Mini 1130 - A Fishbowl Invasion by Ninja Monkeys! - Over

[Cecily]

I'm going to retract my vote on CP for now because that's what I had intended to do originally.

I've posted three times in this game not including now. My first was a confirmation. My second was an RVS. My third was a retraction of that RVS because I really didn't have any case against him other than his name.

Once again, I'm very busy. I'll contribute more when I have the time. I hope this settles things for people.

[AGar]

@AGar: When you voted for winger, he had only posted twice with two random votes. I would have understood your vote if that was your reason (the two RVs), but you pulled out this whole thing about him trying to setup a wagon with only those two posts of his as your basis. Why?

Post #39 - Winger calls Crazypianist's "lol" post. CP's 3rd post.
Post #45 - I vote Winger.

[Sundy]

People I'm currently suspicious of:

Bub Bidderskins: Voting without bold, possible sneakiness
DemonHybrid: Gut
Parama: Might just be play-style

But I'ma place my vote where it will count this early in the game and I think the Winger case > the Pianist case.

vote: Winger

[Parama]

@Akira: It's not imaginary flavor, it's what he was thinking when he posted. 'tis a common line of though for scum, really.

People I'm currently suspicious of:

Bub Bidderskins: Voting without bold, possible sneakiness
DemonHybrid: Gut
Parama: Might just be play-style

But I'ma place my vote where it will count this early in the game and I think the Winger case > the Pianist case.

vote: Winger

You have 3 suspicions. Why aren't you voting any of them?
Oh, because of crap reasons.
Bub reason - that's called forgetting a tag.
DH - Okay, that's useless if you don't reference any posts at all.
Me - This is backing out of one of your suspicions, not a reason for it.

Also, you haven't even acknowledged what either the winger or crazy cases are. Why do you think winger is scummier than crazy? Do you think either of them is town?

HoS: Sundy

You're next once crazy flips scum.

[Bub Bidderskins]

People I'm currently suspicious of:

Bub Bidderskins: Voting without bold, possible sneakiness
DemonHybrid: Gut
Parama: Might just be play-style

But I'ma place my vote where it will count this early in the game and I think the Winger case > the Pianist case.

vote: Winger

So, you named three people that you are "suspicious" of. You said that a fourth person's case is better than a fifth person's case, and so you vote for the fourth person. Why even mention those first three people? Why do you think winger is scummier than crazy?

Again I don't see why people interpret me saying lol as paranoid.
Bub, I answered your question in 73. I laughed at DH's vote because honestly it looked like he was trying to get something out of me that didn't exist with no pressure or reason. Specifically:

Vote: AGar

because I know Parama and an RVS bandwagon on him doesn't tell us shit.
...
Actually, you know what? Neither would AGar's.

Unvote, Vote: crazypianist

He thought he would get information out of me that he wouldn't get from other players. I saw this as him thinking I was weak, but I returned the favor with my lol.

[winger], 74 is just plain wrong. I never contradicted myself. DH was trying to form a wagon on me for what seem like a weak reason(stated above) which is why I lol'd and why I had no problem.

Cecily, it looks like you're trying to explain away your vote on me as RVS but 62 seems like it's not random.

I need to read through again and figure out who to vote.

DH's reasons were obviously weak because it was an RVS vote. Right now, you seem to be paranoid. You were overly worried about DH building an RVS wagon on you. In addition to that, you have done virtually no scum-hunting this far in the day. Admittantly, the day is still young, but you have posted quite a bit, and virtually all of your posts have been attempting to get suspision off of you, not trying to find other players who are scummy. Scum are usually worried more about their personal standing than they are about other people's standing. You fit that bill.

[Twistedspoon]

@Sundy: your post is just silly.

Acussing Bub because of forgetting to bold? He even bolded after I reminded him, so no problem anyways.
And your suspicion of Parama is basically a counter-suspicion, so That makes no sense
And your DH suspicion reason is as about as redundant as the whole of North Wales

VOTE: Sundy
IGMEOU

anyways, I've taken my vote off of winger. He's said it's his first game on the site, and although it's silly to enter sans newbie game experience, we have to accept he's in this game now and that he's playing.
His playstyle seems more newb-town than newb-scum anyways.

Oh, and the CP wagon seems valid, but I'll be voting Sundy for now so as to not let him be eclipsed by any more CP antics

[DemonHybrid]

Unvote, Vote: Sundy

Forget the crazy wagon, Sundy just made me a whole hell of a lot sure that he is scum. Like Parama said; three suspicions but not a vote placed on EITHER one of them? THREE? Instead, you go with one of the big bandwagons, say you agree with it, and that's it, right?

CP may or may not be covering up for his RVS-vote seriousness, but Sundy just started screaming "HEY I'M SCUM" from his very first serious post.

[AGar]

Holy. Fuck.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Sundy

[Sundy]

I express negative vibes about 3 players, and next thing you know all of them freak out to various degrees. Why so touchy, hmm? Granted I often draw a wagon on myself the first day, and maybe my play-style is at fault, but in my view people need to chill out (if they're town), and keep on being crazy to demonstrate your evil to everyone (if they're scum).

Parama: I gave my reason for not voting any of the first 3 suspicions, but I'll expand for you in case you don't like reading between the lines: "

I'ma place my vote where it will count this early in the game.

" There were already good wagons building up that will pressure a player, though neither bandwagon is particularly serious yet. I'm taking advantage of the flow of the game to put my vote where it can contribute to pressure, rather than strike out on an entirely new case. I might as well learn what I can learn from an effective bandwagon before moving to my next suspicions.

Bub: why not mention three players I'm suspicious of? I'm throwing some vibes out there in essentially my first post after RVS. I'll get to your question at the end fo this post.

Twistedspoon: How is my suspicion of Parama a counter-suspicion? Are you suggesting that he was suspicious of me before I was suspicious of him, because I don't believe that's the case. As for the DH suspicion, I've seen gajillions of players on this site say that their gut didn't like something. Don't see what the problem is here.

DemonHybrid: Reiterated Parama's argument (please see response above).

As for the Winger/Crazy debate, I thought all of the extensive and imaginative analysis on Crazy's "lol" was a load of crap. Winger started that, along with Parama and DH, and then hopped onto the vote after other players confirmed that they also found Pianist suspicious. He's not really taking a stance in the first accusation, and jumping to a vote in the second. (I agreed with AGar's interpretation of what happened.)

I also agree with Oso's point here, in reference to Winger accusing Crazy of lying:

Language is too strong for this early in the game

I look at the beginning of the game as a time of uncertainty, and I look at players who express complete certainty with a smidgin of evidence as suspiciously knowledgable. (That's incidentally what I didn't like about Parama's play, but it's cropped up in his other games.) Here is an example of that smidgin of evidence from Winger:

Oso, crazypianist contradicted himself (in my opinion) when he said he did not have a problem with the vote on him. That directly contradicts the tone set by the (what I'd consider) hostile/sarcastic "Lol" response he gave previously.

Sure now he's made it clear that it's his opinion (whereas before he directly accused him of lying), but he's still saying that "Lol" means something "hostile/sarcastic" based only on his imagination, and therefore Pianist is lying. There's a reason I didn't study literary criticism, and it's because projecting onto the text is annoying.

As for me, I interpret Pianist's "Lol" to be a subtle and brilliant accusation of DemonHybrid, for voting twice during the RVS. One player already suggested that voting twice destroys the pressure of RVS, Pianist was clearly tuned into this view of RVS, and elegantly accusing DemonHybrid of doing such.

To sum up, I completely agreed with Pianist that people were putting words in his mouth (possibly for ulterior motives), and I thought Winger was a huge part of that game. Additionally he had a bunch of pressure building on him, perfecto. Parama and DH were playing the projection game too, but I can only vote for one player at a time.

[Oso]

Me likes that post^^

Moar winger votes, plz

[Twistedspoon]

Granted I often draw a wagon on myself the first day,

Hey, so do usually. Nice to know I'm not the only cursed one :s
anyways, my reply:

Twistedspoon: How is my suspicion of Parama a counter-suspicion?

Parama: Might just be play-style

Because what you're saying is basically "I suspect Parama.

However

, It could just be his play style that makes me suspicious."

So you basically counter your own suspicion by saying that It could just be his play style, and that you have no real reason to be suspicious of him really.

As for the DH suspicion... Don't see what the problem is here.

Nor do I. Basically I said that it was as redundant a reason as the whole of North Wales. And

as a reason

, it is. Sure, It's fine to voice your gut feelings and apply pressure on a player though them, but when using a gut feeling as a reason to suspect, they often hold little water.

Hope that clears things up for you.
I still don't like your Bud suspicion due to him forgetting to bold. Interesting to see you've left that out. Maybe you could expand on how you thought Bub was 'sneaky' by forgetting to bold

anyways, [winger] is a newbie, and whether or not we approve of this, we have to take this into consideration when we judge him for his posts and actions. Thus I find a winger wagon premature at this stage (and this is coming from the player who set the [winger]] wagon going by applying the first vote on him)

[Oso]

..
anyways, [winger] is a newbie, and whether or not we approve of this, we have to take this into consideration when we judge him for his posts and actions. Thus I find a winger wagon premature at this stage (and this is coming from the player who set the [winger]] wagon going by applying the first vote on him)

Ok, now I'm confused a bit...I thought he was just new to this site.

..
This is my first game on this site, so you'll have to enlighten me a bit. I read through a few games here before I started this one, but I didn't see this being an issue there.
..

Perhaps winger could clear this up for me. Is this your first game of forum mafia ever? Or just your first on this site?

[Sundy]

The Bub suspicion I won't defend so much. I didn't realize a vote wouldn't count if not bolded. Otherwise I thought a subtle un-bolded vote could be a way to surreptitiously bring someone to the edge.

Sins of the newbie are sins of the newbie. However Winger's sins (casting aspersions on another player by inventing motives) seem more egregious than Pianist's (responding to his name listed in RVS).

Parama: I find over-confidence suspect in general but this player displays it regardless of alignment. Hence the ambiguity of my suspicion.

[Twistedspoon]

@Oso: I was going to ask too, but It seemed to personal.
I guess I just assumed he was a general newbie because of this

Also, play a newbie game if you're a newbie. Seriously.

@Sundy: fair enough. If you find reason to suspect [winger] beyond his inexperience, then go for it. Personally, I don't but that's why the town needs such a mix of opinions and players to scumhunt to full efficiency.

[[winger]]

As for the Winger/Crazy debate, I thought all of the extensive and imaginative analysis on Crazy's "lol" was a load of crap. Winger started that, along with Parama and DH, and then hopped onto the vote after other players confirmed that they also found Pianist suspicious. He's not really taking a stance in the first accusation, and jumping to a vote in the second. (I agreed with AGar's interpretation of what happened.)

No. Absolutely not. In fact, part of the debate that has gone on (which you would know if you had actually read and paid attention) involves the fact that I

wasn't

the first one to really give context to the "Lol". I simply asked a question, pianist said "Lol", then DEMONHYBRID is the one who actually pointed out why it was scummy first. In actuality, I only asked crazypianist a question to try and dig a little deeper.

Sure now he's made it clear that it's his opinion (whereas before he directly accused him of lying), but he's still saying that "Lol" means something "hostile/sarcastic" based only on his imagination, and therefore Pianist is lying. There's a reason I didn't study literary criticism, and it's because projecting onto the text is annoying.

Obviously, everything that happens in the game of werewolf is going to be in someone's opinion, especially this early on in the game. There are no facts or anything to

keep

the game going in the context of sure-fire-data. When I accused crazypianist of lying, it was supposed to be obviously in my own opinion. Obviously I didn't have an investigation result on her to prove my accusations.

This is my first game of forum mafia like this that I've ever played. Most of the other games I've played were on other forums that weren't dedicated to mafia and the deadlines were about 30 minutes long, not multiple weeks. Other than that, I played a lot on Epic Mafia. This is an entirely new pace of play that I'm trying to adapt to.

[Sundy]

As for the Winger/Crazy debate, I thought all of the extensive and imaginative analysis on Crazy's "lol" was a load of crap. Winger started that, along with Parama and DH, and then hopped onto the vote after other players confirmed that they also found Pianist suspicious. He's not really taking a stance in the first accusation, and jumping to a vote in the second. (I agreed with AGar's interpretation of what happened.)

No. Absolutely not. In fact, part of the debate that has gone on (which you would know if you had actually read and paid attention) involves the fact that I

wasn't

the first one to really give context to the "Lol". I simply asked a question, pianist said "Lol", then DEMONHYBRID is the one who actually pointed out why it was scummy first. In actuality, I only asked crazypianist a question to try and dig a little deeper.

Hm, I think this chronology is quite wrong, as you would know if you'd actually read and paid attention. Let's revisit the conversation in question.

Lol

You have a problem with DemonHybrid's vote on you, pianist?

Nope, and that's the point =P

I'd say yes.

Can we get a bandwagon on this guy?

Calling your bluff.

Um...

What bluff? I like my vote on you now.

Not at all, AGar. I just thought the response "lol" to someone who placed the second vote on pianist was a bit too lackadaisical. DemonHybrid already pointed it out... it seemed very much like crazypianist did have a problem with that vote, which makes me wonder why she lied about it.

Furthermore, having a problem with a vote while everyone is randomly voting makes her seem even more suspicious.

After this occurred, Parama decided to take issue with Pianists' RVS vote (which, as has been said, wasn't that different from any of the others), and then adds some context of his own:

Lemme complete this post:
"Lol you're voting me for no reason so I should have to acknowledge your post but because I'm scum I'm incredibly paranoid about votes and thus feel I must acknowledge the vote"
You left a whole lot out, crazy. Why?
Reading every post from that point on, lol one scum's already flailing.

As we can see, Winger, you are the first to make up context. DemonHybrid agrees with your accusations, although he lists absolutely no reasons of his own, and does nothing to analyze Pianist's posts. Parama then adds context of his own. My original post is correct. You started the issue, were the first to make up context, and placed your vote only after another player had already agreed with you.

Winger, why'd you call this a game of werewolf? And yeah, Mafia is about making up accusations, but you also provide evidence to back up accusations, in order to convince the town. And I'm not convinced by the evidence that either you or Parama have provided w/r/t Pianist, nor am I swayed by the loud agreement in lieu of evidence from DemonHybrid.

[AGar]

Problem with Sundy: Rattling off suspicions of 3 players, then voting for a competing wagon, tying it with the leading wagon.

Problem with [winger]: See my previous postings. Has done nothing to ease this belief.

Problem with TwistedSpoon: Newbie card is not a valid excuse. If you play the newbie card for every player who makes one newbie screw up, everyone is going to take that and run with it if their first game they draw scum. Seriously, there should be a minimum 1 NG requirement on-site.[/mdrant]

Sundy needs to be run up first and foremost. This wagon is tech.

[Twistedspoon]

Problem with TwistedSpoon: Newbie card is not a valid excuse. If you play the newbie card for every player who makes one newbie screw up, everyone is going to take that and run with it if their first game they draw scum.

Sure thing, but It's [winger] who this applies to.
I have no motivation to cover up for anyone here and all townies need to pull their weight to help us catch mafioso.

If a newbie doesn't then that's just survival of the fittest and tough to them. At least they won't become a LyLo burden.

I'm not covering up for winger in anyway, and won't for any player, but all I said was that there are more convincing mafioso at the moment and they take priority for me.

Seriously, there should be a minimum 1 NG requirement on-site.

QFT

[Parama]

Parama: I gave my reason for not voting any of the first 3 suspicions, but I'll expand for you in case you don't like reading between the lines: "

I'ma place my vote where it will count this early in the game.

"

I saw that. IT DOESN'T WORK. If you're suspicious of 3 players, vote one of them.

To sum up, I completely agreed with Pianist that people were putting words in his mouth (possibly for ulterior motives), and I thought Winger was a huge part of that game. Additionally he had a bunch of pressure building on him, perfecto. Parama and DH were playing the projection game too, but I can only vote for one player at a time.

If you take every word spoken at face value, you'd spend an entire game lynching town. Just sayin'.

Parama: I find over-confidence suspect in general but this player displays it regardless of alignment. Hence the ambiguity of my suspicion.

"This player"
I am offended.
You've never seen me play scum anyways.

Oddly enough despite his lack of common sense I feel *a bit* better about Sundy now - I'd still prefer the crazy lynch, but I'm not letting Sundy out of my sight yet.

Last note: winger, stop playing on EM. It's bad for your health. This is coming from someone who's won a trophy on the site. NOBODY THERE CAN PLAY MAFIA.

[Twistedspoon]

Oddly enough despite his lack of common sense I feel *a bit* better about Sundy now

Care to say why?

[Parama]

Even if it's horribly terribly wrong, it sounds like he honestly believes what he's saying, and scum never believe a word of the BS they're spouting so.

[[winger]]

Winger, why'd you call this a game of werewolf? And yeah, Mafia is about making up accusations, but you also provide evidence to back up accusations, in order to convince the town. And I'm not convinced by the evidence that either you or Parama have provided w/r/t Pianist, nor am I swayed by the loud agreement in lieu of evidence from DemonHybrid.

Werewolf, mafia… same game, different names. It went by werewolf on one of my old forums. Old habits.

What kind of evidence can there really be at this stage in the game (or rather, that stage of the game) other than vibes/hunches/opinions?

Also, no… THIS was my original suspicion of pianist:

Furthermore, having a problem with a vote while everyone is randomly voting makes her seem even more suspicious.

…and THIS came after DH had posted:

DemonHybrid already pointed it out... it seemed very much like crazypianist did have a problem with that vote, which makes me wonder why she lied about it.

I reversed them in order in the post because the secondary suspicion (which DH pointed out) seemed more important at the time so I mentioned it first… but originally, my suspicion was based on the fact that she took issue with a random vote (which is why I asked the question in the first place).

Parama, I stopped playing on Epic Mafia a few months ago. I much prefer this style.

[Parama]

Parama, I stopped playing on Epic Mafia a few months ago. I much prefer this style.

*sigh of relief*

[Oso]

..
Last note: winger, stop playing on EM. It's bad for your health. This is coming from someone who's won a trophy on the site. NOBODY THERE CAN PLAY MAFIA.

Quoted for Truth...maybe?? I've never played on EM but one hears stories.

That out of the way:

@winger, if you would, enlighten me on the motivation behind this?

..
[snip]
..
If that's the case, and me double voting like I did, does that say anything about the connection between me/Oso or me/crazypianist? Or is it an individual tell?

Call me paranoid (I am by the way) but that looks like a backhand way to tie yourself to two players, disguised as a mafia theory question.

[[winger]]

Fine, you're paranoid.

And no, it's not a way to tie myself to two players... it's an honest question that if double voting in RVS is scummy, then logic would follow that I would have a reason to unvote one person and vote for the other.