Mini 1543--Natirasha's On Parole!(Game Over)

[Natirasha]

Vote Count 1.10

MafiaSSK(0):

Cabd(0):

Selkies(1):

zMuffinman

zMuffinMan(4):

Selkies, FourTrouble, Aronis, MafiaSSK

FourTrouble(0):

King Kenny(0):

The Goodfather(0):

kabooooom(0):

Karlos4(0):

RossWilliam(0):

Aronis(1):

Cabd

Idiotking(0):

Katsuki(0):

No Lynch(0):

Not Voting(7):

King Kenny, The Goodfather, kabooooom, Karlos4, RossWilliam, Idiotking, Katsuki

With thirteen alive, it takes seven to lynch.

Deadline:

(expired on 2014-02-04 21:00:00)

Non-confirmed players have fourty-eight hours to confirm.

(expired on 2014-01-23 21:00:00)

[MafiaSSK]

WTF WHERE DID ALL T HESE PAGES COME FROM BUSY SITTING ON VENTRILLO PLAYING A LITTLE DOTA

Some of it came from you not posting!

[Katsuki]

Who are you and why are you voting Katsuki?

Well, shit, those are some dumb questions.
1. I'm some dude in the game.
2. He called rule 6 bad because it punishes scum.

See, I saw that as him giving a pre-game critique to Nat. Nothing alignment-oriented?

Why would town even critique a rule that (maybe) punishes scum? I also think the critique assumes way too much. Why not assume the game is balanced around the rule? Town are uninformed; they're gonna assume the game is balanced. Scum are informed; they're more likely to critique a rule cause they know more about the setup. I also think scum are more likely to complain about a rule than punishes scum than town are. The critique is basically more likely to come from scum than town.

I actually really like this. Alright, you've convinced me.

VOTE: Katsuki

What convinced you?
Why would I be more likely to make that comment in thread as either alignment? (how is it alignment indicative?)

[Katsuki]

Ignore my #252.

I'm on pg7 i think or something, will continue later.

for now

UNVOTE VOTE SELKIE

[kabooooom]

/confirm!

[Katsuki]

So. . . I'm going to guess MafiaSSK and FourTrouble are town.

So. . .

[VOTE: zMuffin]

So how about you describe your reason?

Seems like a decent vote, either him, Selkies, or Katsuki. They seem the most likely tk be scum. Do you have a better idea?

Why are muffin, selkie and I scum?

[Katsuki]

This may be just putting a huge kick me sign on my back, but i looked at rule 6 a lot differently...

It hurts the town worse in my estimation. 13 players,, probably 3 or 4 scum. The burden falls on us as the town to make a decisive lynch, otherwise, we're basically asking natirasha to kill us herself...If, for example, we do not have a majority by the end of this dp, 9/14 times, a townie will be killed (assuming 4 scum).

I'm frankly suprised that i am the only one who sees it that way...

alright, i've said my bit, here you go:

It's not really game relevant to discuss this, but no-lynching due to deadline is bad townplay and thus deserves to be punished anyways. Nati just makes it REALLY extreme (and hey, we might get get a scum who was never gonna get lynched struck down by the heavens!).

[Katsuki]

People

not named cabd

don't actually get to slap down a scumread on me and then not push that wagon. That's not how this works.

FTFY

It's amazing how often I forget that you're actually a person and not just an annoying bot.

Pedit: Oh, glorious MafiaSSK, "I am known to lurk at times. I am known to be anti-town. I am known for policy lynches. So yeah.", depart unto us more holy advice with which to lynch the wretched scum

Wait, when did I say that?
And why can't my advice be treated as equal here?

It's on your damn wiki page, Mr. "How-Dare-You-Call-Me-An-Easy-Lynch"

I might consider it if you had a smidgeon of reasoning behind it. But it doesn't, much like your vote on me. For, uh, what was it again? Oh right. Nothing.

Muffin's popped in, dropped a few scum reads, refused to give any reasoning when prompted multiple times, and posted a bunch of crap. "His activity" is underwhelming because he's presumably in-thread and refusing to interact with his scumreads or push anything. "His content" is shit.

Sorry, was busy updating my wiki page. That thing hasn't been updated since I left back in 2010.

It's not nothing.

But yeah. I think you've convinced me for the Muffin wagon.
VOTE: muffin

Walk me through your thought process on getting "convinced" on all these scumreads.

[Katsuki]

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Aronis

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Aronis

Give Aronis a break, Cabd. I'm pretty sure they're new.

interesting

[MafiaSSK]

Walk me through your thought process on getting "convinced" on all these scumreads.

My thought process?

I check the flow of logic, see if it makes sense. If it doesn't then I question. If it does, then I weigh it against the reasoning for my current vote. Whichever comes out stronger wins. And when it wins, if I can think of any other reasons why that person can be scum, then I'll often state it along with the vote.

[MafiaSSK]

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Aronis

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Aronis

Give Aronis a break, Cabd. I'm pretty sure they're new.

interesting

How so?

[Idiotking]

Ok, so let me get my brain sorted here.

So Katsuki said that rule 6 punishes good scumplay, but FourTrouble thinks that Katsuki's scum because of this on the assumption that only scum would say something like that due to knowing more about the setup. This is dumb, because townies would want to play a fair game too. Also, it's kind of clear (at least to me) that no-lynches are more beneficial to scum (because it limits info for the town), so instead allowing for scum to be killed even though they successfully divided the town enough for a no-lynch would be anti-scum. As a townie this would be good for your win-condition, sure, but it'd be unfair, and less fun for everybody. I don't think this is really scummy from FourTrouble, just kind of silly.

Then there's a lot of boring talk between Selkies, MafiaSSK, and Cabd filling the thread.

In post #135 MafiaSSK looks at FourTrouble's (pretty weak) argument against Katsuki based on the rule thing, says "yup, sound's about right" and votes. Sheeping a wee bit, eh?

Post #149, Selkies votes Katsuki without any kind of reason. Selkies also professes a town read on MafiaSSK, again without giving a good reason (this was just after SSK aped FourTrouble). This is a pet peeve of mine, because of how achingly useless it is. Giving reasons when you vote/give reads is kinda important for explaining how you reached those conclusions.

Post #152, Muffin lists a bunch of reads without any, ANY, explanation for why he has them. This bugs me, see above. His Katsuki readi s explained in #163, but still.

#227, Cabd says Goodfather is town, again without explaining why.

#231, SSK again apes Selkies, this time on a muffin vote, again without giving any unique reasoning beyond saying "yup, sounds good."

#233, Cabd votes Aronis, again without explanation (later adding in "oh, I know how young whippersnappers act, you guys, I GET the new generation."; weaksauce bullshit, that.)


#253, Katsuki votes Selkies without giving a reason. GAHHHHRRR


If I missed anything important, feel free to tell me. My patience for rooting through a lot of pointless banter was kinda low.

SO! Since I've got a slew of anti-town no-reason-for-voting players, I'll go with the person who just seems to be aping other people's arguments without producing anything unique to support their votes.

Vote MafiaSSK

Because nothing is more useless than a sheep.

[Selkies]

So. . . I'm going to guess MafiaSSK and FourTrouble are town.

So. . .

[VOTE: zMuffin]

So how about you describe your reason?

Seems like a decent vote, either him, Selkies, or Katsuki. They seem the most likely tk be scum. Do you have a better idea?

Why are muffin, selkie and I scum?

Ignore my #252.

I'm on pg7 i think or something, will continue later.

for now

UNVOTE VOTE SELKIE

I love the hypocrisy here. It's so great.

[MafiaSSK]

SO! Since I've got a slew of anti-town no-reason-for-voting players, I'll go with the person who just seems to be aping other people's arguments without producing anything unique to support their votes.

Vote MafiaSSK

Because nothing is more useless than a sheep.

So apparently I shouldn't be playing this late because I get sorta pissed off. But this sorta pisses me off.
Are you honestly saying that people can't be convinced by other's arguments without being scum? How are wagons supposed to be made?

But even if you believe that, how can you believe that I haven't produced anything unique? I have 73 posts, literally greater than a quarter of the game's posts, and you're saying I have produced NOTHING unique?

What a shitty ass vote.

[Selkies]

SO! Since I've got a slew of anti-town no-reason-for-voting players, I'll go with the person who just seems to be aping other people's arguments without producing anything unique to support their votes.

Incidentally, you're quite welcome for getting the game out of RVS and into a fairly good position within 3 hours of starting, with decent amount of content from everyone.

[Selkies]

But even if you believe that, how can you believe that I haven't produced anything unique? I have 73 posts, literally greater than a quarter of the game's posts, and you're saying I have produced NOTHING unique?

Yes.

[MafiaSSK]

But even if you believe that, how can you believe that I haven't produced anything unique? I have 73 posts, literally greater than a quarter of the game's posts, and you're saying I have produced NOTHING unique?

Yes.

No?

[Selkies]

Don't mind orcinus. His shins are a little sore.

[Idiotking]

@SSK: Sure people can be convinced by other people's reasoning, but just kind of "oh, sure" is both utterly useless and suggests that you are just accepting it wholesale, without going back and making sure it makes sense. Usually if you accept someone else's reasoning it's smart to throw in some of your own analysis too; at least it would show that you didn't just copy/paste, which is a blatantly scummy thing to do.

Also, quantity does not mean quality. A lot of your posts are silly banter that just helped us waste a few pages, nothing more. Other than a few (admittedly decent) questions (like #161), a lot of it's just fluff. As for what I think was directly "not unique", it's your votes. The votes I referenced were completely aping other people's arguments when you had no prior analysis. Especially considering the #202 switch (which was pro-muffin) to #231 (which was a vote for muffin). That's an awful fast turnaround, don't you think?

[Katsuki]

So. . . I'm going to guess MafiaSSK and FourTrouble are town.

So. . .

[VOTE: zMuffin]

So how about you describe your reason?

Seems like a decent vote, either him, Selkies, or Katsuki. They seem the most likely tk be scum. Do you have a better idea?

Why are muffin, selkie and I scum?

Ignore my #252.

I'm on pg7 i think or something, will continue later.

for now

UNVOTE VOTE SELKIE

I love the hypocrisy here. It's so great.

I would ask what hypocrisy, except that there was none at all.

[MafiaSSK]

@SSK: Sure people can be convinced by other people's reasoning, but just kind of "oh, sure" is both utterly useless and suggests that you are just accepting it wholesale, without going back and making sure it makes sense. Usually if you accept someone else's reasoning it's smart to throw in some of your own analysis too; at least it would show that you didn't just copy/paste, which is a blatantly scummy thing to do.

Also, quantity does not mean quality. A lot of your posts are silly banter that just helped us waste a few pages, nothing more. Other than a few (admittedly decent) questions (like #161), a lot of it's just fluff. As for what I think was directly "not unique", it's your votes. The votes I referenced were completely aping other people's arguments when you had no prior analysis. Especially considering the #202 switch (which was pro-muffin) to #231 (which was a vote for muffin). That's an awful fast turnaround, don't you think?

I think you are so ridiculously stuck in the basic conceptions of mafia theory that you shouldn't even be in this game.

Let's shred this post to pieces. First piece:

@SSK: Sure people can be convinced by other people's reasoning, but just kind of "oh, sure" is both utterly useless and suggests that you are just accepting it wholesale, without going back and making sure it makes sense. Usually if you accept someone else's reasoning it's smart to throw in some of your own analysis too; at least it would show that you didn't just copy/paste, which is a blatantly scummy thing to do.

You know, I get that we try for original content a lot of the time. It adds to the discourse of discussion and whatnot which is definitely a very pro-town action.
So when I latch on to this pro-town action, I could see how it could be construed as me trying to get onto their "town credit".
But that's not what I'm doing here, nor would I have any need to. Not only had multiple people had me as solid town reads, but it's also early enough that it truly doesn't matter.

Let's explore that first sentence though. How the agreeing is useless, and how I'm just accepting it wholesale. I will gladly accept it wholesale that I am accepting those arguments wholesale. That is why I agreed to them without adding any questions or analysis that is true. But I think to address your point of how an "oh, sure" is totally useless, I'll have to put it into a more familiar perspective.
On occasion there will be political facebook statuses. Then almost undoubtedly there will be a controversial response. Then the original author will respond with another controversial response from the other side. However, both comments will get a certain amount of "likes" from people who agree with their statement. Whoever has the most likes is seen as winning.
So what I'm doing by giving a wholesale agree to a statement, is I'm "liking" that comment and giving it more credit in relation to other wagons. It is not anti-town. It is not as pro-town as giving a whole other reason, but it is not anti-town and you are wrong to say that.

But you really do try to hammer it in that all I'm doing is "copy/paste"ing and that's scummy. The only real situations that I can think of where it would be as solidly and truly scummy as I think you're seeing it as is if a person were to copy/paste or give a wholesale agreement to a wagon late in the wagon or dare I say even at the hammer.
And that is definitely widely seen and is almost surely going to be called out upon especially by players as talented as say Cabd or Ffery or orcinus. But they didn't. You know why? Because this situation is different.


So let's move onto the second part of your quote there, because that is also wrong. Actually, you know what I'm going to break it up into two. Just for more unique analysis.:

Also, quantity does not mean quality. A lot of your posts are silly banter that just helped us waste a few pages, nothing more. Other than a few (admittedly decent) questions (like #161), a lot of it's just fluff.

Quantity may not mean quality but it sure as hell means content. I am responding to players as their posts come in. It is not just me posting to myself about cheese for over 100 posts. I am making connections with players and if you cannot see that, then you should learn it. All interactions with players are connections that you can analyze when others flip.
It's not fluff. It's me analyzing the situations around me. If the situations around me are fluff, then sure, I'll put in a little bit of humor, but it sure as hell is going to have content.

As for what I think was directly "not unique", it's your votes. The votes I referenced were completely aping other people's arguments when you had no prior analysis. Especially considering the #202 switch (which was pro-muffin) to #231 (which was a vote for muffin). That's an awful fast turnaround, don't you think?

But then you say this, that my votes aren't unique. And let's note here that you said my votes, not some of my votes but my votes. So right away, no matter how you look at it, you can see that my vote on Selkies was unique and this tremendously breaks your theory for not only did I give unique reasoning once but I did it twice when I voted them on the two different occasions.
But then you reference my opinion switch. This is one of those places where I think your opinion becomes too entrenched in the basics of scumtells. Normally, when a person would switch votes very rapidly it could be seen as scummy. That holds value from the fact that they have no true opinion in the first place and are willing to vote whomever, whenever.
There's a couple of problems with this in this circumstance. First, my opnions were never that strong. Ffs, I went back to Selkies on a gut vote. I had no strong opinions on anybody. So when I see logical cases, that I'm willing to put my vote behind, I'm willing to switch my opinion. So that addresses the whomever standpoint. The whenever standpoint is also wrong. For you see, it's still the very beginning of the game, within the first few hours, and there's always a lot of vote-shifting from everyone. People react very strongly and give out tons of different posts, especially in a game as active as this one.
So no, that's not a fast turnaround.

Your vote is based off a large base of inconsistencies and I sincerely hope you reconsider it.

[MafiaSSK]

I hope you realize, Idiotking, that was 828 words directed right at you. Coming from me, the lurker. So you bet your ass you're wrong.

[zMuffinMan]

I love the hypocrisy here. It's so great.

do you think he's scum? or what was the point of this post?

[zMuffinMan]

I would ask what hypocrisy, except that there was none at all.

i'm pretty sure the implication is that you're being hypocritical by not explaining while asking someone else for an explanation (which doesn't make sense anyway, but *shrug*)

[orcinus_theoriginal]

So. . . I'm going to guess MafiaSSK and FourTrouble are town.

So. . .

[VOTE: zMuffin]

So how about you describe your reason?

Seems like a decent vote, either him, Selkies, or Katsuki. They seem the most likely tk be scum. Do you have a better idea?

Why are muffin, selkie and I scum?

Ignore my #252.

I'm on pg7 i think or something, will continue later.

for now

UNVOTE VOTE SELKIE

I love the hypocrisy here. It's so great.

I would ask what hypocrisy, except that there was none at all.

Asking other people for reasoning behind their votes right after slapping down a vote with no reason

How thick can you be