Mini 648 - Shytown - [Game Over]

[Shy Guy]

Votes #1

Untitled[2] (molestargazer, Nudude)
Greasy Spot[1] (The Pope's Tiara)
imaginality[1] (darkdude)
The Pope's Tiara[1] (imaginality)
molestargazer[1] (Untitled)
Nudude[1] (Greasy Spot)

Not Voting[0] ()

[The Pope's Tiara]

Unvote

I've found scum in this bunch. The smell was overpowering at first, but getting settled in I was able to track them down.

This person went on the defense after being voted for. Saying that equality is the enemy. Of course scum wouldn't want an equal chance for each townie, the more we begin to distrust each other the more likely we take out townies one by one until only he and his scummy buddy remain.

The buddies have made a minor overt connection (possibly) in agreement, whether or not this is an icebreaking thing or an actual scum agreement is hard to tell.

The defense posts they've posted have led me to believe that one of the seemingly innocent is scum.

Vote: Untitled

(sorry if that last bit was a little jumbled)

Let's face it, he's scum. He hasn't been careful in concealing himself and has made it all but overt. Why do you think he has two votes against him? Others have subconsciously perceived it as well.

It might not be pretty, but fact is fact; we need to lynch Untitled. If we don't then we only give him the upper hand. By taking him out we weaken our scummy enemies.

And, if you're a little worried as to whether or not he actually is scum, let me point something else out: even if he isn't, we still get a better grip on the game. By taking him out we see more clearly who could possibly be scum. It makes us more likely to lynch mafia over townie.

Vote Untitled. He may not be the scum we want, but he's the scum we need.

[darkdude]

Nah! It only lasts for the first couple of pages to kind of break the ice.

And what is it that breaks the ice? Someone trying to see if there is more to someone's "Random" vote than it meets the eye. Certainly "nah, it's 0% scummy cause it's random vote" won't accomplish anything...

You argue that equality is bad for town, which is true, but you don't seem to acknowledge the reasoning behind the statement. If everyone does the same thing, then no one will appear more or less scummy, and we won't be able to have lynch candidates. The reason random voting can start a game is because they may or may not be completely random. If you dismiss this possibility then there is no longer a purpose for random voting.

Now, I do not think these specific early game accusations hold much weight, but they should not be brushed off just because they are made early in the game. I would like to see the points actually addressed instead of "oh it's just RANDOM".

I would like to know from Greasy why he considered Nudude's vote a bad one.

[imaginality]

I've also found scum in this game.

Nudude was newly inducted into the scum and a little nervous at the responsibility his godfather had entrusted him with in sending him and The Pope's Tiara to take over Shytown. So he began with a tongue-in-cheek post directed at The Pope's Tiara. He felt this was a safe enough first post, and a playful nod in his scum buddy's direction. Pretending to suspect her and find out she's town, when he and she both knew she was scum, that was fun!

But then when Untitled questioned why Nudude didn't vote, Nudude decided he'd better vote to avoid having unwanted attention placed on him. However, with only four to lynch, he felt uncomfortable about the idea of putting a second vote on his scum buddy. So he voted for Untitled. His explanation that he 'couldn't resist OMGUSSing' belies his deeper rage at Untitled for putting him on the spot so early in the game.

When Greasy Spot voted Nudude for the OMGUS vote, Nudude tried to laugh it off as just part of the random voting stage, but with a nervous chuckle betraying his true feelings, his response seemed a little forced.

The Pope's Tiara watched events with dismay. Her scumbuddy had two votes against him. It was time to leap into action - not defending him directly, no, too obvious; instead, targeting Untitled. If she could make a case against him, Nudude would be off the hook.

While she started strong, she pulled her punch in the end, saying that even if he's not scum he's worth lynching. She felt she needed some wiggle room for when Untitled turned up townie.

Sadly for her, and Nudude, a townie was thoughtfully watching these exchanges. imaginality smiled. He'd caught both the scum by the start of page 2. And even better, his vote was already on one of them. He sat back to relax, knowing the other townies would be along soon to help him lynch the scum. It was turning out to be a very good day indeed.

[Nudude]

Unvote

Vote: The Pope's Tiara

Your last post smelt very bad.

[Nudude]

Sorry for the double post, I just wanted to get Untitled off L-1 ASAP.

I'd have to say, on some level, Imaginality makes some sense. I can't see any reason that justifies TPT putting Untitled at L-1, especially this early in the game, and TPT's reasoning is weak.

You can justify all you like, but putting someone at L-1 on the second page runs the risk of a fast - lynch occuring, and given the small number of players I can't see how that possibly benefits town.

[Untitled]

lynch-1 and being ok with lynching someone this early is

way

scummy. wonder whether nudude would have pulled his vote so fast if imaginality hadn't nailed him?

Unvote

FoS: the pope's tiara, nudude

[Greasy Spot]

Nah! It only lasts for the first couple of pages to kind of break the ice.

And what is it that breaks the ice? Someone trying to see if there is more to someone's "Random" vote than it meets the eye. Certainly "nah, it's 0% scummy cause it's random vote" won't accomplish anything...

You argue that equality is bad for town,

I didn't argue that point I agreed with the point.

which is true, but you don't seem to acknowledge the reasoning behind the statement.

Not sure what your reading but you might need to reread.

If everyone does the same thing, then no one will appear more or less scummy, and we won't be able to have lynch candidates. The reason random voting can start a game is because they may or may not be completely random. If you dismiss this possibility then there is no longer a purpose for random voting.

Now, I do not think these specific early game accusations hold much weight, but they should not be brushed off just because they are made early in the game. I would like to see the points actually addressed instead of "oh it's just RANDOM".

I would like to know from Greasy why he considered Nudude's vote a bad one.

My comments above are in bold.

If you read before you post you would see that he called his own vote a OMGUS vote. My comment was just messing with him, it wasn't meant to be serious.

[darkdude]

,I didn't argue that point I agreed with the point.

Yes you did.

Thinking everyone is equal in Mafia is the enemy.

If you read before you post you would see that he called his own vote a OMGUS vote. My comment was just messing with him, it wasn't meant to be serious.

I am aware of that. Why would it deserve your counter vote though?

Anyways, as for the latest newsworthy incident:

I concur with post 28. That is pretty much my opinion; Pope's argument is baseless.

Unvote

Vote: The Pope's Tiara

Your last post smelt very bad.

Yeah it was bad, but I think it's more of "obvious inexperience" than "obvious scum". I think it is mostly a null tell.

I'd have to say, on some level, Imaginality makes some sense. I can't see any reason that justifies TPT putting Untitled at L-1, especially this early in the game, and TPT's reasoning is weak.

You can justify all you like, but putting someone at L-1 on the second page runs the risk of a fast - lynch occuring, and given the small number of players I can't see how that possibly benefits town.

Imaginality isn't making reasons here, he's being sarcastic and pointing out the lack of evidence behind Pope's argument. And in all seriousness hammering shouldn't be that much of a problem since it seems most players here are competent enough to prevent random lynches. Scum wouldn't dare to hammer someone at this point in time.

ynch-1 and being ok with lynching someone this early is way scummy. wonder whether nudude would have pulled his vote so fast if imaginality hadn't nailed him?

Unvote

FoS: the pope's tiara, nudude

Post 28 was full of sarcasm. If you're trying the same thing, you're not doing it right. To me it seems like you are trying to jump on the opportunity.

Unvote

[Shy Guy]

I will be away for a few days. Carry on without me, and if a lynch happens wait until I get back to proceed.

[molestargazer]

As I did last time, I'm just going to dissect a few posts, get some comments up there, so I Can clear my head out and give you an overall opinion.

This person went on the defense after being voted for. Saying that equality is the enemy. Of course scum wouldn't want an equal chance for each townie, the more we begin to distrust each other the more likely we take out townies one by one until only he and his scummy buddy remain.

The buddies have made a minor overt connection (possibly) in agreement, whether or not this is an icebreaking thing or an actual scum agreement is hard to tell.

The defense posts they've posted have led me to believe that one of the seemingly innocent is scum.

OK, Untitled went on the defensive. Yes, a bit odd. But scum would probably quite like equality, because then there's confusion in the town and not knowing who to vote for. Yes, distrust (Paranoia?) may lead to some dead townies, but with discussion, we could root out scum.

Why do you think he has two votes against him? Others have subconsciously perceived it as well.

Actually, one of them (My own) was random. However, my vote is staying where it is for now, because of said perception or otherwise.

It might not be pretty, but fact is fact; we need to lynch Untitled. If we don't then we only give him the upper hand. By taking him out we weaken our scummy enemies.

And, if you're a little worried as to whether or not he actually is scum, let me point something else out: even if he isn't, we still get a better grip on the game. By taking him out we see more clearly who could possibly be scum. It makes us more likely to lynch mafia over townie.

Vote Untitled. He may not be the scum we want, but he's the scum we need.

You seem very sure of yourself considering this post was made at the start of Page 2. If we were to lynch him now, and he isn't scum, that is a mega balls-up. We have a lot of time to discuss, let's not rush things.

Darkdude's post - just, yeah. I reckon that the start of Page 1 was the random stage, and that can be brushed off, but already by the end of Page 1, accusations other than random ones were being made, and so those should be taken into account as much as any other argument. After all, only through a bit of random voting at the start can we start to deduce potential reasons.

But then when Untitled questioned why Nudude didn't vote, Nudude decided he'd better vote to avoid having unwanted attention placed on him. However, with only four to lynch, he felt uncomfortable about the idea of putting a second vote on his scum buddy. So he voted for Untitled. His explanation that he 'couldn't resist OMGUSSing' belies his deeper rage at Untitled for putting him on the spot so early in the game.

That makes sense, yet it doesn't.
I can believe it, yet I'm worried you're digging into the first part of the game a little bit too far?

So he voted for Untitled. His explanation that he 'couldn't resist OMGUSSing' belies his deeper rage at Untitled for putting him on the spot so early in the game.

When Greasy Spot voted Nudude for the OMGUS vote, Nudude tried to laugh it off as just part of the random voting stage, but with a nervous chuckle betraying his true feelings, his response seemed a little forced.

One thing I actually hadn't noticed until now is after Greasy Spot voted for Nudude for his OMGUS vote, Nudude makes no response to that vote, his next post detailing how you don't take anything on Page 1 seriously. So, yes again.

OK, a few comments:
- The Pope's Tiara's post. Some of the arguments may be logical, but they have a few holes in them. He says that he believes that Untitled is scum because he has made some very defensive posts; which I can understand, but I don't believe the reasoning given is sufficient for saying 'He's scum, just kill him now'.
It just seems too aggressive, too blatant to be a scumtell to me. I might be wrong.

- Imaginality's almost narratic post explaining why Nudude and TPT are scum certainly makes some sense. I'm worried it goes a bit too deep into what's happened, however.

- Nudude then responds. Oddly enough, he makes no attempt to defend himself from Imaginality's accusations, but instead attacks TPT for putting Untitled at L-1.

- Untitled then attacks TPT also, saying the L-1 is 'way scummy'. Could this be a connection between Nudude and Untitled, attempting to persuade the town to lynch TPT for his post against Untitled?

- darkdude than asks Greasy why Nudude's 'OMGUSsy' vote deserved a counter-vote. Whilst it is a good point, I'm still unsure whether or not this was still semi-random.
- In darkdude's post, he claims that Post 28 (Imaginality) was largely sarcastic. In his attacking of TPT, I agree with this, but it doesn't mean it shouldn't be taken into consideration. He may have a point.

Now at the end of all this, I'm still just as confused as before. So let's try analysing a few people:

Untitled

- Keeps my vote. He leapt immediately onto the defensive when I voted him in the random stage of the game, starting the whole Parity debate. When I make a post finding Greasy's post about parity 'Odd', he defends again (When there isn't really much of a need to), attacking me for keeping 'everyone on the same number of votes'. His post 31 attacks TPT for L-1ing him, again instead of defending his own actions.
I think he might be scum.

Nudude

- Can't resist OMGUSsing Untitled. Backs up Greasy Spot's post about parity, saying not to take Page 1 seriously. Votes TPT for his not-so-great post attacking Untitled. He agrees with Imaginality's post, but doesn't mention how that same post labelled him as scum.
This seems quite odd to me, and possibly a little scummy.

Greasy Spot

- Agrees with Untitled's 'Parity is the enemy' vote of myself. Votes Nudude for his OMGUS vote (Still semi-random?). Doesn't really defend himself against my 'odd' post, but instead reiterates the fact that Parity = Equality. Disgarees with darkdude's questioning about the vote on Nudude.
I can't quite get my head around Greasy. I think a lot of his problems on Page 1 were down to the fact that he thought the ice still hadn't been broken, if you like, and not really taking the arguments seriously.

darkdude

- So far, I think that many of his posts have been well-done, and logical. There's isn't a great deal I can say, but I think he's Pro-Town.

The Pope's Tiara

- I think his post attacking Untitled was more inexperienced than scum (As darkdude has said), and is being a little over-agressive. So far, I can't really judge, but if I had to pick, I'd say Pro-Town.

Imaginality

- Came up with some sound reasoning as to why Nudude and TPT are scum, but did also vote for TPT at the very start of the game. A bit of a confusing player.

I'd like to hear thoughts on this. It might be long and confusing, but I've tried to sort out what's been going on and decide.
For now, my vote stays on Untitled - I reckon he's scum.

[Untitled]

none of what y'all are saying makes any sense. are we all reading the same thread?

Untitled

- Keeps my vote. He leapt immediately onto the defensive when I voted him in the random stage of the game, starting the whole Parity debate. When I make a post finding Greasy's post about parity 'Odd', he defends again (When there isn't really much of a need to), attacking me for keeping 'everyone on the same number of votes'. His post 31 attacks TPT for L-1ing him, again instead of defending his own actions.
I think he might be scum.

so according to you it's scummy when I defend myself, it's scummy when I defend myself whilst somehow simultaneously attacking you, and it's scummy when I attack tpt

instead of

defending myself. that doesn't leave me with a whole lot of options other than making friends with everyone and waiting for you to kill me, which would probably suit you fine but it doesn't do much for me.

Yeah it was bad, but I think it's more of "obvious inexperience" than "obvious scum". I think it is mostly a null tell.

sorry, I must have missed where inexperienced scum were immune from making mistakes. how is it a null tell when you say that you want to lynch someone whether they're scum or not?

Post 28 was full of sarcasm. If you're trying the same thing, you're not doing it right. To me it seems like you are trying to jump on the opportunity.

I'd rather that imaginality tells us himself whether he was being sarcastic, but I'm serious even if he's not. I don't do florid parody posts.

tpt's case is such obvious crap that I'm not even going to bother with it. I wouldn't have even believed he was serious if he hadn't put the last couple of paragraphs in there.

[Untitled]

unvote, vote: molestargazer

parity is the enemy.

I'd respond, but I have no idea what parity is. Not even with wikipedia.

So, yeah. Definition, anyone?

btw, you forgot to actually, y'know, respond. your next post was this:

OK, I'm just going to dissect this for my own benefit.
1. I vote for Untitled in the random stage of the game, with the 'reasoning' that he hadn't had a vote on him yet.
2. He returns the vote, saying equality is the enemy. This seems to be referring to the fact that I was trying to make everything equal by giving everyone a vote. (Ironically, he helped 'parity' by voting myself, who hadn't had a vote until then!)
3. Greasy Spot supports Untitled, agreeing that 'parity is the enemy'.

Does anyone else find that a little bit odd?

this isn't a response, it's a recap. all you did was sidestep my attack (yes,

attack

) and make a vague comment that it was somehow "odd". how is it odd, exactly?

[molestargazer]

unvote, vote: molestargazer

parity is the enemy.

I'd respond, but I have no idea what parity is. Not even with wikipedia.

So, yeah. Definition, anyone?

btw, you forgot to actually, y'know, respond. your next post was this:

Believe it or not, it's fairly easy to absorb information such as a simple definition without having to post that I've done so.

OK, I'm just going to dissect this for my own benefit.
1. I vote for Untitled in the random stage of the game, with the 'reasoning' that he hadn't had a vote on him yet.
2. He returns the vote, saying equality is the enemy. This seems to be referring to the fact that I was trying to make everything equal by giving everyone a vote. (Ironically, he helped 'parity' by voting myself, who hadn't had a vote until then!)
3. Greasy Spot supports Untitled, agreeing that 'parity is the enemy'.

Does anyone else find that a little bit odd?

this isn't a response, it's a recap. all you did was sidestep my attack (yes,

attack

) and make a vague comment that it was somehow "odd". how is it odd, exactly?

Your attack wasn't the thing I was labelling 'odd'. I was labelling Greasy's post a little odd.
That was because he was expressing support in your voting of me - and I don't see why. This was still almost in the random stage of the game.

[molestargazer]

none of what y'all are saying makes any sense. are we all reading the same thread?

Untitled

- Keeps my vote. He leapt immediately onto the defensive when I voted him in the random stage of the game, starting the whole Parity debate. When I make a post finding Greasy's post about parity 'Odd', he defends again (When there isn't really much of a need to), attacking me for keeping 'everyone on the same number of votes'. His post 31 attacks TPT for L-1ing him, again instead of defending his own actions.
I think he might be scum.

so according to you it's scummy when I defend myself

Yes. It was the random stage of the game, there's no need to get defensive over a small random vote. If everyone did that it would be chaos.

it's scummy when I defend myself whilst somehow simultaneously attacking you

Yes. Again, there was no need to defend yourself so offensively (If that phrase isn't oxymoronic!). It's almost like you're panicking.

and it's scummy when I attack tpt

instead of

defending myself.

Yes. You were taking a hammering at that point from Imaginality's post, I imagine a good thing to start off with there is clearing your name. Instead, you try and attack someone else to try and divert attention from you.

that doesn't leave me with a whole lot of options other than making friends with everyone and waiting for you to kill me, which would probably suit you fine but it doesn't do much for me.

You could always explain why TPT was wrong.

[Nudude]

I think molestatgazer is doing a fantastic job of brushing aside TPT's L-1 vote, while making everyone else in the game look suspicious.

[Untitled]

I don't think you understand - the parity comment wasn't a defence at all, it was an attack. I didn't vote you because you random voted me, I voted you because you deliberately "random" voted someone with no votes.

you still didn't actually respond to my point above, you just sidestepped it again. to be 100% clear, my vote on you was not random. what's your reaction to this post:

I find it odd that you would want to keep everyone on the same number of votes. pressuring players is good for the town.

Yes. You were taking a hammering at that point from Imaginality's post, I imagine a good thing to start off with there is clearing your name. Instead, you try and attack someone else to try and divert attention from you.

I don't see where imaginality attacked me. I had nothing to "clear my name" of, since nobody was buying tpt's line of bull.

Now, I do not think these specific early game accusations hold much weight, but they should not be brushed off just because they are made early in the game. I would like to see the points actually addressed instead of "oh it's just RANDOM".

in light of this, how do you feel about msg's reaction to my vote?

[Nudude]

I think molestatgazer is doing a fantastic job of brushing aside TPT's L-1 vote, while making everyone else in the game look suspicious.

[Nudude]

Sorry for the double post, still tryingto get the hang of my iPhone =D

[molestargazer]

I don't think you understand - the parity comment wasn't a defence at all, it was an attack. I didn't vote you because you random voted me, I voted you because you deliberately "random" voted someone with no votes.

you still didn't actually respond to my point above, you just sidestepped it again. to be 100% clear, my vote on you was not random. what's your reaction to this post:

I find it odd that you would want to keep everyone on the same number of votes. pressuring players is good for the town.

I see.
I don't want to keep everyone on the same number of votes - that's just ridiculous. It was just the first semi-random reason that came to mind at the start of the game, nothing more.

Yes. You were taking a hammering at that point from Imaginality's post, I imagine a good thing to start off with there is clearing your name. Instead, you try and attack someone else to try and divert attention from you.

I don't see where imaginality attacked me. I had nothing to "clear my name" of, since nobody was buying tpt's line of bull.

That was my mistake.
The only attack that's been on you was TPT - but I mean you could have responded to TPT's post personally with your reasonings.

[imaginality]

My post was one part parodying The Pope's Tiara's post, one part deliberately reading a lot into a little in order to make a case, and two parts believing that, while my case was certainly exaggerated for effect, it was also believable and potentially even true, at least, from the posts up to then, they looked as likely to be scum as any and more so than most.

I do think that it's unlikely all three players who were voting Untitled at that time (molestargazer, Nudude and The Pope's Tiara) are town. Untitled's play didn't and hasn't seemed scummy enough to justify three votes against him. And The Pope's Tiara's post was a convenient one if he/she is scum - putting Untitled onto L-1, with a post that on the one hand might tempt a weak player to hammer, but on the other hand, he/she can easily dismiss as "Well, I was obviously joking with that post, no-one should have taken it seriously," if required.

The ensuing posts have been interesting to read but it's late here (in NZ) and I need sleep so I'll comment on those in eight hours or so from now.

[Untitled]

I had reasons not to, but I want to hear from tpt again before saying more.

I don't want to keep everyone on the same number of votes - that's just ridiculous. It was just the first semi-random reason that came to mind at the start of the game, nothing more.

ok, accepted for now.

[Greasy Spot]

Wow you guys must be awake when I am sleeping. That was a lot of posts during my sleep hours. All good stuff. I'll have to dissect it and see if I need to comment on someones posts.

I am aware of that. Why would it deserve your counter vote though?

It was on page 1 and I was still in the random vote phase of the game.

[darkdude]

It was on page 1 and I was still in the random vote phase of the game.

This is what I mean by brushing off with the "random" excuse.

No, IMHO his OMGUS did not deserve your vote. Your vote itself is a baseless counter vote, which is much of what OMGUS is.

And no comment about your lie that I pointed out?

so according to you it's scummy when I defend myself, it's scummy when I defend myself whilst somehow simultaneously attacking you, and it's scummy when I attack tpt instead of defending myself. that doesn't leave me with a whole lot of options other than making friends with everyone and waiting for you to kill me, which would probably suit you fine but it doesn't do much for me.

You miss the point. It's how you chose to work up imaginality's weak-to-nonexistent case to counter TPT.

sorry, I must have missed where inexperienced scum were immune from making mistakes. how is it a null tell when you say that you want to lynch someone whether they're scum or not?

Null tell means it has the same likely hood of leading to both scum and town. You seem to think all bad plays are scum tells. Just to let you know, that is FALSE. An inexperienced scum and an inexperienced town has the same chances of making such a mistake.

I'd rather that imaginality tells us himself whether he was being sarcastic, but I'm serious even if he's not. I don't do florid parody posts.

No, I don't like non-serious posts either, as it just adds unneeded confusion. But post 28 did a good job of fishing for opinion, and it seems like a couple players went for the bait.

I think molestatgazer is doing a fantastic job of brushing aside TPT's L-1 vote, while making everyone else in the game look suspicious.

I think otherwise. He has made the same points I was thinking of. He's not making cases out of thin air. There's good logic behind them. That's +1 protown point IMHO.

I do think that it's unlikely all three players who were voting Untitled at that time (molestargazer, Nudude and The Pope's Tiara) are town.

I don't think that's likely. Mole and Nudude's votes were random as far as I could tell, and TPT's was like I said, a null tell.

[Greasy Spot]

And no comment about your lie that I pointed out?

I'm sorry, I must have missed something. I haven't lied yet and I didn't notice where you called me out for lying.



Also could you please put peoples names in the quotes when you quote them? I don't know who you are referring to in your previous comments.