Mafia 1114: Jim's Mafia - Game OVER!!!!

[Mute]

Getting this out in advance: Tomorrow I won't be around between 3-8(?) tomorrow afternoon, and that as my newbie game kinda got heated just recently I'll have to go back and read things through from after post #66, the mod's vote count.

Will try have something later tonight.

[Oso]

..
I am going to ask again that players read, and give their opinion of, ICEninja's Post 47. I currently find it to be the most interesting post of the game. I find it very difficult to read a Town intention into this post.

As requested. I can do that before my main post.

By itself, intentionally doing something scummy for a purpose is null (scum and town both do it, albeit for different reasons), as Conspiracy pointed out to me earlier.

What I find more interesting is that he used over-the-top language when voting you, which he stated was on purpose an served a purpose but then doesn't dial it back any at all when voting Mute. "Finding it disgusting..." in regards to Mute's mentioning a policy lynch is strong. The single game I played with him (ICENinja), he was much milder in language until the point he got overly frustrated. Hard to have a meta on a player after only a single game but there it is.

I'd go ahead and vote him now but I want to finish reading the day's posts first. Magnus made a couple of posts that seem interesting and I'd like to get through them first. Since my game with DP, I added a rule to the way I play mafia: Pressure cook DP as early and as often as possible and see if he cracks (<-that is only a semi-joke, by the way).

[RobCapone]

Now my read through for what I missed today

(post 39) Javert's explanation of his vote actually makes sense, although I will say it is a tactic I haven't really seen used before and it did seem scummy at the time it happened

(post 40)DP - Interesting you call me

"lurker/fence-sitter scum"

when you don't even know my situation, the game hasn't even been open for 24 hours and opened close to my bed time, and you have no basis to accuse me of fence sitting at this point in the game(note to DP, learn definition of fence sitting), just because I don't respond to the beginning of a wagon. I again notice at the end of the post you attack me again. this is just crappy play if you are town.

(post 41) @ David, Why do you seem so intent on removing the wagon from Javert, he is a big boy and he can defend himself, especially if he brought the attention to himself. I can only think of a limited number of reasons why you would be defending him, but I won't speculate too much right now until I see the game develop more. In addition if you knew what he was trying to do, why did you feel the need to ruin it? He was obviously doing it for a reason and you just took the wind out of his sail so now he looked scummy for it and he can't get the "money shot"

(post 43) - Edge I disagree with your point about lurkers, lurkers are scummy so we can very easily get into that spiral because my experience has shown this to be true in almost every game I have played. Scum lurk because it takes attention off of them, and it is quite easy to tell which lurkers are truly disinterested and which ones are lurking scum, I will keep an eye on them and point them out as I notice them, but right now the game is still early so nobody is really a lurker yet.

The rest of the posts I am just taking mental notes, no need to put everything down on paper but I will point out some interesting content from Mr. Parker since he was so eager to falsely accuse me of stuff, I feel I have the right to point out his particularly bad play.

The town were all tunneling on a player because of his refusal to answer questions and be apart of the town

- so 3 people are "the town"?

They didn't look into the intent behind Javert's play

how do you know if they did or didn't? Just because you "claim" to see his intent doesn't mean it is apparent to everyone else

To me, "diffusing the situation" was a matter of focusing the town on actual scum hunting

trying to get town points? Thank you for your help Mr. Parker, but what if some people actually thought J was scum and they were scum hunting, also since you diffused the point of J's plot you have basically made that entire thing wortless and actually TAKEN AWAY from scum hunting.

I mean someone was more than welcome to show how what Javert did was more likely scum than town,

you didn't even give people the chance, you just said people were voting him for the "wrong reasons"

When asked what he has done to get the town focused on scum hunting he replies

These questions are getting more and more generic and annoying. I've been highlighting what's actually relevent, putting things in context, deterring discussion about MD (ie: policy lynching etc), and focusing on players reactions and intent in their post, just general analysis.

1. highlighting what is relevant to DP is not what is relevant to me or any other player and it doesn't help town get back to scum hunting
2. putting things into context - not sure how he even did this, unless his defending J's ploy was an example, but that doesn't help anyone get focused, if anything he took away from it because the reaction to the wagon and the reaction from the person J' voted never got to play out fully.
3. deterring discussion about MD (ie: policy lynching etc) - this doesn't get us focused from scum hunting and I know why DP is objecting to PL's it's because I am willing to bet he has been PL'd many times on this site
4. his interpretation of intent is different than others and saying what a person's intent is or isn't really isn't acceptable because it is the equivilent of speaking for somebody else or answering the question for them, it isn't genuine imo and borders scummy
5. Giving your own analysis doesn't help town get focused on scum hunting either, it gives town something to consider when looking at who to target I will give you that but reading your posts don't make me go OMG we need to start scum hunting.

btw if you are pro-town and you respond to questions from somebody by calling them or their questions annoying, you really are setting yourself as a model player in this game

My "concern" was because the 3 people voting him were for all the wrong reasons.

- just because they are wrong to you doesn't mean they are wrong to anyone else. What makes your compass of right and wrong better than everyone elses?

They were going after an easy wagon on someone who was in reality helping the game progress.

DP, the wagon on him WAS helping the game progress, his vote declaration I don't think was never going to take off because once somebody declares something as fact especially this early on, that person is going to be suspect. If he was trying to get a wagon on himself going, than he succeeded and you just eliminated everything good that could have come out of it.

man you give me tons of good material as to why we should lynch you, but because I know of you and your history, I know that this is essentially pushing a policy lynch (regardless if you are scum or town, lynching you today is a policy lynch because you fall into the category of Furclow, Drmyshotty, etc)

so I will suggest the same thing to you that a good player on here suggested to me.

Take a breath and think before you hit that submit button.

[ICEninja]

I thought I answered all the questions directed at me. I apologize.

How do you bandwaggon without voting? How do you know he is not reaction hunting with his RVS votes?

This is a strange question. Bandwagoning and random voting are different. How can you simply lump them together? You have to vote, but any worthwhile bandwagon has to have better reasoning than "your name is scummy".

Do you think this adds anything useful at all to your vote?

What? That doesn't even make sense considering the situation. It was my reasoning for voting, so how can you ask if it adds anything useful to my vote?

Your questions don't give me the feeling that you really know what I'm talking about at all.

You refused to consider the possibiliy of a reaction seeking strategy by Javert and went all the way to support a vote (which you called serious) with a flawed additional argument (that only scum would know another players alignment... bussing accusation?).

You seem to be refusing to consider the possibility of a reaction seeking strategy by myself and are going all the way to supporting a vote you're calling serious on me. I'm not sure where people are getting the impression that what I said seemed forced. Both you and Javert have mentioned it, however, so I'll have to go back and read my own post to see where people are coming from.

Your responses are not void of logic but I consider that a trait of someone who knows how to carry out a discussion.

So you're calling me clever scum then? I'm feeling like you're going to use this statement to discount my contributions.

You try to politely shove off David's and Javert's inquiries. But, as they get more incisive, you start throwing back covert punches, that suggest a platform for a future vote (one that you can't afford to pull right now, because Mute is the easier wagon at this point).

Defending myself from and shoving off are completely different. I'm not throwing covert punches at all, I'm outright accusing Javert of hypocrisy. A lot of people are finding what I did scummy, and what Javert did pro-town. I just don't get it. I really honestly don't.

I'm not on Mute because he's the easier wagon, I'm on him because he looks the scummiest.

What A bold statement! Scum can gain from a policy lynch! It's like saying scum can gain from a mislynch. A non statement.

Someone asked. What was I supposed to say? I don't really think Javert is scum, as he's been acting with mostly pro-town intentions, or so it seems. I don't like his hypocritical attack on me, but I don't think he's scum for it. Mute, on the other hand, isn't acting with any pro-town intention that I can see. He's done quite a few things that bother me.

Here's a full case of why I'm suspicious of Mute.
-In ISOs 0 and 2, he places votes based on player's names. In ISO 3, he makes a statement suggesting his random votes accomplish a lot for town. Perhaps this is theory disagreement, but to me it looks like he's trying to make himself look more productive and pro-town than he is.
-In ISO 4 he makes a FoS against Javert. In ISO 5 he says that Javert's actions, as scum, wouldn't make sense. In ISO 6, he votes for Javert. In ISO 8, he says he feels justified in putting Javert at L-2. This seems contradictory to me.

This is in addition to his statement declaring a desire for a policy lynch that would hurt town and help scum. So yes, I think Mute is playing scummy. Does that mean I'm ready to declare him scum and lynch him? Absolutely not, it is page 3.

[Prox]

Ugh. You all make such big posts. That makes things easier for us in the long run, but I'm going to have to be blunt. I don't have the time to meet that standard. There'll be exceptions, but I'm sitting here holding a DSi in the dark near midnight.

Anyways. ICEninja. His posts would make the main character of Catcher in the Rye kill himself. He sounds like such a phony.

He's so apologetic and polite. He's perfectly reasoned and never leaves out a word.

That wouldn't be a problem if it just seemed real. If his meta doesn't show him playing like this in his other games, then he must be scum.

Is he normally like this? Are you normally like this?

As for everyone else, I'll have to actually read your posts instead of skimming them, I guess.

[DavidParker]

Sigh, wall territory has been entered...

1. so what was the purpose of asking AND voting, do you feel they need to be together? You can't just ask and wait for my response? you can't vote and just give that as your reason?

2. What makes that wagon relevant when it isn't even a wagon yet, I don't consider it a bandwagon until more than half of the required number to lynch have voted(example if it takes 7 to lynch it doesn't become a bandwagon to me until there are 4 votes)

1. That is just how I word my posts. I use sarcasm and make subtle jabs at people. This will come up later in your big wall post. In general the way I post isn't straight-forward and analytical, not everything is meant to be taken word for word. (I'm actually a writer, so that's partly why I hate purely informative prose). I could easily have voted and given that as my reason.. What difference does it make to you whether I ask it as a question and vote or just state it and vote, or ask it as a question and not vote. Either way it was pressuring you to post and me clearly stating that I disapprove of your post and found it scummy. The three all accomplish the same thing. You'll notice the question wasn't even directed at you. So yeah, I can do any of those things you stated, sure, but I didn't. That's my playstyle.
2. It was the most relevent discussion at the time. It was the focus of the most recent posts and it was definitely a wagon being formed. Whether it had 1 vote or 4 votes on it, it was far more useful to have been discussing that, than some silly questions at the time of your post. It's not the size of the wagon that I was referring to but more about how the first case on a player had kicked off and the people posting who were on at that time should have been focusing on it unless they had something better (which hey, there was just a page of RVS and a few silly questions, so i doubt they did)


/Sidetrack.

@Javert: I think that post(#47), on a standalone basis, is probably the scummiest post so far and is definitely not well thought out and is very scummy. As a whole given the way your wagon occurred and Ice's positioning on it I'd say he is likely scum and would be in my top few picks for a lynch today at this point of the game. However, his response to accusations has been somewhat formidable, although it's much easier to respond to accusations regarding a scummy post than it is to avoid making scumlike-slips in posts.

@Oso: No fair

That game was a one-off terrible game of mine that I was never even caught up with or tried to keep up with! I wouldn't crack again. (And you don't seem to be talking to me at all, what's going on!)

@Manut:

Now, a lot of people will think I am lurking, but I am not. If I have nothing to say, i won't say anything. I am still inexperienced, so i am not great at knowing what to make of other's posts.

My best way of finding scum is finding the bandwagoners. I don't like bandwagons. I find if someone is constantly jumping on a bandwagon, I take extreme suspicion of him/her.

You might want to try other ways of finding scum. Use your gut and intuition, but bandwagoning alone won't get your far. Sometimes a wagon is the right place to be. (Kinda like this Ice wagon is tempting me right now)

@magnus: I probably do underestimate some tells, it's probably largely based on how I play, and how I react to certain things (ie: people voting me and attacking certain aspects of my playstyle), generally it's me in Javert's position creating negative attention towards myself to help create discussion. (ie: http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=15318) Anyways, point is, when I've been caught out it's not because of some "pressure wagon" getting to me, it's because I've been lazy keeping up and taken shortcuts or because as a whole players have analyzed my intent throughout the game.

@Ice: Your post #70 does not come off too well either. Firstly, you are preparing yourself to vote for me should a wagon kick off there by reluctantly saying I looked town but relooking you're not sure. That alone wasn't that scummy, but combined with your attempt to turn all the attention to people who aren't posting at this point (scum are in the shadows, we dont have reads on lots of players, etc) seems scummy. There is a slight problem with a few people not posting, but all you've done is say "hey some people aren't posting and we have no reads are them, and scum are probably in the shadows" (trying to make us connect the dots and go after these people), why don't you do something about those lurkers? That's what I was doing with my vote on Rob...

Btw,

Unvote

. I'm not happy but I'm not unhappy with your input.

@Humble: Nothing to say about/to you except you may as well change my timezone to GMT+8 since I fly out tomorrow night.

ALRIGHT! Back to responding:

@Rob: Calling you "lurker/fence sitter scum" was hyperbole and not something I even myself believed to be entirely true. (but hey it could be). This brings me back to my earlier point, there was some sarcasm or at least

jest

intended with that unfair labeling of yourself. Just like I did the same and labeled Mute as something similar, overly-cautious,twitchy scum or something.

Oh, I know he's a big boy and can defend himself. But sometimes hearing defences from other people can help players. It's helped me in the past. I was tunneling on someone pretty hard and any defense they said I just read as having scum intent and refused to see any town motivation to their play. It was only when another player stood up and defended them that I felt this player was in fact quite possibly town. And yeah, I did sink his ship somewhat, I'd rather let people know how clever I was for figuring it out than let it play it's course though. I do have an ego :/

- so 3 people are "the town"?

At that point in the game, more or less, yes. They were the 3 people actively posting and pretty much EVERYONE following Javert's random vote was wagoning onto Javert. So within the context of that post, yes, the town were tunneling on Javert. When taken out of context like you just did, well no 3 people is not the town. While I go read up on what fence-sitting is in terms of mafiascum meta, how about you go learn the importance of context.

but what if some people actually thought J was scum and they were scum hunting, also since you diffused the point of J's plot you have basically made that entire thing wortless and actually TAKEN AWAY from scum hunting.

They were going after Javert for what was a null-tell more or less. I am under the impression that wagons such as that one are more of a distraction to town, and is a common place where town end up going wrong on day 1, so I tried to divert attention else where. Those people have their right to think Javert is scum and go after him, but I merely didn't feel their pressure was going to be very fruitful.

DP, the wagon on him WAS helping the game progress, his vote declaration I don't think was never going to take off because once somebody declares something as fact especially this early on, that person is going to be suspect. If he was trying to get a wagon on himself going, than he succeeded and you just eliminated everything good that could have come out of it.

Oh sure, it was helping the game progress, but stopping the wagon helped just as much etc etc. You can claim anything that creates discussion and controversy as helping the game progress. That's why I didn't feel bad about derailing his wagon. And you know fully well that I didn't "eliminate everything good that could have come out of it".


*holds breath and hits submit*

Also, I hate these huge wall posts. They don't exactly accomplish huge amounts in my eyes either, but the alternative is being labeled as scum for ignoring peoples questions/attacks. So let's all stop yeah?

[Prox]

Ugh. And I'll probably never know if you've said something scummy in that post because if I try to read it, I'll just be reading the words and not the message.

I had forgotten to vote for ninja, but I can't remember the votecount.

[Javert]

Response to ICEninja:

Not explaining a random vote is a tried-and-true technique for getting reactions, and it is certainly not scummy. I still have not seen anybody make the barest hint of an argument that it is. In fact, I was a bit surprised that players called me scummy for it. Back in my day, many (if not most) games started off with multiple players flat-out saying "X is scum" and then trying to get people to join the wagon (for example, a common variant would be "if you vote for X with me today, I will help you lynch Y tomorrow"). This is a particularly useful strategy if you manage to randomly start a wagon on a newbie-scum who will come to thread and think "oh shit." Having a bandwagon start on me was certainly not the type of reaction I expected, but I felt I might as well see how large my wagon would get if I just sat there cryptically for a while.

This is absolutely different making

an argument

against somebody, and then coming back to say, "just joking." As a rule, Towns win by lynching scum, and scum are lynched without the help of night-actions when (i) Townspeople manage to argue that a scum should be lynched, or (ii) scum get caught up in their own words. There is little to no reason to purposefully set forward an argument you think to be bad to "gauge reactions."

I think that had the Town largely agreed with your post -- and thought me scummy for not explaining myself -- you most certainly would not have said "wait a minute, guys, I was just joking around with my argument." I do not get the feeling that you were just "gauging reactions"; I think you were legitimately trying to paint me as scummy. It is precisely because I do not believe that you would have stepped in that I think you are scum. (And note how this shows yet another difference between what I did and what you did: I was obviously going to explain my vote in due time. However, you had no reason to explain your argument until somebody actually called you out on it.)

So not only do I think you were trying to paint me as scummy for something that was not scummy, but now I think you're lying about why you did so. That is scummy. And now you are trying to compare my magnus_orion vote to your bad argument as though it solves your problem. Put shortly, it does not.

ICEninja is scum. Let the lynching commence.

[DavidParker]

Sorry Prox... As said at the bottom, the alternative is being attacked for avoiding questions and accusations.. I hate wall posts.

TL;DR Sparknotes Style:

• Javert claims someone is 100% scum.
  
  Oso/Ice/Mute are around and push his wagon because of this.
  
  I come in and derail the wagon stating how Javert's post isn't a strong tell since it was getting the game out of RVS, and there is as much town motivation for it as there is scum motivation, and that their reason for voting Javert shouldn't be because of that post alone, but any reactions to subsequent posts.
  
  I vote Rob because he answers some silly timezone questions but ignores the game-relevent discussion
  
  Conspiracy starts (or tries to) the Mute wagon while Javert thinks ICE is scummier (both are wagons in reaction to Javert's wagon)
  
  Magnus starts my wagon based on my contradicting myself and overreacting and what not. Rob posts similar thoughts that I am scummy and expands on it even further.

In between you have huge wall posts explaining various cases and defending against these cases.


I will do my best to refrain from walls now :/

[Oso]

@Oso: No fair

That game was a one-off terrible game of mine that I was never even caught up with or tried to keep up with! I wouldn't crack again. (And you don't seem to be talking to me at all, what's going on!)

Sorry about not talking directly to you, no slight intended but there are some interesting things going on at the moment but I can say that I have put you into the pile of "don't want to lynch today" along with Javert. So you probably won't be getting any grief from me today. I do like the way Magnus is thinking and processing though, I have never really thought in the terms of scum proactively trying to align the town, but (so far) I think he is off the mark as far as you are concerned.

Onward...

Just when I was about to give him the benefit of the doubt too.

VOTE: ICENinja

That's 4 I think. Javert, Edgerobin, HumblePoirot and now myself.

[snip]
..
Here's a full case of why I'm suspicious of Mute.
-In ISOs 0 and 2, he places votes based on player's names. In ISO 3, he makes a statement suggesting his random votes accomplish a lot for town. Perhaps this is theory disagreement, but to me it looks like he's trying to make himself look more productive and pro-town than he is.
-In ISO 4 he makes a FoS against Javert.

In ISO 5 he says that Javert's actions, as scum, wouldn't make sense.

In ISO 6, he votes for Javert. In ISO 8, he says he feels justified in putting Javert at L-2.

This seems contradictory to me.

This is in addition to his statement declaring a desire for a policy lynch that would hurt town and help scum. So yes, I think Mute is playing scummy. Does that mean I'm ready to declare him scum and lynch him? Absolutely not, it is page 3.

Please note the bold. ICENinja has phrased that in a way that completely distorts what was actually said in Mute's ISO #5/Game Post #23. Mute didn't state that Javert's action's wouldn't make sense as scum. He quoted ICENinja's vote post of Javert and asked a question that is pretty much asking ICE what exactly he is on about, at least in my opinion.

Boils down to this: ICE votes Javert with the stated reason that the only a scum partner could know magnus was scum without magnus posting at all. Mute responds (to ICE's vote) by basically asking "If he(Javert) and magnus are both scum, why is he outing his partner this early?"

The FOS of Javert he(ICENinja) has pointed out in Mute's ISO 4 and the actual vote of Javert Mute made in ISO 6 are both completely unrelated to what was said in ISO 5. ISO 5 could be connected to Mute's call for a Policy Lynch but not to his FOS and, later on, vote of Javert.

There is no contradiction and further, ICENinja did twist what was said to suit his own ends. He used Mute's questioning of his(ICENinja's) vote on Javert to make Mute look as if he was voicing suspicions, taking them back and then going ahead with the suspicions anyway.

ICENinja's entire case against Mute falls apart on the bold parts above, in my opinion. He has just tried to sell us on something that just isn't so using a blatant distortion, again in my opinion.

[Edgerobin]

Who doesn't get lynched Day 1?

How many times does someone who comes under scrutiny early Day 1 ever get looked at seriously again until the endgame (without some sort of PR tagging them)?

Given that people tend to get Town Points for ending the RVS, who actually has the greater motivation to deliberately end the RVS instead of letting it end organically: Town or Scum?

I don't follow this. For starters, I don't think it's true that people get town points for ending RVS. And second, I don't see why, even if they did, that would make it scummy (the fact scum has an incentive to do something doesn't make it scummy - especially given that town also has a lot of really good reasons for wanting to end RVS)

Are you unwilling to even consider that Javert did what he did as a way to get cover for a couple of game days as scum rather than as a townie fishing for reactions?

I klnow this wasn't addressed to me, but I want to say that it's a pretty useless question. The issue isn't whether there is a possibility that Javert was doing what he did for scummy reasons - it's whether there is any good reason for thinking it makes Javert probable scum.

Actually, it sounds like I did something very similar to what you did. You stated that "magnus is scum", and voted for him. I stated that "Javert is scum and this is why", and voted for you. You unvoted when it was obvious the purpose of your vote was served, and I unvoted when it was obvious the purpose of my vote was served. You are somewhat hypocritical to be calling me scummy for this.

This is extremely weak.

There's a clear difference between somebody taking a (what should have been) clearly baiting action early at the very start of the game and somebody (ie you) being an ostensibly serious wagon for the same silly reason that many people were joining the wagon and then saying "Teehee I was faking it"

(post 43) - Edge I disagree with your point about lurkers, lurkers are scummy so we can very easily get into that spiral because my experience has shown this to be true in almost every game I have played. Scum lurk because it takes attention off of them, and it is quite easy to tell which lurkers are truly disinterested and which ones are lurking scum, I will keep an eye on them and point them out as I notice them, but right now the game is still early so nobody is really a lurker yet.

That's the reason scum lurk - but town also lurk out of being bored and lazy and so on. Anyway, this is really a theory debate at this stage; suffice to say that I will oppose any lurker lynch.

-In ISOs 0 and 2, he places votes based on player's names. In ISO 3, he makes a statement suggesting his random votes accomplish a lot for town. Perhaps this is theory disagreement, but to me it looks like he's trying to make himself look more productive and pro-town than he is.

This just isn't true. You completely misrepresent Mute as saying that his random votes "accomplish a lot". what he actually said was much more understated:

How don't they? Voting to get people involved, get discussions going, acquire info, find people whom are felt to be scum, etc etc etc. I prefer to vote for random reasons until a point where serious discussion is reached, and the RVS ends and the game proper begins. Then my votes get based on solid reasoning.

[DavidParker]

How many votes on ICE do we have?

[RobCapone]

@ edge - lurking is anti-town plain and simple so to be against a lurker lynch is sketchy at best. I am not saying that we drop a bandwagon and go after them but if we hit a point in the game early on a lurker lynch should definitely not be something to be against. Lurking is anti-town because it deprives town of content and lurkers aren't likely to scum hunt very well, if at all.

secondly I would like to add that i don't really care for the reason that Ice gave for his mute vote and I don't like the strong reaction he had to the policy lynching suggestion. I will be honest I am not 100% against a policy lynch if I know the player's habits and he is going to screw town over (furclow for example) and I don't think anyone in here has shown traits of being bad enough to deserve a PL. I do think if a few more days go by and we have some genuine lurkers, I will definitely be up for a lurker policy lynch, but it's too early in the game for that.

[Humble Poirot]

You refused to consider the possibiliy of a reaction seeking strategy by Javert and went all the way to support a vote (which you called serious) with a flawed additional argument (that only scum would know another players alignment... bussing accusation?).

You seem to be refusing to consider the possibility of a reaction seeking strategy by myself and are going all the way to supporting a vote you're calling serious on me. I'm not sure where people are getting the impression that what I said seemed forced. Both you and Javert have mentioned it, however, so I'll have to go back and read my own post to see where people are coming from.

No, I DID consider the possibility. But, as stated, It doesn't hold. There's no indication that you're trying to do that, as opposed to Javert's case, where he refused to answer and outright sought conflict in a way I feared was anti-town.

So you're calling me clever scum then? I'm feeling like you're going to use this statement to discount my contributions

I aknowledge your ability to make sense in a post, in isolation. You remind me of myself as scum. Always a comeback, out of context, nitpicking things to make sure some of the smear will stick.
If I read only ONE of your posts, the logic within it seems reasonable and appealing. But when I read more of them AND in context, the convinient changes of attitude jump right out.

I'm glad you clarified your thoughts on Javert. I wasn't sure if hypocrisy equaled scum in your book.

Now, your full case, seems pretty enhanced (fabricated) right now.

Before voting Mute. You had 3 interactions with him:
ISO 0 Question his vote based on player's names
ISO 1 Tell him that it doesn't advance discussion.
ISO 2 You would lynch him for suggesting policy lynch.

Furthermore, I am absolutely disgusted by his consideration of policy lynching on day 2. David said everything I feel about that, essentially. I'd feel inclined to vote mute for the policy lynch suggestion alone as lynching someone based off of a random vote is not town motivated at all, and helps scum by causing confusion, robbing town of a lynch, and proceeding to night without having sufficient information gained. Everything else just makes me want to vote him even more.`

What you see above was the whole argument. The additional points of your "full case" have just popped up out of nowhere. This looks to me as a clear case of fabricating evidence based on your current needs.

-In ISO 4 he makes a FoS against Javert. In ISO 5 he says that Javert's actions, as scum, wouldn't make sense. In ISO 6, he votes for Javert. In ISO 8, he says he feels justified in putting Javert at L-2. This seems contradictory to me.

ISO 5 is NOT what you say it was. You're miscontruing the siutation a great deal.

Also, the only way Javert could overtly know that magnus is scum is if he is his scum buddy. I too, as indicated by a comment made earlier in this post (that is now obsolete but I don't feel like deleting for transparency reasons), believed he voted a player for reasons of not posting yet. Simply declaring a player scum without "if" is one of the most solid scum tells in the game, I'd say. I don't usually make serious votes like this so early, but...

Vote Javert

.

Problem is, if he is scum, why would he be ousting his partner now?
Under rules section 3:

3.4 Play to win. Don't do anything obviously detrimental to your faction on purpose.

That would be going against his wincon if he were scum...

As you can see, you argued that Javert could only know magnus_orion was scum if he, himself, was scum. That would be bussing. Mute thought that might warrant a Modkill. He was wrong, but his thought process was valid. He didn't say Javert was or wasn't scum. He just didn't think Javert was bussing, as you portrayed.

You are making this up now to make a weak case on Mute look stronger. Mute was worried about Javert's attitude and expressed the possibility of change if Javert faced the current issues. Mute voted Javert when Javert refused to respond and questioned my lack of pressure on him.

Anyway, you NEVER mentioned this before. Specially not when you voted.

Your attempt to outright fabricate your case as you go only makes me more confortable of my vote.

[Humble Poirot]

This post relates to the 2 old questions I had asked ICE. It might look bloated because I felt the need to provide quotes in context to protect from, what I see is, an attempt to reinterpret events to his convinience.

I thought I answered all the questions directed at me. I apologize.

How do you bandwaggon without voting? How do you know he is not reaction hunting with his RVS votes?

This is a strange question. Bandwagoning and random voting are different. How can you simply lump them together? You have to vote, but any worthwhile bandwagon has to have better reasoning than "your name is scummy".

Do you think this adds anything useful at all to your vote?

What? That doesn't even make sense considering the situation. It was my reasoning for voting, so how can you ask if it adds anything useful to my vote?

Your questions don't give me the feeling that you really know what I'm talking about at all.

Sure they do. I'll provide the context you omitted.

You voted people based on their name. That doesn't do anything to get discussion going. There are some things people do to get discussion going, such as bandwagoning, voting people supporting bandwagons, asking questions, reaction hunting, etc.

How do you bandwaggon without voting? How do you know he is not reaction hunting with his RVS votes?

The very same tactics you expressed were the correct way to act might just apply to both Mute and Javert. SPECIALLY Javert (Which you decided to vote in that post).

Also, the only way Javert could overtly know that magnus is scum is if he is his scum buddy.

Do you think this adds anything useful at all to your vote?

What? That doesn't even make sense considering the situation. It was my reasoning for voting, so how can you ask if it adds anything useful to my vote?

Your reasoning for voting Javert was that
A) he was hypocritical when he voted a lurker early in the game
B) Only scum knows who scum is.

I thought B was so weak that it was an addition to A) to strengthen the vote. You said it was a SERIOUS vote.

[ConSpiracy]

Be prepared for a wall. This game is going to fast to stop posting walls...

Manut

i didn't see anything from him that looked like direct bandwagon. I define a bandwagon as an unneeded vote on someone with several on him/er.

He placed an unneeded vote on Javert, because he didn´t even know himself why he voted Javert. At first, he found Javert to be scummy. The second time he voted Javert for anti-town/policy lynching reasons. On top of that he voted after both ICEninja and Oso voted him.

Javert

First, please explain this in more detail. Why do you feel ICEninja's first vote was "really, really odd"? Why do you think the "gambit" is not something ICEninja would do? Feel free to link to your other game to draw comparisons.

You could also just ask me to link that game instead of hinting at it.
I can't give examples, because he

doesn't

do that.

I noticed afterwards I just misrepped every thing. Since I thought this was the case back then, I will just hold this. Italics are things I put in later on.

1) The vote on you was odd, because he hardly ever voted for anyone with that lack of evidence.
2) The "reaction provoker"thingie was not ICE like, because he played careful in our newbie.

A vote to get out of the RVS is something ICE would do, though. So it isn't as strange as I first said.

There are, however, 2 reasons I am not taking these "odd" actions into account as scum tells: (Posted those earlier)

It would be unfair to judge him for 1 game experience.

I just played 1 game with him. I don't think I know him well enough to say his actions are non-ICE actions and therefore scummy actions.

He has played this game many times so he has presumably gotten these situations a few time.

Reading his sig, he has played 14 games. He presumably came across a game start like this at least once, and that's why he knew this was an action to find scummy reactions from other players. Therefore he wouldn't vote for you in the first place.
In a lesser extend this has to be taken into account, as well:

You'll find that I play fairly conservatively as an IC, particularly during day 1. When I'm not being looked to for example, I tend to play more recklessly.

This could easily be lied, but I can see him doing that. ICs guide the games and are not guiding very well when they are setting up traps.

But most importantly, why are you giving him a "free pass"? Perhaps it is better put this way: Would you give him a "free pass" if you had never played a game with him before? Do you think his posts are scummy? If you think ICEninja is acting differently than you would expect, why did not even ask him any questions about his behavior before giving him a "free pass"?

I would also give him a free pas if I haven't played with him before. I also didn't feel to ask him some questions. To me, this "reaction provoker"thingie isn't a scum tell. Don't forget you did the same: Doing something odd to provoke reactions

(or after rereading: to stop RVS)

. Right now, you are basicly saying you did something scummy, too.

ICEninja's behaviour

Since every body seems to think ICE action was scummy, I read it back. I noticed that he didn't want to provoke reactions and that I was wrong... It was to end the RVS. Though I don't think there is something wrong with that. There was no attempt of anyone to end the RVS at that point, even after ICE said this:

I feel like the beginnings of this game haven't been particularly productive. They usually aren't great, but as David pointed out, this stage has been even more random than is normal.

Then Javert random voted and ICE tried to stop the RVS through voting Javert with a reason. The reason was bad, but we did go out of the RVS. Luckily for us Mute and Oso searched for a stupid reason to follow ICE into getting a first bandwagon. I think ICE saw that and thought them to be scummy and therefore voted for Mute. No scummy intentions.

Magnus case on DP

Magnus, please put some white lines between the sentences. It is hard to read more than 5 lines without losing the actual meaning of those lines. Anyways, I am not supporting this. One thing, however, stood out to me.

The town were all tunneling on a player because of his refusal to answer questions and be apart of the town.

DP why did you think all reactions on Javert were town reactions?

Couldn't those reactions be scum trying to push the attention to a townie?

Humble poirot

@Conspiracy: I often struggle to undertand what you're saying. You might want to read back your sentences to yourself to try and make them as clear as possible.

I am sorry about that. I'm Dutch and can't speak nor write English very well. I am already reviewing everything I say, but some things just seem right to me/I read over it. If you have any problems with my writings, point it out and I will explain it.

Oso about ICEninja

What I find more interesting is that he used over-the-top language when voting you, which he stated was on purpose an served a purpose but then doesn't dial it back any at all when voting Mute. "Finding it disgusting..." in regards to Mute's mentioning a policy lynch is strong. The single game I played with him (ICENinja), he was much milder in language until the point he got overly frustrated. Hard to have a meta on a player after only a single game but there it is.

I disagree with this. He used terms as "horrible" which, to me, is the same as "disgusting".

@ Mute: Why don't I get a response of my case on you?

[Mute]

Busy typing out crap, making sure it makes sense.
Saw you post Con, and ask why I havent responded to you.
Why haven't I? Simple: you aren't giving me room to. Instead of asking me questions you are indirectly attacking me by pointing things out to the town. To give an example of a real-world scenario, which is how I visualize this game being played, everyone here gathered in a room, you're holding up a paper and speaking to everyone giving a case against me without directly speaking to me.
You've posted three times, total, and I'll quote those posts which I feel pertain to me and "your case" against me.

From ISO:#0

While still being at the RVS, Mute found it right to FoS.

On what grounds, a "gut feeling?"
Or do you, from almost nothing at all, have solid proof against him/her?

FoS: Javert

FoSsing in the R

V

S... Anyways, then we get this post:

Problem is, if he is scum, why would he be ousting his partner now?

That would be going against his wincon if he were scum...
Though, I agree this level of obfuscating (please tell me I've used that word correctly here, I've never used it before ) is counter to the town as well.

Javert, why are you voting for someone when they have yet to post, stating outright they are scum?

First he pushes forward a flaw in his reason of suspecting Javert. Second he asks a question why Javert votes in the RVS...
At last we got this post:

...okay yeah...

Unvote, Vote: Javert

If my math is right this puts him at L-2.

Voting him for not telling why he voted for magnus orion.

So let me get this straight. You guys are voting him for not wanting to explain his RVS vote. That is too easy for scum to hop on that bull shit wagon. Let's give some more attention to Mute.

I can understand you wanting him to participate smartly in the game, but why the lack of pressure against him to change? It feels like all this post is doing is a slap on the wrist, "don't do that young man," and back to business as usual with the hope he changes.

You mention he might be bussing for scum, or he is trying to draw attention to himself. If his behavior will be detrimental to town in finding scum, I'd move for a policy lynch for that.

1. Mute is voting Javert for stopping him playing negative. (No scum motive involved)
2. Mute talked about policy lynching him on the second page. (Subtly trying to get someone lynched?)
Well, that definitely deserves a vote.

VOTE: Mute

and from ISO:#1

I can understand you wanting him to participate smartly in the game, but why the lack of pressure against him to change? It feels like all this post is doing is a slap on the wrist, "don't do that young man," and back to business as usual with the hope he changes.

First he is voting to someone anti-town. (Even mentioning policy lynch, which means not lynching him because he was scummy)

While we all felt you were scummy, it was for different reasons. I felt you were scummy with that vote as there seemed to be no doubt in your mind he was scum, and were obstinately refusing to post anything else.

Oh wait, he did find him scummy?
He didn't even know himself why he voted for Javert, i.e. mindlessly bandwagoning = scummy behavior.
Too bad I already vote for him.

Tell me, how am I supposed to address this indirect attack? ICE, while attacking me for a weak cause and emphasizing and bloating it to proportions to push for my lynch, has at least the thought to attack me. You, however, are not; you're giving a speech here to everyone presenting what you feel is reason to have me lynched.

"But I am asking you questions" you might say.
You are not. Here is you asking manut a question directly from ISO:#1 as well.

@manut(dforev)

Didn't Mute (and Oso in a lesser extend) bandwagon?

You have not posed a question to me, nor given me a chance to counter your "case" against me. That is why I have not responded to you.

[ICEninja]

The single game I played with him (ICENinja), he was much milder in language until the point he got overly frustrated.

I've had a more cynical and frustrated look on mafia in general the past week or two, actually. I can't discuss it because it is ongoing, but a quick read through of day 1 of mini 1106 (its only a few pages) will tell you why. In response to CS's concerns, you'll also notice that I melted down quite unlike how I would have played in a newbie game. I would never have let that happen as an IC.

Rob, you seem to have a lot of material to indicate you are at odds with David. You seem to disagree with him a lot, but you make good points. I am concerned, however, that a lot of your post was dedicated to disagreeing with him and not a lot of it was dedicated to analyzing his alignment. Do you feel that his actions were scummy? Do you feel like David is more likely to flip scum than other players right now?

That wouldn't be a problem if it just seemed real. If his meta doesn't show him playing like this in his other games, then he must be scum.

Is he normally like this? Are you normally like this?

Yes, I'm always like this. Actually, I've been slightly more aggressive and have spent slightly less time combing through my previews than was typical for me 6 months ago. If you need a reference, I'd like to direct you to the end of this post, as I was town in that game as well. That comment gave me a good chuckle.

Your post #70 does not come off too well either. Firstly, you are preparing yourself to vote for me should a wagon kick off there by reluctantly saying I looked town but relooking you're not sure.

Honestly, at least right now I don't think I can. People keep making great points about you, but your responses are incredibly solid, and I'm having a really hard time keeping a suspicion on you very long. I often nod along at posts attacking you, agreeing with many of the points, but looking over your play and your responses as a whole, I actually have a slight town read on you.

Not explaining a random vote is a tried-and-true technique for getting reactions, and it is certainly not scummy.

In all seriousness, in my 15ish games I've played, I've never seen it before. Also, as I've stated, I did NOT purposefully set forth a bad argument. I took what was literally the best argument I had at the time (with the information I personally had) and pushed it harder than the strength of the case would suggest.

Just as you say what you did to start the game is common and normal to you, what I did to start the game is common and normal to me. I very regularly start games with making an over the top attack on someone based on an RVS vote, and it works. I was genuinely surprised when so many people called me scummy for doing this, too.

I think that had the Town largely agreed with your post -- and thought me scummy for not explaining myself -- you most certainly would not have said "wait a minute, guys, I was just joking around with my argument." I do not get the feeling that you were just "gauging reactions"; I think you were legitimately trying to paint me as scummy.

Then you're wrong. I honestly don't know what I can say about this, because this is a conclusion you have jumped to.

Splitting up my posts because this is becoming too long.

[magnus_orion]

ugh... I had a good post going and then I sort of accidentally closed the tab... here we go again...

@Rob:

man you give me tons of good material as to why we should lynch you, but because I know of you and your history, I know that this is essentially pushing a policy lynch (regardless if you are scum or town, lynching you today is a policy lynch because you fall into the category of Furclow, Drmyshotty, etc)

what are you saying here, exactly? DP doesn't remind me of Furclow...

Are you saying that DP should be excused from what you perceive as scummy for meta reasons?

@ICE: who's patriot? Oh you meant poirot... ok
I need to go over your posts again when I get the chance.

@DP:

I probably do underestimate some tells, it's probably largely based on how I play, and how I react to certain things (ie: people voting me and attacking certain aspects of my playstyle), generally it's me in Javert's position creating negative attention towards myself to help create discussion. (ie: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=15318) Anyways, point is, when I've been caught out it's not because of some "pressure wagon" getting to me, it's because I've been lazy keeping up and taken shortcuts or because as a whole players have analyzed my intent throughout the game.

Um ok... this calls into question your response to one of my questions, #3 to be precise. If you normally generate this type of situation, I can only assume you do so because you know how to read players within it. Then, from a town perspective, your actions make even less sense, because you are familiar with this type of situation and how to read players in it, so you'd want to let it continue to get better reads.

Oh, I know he's a big boy and can defend himself. But sometimes hearing defences from other people can help players. It's helped me in the past. I was tunneling on someone pretty hard and any defense they said I just read as having scum intent and refused to see any town motivation to their play. It was only when another player stood up and defended them that I felt this player was in fact quite possibly town. And yeah, I did sink his ship somewhat, I'd rather let people know how clever I was for figuring it out than let it play it's course though. I do have an ego :/

This was directed to Rob, but I'd just like to say here that there is a dis-analogy between this situation and the one you described. Javert had not offered anything in his own defense yet. Also, I'm not familiar with the situation you described, but I'm going to suppose that the second defending player didn't have a neutral read on the player he was defending.

Also, If you think you were being clever by figuring out Javert's plans, why did you seem to find other people are blameworthy for not doing so?

David, what's your opinion on ICE?

I haven't been able to read much more... I'm kinda busy with college and this game is rather low on my priority list at the moment.

[ICEninja]

Oh my goodness I've been calling Poirot Patriot. I do this all the time, where my brain change's people's names. I'm sorry, it will be correct now.

Oso, what are you talking about? The only way Javert's opening vote without explanation could be scummy is because he knows, with scum information, who scum is. Mute then said that this couldn't be the case, but proceeded to vote for him anyway. How is that twisting words or anything of what you said?

He has just tried to sell us on something that just isn't so using a blatant distortion, again in my opinion.

Can you try to explain this again? I really don't understand where this is coming from.

There's a clear difference between somebody taking a (what should have been) clearly baiting action early at the very start of the game and somebody (ie you) being an ostensibly serious wagon for the same silly reason that many people were joining the wagon and then saying "Teehee I was faking it"

Well as I stated in my last post, I've never seen that "clearly baiting action" before. I figured it was just RVS play that

could

have been fueled with scum knowledge. As I've said countless times before, it was the strongest case I could make with what I had. I never said "teehee I was faking it". I never faked anything. Why do people keep making up things about what I did? I simply stated that I over-pushed the wagon based on the strength of the case.

This just isn't true. You completely misrepresent Mute as saying that his random votes "accomplish a lot". what he actually said was much more understated:

Not at all. I asked him "how do your votes help the game" and he responds "how don't they?" and lists a bunch of things votes (and he's implying HIS votes) do to advance the game. It isn't a strong tell, but it's what I got out of it.

secondly I would like to add that i don't really care for the reason that Ice gave for his mute vote and I don't like the strong reaction he had to the policy lynching suggestion. I will be honest I am not 100% against a policy lynch if I know the player's habits and he is going to screw town over (furclow for example) and I don't think anyone in here has shown traits of being bad enough to deserve a PL.

If Javert had displayed furclow behavior, then I wouldn't have had such a strong reaction. Javert did nothing wrong when Mute proposed his PL, which is why I was disgusted.

What you see above was the whole argument. The additional points of your "full case" have just popped up out of nowhere. This looks to me as a clear case of fabricating evidence based on your current needs.

I stated in my earlier post that you quoted that "everything else just makes me want to vote him more". These points you claim I fabricated were said everything else. Also, the point about the 2 random votes was something I was on his case about earlier, so that didn't pop out of nowhere. I hadn't mentioned his uncertainty about Javert is all.

As you can see, you argued that Javert could only know magnus_orion was scum if he, himself, was scum. That would be bussing. Mute thought that might warrant a Modkill. He was wrong, but his thought process was valid. He didn't say Javert was or wasn't scum. He just didn't think Javert was bussing, as you portrayed.

Then what reason did Mute have to suspect Javert if he didn't think he had scum knowledge? It's the only way that his actions could be viewed as sucmmy, at least from what I can see.

The very same tactics you expressed were the correct way to act might just apply to both Mute and Javert. SPECIALLY Javert (Which you decided to vote in that post).

I'm fairly certain I SPECIFICALLY said that Javert participated in doing this. I don't believe Mute did anything to advance the game at the beginnings.

I thought B was so weak that it was an addition to A) to strengthen the vote. You said it was a SERIOUS vote.

OK I see what you mean now. I had never seen anyone simply declare someone is scum on the first page before. This argument made sense at the time.

I think ICE saw that and thought them to be scummy and therefore voted for Mute. No scummy intentions.

This isn't exactly what happened. My primary reasoning for my vote on Javert was to get a better read on him, but I do tend to regularly advance games out of the RVS stage. I don't even consciously think about it anymore. Mute wasn't scummy for simply following my lead, but he is scummy for how he over reacted, considering a policy lynch based on RVS behavior. This just looked and still looks like someone trying to push a mislynch before people really even think about it.

This game is quite exhausting so far.

[ConSpiracy]

Saw you post Con, and ask why I havent responded to you.
Why haven't I? Simple: you aren't giving me room to. Instead of asking me questions you are indirectly attacking me by pointing things out to the town. To give an example of a real-world scenario, which is how I visualize this game being played, everyone here gathered in a room, you're holding up a paper and speaking to everyone giving a case against me without directly speaking to me.
You've posted three times, total, and I'll quote those posts which I feel pertain to me and "your case" against me.

...

"But I am asking you questions" you might say.
You are not. Here is you asking manut a question directly from ISO:#1 as well.

@manut(dforev)

Didn't Mute (and Oso in a lesser extend) bandwagon?

You have not posed a question to me, nor given me a chance to counter your "case" against me. That is why I have not responded to you.

At first, please don´t abb my name into con. That abb is lame. I´d rather have CS (or Timmy, but since my Timmy avatar is gone, that one might be confusing).
I believed it was enough to posts things about you. If somebody mentions me in a bad way, I will always tell them why I did that/why that´s wrong or right. Anyways, I just found it odd you were not even mentioning it. I am looking forward to your counter.

[DavidParker]

@ConSpiracy, I think magnus already brought that quote up, by town I am referring to the people in the game, not talking about the alignment of the players going after him (yes it's confusing the way i worded it), Everyone who was actively posting around the time of javert's vote went after javert, hence the tunneling on him by "town", well by the players in this game. I was not referring to my thoughts on the alignments of any of the players on the wagon.

@magnus: I think I've stated I find him quite scummy as he doesn't seem to defend himself very well and I feel the case on him is very solid. He would be in the top few I would like to see lynched today. I'm still reserving to post some of my other scum suspects at this point while I gather my thoughts.

[Mute]

Saw you post Con, and ask why I havent responded to you.

Why haven't I? Simple: you aren't giving me room to. Instead of asking me questions you are indirectly attacking me by pointing things out to the town. To give an example of a real-world scenario, which is how I visualize this game being played, everyone here gathered in a room, you're holding up a paper and speaking to everyone giving a case against me without directly speaking to me.

You've posted three times, total, and I'll quote those posts which I feel pertain to me and "your case" against me.

...

"But I am asking you questions" you might say.
You are not. Here is you asking manut a question directly from ISO:#1 as well.

@manut(dforev)

Didn't Mute (and Oso in a lesser extend) bandwagon?

You have not posed a question to me

, nor given me a chance to counter your "case" against me. That is why I have not responded to you.

At first, please don´t abb my name into con. That abb is lame. I´d rather have CS (or Timmy, but since my Timmy avatar is gone, that one might be confusing).
I believed it was enough to posts things about you. If somebody mentions me in a bad way, I will always tell them why I did that/why that´s wrong or right. Anyways, I just found it odd you were not even mentioning it. I am looking forward to your counter.

I will try to not refer to you in passing as Con. In my defense "ConSpiracy" is easy to abbreviate as such.
As well, I would like to ask you that when you mention me,

address me and not talk around me

, please.
Yes, you mention things but don't exactly ask

why

I did them, instead you're posting things to say to everyone else. When you direct a question to me I will respond to you.

As for your evidence against me:
You call me out for my vote on Javert, which I should remind you has been dropped by now.
You say that I am "subtly trying to get someone lynched" by bringing up policy lynching inappropriately, which is not the case anymore.

He didn't even know himself why he voted for Javert, i.e. mindlessly bandwagoning = scummy behavior.

I voted for him because I felt he was scummy in his posting in the beginning of the game.

These are all the points I see you raise against me. If I missed anything, let me know.

[Javert]

This game needs more ICEninja votes.

[DavidParker]

I haven't seen a vote count in a while and my ability to count after 2-3 hours of sleep is questionable.

@mod:

prettttttty please?