Mini 967 - Mafia War (Over)

[Amish_Charney]

Vote- Stef

Your absolutes are just so conducive to discussion.

[Stef]

@pman: what's your take on the game so far, premature as it may be?
@Katsuki: capable of serious posting?
@Amish_Charney: there is a difference between common sense and absolutes. Your irony is noted though a tad hypocritical considering your allegation.

Has anything else caught your eye in the last dozen and a half posts?

[deadjoker]

Personally, I think Empking is overreacting to something that I think is quite benign.

unvote; vote pman

There is no such thing as "benign" this early in the game, considering there is a lack of information thus far and even very small tells are worth pursuing.

I like this little bandwagon on Katsuki, who I agree needs to wake up and smell the coffee and start posting seriously, and I want to see where it goes.

Vote- Stef

Your absolutes are just so conducive to discussion.

Amish the reasoning behind your vote on Stef seems lacking, and I'd like you to explain more about what you mean.

[Katsuki]

Perhaps you'd like to explain what tells there have been thus far deadjoker.

[Unsight]

Unvote
Vote: Exemption

Defending someone in page two. There is no reason for a town player to do that this early. Ever.

Attacking my post and then defending it makes no sense.

vote: Exemption

[pman5595]

There is no such thing as "benign" this early in the game, considering there is a lack of information thus far and even very small tells are worth pursuing.

I agree in principle, but this case does not apply. It wasn't a "small tell", it wasn't a tell at all. I was commenting on how I didn't like the way Empking was making something out of nothing.

@pman: what's your take on the game so far, premature as it may be?

The player I like the least right now is Empking, like I said for trying to make something out of nothing. I don't really have a town read on Katsuki but my gut doesn't say scum. There is something weird going on with Exemption with his hypocrisy over Unsight's post. I would like him to explain that.

unvote: stef

[horrordude0215]

Unsight, how was he defending your post?

[Empking]

There is no such thing as "benign" this early in the game, considering there is a lack of information thus far and even very small tells are worth pursuing.

I agree in principle, but this case does not apply. It wasn't a "small tell", it wasn't a tell at all. I was commenting on how I didn't like the way Empking was making something out of nothing.

If you call acting overdefensive to a vote (such as calling the voter an angry child) or trying to minimize a serious vote by saying its because the voter doesn't like cupcakes, or an inability to contribute constructively despite getting not a small number of votes. "nothing" . Then I'd ask you to look up the definition of nothing so you'll stop being suspicious of me.

[Exemption]

Unvote
Vote: Exemption

Defending someone in page two. There is no reason for a town player to do that this early. Ever.

Attacking my post and then defending it makes no sense.

vote: Exemption

I was attacking your post and defending you.
As in you posted a bad post but not a scummy one.

[deadjoker]

There is no such thing as "benign" this early in the game, considering there is a lack of information thus far and even very small tells are worth pursuing.

I agree in principle, but this case does not apply. It wasn't a "small tell", it wasn't a tell at all. I was commenting on how I didn't like the way Empking was making something out of nothing.

@pman: what's your take on the game so far, premature as it may be?

The player I like the least right now is Empking, like I said for trying to make something out of nothing. I don't really have a town read on Katsuki but my gut doesn't say scum. There is something weird going on with Exemption with his hypocrisy over Unsight's post. I would like him to explain that.

unvote: stef

If you don't have a town read on Katsuki then why would you (

continue to

) defend him? If I was in your line of thought I would be more then happy to see how Katsuki responds without speaking for him. Speaking of which ...

Perhaps you'd like to explain what tells there have been thus far deadjoker.

I'm not on your bandwagon, perhaps you would like to direct that question to those who are.

As far as pman goes, I have a small tell in a possible chainsaw defense.

[Soundwish]

Empking - why is Katsuki more likely to call me an "angry child" as scum than town?

[Snow_Bunny]

-Vote Count-

Amish_Charney (1) - Exemption
Zodiark13 (0)
pman5595 (1) -deadjoker
Unsight (1) - Me=Weird
horrordude0215 (0)
Soundwish (0)
Katsuki (3) - Zodiark13, Soundwish, Empking
Stef (0)
deadjoker (1) - Amish_Charney
Me=Weird (1) - horrordude0215
Exemption (2) - Stef, Unsight
Empking (1) - Katsuki

Not voting - pman5595

It's seven to lynch.

Deadline is on 19 May 2010

[Me=Weird]

Wow, just did an ISO, and katsuki's made, like, 0 serious posts.

Unvote, Vote: Katsuki

[Amish_Charney]

I voted for Stef because I don't like when people say "there's no reason to do something. Ever." And then vote on those sort of preconceived absolutes- they create an environment in which discussion of the material is discouraged, which I feel like usually helps the Scum. As I understood it, we thrived on robust discussion, and one of the few absolutes I'll brook is that longer days help the Town.

That said, I'm starting to grow leery of Katsuki. I thought voting him for the "angry child" comment was silly, but his defense has been severely wanting, and I really don't like how he's trying to shift the discussion to deadjoker. However, I can't tell if this is a scumtell, or just someone playing some bad Mafia- but I'm not ready to push him to L-2 yet.

Mod- just a note for the votecount, I have one on stef

No, you don't. Miss Unvote wants to have a talk with you first.

[Empking]

Empking - why is Katsuki more likely to call me an "angry child" as scum than town?

Scum is more worried about getting votes.

[Exemption]

Is it just me or is the format of this page messed up?

[Unsight]

Unsight, how was he defending your post?

I don't follow. He admits in the same post to defending it. Are you ignoring that for a reason?

[Katsuki]

Since I am getting quite the attention, I would love two things explained:

1. Why is calling sound an "angry child" deserving of a vote on my part? I am very curious.
As for my side of that, I assumed his post was a RV (which it probably was). The smiley should've said it all. It was further explained in post 47.


2. I'm getting slammed for lack of serious posts. Really? Last I checked that was not even a tell before

page 3

. If someone would like to explain how that warrents a vote I would really love to hear the reasoning.


In all honesty though, I have a problem with empking's arguments. He is calling me out for being overdefensive yet not serious at the same time. Considering I haven't even been defending myself, I fail to see how those "not serious" posts can even be related nor seen as overdefensive. He is also taking my posts out of context and ignoring things posted earlier explaining my posts.

If you call acting overdefensive to a vote (such as calling the voter an angry child)

Yeah, he said my post 31 made him angry everytime he read it... I was responding to his “anger” over my post, not to his vote. I already explained this in post 47, which you conveniently neglected and continued on with your own argument. Even if you assume I was responding to the vote, yes, that is definately overdefensive (/sarcasm). You attack me for lack of serious posts, and for being overdefensive at the same time. I fail to see how that combination works, as lack of serious posts in response to votes is obviously not being overdefensive.

Trying to minimize a serious vote by saying its because the voter doesn't like cupcakes

Including this in your argument of me being overdefensive. Links back to the lack of seriousness and overdefensive argument. And yes, the voter not liking cupcakes reduces the seriousness of all votes (/more sarcasm). No, my cupcake response was to post 48, which stated

“Personally, I think Empking is overreacting to something that I think is quite benign.”

Go back and read, post 49 was not the response to your "serious vote" reason, #47 was.

[Me=Weird]

2. I'm getting slammed for lack of serious posts. Really? Last I checked that was not even a tell before page 3. If someone would like to explain how that warrents a vote I would really love to hear the reasoning.

It means you don't really care and are at least a good policy lynch. Also, has anyone else been acting more suspicious than you? Also,

V/LA for all of tomorrow.

Noted.

[horrordude0215]

Unsight, how was he defending your post?

I don't follow. He admits in the same post to defending it. Are you ignoring that for a reason?

Whoops... I was looking at the post you quoted, thinking it was Stef you were talking about Just ignore my stupid comments

[Empking]

1. Katsuki, you called a player a "child". Y/N
You said that to a player who voted you. Y/N
You said that in response to the post where he voted you. Y/N
A child's vote has less meaning than an adult's (When thinking of following.) Y/N
That voter never gave any reason to beleive he was a child. Y/N
Your post wasn't serious. Y/N
When somebody voted you, you called them a child in response to that vote. (AKA you were overdefensive). Y/N

2. Where is the word "All" in this sentance.

Trying to minimize a serious vote by saying its because the voter doesn't like cupcakes

You called a serious vote a vote based on not liking cupcakes. Y/N
This is calling it a random vote. Y/N
A random vote has less worth than a serious vote. Y/N
You were trying to reduce the worth of a serious vote. Y/N

3. Are you saying that saying I'm reacting to "cuddly bears and cupcakes" rather than my serious reasons, is not a comment related to my vote?

[Katsuki]

1. Katsuki, you called a player a "child". Y - Due to his over-exaggurated reaction to my post.
You said that to a player who voted you. Y
You said that in response to the post where he voted you. Y
A child's vote has less meaning than an adult's. N
That voter never gave any reason to beleive he was a child. - This is irrelevent to the argument and my response to his vote.
Your post wasn't serious. Correct
When somebody voted you, you called them a child in response to that vote. N


Your child argument is quite weak, silly, and meaningless. Children over-react, and because his overreaction was anger, hence "angry child".

Unvote, vote: Katsuki

Post 31 just rubs me up the wrong way. Makes me angry every time I read it.

Empking seems incapable of detecting sarcasm, especially in RVS.


2. Where is the word "All" in this sentance. - The sentence was sarcasm. Plus, your post implied that cupcakes diffuse the seriousness of votes, in this case, your vote.

You called a serious vote a vote based on not liking cupcakes. - N
This is calling it a random vote. - N
A random vote has less worth than a serious vote. - Y (re: first vote on me, P1)
You were trying to reduce the worth of a serious vote. - N

3. Are you saying that saying I'm reacting to "cuddly bears and cupcakes" rather than my serious reasons, is not a comment related to my vote?

Yep. Re: post 48. If you really wanted to try very hard and relate it indirectly to your vote then sure, go ahead. You are stretching things as it is so why not.


Another note: You conveniently left out my reaction to the first vote on me too, which was the akatsuki comment. I like how that is not part of the overly defensive argument, yet that post of mine was along the same lines as the rest. It is also conveniently not part of your argument on how random votes count just as much as serious ones.

[Katsuki]

*Left this out.

Soundwish: Clarifying whether that RV of yours was serious or not would be appreciated. Empking seems to think it was very serious.

[Soundwish]

I do not know why you would interpret it as a random vote. For one thing, I had already made a random vote, and making second ones is flat-out anti-town, and for another thing, my post clearly does not read like a random vote at all. Your post really did rub me up the wrong way, and it still makes me angry every time I read it. I find it strange that you assumed it was random.

I should clarify that I think the case that Empking is making against you is not a very good one, and I will probably move my vote when I get a chance to thoroughly read the thread (weekend access is a little restricted).

[Empking]

Katsuki: Now that Soundwish has posted. Can you finally admit that you're trying to make serious votes look like baseless random votes?

Katsuki: Are votes a reaction to things?

Katsuki: Please explain what your reactions to random votes has to do with my case?

Katsuki: Have you made any posts that you're not going to brush off as "sarcasm".

Katsuki: You called Soundwish's vote an overreaction but haven't given any reasons to support that. Y/N.