Mini 967 - Mafia War (Over)

[pman5595]

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.

The thing is, I didn't and still don't see that specific post by katsuki over defensive. The post about cupcakes seemed like an attempt at humor, and it was early enough in the game not to mean anything, at least to me. For the third reason, that was true, at the time of this post. He was not being serious enough (although he has gotten a lot better over the last couple of posts). The funny thing is, why have you never mentioned that before that post? When I have played as scum, there have been many times where I should have been caught using very vague reason as to why I am voting someone, a reason that I had not mentioned before. This seems a case that could possibly be similar to that.

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.

Now that he has started acting a bit more seriously, I do have a town read on him. Before, I thought that the things he said that made people get a scum read on him were not scum tells, so I defended him. I am more than happy to let him defend himself, but if suspicions are put on someone whom I do not find suspicious, I will defend them.

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

that tell is only valid if katsuki is scum.

[Empking]

I hadn't mentioned the contribute constructively because before that post I wasn't certain if it was noteworthy.

How is "an inability to contribute constructively despite getting not a small number of votes." vague?

[pman5595]

How is "an inability to contribute constructively despite getting not a small number of votes." vague?

It's just saying that he is not contributing enough, which is vague because there is no specific amount that constitutes bad contribution.

[Empking]

How is "an inability to contribute constructively despite getting not a small number of votes." vague?

It's just saying that he is not contributing enough, which is vague because there is no specific amount that constitutes bad contribution.

Ah. I thought it was clear that there was no contribution. I guess it wasn't crystal clear.

[Snow_Bunny]

-Vote Count-

Amish_Charney (1) - Exemption
Zodiark13 (0)
pman5595 (1) -deadjoker
Unsight (0)
horrordude0215 (0)
Soundwish (0)
Katsuki (4) - Zodiark13, Soundwish, Empking, Me=Weird
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

[Amish_Charney]

I'm with pman, I once believed Katsuki's defense to be weak, I take no issue with his more recent posts and responses to the cross examination by Empking. And defense of someone looking down the barrel of charges that could be interpreted as silly isn't a scumtell either.

I'm kind of unclear as to what constitutes a chainsaw defense here though.

For the sake of clarity-

unvote
vote-stef

[Empking]

I'm with pman, I once believed Katsuki's defense to be weak, I take no issue with his more recent posts and responses to the cross examination by Empking. And defense of someone looking down the barrel of charges that could be interpreted as silly isn't a scumtell either.

Its a group tell though. If you don't know someone's alignment you shouldn't link with them, plus if somebody's of unknown alignment you'll want to know how they'll react.

[Katsuki]

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.

Ahh... my bad, I thought your vote was RV, did not notice the original vote. I thought yours was RV due to the way you put it, and because that was similar to the style I'd be using for a RV. I apologize for not asking for clarification earlier.

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.

1. No I was not trying to make serious votes look like baseless random vote. Soundwish's was a mixup on my part, and yours I already gave reason against it that you seem to

still

refuse to consider in the argument. You are also basing your argument off of the fact that I was reacting to soundwish's vote as serious, which I did not do and thus I see as invalid.

2. Depends.

3. You have been claiming me as over-defensive. I had considered 2 out of 3 votes on me as random. Thus for me, you taking one random and not the other made no sense. Not to mention, all prior arguments were made based on soundwish's being a RV, and should still be viewed as such. As such, grilling me for reacting the way I did to what I thought was a RV is unreasonable, as it is not my reaction to a "serious" vote.

4. You are not reading at all.

5. N, read above. It was the way he worded it as well as me seeing it as a RV. He also gave no reasons in the post for why it made him "angry and rubbed him in the wrong way", and thus I saw it as exagguration in a RVS post.

[deadjoker]

I'm very interested to hear why Katsuki has not responded to this post by Empking:

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

Scum is more worried about getting votes.

To me this is a very valid point. Everyone got random votes on them, but Katsuki was the only one to respond with an explosion of half-hearted "lol its RVS" posts. He continues in his posts to reference RVS in his attempts to erase the mounting suspicion against him, and muddy the waters to put doubt in the people currently on his bandwagon. Hence why I stated in my first post - I have a pet peeve over players stating it is RVS. It is so anti-town and widely accepted on these forums, as if the playstyle intentially gives scum a free pass in the first few pages of every game. I am not about to allow Katsuki to "lol its RVS" his way out of this bandwagon.

If Katsuki can successfully respond to my inquiries then I won't have a case against him anymore, but if he tries to avoid answering directly then I will join his bandwagon.

Now that he has started acting a bit more seriously, I do have a town read on him. Before, I thought that the things he said that made people get a scum read on him were not scum tells, so I defended him. I am more than happy to let him defend himself, but if suspicions are put on someone whom I do not find suspicious, I will defend them.
deadjoker wrote:

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

that tell is only valid if katsuki is scum.

Quite right. There are three possibilities as to why you would defend some one in a mini bandwagon (he was and remains far from being quick-lynched by scum) in an attempt to bring it to a halt.

1. You are both scum, and you are attempting to take some heat off of him. This is a potential chainsaw defense, but I could be wrong with what I've read on it thus far, nevertheless it is highly likel to be a scum-tell. As Empking stated, scum are more concerned with votes, I think this holds true with scum's partner(s) in crime.

2. You are scum and he is town. Simple buddying.

3. You are both town (or he is scum and you are town, same analysis). Anti-town, because as been mentioned several time before discussion is good for town, and even small bandwagons on town can help flush out the mafia.

You want to defend a fellow town? Scum hunt some one else, build a case, and if you get enough evidence other players will follow.

Until then you remain the scummiest in my mind, for jumping in to stop a bandwagon right out of RVS. Early bandwagons are the best way to come out of RVS as it forces people to take a stance. The stance you took right out of the gate was to defend Katsuki, which smells like scum, and at best is anti-town.

[Stef]

@MOD: Please prod Zodiark13 as he has not posted in over 3 days

I've kinda got a problem with Exemption disappearing after two votes were placed on him. Lurking IS an efficient scum technique and, scum or not, the discussion has shifted from him completely. Wouldn't like that to happen, would we.

@Katsuki: Who are your top 3 suspects right now?
@pman: Why do you have a town read on katsuki?
@deadjoker: the only problem I have with your last post is that you are basically telling pman, if he is scum, what to do to look better.

--------------

To be honest, so far, two people are main in my suspicions. Those are pman and Katsuki with a slight third, Exemption.

First Katsuki:

He is the most heated subject at the moment. His defense is extremely weak, his posts are doing nothing to help the town at all and he looks like a little scum caught in a corner. This might just be attributed to inexperience but we can't use that as an excuse can we.

He dismisses

a vote

as being invalid because, and I quote, "You are also basing your argument off of the fact that I was reacting to soundwish's vote as serious, which I did not do" which is another way of saying "You are wrong, I am right" in an argument which cannot be won by either because it is impossible to know katsuki's intentions, we can only guess. Serious or not, the fact remains that he picked on the one person who voted for him and as empking eloquently said, scum have more of a problem getting votes than town.

Basically all his defense is saying "I thought it was RV" and that just isn't enough.

He is one of my first two suspects for the reasons above. I will not vote for him yet as that would bring him only two votes from a lynch which is not good yet. I still want to hear more from Exemption and Zordiak who hasn't said.. well.. anything yet.

-----------------------------

Second: Pman

Well, this is an easy case to make. ALL his posts have been defending katsuki and his ONLY suspect is the person who is driving the case against Katsuki, Empking. That is scummy like hell to be short on words.

Also, what should ring a bell is that he's not only defending katsuki's actions, he's also saying that katsuki "has gotten a lot better over the last couple of posts" although analyzing his last couple of posts other than being serious, nothing has changed considering katsuki's adding 0 relevant content to the game. Where's the "a lot better"?

P.S. Funny how katsuki never mentioned pman in his posts considering he's his main defender. Just something to consider.

[Katsuki]

I just got back and am very tired, so I'll post/answer tomorrow. Sorry guys.

Just a few quick comments though:

@Stef: You say that my posts have done very little to help town thus far. Considering I've been spending my time defending myself from empking, I do not see how I am expected to carry out two discussions at the same time (in this case, defend and scumhunt at the same time).

Also as I said before, my response to soundwish was not over the vote, it was over the comment. That would actually further detract from the argument that I was actually being defensive not acting seriously. So when you think about it, regardless of RV or not, I never defended against soundwish's vote. That vote not being RV just means that I apparently responded to a "serious" vote with a "humorous" response. (Just a note, he still has not stated exactly why he voted me aside from "post making him angry", and I'm sorry, when its 6 posts into page 2 and also when others are still posting RVs, its hard to take a reason like that seriously considering the reason). Just saying.


@deadjoker: I thought I had already responded to that post, but evidently not as I do not see my response. I will post tomorrow. Sorry.

One thing though:

"I have a pet peeve over players stating it is RVS. It is so anti-town and widely accepted on these forums"

Actually, I have never heard this before. I am actually rather unfamiliar with the fine-line between RVS and actual scumhunting stage here. Considering how soundwish's vote came when others were still RV'ing (up to around post 40), I do not quite understand why I am being bashed for thinking it was a RV. Just saying that from where I'm used to playing, we do not mix real votes into RVS and RVS usually leads into discussion. (not like the meta between RVS and discussion seen here I guess).


Bleh, short comments turned into this. effing hell.

I would like to hear what others have to say in regards to empking though, as his is really the only significant vote on me at the moment (1 is RVS, 1 is soundwish's to which the reason for voting has not been actually explained yet, 1 is me=weird, who's reasoning up to now has been "lack of seriousness = good policy lynch", which was back early P3, and then empking's.)

[Soundwish]

unvote, vote: Me=Weird

for bringing up the idea of a policy lynch on page 3.

[Stef]

@Katsuki: Are you avoiding my question? Please answer it.

[Katsuki]

No, I was posting very late last night.

I will get to you and deadjoker today when I have time.

[Exemption]

@stef sorry busy weekend.
I would like it noted that both sides of the discussion have not posted for a while though. Also horror as pretty much done nothing constructive so far so:

unvote, vote Horror

start playing the game please =]

actually no

unvote, vote Me=Wierd

I just looked at all your posts. You have voted for people in 3 out of the 6 posts you have made (double post and confirm not included). This along with calling Katsuki a good policy lynch make it seem to me like you are wanting a lynch fast. Also apart from the random vote you seem just to be using others arguments and not finding up your own. These are scummy.

I'm not to sure on what I think of Katsuki i think his defence has been acceptable but I'm getting more swayed by other peoples arguments against him.

oh and I think the way Empking's 7th and 8th posts are so long to get such a small reason across. I noticed that you were trying to make him slip up and get caught out, but it also seems like your trying to make your case stronger by posting something big and formatted clearly

[Katsuki]

I'm very interested to hear why Katsuki has not responded to this post by Empking:

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

Scum is more worried about getting votes.

To me this is a very valid point. Everyone got random votes on them, but Katsuki was the only one to respond with an explosion of half-hearted "lol its RVS" posts. He continues in his posts to reference RVS in his attempts to erase the mounting suspicion against him, and muddy the waters to put doubt in the people currently on his bandwagon. Hence why I stated in my first post - I have a pet peeve over players stating it is RVS. It is so anti-town and widely accepted on these forums, as if the playstyle intentially gives scum a free pass in the first few pages of every game. I am not about to allow Katsuki to "lol its RVS" his way out of this bandwagon.

If Katsuki can successfully respond to my inquiries then I won't have a case against him anymore, but if he tries to avoid answering directly then I will join his bandwagon.

I took the first 2 votes as RVS, and as you can tell from my responses to those two, I didn't really care (honestly, my response to soundwish's had a ":(" too...) In essense, at that time, I took only empking's as a serious vote, and his reasons for voting for me were weak (post 46). Since, me=weird has voted me for policy lynch, and sondwish has removed his vote.

On the topic of scum worried about getting many votes and bandwagoned early on, I do agree with that statement. However, it is a combination of the votes on the player (well-reasoned votes, RVS votes, bad votes, etc.) and about how the player reacts to those votes/being bandwagoned that gives you the important information. At least, that is what I look for when someone defends themselves. Defending oneself when bandwagoned is something everyone does. However, scum tend to be overdefensive about being voted. While I did respond to each of the votes on me (including zodiark's RVS), I do not see how my actions were both out of the ordinary nor over-defensive. I would lastly like to just say that my response to soundwish's vote was similar to my response to zodiarks (would empking now like to use me calling zodiark's vote "outlandish" against me as well for being over-defensive?).

I am not trying to use RVS as a defense, but I have been trying to note that the first two votes on me originally occured during RVS. That is all.

_____________________________________

I will get to stef's post later. Sorry for delays.

[Amish_Charney]

Not really sure what to make of the recent Me=Weird wagonling, I'll wait to see what he says after he comes back from V/LA-

As far as pman is concerned, these aren't blind defenses of Katsuki, they're based on a fairly reasonable assumption that the cupcake posts could be a feeble attempt at humor, and as far as defense of others is concerned, it's valid if you actually are getting town reads from someone. This is especially true if you're in an environment where people are already talking about policy lynches by the third page.

[Stef]

Exemption... your post really irks me. All you have done is jump on the wagon/cases already created and considering your disappearing after you got voted and you ignoring the votes on you now ... it just looks like you lurked to get rid of the heat and now you instantly jump on Me=Weird. I most definitely don't like that one bit.

I pretty much like my vote at the moment.

@Amish_Charney: When stupid things like policy lynches are mentioned in page 3 you don't defend the target, you explain why a policy lynch is stupid and that's that. Also, it is funny that you would use the policy lynch argument in defense of pman considering he never addressed it in his posts and that he started defending katsuki before the policy lynch was even mentioned by Me=Weird.

Defending anyone Day 1 is not ok in any setup that starts with daytime because NO town can be sure of anybody's faction and could therefore derail a case against someone who is actually scum. That makes any townie defending another townie an anti-town play and also opens the strong possibility of scum buddying up to a townie so in the case of a lynch he would be seen as against the lynch and look better in the eyes of the town OR the possibility of scum defending scum which is self-explanatory. This whole thinking stream is self-explanatory and that is why I said it's common sense and NOT an absolute as you call it.

Following this line of thinking I am rather intrigued by the large number of people defending other people (3 at the moment) and irked by it because it's making the town's job of finding scum more difficult. Strongest by far till now has been pman but it's making it a less strong argument against him when two other people have done it/are doing it as well.

Pman's defense of Katsuki IS a blind defense because, as I said, unless he is scum he has NO way of knowing if katsuki is town or not and his arguments are speculations regarding katsuki's intentions behind his posting which is a horrible argument for katsuki because it can not be proven and even a worse one for someone else using the same arguments in defense OF katsuki.

Any speculation, at this point, of his intentions is just hurting the town because we're wasting time debating what his intentions were when this is one of the things that will never reach a conclusion. The only things that would be helpful is to discuss his (and anyone's for that matter) ACTIONS because that's the only thing we are sure of.

[Zodiark13]

Sorry for my absence, but I didn't have much to add. I would rather have an accusation of lurking then an accusation of parroting. Plus, my mum just had a baby girl, and I've been helping look after my other siblings. One thing I will say, I'm not sure what to think of Katsuki suddenly going into wall-post mode after s/he was accused of not seriously posting. It is either a townie trying to do their job, or scum trying to look like town doing their job.

[Katsuki]

Huh? It is called defending and answering questions.

Stef did not get to your post today, it will be answered tmr.

[Me=Weird]

I mentioned policy lynches because if we had to lynch someone without having the slightest idea if they're scum, it would be better to lynch someone who didn't make serious posts until after page 3, than it would be to lynch someone who is contributing nicely. And I'm going to take a look at pman, along with just about everybody.

[Exemption]

@stef: Who else has called Me=Weird up for being eager to vote? Yes he was accused for wanting a policy lynch but not for the way he himself votes. When I said I agreed with peoples reasons for going after Katsuki, clearly I was joining with other peoples arguments. It's not like you guys have missed anything I noticed though, but I wanted it know that I think he is scummy.

Also why would I lurk to let the heat drop? As you prove doing that hardly works does it. You just look like you were cowering to avoid having to get really defensive.

It is either a townie trying to do their job, or scum trying to look like town doing their job.

Isn't everything?

@Horror: What do you think of your random vote still being on me= weird?

[Amish_Charney]

Why are you raising the possibility that we'll come to the situation why that's possible. Sounds like you're tying to pressure a foregone conclusion.

unvote

vote- Me=Weird

[horrordude0215]

@Horror: What do you think of your random vote still being on me= weird?

Well I was busy and didn't have time to move it, but why Me was suggesting a Policy Lynch on someone on Page 3 and then saying "Well, if we don't have anything else to go off of, it's better to lynch Kat!" as an excuse, I like my vote where it is now.

And if you add that to the fact that he went out of his way to point out that he was going to look at pman (who has been drawing quite a bit of fire recently) along with everyone else, I find that a bit suspect.

I don't know if I like the chainsaw defense as a reason for voting pman though... I know that I will defend anyone I don't believe to be scum if they're getting pressure. That's just me, though, and it may just be a playstyle thing.

Mod: Prod on Unsight please?

[Me=Weird]

Just did a PBPA on pman, he isn't really scummier than katsuki...yet. I mentioned pman specifically because he was who I intended on doing it on, the everyone else was almost an afterthought. An afterthought that I don't currently have time to pursue.