Webcomic Wars Mafia: D7- Be Thankful I'm Not The Author

[Head_Honcho]

ugh, IF I MUST.

unvote, vote: populartajo

The issue is not whether or not random bandwagons ever happen. This has been mentioned over and over again but you still seem so incredulous every time someone brings it up, which I see as scummy since you were defensive about it from the beginning. 'Random bandwagons' are what get the game going, and are usually the first point of interest in so many games, I don't really understand why in this particular game they should be disavowed because they happen frequently. In this case, a large portion of the bandwagon was because people liked to say 'solid', which is a fun innocuous way to hop onto a bandwagon and then stick around if it actually takes off seriously. Maybe the guy you're bandwagoning gets 'omg too defensive' because he's taking your random bandwagon seriously, the nerve! So then you can say 'omg overdefensive much? my vote is staying' or in this case 'omg someone defending him get them'. I don't think it's fair or genuine to say that there is no possible scum read to be gleaned from a 'random bandwagon'.

I also liked this little double standard, small but significant. These posts were about 7 hours apart:

I can support both of these wagons:

Lammont and Vino.

Also Fishy is town.

Vote: Vino.

I don't think I like this Vino wagon at all.

Mod Votecount please.

I would support the Emp or Korlash wagons at this point.

Unvote, Vote Empking

He needs to be posting

more

.

Why dont you like the Vino "wagon"?

Why would you support the Emp and Korlash "wagons"?

Hell, your whole vote on TSS can be explained by defensiveness over your 'random bandwagon'.

Vote: the silent speaker

Surely you can do better than that. Reasons?

Re: Whoever asked about my weak meta defense of Santos, I'm not sure how much I can talk about it, as it involves a game in progress. However, in an ongoing F11, Santos declared an intention to get as many claims as possible day one. He was of course lynched, and turned out to be a townie.

Percy: Are you joking? This is a 25 person game and he had I think 11/13 votes. I disagreed with the read, I stated that I disagreed with it. What is 'wishy washy wagon jumpy' about thinking that someone at L-2 in a 25 person game who is being asked to claim will probably get lynched? I'm not the fucking pope, nobody would have pointed back to my comment in their defense and been able to reasonably say I had absolved them. You seem

so

convinced that he's town now that I must be scum for having thought he was town(what an impossible read to make, surely), but as Sensfan mentioned, why does claiming a town role make him more of a townie? Sure it makes him less of an ideal lynch candidate, but how many scum are going to claim scum at l-1? Call this omgus if you want but I'm going to have to

FOS: Percy

. You went for the claim so hard, perhaps it's you that knows something, and maybe you don't like that he mentioned you in getting him outed :^(

[Head_Honcho]

I for one read TSS's mention of 'multiple factions' as merely something that could possibly happen in a large mafia game, not as something he thought was happening.

[roflcopter]

head honcho added to the scumlist. just like fish in a barrel.

[Santos]

However, in an ongoing F11, Santos declared an intention to get as many claims as possible day one.

quoted not for truth. Why must you lie?

[Head_Honcho]

Well, at least 2 was what you said, but that was how I interpreted it. That was simply why I didn't think it was a scum tell for you in this game.

[populartajo]

The issue is not whether or not random bandwagons ever happen. This has been mentioned over and over again but you still seem so incredulous every time someone brings it up, which I see as scummy since you were defensive about it from the beginning. 'Random bandwagons' are what get the game going, and are usually the first point of interest in so many games, I don't really understand why in this particular game they should be disavowed because they happen frequently. In this case, a large portion of the bandwagon was because people liked to say 'solid', which is a fun innocuous way to hop onto a bandwagon and then stick around if it actually takes off seriously. Maybe the guy you're bandwagoning gets 'omg too defensive' because he's taking your random bandwagon seriously, the nerve! So then you can say 'omg overdefensive much? my vote is staying' or in this case 'omg someone defending him get them'. I don't think it's fair or genuine to say that there is no possible scum read to be gleaned from a 'random bandwagon'.

I fail to understand something. What exactly makes me scum? The fact that you disagree with me about the analysis of a randomwagon?

I repeat. I think that trying to find 100% serious reasons in a random bandwagon is a fruitless idea. People trying to paint these votes as a wagon infiltrated by scum eager to set a mislynch in page 2-3, and specially when it was a wagon in random stage, really bother me.

Its like you are looking for fishes in a pond when there is a sea in your right.

I also liked this little double standard, small but significant.

Dude, do you even know what double standard means? Please explain clearly why the posts you quoted are an example of double standard.

[the silent speaker]

a) Why do you think there are two scum factions?
b) Your cop-fishing theory makes no sense because there hasn't been a night action yet, and that's already been established in thread.
c) Your circular reasoning for believing the wagon was started by a townie and targetting a townie. (scum are on the wagon because the wagon has been started by and on a townie. It was started on and by a townie because scum are on the wagon and are driving it.)
d) Apart from the cop-fishing point above, which already has a huge hole in it, what other reason do you have to be so confident about who is town and who is scum based on those early posts?

a) As I said, I think there

could

be two scum factions. Game size makes it plausible, and nothing rules it out. Nothing rules it in, either, but what of it?
b) I have already renounced the cop-fishing idea. It was a notion based on their apparent willingness to follow a definite statement that was nonetheless not backed up by reasoning in a way thatseemed reminiscent of people following someone they thought was a cop; that notion is wrong, but that's what it was (half-)baked out of. As to why the scum would follow a presumed cop's verdict (if this had been night start) when that verdict would have presumably been innocent and thus not mentioned in-thread, well, maybe

they

thought there might be two scum groups. Or maybe they didn't think it was a cop verdict at all but hoped to convince people that it had been presented as a hinted one? Idunno. I frankly didn't get much farther down the cop-fishing line of thought than "Hey, that looks like they're fishing!!!1!" and the notion of cop-fishing fit my theory so well that I ra with it without thinking through why scum would cop-fish with no results or with a presumed innocent (or at least not-theirs). The cop fish notion was, I repeat, a mistake on my part.
c) I don't think I was arguing "scum are on the wagon because the wagon has been started by and on a townie". I thought I was arguing scum on the wagons because of an apparenly collusive set of interests -- the same people boosting each other to the same people's gain and the detriment of the set adverse to the same people.
That's a mouthful and I hope it makes grammatical sense -- I think it does -- but what I'm driving at is: a rofl wagon derailed;

and

the derailment was coincident with the rofl wagoners both being themselves wagoned;

and

the same people supported both wagons;

and

the reasoning on one of them especially was bad reasoning presented as good reasoning;

and

rofl himself was one of the people on the two bandwagons. I might add that SensFan used thee two bndwagons to bolster each other.
d) The cop fishing point is deceased as far as I'm concerned. My reason for suspecting the people I named is collusive effect with regard primarily to rofl's benefit (and Lamont's detriment, but I don't think they have anything against Lamont specially). In Tar's case there is a side quote suggesting guilty knowledge.

There is nothing in his posts that explains why he distinguishes this bandwagon from any other early d1 wagon with a few votes on it.

Nothing? How many times have I said that it is the convergence of one bandwagon getting all its wagoners themselves bandwagoned immediately thereafter by the same few people, including the bandwagonee of the original bandwagon? It's the way both of them tie back to the old roflwagon that distinguishes it.

dude, does the fact that this thing happened in page 2-3 mean anything to you?
this is the first time you see a random stage bandwagon?

It tells me that scum actions will be harder to pick out than they might be later on, both because we don't know who they are and because scum can act genuinely near-randomly. But they remain actions taken by scum, and the scum agenda will be reflected in them however faintly. All we need is a glass not distorted by misperceptions.* Besides, ask Lamont how meaningless a couple of votes on page 2-3 can be.
What pings me is that three "random-stage bandwagons" mesh together so nicely. How often do you see that?

*- For the record, no, I cannot guarantee that my glass is not distorted. I think I am on a good lead, but I could be wildly off base; it's happened. But at the end of the game, when we can look back with a mod's-eye view, you'll see for yourself that you will be able to see how the scum was working, in the early stages as well as the late.

[Head_Honcho]

Sorry, I thought what I meant was obvious. When you referred to them as wagons it was okay, when Lamont referred to them as wagons they became "wagons", which implies criticism, and I don't really get where that criticism's coming from.

I don't know when I said that stuff about it being infiltrated by scum, I just think it's scummy to be so adamant that nothing can be gleaned from looking at it.

[Head_Honcho]

EBWOP: That was in response to 355

[Fishythefish]

Fishy, you lost a post to the preview button?

No, to accidental hitting "back" in my browser

I did end up explaining my vote on SensFan in a later post.

Yes. But the reason you give seems to apply in greater measure to the players who actually voted you.

6. If LC is scum, I’ll bet Vino is. That’s not a reason why Vino is scum; it is a reason why we should lynch him.

Who is "him" ? Do you mean that we should lynch me, or LC?

You. If we can get information on a cop/scum without lynching him, that's a good thing.

[Fishythefish]

Apologies for double post.

There is nothing in his posts that explains why he distinguishes this bandwagon from any other early d1 wagon with a few votes on it.

Nothing? How many times have I said that it is the convergence of one bandwagon getting all its wagoners themselves bandwagoned immediately thereafter by the same few people, including the bandwagonee of the original bandwagon? It's the way both of them tie back to the old roflwagon that distinguishes it.

True. This tie, however, is based on a two vote wagon- it's pretty weak imo.

[populartajo]

Sorry, I thought what I meant was obvious. When you referred to them as wagons it was okay, when Lamont referred to them as wagons they became "wagons", which implies criticism, and I don't really get where that criticism's coming from.

Of course it implies criticism. Lammont not liking the Vino wagon and preferring the Emp and Kor wagons was really weird, as his posterior reasons provide:

I don't think I like this Vino wagon at all.

Mod Votecount please.

I would support the Emp or Korlash wagons at this point.

Unvote, Vote Empking

He needs to be posting

more

.

Why dont you like the Vino "wagon"?

Why would you support the Emp and Korlash "wagons"?

Based on the evidence we have & the criteria that qualifies potential lynchees this early in the game, Vino is

not

a proper lynch candidate.

I support a Korlash wagon because he blames other people for his loss in LYLO.

I support an Empking wagon because anyone that posts "/confirm" and leaves needs to post regularly or be lynched.

Also, did you just say sorry to a person that you suspect?

I don't know when I said that stuff about it being infiltrated by scum, I just think it's scummy to be so adamant that nothing can be gleaned from looking at it.

Its not scummy at all. I think its not optymal as it provides a weak reason to suspect people. Tell me what do you get from looking at it?

[SerialClergyman]

a) As I said, I think there could be two scum factions. Game size makes it plausible, and nothing rules it out. Nothing rules it in, either, but what of it?

Ok - so we have two options here.
Either you are a townie who postulated a second scum group out of nowhere (no flavour or extra kills or any in-game reason other than size) to make your elborate theory sound like there's less of an assumption in it's construction. (you originally mention this to try to soften the assumption you made that fishy is town)
OR you're scum who would know whether there are two scum groups. I would suggest the latter.

b) I have already renounced the cop-fishing idea. It was a notion based on their apparent willingness to follow a definite statement that was nonetheless not backed up by reasoning in a way thatseemed reminiscent of people following someone they thought was a cop; that notion is wrong, but that's what it was (half-)baked out of. As to why the scum would follow a presumed cop's verdict (if this had been night start) when that verdict would have presumably been innocent and thus not mentioned in-thread, well, maybe they thought there might be two scum groups. Or maybe they didn't think it was a cop verdict at all but hoped to convince people that it had been presented as a hinted one? Idunno. I frankly didn't get much farther down the cop-fishing line of thought than "Hey, that looks like they're fishing!!!1!" and the notion of cop-fishing fit my theory so well that I ra with it without thinking through why scum would cop-fish with no results or with a presumed innocent (or at least not-theirs). The cop fish notion was, I repeat, a mistake on my part.

So again we're presented with two choices. Either you're a townie who came up with a self-admitted half-baked theory about possible cop fishing before there had even been a cop result, and even if there had been a verdict, the wagon would presumably be on someone with INNOCENT verdict if the scum were on the wagon
OR You're a scum who put up a bs reason when questioned about your scummy theory and now has to backtrack because it was proved ridiculous.
Once again, I find myself on the side of the latter.

c) I don't think I was arguing "scum are on the wagon because the wagon has been started by and on a townie". I thought I was arguing scum on the wagons because of an apparenly collusive set of interests -- the same people boosting each other to the same people's gain and the detriment of the set adverse to the same people.
That's a mouthful and I hope it makes grammatical sense -- I think it does -- but what I'm driving at is: a rofl wagon derailed; and the derailment was coincident with the rofl wagoners both being themselves wagoned; and the same people supported both wagons; and the reasoning on one of them especially was bad reasoning presented as good reasoning; and rofl himself was one of the people on the two bandwagons. I might add that SensFan used thee two bndwagons to bolster each other.

Here you are ignoring the point. To argue that the wagon is scummy because it is to some people's gain and some people's detriment, you NEED TO KNOW THE ALIGNMENT OF WHO THOSE PEOPLE ARE. You are immediately assuming that the people who are detrimented are townie. You immediately assume that Fish is town (remember you suggesting a 1-2 mislynch was being set up?) If Fish is scum, your theory makes no sense. What reason did you have for thinking he's not scum? Because you think the others are scummy. It's all circular.
Either you're a townie who provided an elaborate case, declaring some people town and some people scum on page 2 or 3 using circular logic
OR you are pushing an agenda as scum with bs reasoning.

d) The cop fishing point is deceased as far as I'm concerned. My reason for suspecting the people I named is collusive effect with regard primarily to rofl's benefit (and Lamont's detriment, but I don't think they have anything against Lamont specially). In Tar's case there is a side quote suggesting guilty knowledge.

So your one content-based reason for suspecting that particular group was ill-thought out and shot down after some brief analysis. So now you're pushing this line about it being to some people's benefit and not others. I think I essentially addressed this point above, but to be clear - any wagon situation will have people who gain and poeple who lose. YOU chose one group of people, seemingly at random, who YOU decide are scummy because they benefit or are townie because they lose out. Neverm ind the other wagons are the time, which you could use exactly the same reasoning for, never mind all of the buddying or switching wagons that's happenede since - this is your theory and you're sticking to it - then making up a cop-fishing reason to make it sound more reasonable then abandoning said reason a few posts later when you see how poor it is.

The more I argue this point with you, the more i can't see your approach being legitimate. I smell scum.

[SensFan]

Answering as I read:

@Sens, why do you strongly think Lammont is fakeclaiming?

I don't. But, you know, if Town isn't willing to lynch someone that claims Cop D1, well...ummm...it seems that you won't be lynching Scum, since they

always

claim something like Cop or Doc...

[SensFan]

Ok, up to date.

I don't understand where TSS is coming from, nor how he can go from 'Well, obviously the rofl group knows LC isn't in there's, but might be in his own scumgroup' to 'Isn't it obvious I meant there is a chance of there being multiple scumgroups?'.

Vote stays on LC, though TSS is now second.

[qwints]

Lamont is scum.

unvote, vote: Lamont_Cranston

Retarded bread crumb.
Also, I'm the town cop.

[Empking's Alt]

Lamont is scum.

unvote, vote: Lamont_Cranston

Retarded bread crumb.
Also, I'm the town cop.

Are you confirmed sane or told you're the only one?

[qwints]

No.

[populartajo]

Full claim, qwints. Flavor and such.

[qwints]

I am Elan. My comic is The Order of the Stick. Because I'm a bard, I can evaluate the quality of a comic's artist. I when when we kill all the baddies.

[roflcopter]

unvote, vote: lamont

[hasdgfas]

Makes a lot more sense than that breadcrumb, especially with the flavor of the role.

unvote, vote lamont

[SerialClergyman]

unvote, vote: Lamont

[populartajo]

Unvote Vote : Lammont

Votecount, please

In the unlikely but still possible scenario that Lammont is indeed a town cop, the doc should still protect qwints since its very likely he is the town cop.

[SensFan]

Answering as I read:

@Sens, why do you strongly think Lammont is fakeclaiming?

I don't. But, you know, if Town isn't willing to lynch someone that claims Cop D1, well...ummm...it seems that you won't be lynching Scum, since they

always

claim something like Cop or Doc...

Note that if people didn't jump off as soon as someone claimed Power, we wouldn't have needed to out a counter.