice, although admittedly he could've picked quag too). So IMO there's nothing random there. He even stated he was picking the name to make a push for conversation, another reason to vote someone; doesn't matter if it's the second vote because it's 4 to lynch anyway.

Its ok that you don't have a problem with someone voting for you, in fact its a good thing, but theres a big difference between defending someones right to vote for you and defending someones vote. Instead of trying to prove your innocence, you are defending someone else's non-random vote, or, in other words, you are agreeing with someone's thoughts that you are guilty. Now this would seem unusual for pro-town and scum players, but it would be much more likely from a mafia player who is concerned not only of their own survival, but that of their partner. This raises my suspicions towards both you and Brett.

Yet you (pink) dismiss it as random, not once, but four times (33, 39, 56, 62 before my question) hence I wanted to know what you ment with post 62 but your explanation in 64:
Brett voted for you as a 'random vote' hours after the vote count was posted and it was shown that you had a vote. plus he switched his random vote... who does that.
Isn't right either. First off, it wasn't a random vote, it doesn't matter that it's after a postcount because it's the second vote and if you want to push people one vote alone might not do it and stop saying he switched his random vote. para said it wasn't random in post 60 and you basically agree in 62 (oops I'm tired), yet when I asked about it you go back in 64 to saying it was a random vote. It just doesn't add up.

Doesn't really say anything about your guilt, I'd just like to say that this is a really weak argument. Correcting somebody about calling a non-random vote random is ok, but someone calling a vote random is hardly a reason to suspect them of being mafia.

I will let brett come along and say something on this story, but I'm quite sure he'll agree with me.

You seem too certain of that, and its seems very suspicious to group yourselves together.

Sorry, I didn't realize I was Bint. I thought Sint was Bint and it was just another typo. I couldn't pick two people to vote for right now because there isn't enough information. But I will agree with Sint's FoS of pink kitten. As it was stated, my switching of a vote wasn't random. It was to generate discussion, and I gave a reason for it. And I also intentionally picked the person who already have votes on him because it's more likely to create discussion. Yet you keep hounding me for switching one random vote for another. You claim I FoSed someone when I was being looked at. Where? I did say that my vote wasn't as scummy, and that people lurking were more scummy. But I didn't FoS anybody because that's not nearly enough to go on. Yet you are make me out to be a person crazily switching votes and FoSing other people. Yet on post 56, you claim to be suspicious of many people on thin evidence. I've already addressed the thinness of suspicion for me. That post was 7 minutes after the vote that put Sint L-1, yet you are casting suspicion on Scrapes for not having removed it yet? The only one with some validity to it would be the suspicion on Reach. His vote is bold putting someone at L-1 that early, but if people are afraid to random vote, it's likely they're afraid to quick lynch too. So he said he would make things interesting, maybe he meant he was looking to generate discussion. I've seen experienced townies put someone at L-1 quickly realizing that townies won't quick lynch. So it either generates discussion, or creates a quick lynch and a mafia giving himself up. You'll probably push for a Reach/Brett scum pair from the last two statements, but I hope you realize it's just logic reasoning and past experience.

You sound a little too sure of Sint's innocence and seem to be buddying up with him. Town players should be suspicious of everyone, the only people who know anything about the other players are mafia. To me, you two seem likely to be partners.

[Sint]

Its ok that you don't have a problem with someone voting for you, in fact its a good thing, but theres a big difference between defending someones right to vote for you and defending someones vote. Instead of trying to prove your innocence, you are defending someone else's non-random vote, or, in other words, you are agreeing with someone's thoughts that you are guilty. Now this would seem unusual for pro-town and scum players, but it would be much more likely from a mafia player who is concerned not only of their own survival, but that of their partner. This raises my suspicions towards both you and Brett.

That's bull. I'm not defending his vote nor his right to vote anywhere. I explained why his vote wasn't random which was the point of my story. Can you point out specifically where I agreed with him or where I defended his vote? I can't find it. In fact, I stated in post 63 that I found the reasoning brett used flawed because I actually was trying to start conversation. Yet that was not what the piece you quoted was about. And even if it was good reasoning, why wouldn't I be able to agree with it? He called me a lurker, big deal. Yeah, that really was me ''agreeing with someone's thoughts that I'm guilty'' alright.. guilty of what..

Doesn't really say anything about your guilt, I'd just like to say that this is a really weak argument. Correcting somebody about calling a non-random vote random is ok, but someone calling a vote random is hardly a reason to suspect them of being mafia.

Oh I said it was a reason to call her mafia? No, I said it didn't add up. Now that part combined with the other things I posted is reason enough for me to FOS. Yet you pick out one small part and discredit it.

I'd like you to try again. Other then that, I'm waiting for pink and reach's replies.

( leaving this part in as a note: )

You sound a little too sure of Sint's innocence and seem to be buddying up with him. Town players should be suspicious of everyone, the only people who know anything about the other players are mafia. To me, you two seem likely to be partners.

[BrettH84]

I'm not saying I'm sure of his innocence. What I'm pointing out, is that Kitten is throwing around accusations on weak and false arguments. Sint seems to be pointing out the same things. Does that make us scum buddies? And you're missing the point of the first Sint post you quoted. You imply he should be defending his innocence, and instead is defending a vote against him. But you are taking the post out of context, because it was in response to Kitten's question, which was who are his two suspicious people. So he has no need to defend himself, and he's pointing out that Kitten's weak arguments are making her suspicious. You also question why he is sure that I will agree with him and that we may be a team. How about it's because he's referring to where Kitten is misrepresenting me, and he expects me to also point that out, since it's my posts she's misrepresenting? The fact that you're attaching yourself to weak arguments like these and taking Sint's quote out of context makes me question you scumness.

[brokenscraps]

Guilty should of been mafia, but I'm sorry if I came off too strongly, if I had too choose two people it would still be you and Brett, not so much because you have done anything particularly scummy but it seems like you two could be mafia partners together. I'm obviously not convinced of you being mafia however, because I haven't voted for either of you, but I'm definitely suspicious.

That's bull. I'm not defending his vote nor his right to vote anywhere. I explained why his vote wasn't random which was the point of my story. Can you point out specifically where I agreed with him or where I defended his vote? I can't find it. In fact, I stated in post 63 that I found the reasoning brett used flawed because I actually was trying to start conversation. Yet that was not what the piece you quoted was about. And even if it was good reasoning, why wouldn't I be able to agree with it? He called me a lurker, big deal. Yeah, that really was me ''agreeing with someone's thoughts that I'm guilty'' alright.. guilty of what..

Oh I said it was a reason to call her mafia? No, I said it didn't add up. Now that part combined with the other things I posted is reason enough for me to FOS. Yet you pick out one small part and discredit it.

I'm sorry if I misinterpreted, but I don't see why you would even need to make such a big deal about it if your only problem was that she called a non-random vote random. Just explain to her that the vote had a reason. It just seemed like you suspected her because of it, seeing as in the same post you cast a FoS at her. I know you had other reasons, but the first reason doesn't really seem like a reason at all, all she did was say the post was random. Also, I wasn't trying to pick one small part and discredit your whole post, I only had a problem with the parts I commented on.

I would also like to say that, although the vote wasn't random, it had the exact same purpose as a random vote. It wasn't based on any actual evidence, and its aim was to start discussion. Thats pretty much what a random vote is for. The only non-random part about it was that it was placed on someone who already had a vote on them, and it had little to do with how scummy you were. I know it was made because you weren't random voting and had been there a member for a while, but I think he voted you more to get people talking than because he suspected you.

[brokenscraps]

The fact that you're attaching yourself to weak arguments like these and taking Sint's quote out of context makes me question you scumness.

I'm not trying to take his posts out of context, its just my interpretation.

[BrettH84]

Ok, so if you don't question my reasoning on voting him, might I ask why you think Sint and I may be a mafia pair? Especially when you say we have done nothing particularly scummy.

[BrettH84]

Well even if you aren't trying to take it out of context, it clearly is out of context if you look at the post he was responding to.

[brokenscraps]

Ok, so if you don't question my reasoning on voting him, might I ask why you think Sint and I may be a mafia pair? Especially when you say we have done nothing particularly scummy.

Well I think anybody could be a mafia pair seeing as I have no conclusive evidence about anybody, but compared to some other possible combinations you two seem more likely. You have liked most of Sint's comments and arguments, yet you still have your vote on him. My suspicions towards you are similar to your suspicions towards pinkkitten, I think you are using weak arguments, and weak arguments that two people seem to support.

Like I said earlier, I'm not convinced of you being mafia, and your clarifications have certainly made me rethink my theories, but until more evidence pops up, my answer to pinkkitten's question is still that if I had to choose anybody, I would choose you (Brett) and Sint as scum partners. Thankfully, at this stage I don't have to choose anybody, because I would be uncomfortable lynching any of you at this present moment.

[Paradoxombie]

I would also like to say that, although the vote wasn't random, it had the exact same purpose as a random vote. It wasn't based on any actual evidence, and its aim was to start discussion. Thats pretty much what a random vote is for. The only non-random part about it was that it was placed on someone who already had a vote on them, and it had little to do with how scummy you were. I know it was made because you weren't random voting and had been there a member for a while, but I think he voted you more to get people talking than because he suspected you.

It's not a random vote. There is no "actual evidence" in this game. Almost everything is circumstancial. You vote because you think a player is scummy(act scummy and you are likelier scum). Brett voted based on this principal, so his vote is just as meaningful as any other.



I'm interested to know why that particular quote bothered you, quagmire?

[brokenscraps]

It's not a random vote. There is no "actual evidence" in this game. Almost everything is circumstancial. You vote because you think a player is scummy(act scummy and you are likelier scum). Brett voted based on this principal, so his vote is just as meaningful as any other.

I know his vote if just as meaningful, I'm just saying its purpose wasn't to get somebody lynched and, like Sint said, there were a couple of people he could of chosen, and if Sint is a long time player who always chooses not to random vote, including when he is mafia and a townie, then it says nothing about him being scum if he declines from random voting. Now IMO, and I would like Brett to clarify, the reason for the vote was not so much because Brett though Sint was scum but to get the lurkers to un-lurk, although Brett thinking Sint's lack of posting was a sign of him being scum probably had a lot to do with Sint being the target of the vote.

The vote was not random, but I really think too much of a deal is being made out of whether someone though the vote was random or not. I think we've established that the target of the vote was chosen for a reason, can we move on soon?

[brokenscraps]

bird1111:

Just so you know, you've called me blindscraps in your vote count.

Fixed

[reach42]

woah.

just got back on, and i see that people find me suspicious.

I guess that my suspicion comes from the fact that this is my first time playing and I realize that bandwagoning is a bad idea now.

unvote: Sint

I'm not trying to be scummy, and believe me if you will that I am not scummy.

chalk down the "I'll make it interesting" to inexperience.

that's my defense, and remember that being overly defensive is not a grounds for suspicion.


To be honest I'm actually most suspicious of the kitten partly because of her arguments and because she's a woman (jk).

but the reason i have not posted for 2 pages was i had things to do.

[pinkkitten90]

I called the vote random because he had no basis behind it. His reasoning was that they didnt talk, and it was after the vote count was posted on two pages, (when bird switched the pages for it.) random is my way of explaining a vote that hold no consistancy. Brett said

Well, let me ask you guys something. I see that some of you non-voters recently joined, and some have been around a while. Those who have been around a while, how else do you suggest to start real discussion? Because right now there is small talk about how we don't like to random vote, and how we're waiting for real discussion and we're bored. I could be a townie or mafia, and that conversation wouldn't make me screw up. I could be the devil in disguise, and you'd never know from our current line of conversation. So until someone enlightens us on how to start real discussion, I'm going to vote for a non-voter who has been around a while and should either have another means of creating discussion, or should realize random voting usually works out well.

unvote: Para
vote: Sint


Perhaps you don't want real conversation to start and that's why you're not voting?

But alot of other had not voted only two people had and only three of us had been on other then confirm.

when Quagmire had said in reply.

Brett, voting is not the only thing that instigates conversation. In every game, there's a lull of contentless posts, and then someone thinks that someone else screwed up. For example, I could take your second vote on Sint as a slip-up, because now he's only two away from a lynch -- to do that early in the game isn't recommended.

That depends on what certain people find scummy and others don't. I personally took that as an attempt to engage discussion more than anything -- not an attempt to "sneakily get the other person up to lynch candidate status."

There's always about 2-3 pages of nothing before discussion (like this, right here) begins and the game really gets started. Playing this game for 4+ years, I couldn't tell you why that is, but it is what it is.

After that Brett

Ok, so here's me pleading my case and responding to kittens "leaning towards me." I'm just trying to get discussion going, since discussion is good for the town. You might not agree with how I'm doing it, but at least I'm not saying that I'm bored and twiddling my thumbs. If you want something that is more of a scum tell, look to para, who has said nothing, or Sint, who has said as little as possible in a post, pretty much checking in and nothing else. Lurking is always a questionable play style in my eyes.

All off this was only at the begining of page two in the whole thing.

I may overanalise thing but i dont really have much to do when I have a study at school so i have been posting and reading this.

[pinkkitten90]

Reach that was just mean *pouts* lol
I can honestly say i have nothing better to do so meh.
all i want to do is get my idea across and people kept asking me questions about it so i answered

oh and as i said.

Unvote: reach42

[BrettH84]

So Kitten FoSs me without really claiming a reason, but the only thing I had done was change my vote. You seem to be in agreement that I wasn't looking for a lynch, but just to spur conversation. And it seems to have worked. So if that vote isn't seen as scummy, then that FoS seems unwarranted. So she FoSs me, then 1 minute later, FoSs Reach. Then about 8 minutes later she adds Scraps to the list while mentioning me and Reach again. Then half an hour later votes Reach. Then in posts 64 she says I'm suspicious for changing my random vote, after that accusation had been dealt with I believe. Then in post 65 she says, in caps, that I'm randomly changing my FoS when I'm mentioned as scummy. She has been moving her FoS more than I have. And you say my arguments are as thin as hers? Mine at least involve logic and consider people's motives behind their actions. I don't think she considered my motives very much when saying my 1 vote switch was scummy. And then FoSs me for doing something she does even more. Yet you think my agreeing with Sint's logical reasoning is as scummy? I think you're either mafia, or you're developing tunnel vision. You should consider the logic of the arguments before you think people agreeing with them is scummy. If arguments have a basis, expect people to agree. Even in post 90 she still seems to be missing the point. Now she either has poor reasoning skills, or is really trying to make me look bad. She says my vote has no consistency, after I said it was to spur conversation. And if you look where votes were at the time, voting someone who already had one vote is better than voting for someone with none. And she says lot of other people had not voted as well, and seems to wonder why I didn't vote for them. Clearly I can only place one vote, so I placed it as best as I could. Now I'm not trying to say I think it's very likely she's mafia. As I said early, I agreed with someone that it's very likely she's just an over-eager townie. BUT I'm pointing out the poorness of her arguments because you seem to think that my points against her are weak and makes me scummy. I'm saying they're based on good reasons, some of the best to go on right now since there's not much anywhere. And I'll remove my vote, as you request, but then I don't want to hear it mentioned as evidence of me vote hopping. And I don't see how me leaving my vote on Sint makes he and I a likely scum pair. If I've missed something, please let me know, because I think all the reasons to believe I'm mafia are weak and hopefully this answered all of it.

unvote Sint

[BrettH84]

Oh, and I'm realizing that the thread is becoming dominated by a portion of the players. It would be nice to see some input from the people who have been fairly silent, to at least know where you stand on your beliefs. Just a mentioning of the arguments you agree with and ones you don't will be good so we at least from you.

[brokenscraps]

Ok, thank you for clarifying, and I am rethinking my theories about you two, but I'm not sorry I said I thought you two were the most likely, I think it was worth it, and it was a honest answer to the question. Now I don't think I could answer the question.

I would like to hear more from some less vocal players, perhaps you could answer the question asked earlier.

[pinkkitten90]

Where did i say i was in agreement of the vote and using it as a way to start conversation.
And i didn't mean to do caps the key got stuck but i didn't think it was a problem.
And you can have more then one person suspicions, there are two mafia.
Everything i have done is to put out my own opinion and how i see things.
And as to it being to spur conversation.
Also how is voting for someone with already one vote better then voting for someone with out it.
I also think your missing the point of what I am saying.
And i didn't ask you to remove your vote, i just said that the way you did it didn't seem to be well enough explained to stop me from thinking it was scummy, you seemed to only do because he was not voting or replying enough when it had only been a couple of days since we got past the confirming stage and was only just in the second page.
I still don't see how my arguments are poor, as you say you have pointed out.

I don't see you two as a scum pair.

[pinkkitten90]

I agree with hearing those less vocal as with other people views thing can seem different. After all everyone thinks differently.

[BrettH84]

The post wasn't directed to you Kitten, it was to Scraps. He acknowledged in post 87 that he thought my change of vote was to create discussion. And that is why voting for someone with one vote already is better than voting for someone without. Giving a person one vote wouldn't generate conversation. Yes you can be suspicious of more than 1 person, but you were suspicious of 3 at the same time, yet criticize me for changing my suspicions, when I haven't done much of that, and never without reason. And again, you didn't ask me to remove my vote, Scraps in post 85 questioned my integrity for having my vote on Sint still.

[pinkkitten90]

i didn't say that they were suspicions though. it was the whole changing your vote without having an explanation that i found to be brought upon by the person.

ok it was kinda confusing in what you said because you just said you and you with out names and you started off by talking about me.

I didnt change my suspicions from person to person i just droped people as they explained what they ment or did.

plus half of what i said was from people asking about it and why i said that?

Sorry guys if I seemed to over analyze i do that often.

[Sint]

Okay guys, fuel on the fire. I'll use this post to throw out stuff I've seen and don't agree with / find suspicious.

I'm sorry if I misinterpreted, but I don't see why you would even need to make such a big deal about it if your only problem was that she called a non-random vote random. Just explain to her that the vote had a reason. It just seemed like you suspected her because of it, seeing as in the same post you cast a FoS at her. I know you had other reasons, but the first reason doesn't really seem like a reason at all, all she did was say the post was random. Also, I wasn't trying to pick one small part and discredit your whole post, I only had a problem with the parts I commented on.

Wrong. Words is all we have when playing on the forum. It is essential we look for slip-ups, explain everything we do and build cases. Yes then, if you pick a small part of a bigger post, it will look like it wasn't enough grounds to FOS but doing so it just wrong. I gave multiple reasons to why I FOS'd and picking only a small bit of it isn't well played.

The vote was not random, but I really think too much of a deal is being made out of whether someone though the vote was random or not. I think we've established that the target of the vote was chosen for a reason, can we move on soon?

This is wrong too. Pushing people on for clarification is the only way to see where they stand. Not only do you center the last page of discussion to a single subject (if the vote was random or not) and by that gloss over quite a bit of other interesting information, you also ask for people to ''move on''. Are you getting tired of people pushing your mafia buddy? Afraid she'll slip up?

---

woah. just got back on, and i see that people find me suspicious. I guess that my suspicion comes from the fact that this is my first time playing and I realize that bandwagoning is a bad idea now.
unvote: Sint
I'm not trying to be scummy, and believe me if you will that I am not scummy. chalk down the "I'll make it interesting" to inexperience.
that's my defense, and remember that being overly defensive is not a grounds for suspicion.
To be honest I'm actually most suspicious of the kitten partly because of her arguments and because she's a woman (jk).

This is rediculous.

Oh my, people find me suspicious for voting, I'll unvote then. I've learned from my mistake people! I'm town! I'm inexperienced, which is my defence. Take it or leave it.

What are we suppose to do with this post? Looks to me like you're saying ''uh oh I messed, but I'm inexperienced, so water under the bridge?'' which is a horrible defence. Not only are you not contributing anything to the current discussion, you're also giving us a choice to make: oh he's new so I'll believe him, or, oh it's a ploy so he's mafia. Also, saying that being overly defencive isn't a ground for suspicion is a weird thing to say because 1) you're not being overly defencive and 2) it is a ground to be suspicious of someone (IMO).
What's even more amusing is that pink basically says ''oh ok, that's all good, unvote'' in her respons to that. I mean.. what?
----

And I'll remove my vote, as you request, but then I don't want to hear it mentioned as evidence of me vote hopping.

That's crap. Are you trying to get on a good side of someone? You vote for who you find suspicious. You unvote because that person isn't the most suspicious anymore. Not because someone else asks you (or insinuates so). Also unvoting because you ''don't want to hear it mentioned as evidence'' again is also very wrong.

I did something with which you guys don't agree, but now I'm undoing it so you guys have nothing on me ok?

----

some straight questions
pink, did you or did you not agree with para (post 60) in post 62 that the vote brett made was not random.
pink, why did you FOS reach (post 53) but vote for him only half an hour later without getting a respons from him or anyone on his L-1?
scraps, why did you ask everyone to move on? And if we move on, what should we move on to?
reach / brett, any thoughts on what I wrote above?