Mini 1320--Redwall Mafia: Spirit Lore (The Sun Has Set)

[Junpei]

quadz: what points exactly has RBT made that are 'good', and why are they good?

[quadz08]

RBT's good points:

Post 100: "3) Newman's thing on L-2 is null to me. Could be cautious town or town-cred-grab/buddy protection scum move. Don't think there's enough info to really judge it yet though."
Post 123: "In general, I agree with his analysis of the fact that anyone who doesn't play "the ms way" tends to get extra scrutiny from those that do. It's like being racist, but for play style. Based on the fact I've undergone that often during my (almost four year now) stay on the site, I would imagine that I can easily attest to the presence and prejudice of many players here for not being able to be read like a book because of a different communication/play style. This makes me feel that the wagon is craptastic and powered by Scumfuel."
Post 147: "Not scumhunting isn't a legit reason to lynch? Something scum have no interest in doing is cool? Saying you've read things, when you're writing things that imply that you haven't?"

There are more, that's a brief sampling. She is tunneling on Zdenek more than I realized, actually. I think she's making a bigger deal out of things than they really should be, but the points she's making are good and logical.

[Riceballtail]

I'm debating between either Pere or Rat for today, leaning Rat. I don't feel the others are seeing what I do for Zdenek. Also, yes I tend to tunnel because I latch onto a solid scumread.

Unvote; Vote:Rat

[Junpei]

RBT, I really think it'd be better to consolidate your vote on Peregrine given how close we are to deadline.

Quadz, I don't know how that translates to a town read, but to each his own.

[Riceballtail]

RBT, I really think it'd be better to consolidate your vote on Peregrine given how close we are to deadline.

Quadz, I don't know how that translates to a town read, but to each his own.

If I were a doublevoter, I'd have one on each. I'm just feeling that Rat is the better lynch, although both good.

[pappums rat]

I'm willing to vote for peregrine, but I'd like people to comment on quadz first.

I think quadz is probably town at this point.

Pappum, that's nice and all, but uh... good job on not commenting on anything that's happened lately.

I didn't realize there was anything that needed to be said. My positions have not changed and I am tired of bashing my head into the concrete wall that is Korlash. We both just keep repeating the same things over and over.

RBT, why am I the better lynch?

[pappums rat]

BTW I am just going to leave these here in case someone asks

again

for a "concise" case on PeregrineV:

Unvote
Vote: PeregrineV

Lets take a look at his content so far. His first vote was for Junpei here:

Vote: Junpei

Scummy confirmation number.

And to answer your question, know when to follow your nose and when to use your brain. Playing wholly by gut or wholly by logic doesn't seem to work.

So this is an RVS vote for having a "scummy confirmation number". He never gives any indication of having an actual scumread on Junpei at any point.

He later votes me here because he's "not feeling the Newman thing":

Junpei's scum in hiding, but not feeling the Newman thing.

Vote: Papum's Rat

He then goes on to defend Newman without really talking at all about who he suspects (no scumhunting with all posts being about defending Newman).

In his last post, he switched back to Junpei because he "liked" that vote better, despite it being an RVS vote and having never stated any reasoning behind suspecting him:

I liked the Junpei vote better than the Rat vote.

Unvote.
Vote: Junpei

PeregrineV is posting contentless garbage in defense of Newman while not scumhunting at all. Lets lynch this scumbag.

Scumreads so far are PV and Newman, with Junpei a fairly distant third.

PeregrineV opportunistically voted me (I had a vote on me, more than his other vote, hiplop had just voted him) and upon further inspection, he had no reason to do so other than 'gut'. The Peregrine I remember doesn't rely completely on gut. Peregrine never expressed gut read, if anything implying a read based on evidence given his past posts not being of gut nature. Peregrine then came up with explanation for the vote from a number of days ago only after explanation was requested by me (by the way, 3 of the 4 posts he cites for finding me suspicious came AFTER he voted me, and all four of them are based on meta when we've only played in one game together). He isn't scumhunting; furthermore he has shown that he isn't reading the thread at all closely, missing many apparent details.

[Korlash]

You're oversimplifying. L-2 is not bad that early. L-2 on a wagon that is built for reasons that are that awful, from a player that is better than being on said awful wagon? Not town.

And... your playstyle is to deceive and not be fully truthful on a regular basis? Haaaa ok you need death. A lot.

What page did said awful wagon begin on? How do you measure what is awful in that sense and what isn't at that time in a game? Secondly, did BV suggest he actually wanted to lynch Newman, or just wagon him? because an L-2 wagon that early just for the sake of having one that early doesn't really care about what reasoning is behind it. (At the time that is. Unless BV actually showed he was trying to Lynch Newman, I can argue he was just bandwagoning as much as you can argue he was scum hopping on an easy wagon. It's a he said she said, and I scream louder.)

And if that's what you believe mate, good on ya. but playing to my strengths doesn't make me scum. And while I may not admit to being 'fully truthful' very few people can say that with a straight face. Is a VT truthful? No, he hides himself and uses guile to try and protect the power roles. Is a power role truthful? No, for obvious reasons he has to blend into the shadows. saying you dislike my style so I should die might work on other policy lynch candidates, but I'm not one of them and it won't work on me. But if you want to allow me to walk you into that, thus making you resound your own case to simple white noise, please... Don't let me stand in your way sir. =3

They should have answered you, absolutely. I don't know why they didn't, so I did because I knew the answer and no one had yet answered you. More importantly, though, you shouldn't have asked if you knew already. And yes, they should have answered, but nonetheless, it's not "their" battle. It's our battle. Well, not yours, but you know what I mean.

There is no 'should' and 'shouldn't' in a game of mafia. Why shouldn't I have asked something I knew? It obviously bore fruit, no? You just admitted you have no idea why they didn't answer me, thus I have uncovered something suspicious, thus I have created new scum hunting opportunities and helped provide something for people to gauge their reads on. Explain to me why I shouldn't have done this? Explain to me why more information is a bad thing?

BV is a stronger player, from what I've seen. To answer your question, no I don't think I've ever actually played with either of them, but I have seen them both in games. BV is better.

Well I won't argue with your opinion, you are entitled to it no matter how much I may disagree with you. The fact is, you have used BV's meta to call him (me) scum, so I have to ask you to back it up. I'll even make it easy on you. Since the site shut-down may have messed up games, just explain to me two or three times you have seen him play in situations that you feel showed his experience, then explain to me how those situations are relatable to this one. Lastly, how many games have you seen BV play? How many of those were him as town? And how many of those had 'weak wagons' which you know he stayed off of?

[Korlash]

Lets see, Pear grin pear grin... hmmm...

Well for starters, Rat's case is crap. Honestly, him actually posting it hurts the chances of a peargrin wagon... The 'defense of Newman thing' is clearly a stretch with no basis. Contentless garbage is fine, but 'not scumhunting' is also a bit of a stretch. Both of those might be fine points but Rat manages to skip over every single one of Pear's posts that actually had 'content' in them, regardless of your own opinion on the matter. You add in the fact Pear had JUST asked a viable question which Rat 'conveniently ignored' to post this case only makes the posts he left out more suspect. *shakes head*

Luckily, I don't intend to base my read of Pear on this alone!

Jun's case doesn't look much better. "Opportunistic vote" on page one? *shakes head* Coming up with the reasons late is good, showing that those reasons came after the vote is also good. After an ISO of Pear I would agree there is a lack of scum-hunting and given the small amount of content I suppose the statement he 'isn't reading the thread closely' is more or less accurate. I would rather say something like "He isn't adding to the progression of the game in any meaningful way" to make it more encompassing and less based on a single point that can't really be argued by either side to much effect.

So while Rat's case is pure crap, Jun's isn't. Pear's ISO leaves me no reason to suspect he is necessarily town, but a few tid bits that could suggest scum. I would say his lynch would accomplish two things, 1) has a small chance of actually hitting scum. (Small being a percentage less than 40, although possible not much less.) and 2) getting rid of a player that isn't contributing to the growth of the game, or a.k.a. a 'policy day one lynch'. Unlike a normal 'policy lurker lynch' we would be lynching a relatively proven 'active lurker' far and above one of the best of the 'policy lynches'.

Really, as far as deadline lynches go, I see no reason not to be on Pear if one of the more likely scum players are not a competing wagon. Deadline is still over a day so I won't give up on actual scum yet.

So, let's forget this foolishness and lynch SCUM! A vote for Rat is a vote well used!

The fact the Pear case was started by his crap case is evidence enough that the case is likely 'scum motivated'. Obvious false accusations, obvious skipping of posts, hell and for no reason. Pear's ISO isn't all that great, so why skip the posts and claim they don't exists instead of arguing why they are crap? Because he's scum pushing a made up case and would rather say less.

[Junpei]

I liked the Junpei vote better than the Rat vote.

Unvote.
Vote: Junpei

This was the opportunistic vote. Also read closer, Korlash, particularly in my ISO where I talk about how I know peregrine isn't reading the thread. Someone else also noticed this, I forget who exactly though, perhaps pappums.

[Korlash]

All right, now that that's covered. Time to catch up.

@Jun: Asking me to "Prove that I am actively searching in thread for clues as to who scum" isn't likely to produce anything of value. From my point of view, all of my posts are me actively searching the thread for scum. Unlike my question toward Rat, yours is too vague and without focus. I want a specific type of evidence, while you ask for anything in general. For the record my 187-189, my part in 192 where I delve into Rat's wording and what it implies, my 201 where I look into Pear's question and how Rat reacted to it, etc. All of these are good examples of me 'actively searching for clues as to who is scum' but like I said, you made it too vague to be of any help.

If you were trying to teach me a lesson, you went about it poorly mate. Just saying.

[Korlash]

This was the opportunistic vote. Also read closer, Korlash, particularly in my ISO where I talk about how I know peregrine isn't reading the thread. Someone else also noticed this, I forget who exactly though, perhaps pappums.

No. You are pushing a deadline wagon, I am pushing a scum one. Don't give me a riddle or an errand to complete, give me something tangible. Don't ask me to 'read closer' SHOW ME. This is the part of the game that falls on you to push your side of things. I am pushing a wagon on who I think is scum, yours is my competing wagon. I have just done what I feel is sufficient research on the topic. Unless you are willing to show me something, I will not waste time looking it up and risk my own wagon failing because of it.

As far as opportunistic goes, there are posts in between his vote on Rat and his second vote on you that suggest his vote, while not justified, does not appear opportunistic. There is at least two instances of him 'reaffirming' his suspicions of you after unvoting. While this may not make his vote acceptable by any means, it certainly kills the idea he was being opportunistic. being opportunistic suggests impulse, and you can't vote on impulse if you showed interest in it earlier.

I'll make this clear so we don't waste our little time. I am not defending his vote, I am merely showing you it was not 'opportunistic'. If you would like to explain to me what part of your ISO is important and why exactly it is, I'll listen. However, if you are not willing to quote the info and repeat yourself at this stage, I cannot believe your interest in your wagon succeeding is real. (Thus must assume the wagon is not something I want to be a part of)

[Korlash]

Still catching up.

@ V2V:

*Your double standard with Ghost and Newman suggests your push on Newman was fake. Why did you ignore Ghost's obvious shout out over the wagon, yet focused ENTIRELY on Newmans?

*You assume a quicklynch will automatically catch us scum, which is false, and you base a scum read on Newman on this false fact. Why did you never consider that a quicklynch has just as much chance of causing the death of multiple townies, thus putting us in a fairly bad place?

*Why did Newman's time on site make any difference? (We'll need to talk about this for a while which is why I'm just starting the question off simply.)

I guess it's not really a case, and more of a laundry list of bullet points for you to respond to. Enjoy mate!

[Junpei]

Still think Newman wagon is bad. What's the case on him again, since he has three voters?

Still eyeballing Junpei and the Rat.

Thanks for the useless post which confirms that you aren't closely reading the game at all.

Well, I was hoping there was something I missed. Otherwise, I am seeing that three people are voting Newman because he didn't want someone at L-2.

Here are two examples. Stop with your fallacy of definition arguments, they're unproductive. Also cease the massive rhetoric and paragraphs which could be reduced to a single sentence, they are also unproductive. You need to trim down your walls a lot, they don't say enough to justify their length. Also every long conversation you get into has been almost useless.

Finally, go take a class on rudimentary logic and mathematical philosophy, and then retype 285 please. You don't get to decide what is too general and what isn't too general. If something is its own set all together (scumhunting) then it could also be contained in the set of things which require evidence. I will accept an exhaustive proof of your scumhunting, however if you demand I be more specific, then I will go as far as: Show me evidence that you are attempting to determine if quadz is scum or not. I demand hard evidence much like you do, no citing posts with you questioning. Any posts of questioning will be discarded as scum pretending to be busy. Any posts with interrogation commentary regarding quadz will be discarded as inconclusive as it could be two scum faking an argument and you can't prove quadz' innocence (let alone yours!).

You're speaking with someone who could write a plethora of essays on this type of stuff, sit down and take your medicine. Accept that I know what I'm talking about and that you're being inherently hypocritical. My Peregrine case is fine and impenetrable much in the same way my awareness that I am town is. If you want more homework, figure out how that's possible (it's not mandatory so I won't give you the answer, this is so you can try to apply what you've just learned; I'm done with your insistence of fallacy and hypocrisy whilst flooding this thread, accepting your own fallibility is step one in any argument, I have done so but you failed to impress, now it's your turn).

[Junpei]

I realize that may have come off rude and condescending, but I've tried multiple times in this thread to show you a simple fact but you keep insisting that I am wrong without reflecting or doing any of the thought I have been hoping you would. I'm getting frustrated that you are posting too fast without pondering my ideas, is what I guess it comes down to.

[Korlash]

Ha ha ha. You may think you're smarter than I am, but I'm certainly more experienced with this game then you are. You have a lot to learn sir. For starters, if you are pushing a competing wagon at deadline, don't make your entire 500 word essay about how you are smarter then everyone and we should listen to you. See, you failed to give any reason why we should be voting Peargrin in your last post nor did you make a single comment on Rat (the competing wagon).

Let me make this simple then,

1) If you truly cared about the deadline, you wouldn't have simply posted those quotes, you would have told us what was important about them in order to win people onto your 'side' and guarantee the lynch you want.

2) If you truly cared about getting a lynch today, you wouldn't be 'demanding' anything from me regarding Quad, since he is not one of the competing wagons.

3) Proclaiming how intellectual you are and telling me to just accept what you say is a sign you are egotistical. Egotistical in this game often means wrong, blinded, emotional, incapable of seeing others reasoning and logic, and above all stupid. This is a team game and you are obviously not a team player. I will not suffer you dragging me into a loss because you can't get over how big your proverbial dick is.

4) I have presented a case on someone who is likely scum while I have more than presented a counter on the case you presented. You show absolutely no interest in defending your case and choose instead to attack me personally. You have not only sullied yourself for the remainder of the game, good luck with that by the way, but have just assured my case to be the better. Learn to play the game before you act like an ass, I may not be as eloquent as you are but I'll end up beating you every time mate.

5) the next post of yours better be about why we should lynch Pear and, should you choose, why we 'shouldn't' lynch rat. Anything else is a waste of time. Anything else if further proof you care more about singing your own glories instead of ending this day in a proper lynch.

@ Everyone not on the Ray/Pear grin wagon.

I wont lie, lynching Pear is a more or less acceptable lynch right now but I feel Rat is more likely to be scum. Both of the people pushing Pear have shown their 'cases' to be faulty and not in the town's best interest. Rat's is obviously fake and thanks to post 288 we now know that Jun is more interested in proving he is better than the rest of us than he is in actually working towards a town goal. I will be back... multiple times throughout tomorrow. Should Pear's lynch be inevitable, so be it, but I hope recent events have shown how insanely stupid that would be.

Now I realize

my

post may have come off as rude and condescending, and while that is unfortunate and not the type of game I strive for I don't pull punches with people who think they can handle them. So when this is over, I'll extend to you a hearty hand shake and hope we can both walk away with smiles.

[Korlash]

How embarrassing... that's 'Rat'/Peargrin wagon... *shakes head*

[pappums rat]

Don't give me a riddle or an errand to complete, give me something tangible. Don't ask me to 'read closer' SHOW ME.

LOL @ your double standards. This reasoning is no different from the way I looked at my position on Newman.

[Korlash]

LOL @ your double standards. This reasoning is no different from the way I looked at my position on Newman.

How so?

[iStark]

On page 6.

VOTE: Junpei

[Korlash]

Istark Jun isn't one of the wagons...

Wait... oh god... Yes he is... WAIT! WAIT! NO! No today will suck eggs if we lynch him over Rat! Jun is simply anti-town, Rat is actually scummy!

Guys.... guys... come on...

Come on guys...

Guys!... Come on....

[iStark]

I haven't read everything yet so hold your horses..

[Korlash]

We have less then a day mate. I reserve the right to feel a bit edgy. >.>

[iStark]

That why I'm trying to hurry up and finish the read instead of type everything I want to say -_-

[vijay2vasandani]

Still catching up.

@ V2V:

*Your double standard with Ghost and Newman suggests your push on Newman was fake. Why did you ignore Ghost's obvious shout out over the wagon, yet focused ENTIRELY on Newmans?

*You assume a quicklynch will automatically catch us scum, which is false, and you base a scum read on Newman on this false fact. Why did you never consider that a quicklynch has just as much chance of causing the death of multiple townies, thus putting us in a fairly bad place?

*Why did Newman's time on site make any difference? (We'll need to talk about this for a while which is why I'm just starting the question off simply.)

I guess it's not really a case, and more of a laundry list of bullet points for you to respond to. Enjoy mate!

I've played with Ghost before in NY 142 Rolling in the Deep and I didn't realise he was playing the same view. I only noticed Newman, and when he didn't actually say the words "he was afraid of a quicklynch", choosing to attack our meta of attacking non-MS style players I got extremely suspicious.

I say that it should. I know there are exceptions to the rule, but generally, I do not see any town intent to quicklynching. Hence I assumed that it should theoretically net us scum. I understand that town can quicklynch accidentally but I have to play by theory, otherwise I can never develop a method of play and be confident with lynching anybody.

Newman's time on site mattered because he SHOULD know, imo, that L-2 is reached pretty regularly, without the lynch pushing through on this site. And I also realised why I assumed he knew the site meta. It is because he accused us of being "playstyle-ist", which implies he would know that common site meta is to attack people who are different. For him to know this, he must play a fair amount, which means he must know that bandwagons reach L-2 all the time without lynching anybody.