Mini 694 - Office Supplies Mafia [Game Over]


Forum rules
salempc
salempc
Townie
salempc
Townie
Townie
Posts: 77
Joined: September 13, 2008

Post Post #100 (ISO) » Sun Oct 26, 2008 12:21 pm

Post by salempc »

qwints wrote: I find salempc's return to content-less comments after making 1 useful one when challenged, suspicious. Obviously we don't need to push for a lynch anytime soon, but I find him a solid first target for pressure.
My lasy post was just a semi-off topic response to a statement I thought was directed to me. Content-less comment
s
sounds like more than one. And yes, I only responded when challenged because as I don't have much to suspect from anyone at this stage, I don't really have enough material to compose a decent post.

Although, your post has raised some flags for me, why force a suspicion on such a poor base?
It was HIM!!
User avatar
qwints
qwints
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
qwints
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 3303
Joined: September 5, 2008

Post Post #101 (ISO) » Sun Oct 26, 2008 12:26 pm

Post by qwints »

I was referring to posts 75 and 78, neither of which were useful posts. As for why I am forcing suspicion on a 'poor basis', that is how you start scum hunting. You put pressure on people and see how they respond. You responded with a mild OMGUS, a fairly null tell.
User avatar
crywolf20084
crywolf20084
Cayke
User avatar
User avatar
crywolf20084
Cayke
Cayke
Posts: 1597
Joined: August 16, 2008
Location: No longer in practically Canada
Contact:

Post Post #102 (ISO) » Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:02 pm

Post by crywolf20084 »

Hey, if you had a point there, GC, can you sum it up in a short post? I hate big bloated posts.
aim:gochat?roomname=ScumChat&Exchange=5

GlorkTheInvader: GET UP ONTO SEXY ROSS'S BACK
salempc
salempc
Townie
salempc
Townie
Townie
Posts: 77
Joined: September 13, 2008

Post Post #103 (ISO) » Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:09 pm

Post by salempc »

I had to research the meaning of OMGUS to understand your post ;)
It was HIM!!
User avatar
Stef
Stef
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Stef
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 1642
Joined: September 4, 2008
Location: Nowhere Near You Role: Always Townie

Post Post #104 (ISO) » Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:34 pm

Post by Stef »

@GC: Page 3 derailing and being anti-town because of randomness is BS. Also, why are you being so defensive?

@qwints: i answered you.. why drop the case so quickly? I want your feedback.
The Mini-Theme: Lie to Me Mafia is accepting replacements. PM me to sign up.

V/LA for a few days while I'm moving.
User avatar
raider8169
raider8169
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
raider8169
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 2194
Joined: May 6, 2008
Location: Upstate NY

Post Post #105 (ISO) » Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:06 pm

Post by raider8169 »

Sorry everyone I have to leave for a few days. I will be back on Friday.
User avatar
qwints
qwints
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
qwints
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 3303
Joined: September 5, 2008

Post Post #106 (ISO) » Mon Oct 27, 2008 1:03 pm

Post by qwints »

Stef, you've stopped the random posts and I've stopped attacking you for posting randomly. What's left to talk about?
User avatar
Stef
Stef
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Stef
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 1642
Joined: September 4, 2008
Location: Nowhere Near You Role: Always Townie

Post Post #107 (ISO) » Mon Oct 27, 2008 10:17 pm

Post by Stef »

Fair enough. Still waiting for GC's reply.
The Mini-Theme: Lie to Me Mafia is accepting replacements. PM me to sign up.

V/LA for a few days while I'm moving.
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #108 (ISO) » Tue Oct 28, 2008 1:13 am

Post by Green Crayons »

crywolf wrote:Hey, if you had a point there, GC, can you sum it up in a short post? I hate big bloated posts.
Nice chainsaw defense. Duly noted.
Stef wrote:Page 3 derailing and being anti-town because of randomness is BS
...Uh, no. Derailing and randomness are anti-town traits. It draws the town away from legitimate conversation. But this is all beside the point: I just think you were acting stupid, not that you are a scum. But you sure did jump on the buzzword "anti-town" and miss the whole first point: you're responsible for the impact of your posts. (Which would actually mean you were being defensive, selectively picking up on a certain point which used the buzzword but not necessarily to indict you. Irony?)
Stef wrote:Also, why are you being so defensive?
charter says that I'm not just a good vote, I'm scum. He's claiming with 100% certainty that I'm the vote for today because I'm so obviously evil. Putting aside the fact that he's claiming a near impossibility on page four day start (which is scummish in and of itself), did you even read his post? He threw a lot of hot air in there to back up such a wild claim. All I did was pull back the curtain and show that all of his points were lacking examples (because examples don't actually exist), exaggerated or outright lies.

So, defensive? Yeah, sure - but no more so than whenever I attack a steaming pile of crap in any game directed at any player. It's hard not to be when someone (such as charter, in this case) throws everything but the kitchen sink and all of it is rotten. As I said before, he threw out accusations that are generally agreed to be scummish actions, but then attempted to force my behavior into those predefined notions. But it just doesn't fit.


So, I'm still waiting on charter's reply. Surprised you don't want to see how he intends to wiggle his words around to justify his craplogic. Grab some popcorn because it should be quite a show.
User avatar
qwints
qwints
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
qwints
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 3303
Joined: September 5, 2008

Post Post #109 (ISO) » Tue Oct 28, 2008 12:24 pm

Post by qwints »

chainsaw defense?

Carter needs to keep talking. He's made a ridiculously strong claim.
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #110 (ISO) » Tue Oct 28, 2008 12:44 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

qwints wrote:chainsaw defense?
Third down. Technically, a subtype of said tell since Tarhalindur's version - the one I was referencing - differs from the original.
User avatar
charter
charter
Beware of Dog
User avatar
User avatar
charter
Beware of Dog
Beware of Dog
Posts: 9261
Joined: July 12, 2007
Location: Virginia

Post Post #111 (ISO) » Tue Oct 28, 2008 6:43 pm

Post by charter »

Green Crayons wrote:
charter wrote:Also, says he's voting "for the sake of getting a ball rolling"
Which it was.
You said it, you tell me.
Green Crayons wrote:
charter wrote:and then adds "he followed some bad reasoning".
Are you suggesting a vote cannot be made for multiple reasons? Because that's ridiculous.
No. :roll:
Green Crayons wrote:
charter wrote:I also feel 'the ball was rolling' without the need for more random votes.
Wait. Are you saying my vote for Porkens was a random vote, even though I have already explained my original reasoning for voting him and have explained why I am keeping my vote there? Because my vote
wasn't
random, as I made clear when I voted for him, and it continues to not be random, as my reason for keeping my vote on him has evolved. Way to go to completely mischaracterize my vote.

Also, you're saying that "the ball was rolling" - basically, that there was plenty of contribution. But people were already pointing out that there was a distinctive
lack
of activity (or "ball rolling," if you will) right before this. Way to go to completely mischaracterize the environmental context of my vote.
Random was the wrong word, I should have said crappy. I didn't mischaracterize anything, I don't know where you get that from.
Green Crayons wrote:
charter wrote:he's switched his vote all over the place
I've had three votes this game. Didn't realize that qualifies as "all over the place." ...Oh, wait. Because it doesn't. Talk about hyperbole.
No. You are wrong. Two terrible votes that early in game screams scum. Town doesn't keep revoting because it doesn't accomplish anything.
Green Crayons wrote:
charter wrote:trying to deflect suspicion away from himself
...What? My three votes were Vamparific (totally random), charter (OMGUS to get me off of completely random) and Porkens (originally for voting on really bad logic). This "suspicion" that was on me when I changed from Vamp to yourself was two "random" votes from raider and charter from at the beginning. This "suspicion" that was on me when I changed from charter to Porkens was... two "random" votes from raider and charter from at the beginning. This is this biggest load of crap I've read in a long while. Please, show me examples of all this suspicion I was allegedly attempting to throw off beyond the one-two vote at the very beginning from yourself and raider.
What point does an OMGUS vote serve if not to put suspicion on someone else for no based reason? None. Why would town do that? They wouldn't. End of story.
Green Crayons wrote:
charter wrote: Every vote he makes comes with worse reasoning than the one before it.
Oh goodness, I guess you're right. Wanting to go from completely random to OMGUS and from OMGUS to voting against bad, premature logic is a horrible progression. That's like... going from random voting to voting with a purpose! That's horrifying!
OMGUS is worse than random. Your whole 'premature logic' case is also crap. I don't know where you get that, I don't think anyone else saw that either.
Green Crayons wrote:Nice chainsaw defense. Duly noted.
How many scum do you think there are in this game? Another example of coming out the gates ready to jump onto whoever gains support.
Green Crayons wrote:charter says that I'm not just a good vote, I'm scum. He's claiming with 100% certainty that I'm the vote for today because I'm so obviously evil. Putting aside the fact that he's claiming a near impossibility on page four day start (which is scummish in and of itself), did you even read his post? He threw a lot of hot air in there to back up such a wild claim. All I did was pull back the curtain and show that all of his points were lacking examples (because examples don't actually exist), exaggerated or outright lies.
If anyone (besides GC) actually thinks that I'm "claiming with 100% certainty that [GC is] the vote for today" and that I'm not clearly overstating my suspicion, consider this a clarification, and I will start spelling everything out explicitly for you...
qwints wrote:Charter needs to keep talking. He's made a ridiculously strong claim.
See above.
User avatar
Green Crayons
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Green Crayons
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 7612
Joined: September 21, 2002
Location: Richmond, VA

Post Post #112 (ISO) » Tue Oct 28, 2008 9:40 pm

Post by Green Crayons »

charter wrote:
Green Crayons wrote:
charter wrote:Also, says he's voting "for the sake of getting a ball rolling"
Which it was.
You said it, you tell me.
Green Crayons wrote:
charter wrote:and then adds "he followed some bad reasoning".
Are you suggesting a vote cannot be made for multiple reasons? Because that's ridiculous.
No. :roll:
So, you're no longer asserting that either of these two clauses, together or alone, are scummish? Quite interesting, then, that you brought up these points in your big post of my "obvious" scum activity when apparently you're not wanting to defend your comments.

charter wrote:Random was the wrong word, I should have said crappy. I didn't mischaracterize anything, I don't know where you get that from.
No mischaracterization? Oh, really? Let's look back at what you said:
charter wrote:I also feel 'the ball was rolling'
You claim that the environment around my vote was one of active contribution - that "the ball was rolling." Let's look at the posts prior to my vote:
salem wrote:Not too active are we?
qwints wrote:FOS: salempc for pointing out lurker fest instead of contributing.
Porkens wrote:vote: salempc for pointing out lurker fest instead of contributing.
Here, we have salem pointing out how slow the conversation was at the time, we have qwints acknowledging that the conversation was slow at the time (but his FoS was because he didn't think salem was doing anything to help end that lack of contribution) and then Porkens potentially agreeing with qwints' reasoning (though that's up in the air, as he has since claimed that his vote was "random") to vote salem, which would require agreeing with the basis that there was a lack of contribution to the thread.

So we have three posts, one right after the other, where the underpinning theme is a lack of activity/contribution to the thread. But we aren't done. There were a few more posts made before my vote - two of them by you.
charter wrote:Happy with my vote on Green crayons. Would also be happy if there were more votes on him. Would also be happy if a wagon formed on Porkens. I would gladly join.
charter wrote:Oh wow, didn't actually read salempc's post well. I'd wagon him too.
In back-to-back posts your espousing a desire to bandwagon three different people. One of the reasons people like to see votes and bandwagons to occur is because they stir up conversation and contributions. Bandwagons used to this extent are sought when there is a distinctive lack of activity/contribution in a thread, especially in the earlier portions of a game. So not only were others acknowledging a distinctive lack of contributing activity, but you were suggesting a tactic on no less than three players which is commonly used to drum up activity when it is lacking.

So, yes, for you to come later and say that "the ball was rolling" - that there was an active environment characterized by helpful contributions - prior to my vote, it's a mis-characterization (and a lie).


charter wrote:
Green Crayons wrote:
charter wrote:he's switched his vote all over the place
I've had three votes this game. Didn't realize that qualifies as "all over the place." ...Oh, wait. Because it doesn't. Talk about hyperbole.
No. You are wrong. Two terrible votes that early in game screams scum. Town doesn't keep revoting because it doesn't accomplish anything.
Hey, Stef, I hope you grabbed that popcorn - here's that wiggling I was talking about.

charter, your original assertion was that my voting was all over the place. I countered with a very simple fact: my voting numbers up to three separate times, each with increasingly more legitimate reasons. Far from "all over the place." Now, you're trying to shift your argument, after seeing that it was completely unfounded, to my votes were bad. There's a difference between claiming my votes were "all over the place" - that is, voting abundantly and erratically - and that my votes were "terrible," that the reason behind them were bad.

But here's the real kicker: "Town doesn't keep revoting because it doesn't accomplish anything." Who is informed in a day-start day one? Mafia. Who isn't informed? Everyone else. Between these two groups of people, who is more likely to need to change their vote because their opinions change? Town. The town does need to keep revoting,
especially after the random vote/initial flimsy reasoning based voting
of day one. Your suggestion that a town should stick by their original day one vote is preposterous.

charter wrote:What point does an OMGUS vote serve if not to put suspicion on someone else for no based reason? None. Why would town do that? They wouldn't. End of story.
Heh. Following your logic, anyone who uses an OMGUS can't be town. That's such incredibly bad reasoning I think some of my brain cells decided to go on strike. The OMGUS is a step above a completely random vote because it actually has some in-game relevance. ...But, you know. Completely beside the point since you just claimed anyone using OMGUS is not town. Astounding.

But wait
! Here's more of that wiggling. Your original assertion was that I was "trying to deflect suspicion away from [myself]." When I countered with asking just what suspicion there was, you're bringing up a "tactic" I "used" (quotation marks for sarcasm, not actual quotes) to deflect that suspicion rather than what that suspicion was. Understandable, since there was no accruing suspicion as to my actions as you explicitly implied. Whoa. Another lie?


charter wrote:OMGUS is worse than random. Your whole 'premature logic' case is also crap. I don't know where you get that, I don't think anyone else saw that either.
Well, since you think anyone who uses an OMGUS vote can't be town I can see why you would support the notion that they're worse than random votes. But, you know, people have been blinded by such incredible leaps of anti-logic before that it doesn't really surprise me.

And I've already explained my position for why the reasoning against salem was premature. And I stand by it, as well as my actions in response to it.


charter wrote:
Green Crayons wrote:Nice chainsaw defense. Duly noted.
How many scum do you think there are in this game? Another example of coming out the gates ready to jump onto whoever gains support.
For starters, I don't know how many scum there are. At this point, I don't care - it isn't going to help me, or anyone else for that matter besides the mafia, to waste my time trying to deduce what the game setup is. Maybe there's only one scum. Maybe there are 11. How should I know? What's worrying is that you're suggesting I (and anybody else) should already have a notion of how many scum there are and then attempt to find/point out scummish actions of only that many people. This is a great strategy if 1. only mafia act scummish (which they don't, as townspeople have a habit of doing stupid, scummy things too) and 2. if I already knew how many people were in the scum group (which is a right reserved solely for the mafia and moderator at this point int he game).

Secondly, your claim of me pointing out crywolf's chainsaw defense is an "example of coming out of the gates ready to jump onto whoever gains support" is a load of crap. crywolf attacked your attacker (me), not on logical grounds (e.g. by pointing out why my reasoning against you was epic failure) but by attacking the post itself (that it was "bloated") in a twist on the typical ad Hominem fallacy. How is that jumping on "whoever gains support?" crywolf wasn't gaining support, she was just complaining about having to read in a text-based game which hinges upon social interaction and logical reasoning.


charter wrote:If anyone (besides GC) actually thinks that I'm "claiming with 100% certainty that [GC is] the vote for today" and that I'm not clearly overstating my suspicion, consider this a clarification, and I will start spelling everything out explicitly for you...
Let's review a few posts:
charter wrote:Can we really have caught us a scum this early?
charter wrote:VOTE GREEN CRAYONS
charter wrote:I'm already voting him, if I could vote twice I would, but alas.
charter wrote:Not even obvious vote, obvious scum.
Heh. And after reading that, I'm supposed to believe that you aren't certain that I'm scum, even though you said that I'm "obvious scum" and that you would vote me twice if you have the chance because of it?


So... yeah.
Unvote, Vote: charter
. My reasoning:
1. He's a liar (and we know what we should do with them). He has mis-characterized a previous voting context and he has mis-characterized my voting pattern to make his case more substantial. The fact that these mis-characterizations are lies puts a pretty big hole in his case.
2. He bases his opinions off of horrible reasoning. Like, anti-town reasoning. He has claimed that if you OMGUS vote, you aren't town - even though there is an overwhelming abundance of previous games where OMGUS votes were used by townsfolk. He has claimed that town players don't revote, and this is the first day we're talking about - a day when absolutely no information is given to the townspeople and a varied of votes will undoubtedly be necessary as social interactions and arguments evolve. The only people certain enough of their votes on a day start day one that they don't need to change them are scumbags.
3. He doesn't fully address points made against him, and shifts his arguments when necessary to save face.
4. He expects me (and presumably everyone else) to already know the setup of the game - or, at least how many scum there are. Who would know that outside of mafia? Nobody. Who other than a mafia member would make the mistake of assuming other players know anything about the game setup re: the size of the mafia? But then, to go one step further and then suggest that we should limit our criticism of our fellow players to a certain arbitrary number is to limit the town's potential for finding scum. If I find that player X, Y and Z are acting scummy, but later on player B does something incredibly scummish, am I supposed to just sit on my hands because player Y, who was a townie, decided to do something stupid and scummish earlier in the game? It's absurd.
User avatar
crywolf20084
crywolf20084
Cayke
User avatar
User avatar
crywolf20084
Cayke
Cayke
Posts: 1597
Joined: August 16, 2008
Location: No longer in practically Canada
Contact:

Post Post #113 (ISO) » Wed Oct 29, 2008 2:46 am

Post by crywolf20084 »

Seriously, I really do hate big posts becasue they are much harder to just read thorugh and pick out the useful information. And I wasn't attacking you for attacking charter. Truthfully, I haven't gone back and tried to figure out what you were talking about yet, because the long words give me a head ache espcially since i have lost my glasses....again.
aim:gochat?roomname=ScumChat&Exchange=5

GlorkTheInvader: GET UP ONTO SEXY ROSS'S BACK
User avatar
crywolf20084
crywolf20084
Cayke
User avatar
User avatar
crywolf20084
Cayke
Cayke
Posts: 1597
Joined: August 16, 2008
Location: No longer in practically Canada
Contact:

Post Post #114 (ISO) » Wed Oct 29, 2008 2:54 am

Post by crywolf20084 »

GC wrote:1. He's a liar (and we know what we should do with them). He has mis-characterized a previous voting context and he has mis-characterized my voting pattern to make his case more substantial. The fact that these mis-characterizations are lies puts a pretty big hole in his case.
I've seen that too. Wouldn't call it my main agrument against him, but it is compelling.
2. He bases his opinions off of horrible reasoning. Like, anti-town reasoning. He has claimed that if you OMGUS vote, you aren't town - even though there is an overwhelming abundance of previous games where OMGUS votes were used by townsfolk. He has claimed that town players don't revote, and this is the first day we're talking about - a day when absolutely no information is given to the townspeople and a varied of votes will undoubtedly be necessary as social interactions and arguments evolve. The only people certain enough of their votes on a day start day one that they don't need to change them are scumbags.
I read this and laughed. If i remember right, the OMGUS vote was placed DURING the random voting. Yeah sometimes you can learn from random voting, but when the OMGUS vote was thrown, IMO, it was just something to cause stir. It made me look but for right now it's on the back burner because there are other things that are much more obvious.
3. He doesn't fully address points made against him, and shifts his arguments when necessary to save face.
This is so common when somebody feels the pressure, and I tend to not like it. Man up and face the questions.
4. He expects me (and presumably everyone else) to already know the setup of the game -
or, at least how many scum there are. Who would know that outside of mafia? Nobody.
Who other than a mafia member would make the mistake of assuming other players know anything about the game setup re: the size of the mafia? But then, to go one step further and then suggest that we should limit our criticism of our fellow players to a certain arbitrary number is to limit the town's potential for finding scum. If I find that player X, Y and Z are acting scummy, but later on player B does something incredibly scummish, am I supposed to just sit on my hands because player Y, who was a townie, decided to do something stupid and scummish earlier in the game? It's absurd.
Okay, I bolded the part that I agree with the most.
aim:gochat?roomname=ScumChat&Exchange=5

GlorkTheInvader: GET UP ONTO SEXY ROSS'S BACK
User avatar
qwints
qwints
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
qwints
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 3303
Joined: September 5, 2008

Post Post #115 (ISO) » Wed Oct 29, 2008 7:14 am

Post by qwints »

Green crayons is definitely getting the better of the argument. I have a tough time, however, believing that scum would be as adamant as charter is being on day 1. Being that active and antagonistic is going to put you under scrutiny - scrutiny that it is possible to avoid. That said, that may be exactly what the scum want me to think. So, it's WIFOM

It's possible that this fight is an act between two scum designed to put one of them beyond reproach. I just want to point out the obvious fact that one being scum wouldn't clear the other one.

Because I think charter's moves have been anti-town, I am going to
vote: charter
. Charter, why aren't you a liar?
User avatar
Moratorium
Moratorium
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Moratorium
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 1533
Joined: September 14, 2008

Post Post #116 (ISO) » Wed Oct 29, 2008 7:37 am

Post by Moratorium »

The transition from random stage to realvote stage was very strange in this game, almost forced.

GC, calm down. Crywolf wasn't the only one who thought you were breaking out the thesaurus and busting out the great american novel a bit too much. If we have to wade through WALLOFTEXT you dilute your own message. Your "my reasoning" summary at the end of post 112 was very helpful to me.
Green Crayons wrote: 1. He's a liar (and we know what we should do with them). He has mis-characterized a previous voting context and he has mis-characterized my voting pattern to make his case more substantial. The fact that these mis-characterizations are lies puts a pretty big hole in his case.
2. He bases his opinions off of horrible reasoning. Like, anti-town reasoning. He has claimed that if you OMGUS vote, you aren't town - even though there is an overwhelming abundance of previous games where OMGUS votes were used by townsfolk. He has claimed that town players don't revote, and this is the first day we're talking about - a day when absolutely no information is given to the townspeople and a varied of votes will undoubtedly be necessary as social interactions and arguments evolve. The only people certain enough of their votes on a day start day one that they don't need to change them are scumbags.
3. He doesn't fully address points made against him, and shifts his arguments when necessary to save face.
4. He expects me (and presumably everyone else) to already know the setup of the game - or, at least how many scum there are. Who would know that outside of mafia? Nobody. Who other than a mafia member would make the mistake of assuming other players know anything about the game setup re: the size of the mafia? But then, to go one step further and then suggest that we should limit our criticism of our fellow players to a certain arbitrary number is to limit the town's potential for finding scum. If I find that player X, Y and Z are acting scummy, but later on player B does something incredibly scummish, am I supposed to just sit on my hands because player Y, who was a townie, decided to do something stupid and scummish earlier in the game? It's absurd.
#1 you push LAL, assuming we must agree with what you called mis-representations
#2 OMGUS isn't an "upgrade" vote to random votes, it's a scumtell.
#3 Considering the bibles you write, everyone must seem this way to you, no?

It's all just.. meh. Periphary. Tangential casebuilding. I see what you are doing, I see that you are trying to put something together, but all that stuff isn't very convincing.

#4 Now this is a point I generally tend to agree with in games. Scum tend to discuss setup and scumslips are often setup related. Town tends to focus on discussing accusations and votes and actual gameplay.

Vote: charter

I'm going to go ahead with this vote because it is the best one proposed so far, and deserves the pressure required to elicit a defense. At the very least I think we can get a lot of good information out of this discussion.

Preview Ninja Edit: I agree with qwints to some degree, my very first reaction to this "argument" was that this was either 2 townies arguing in circles, or 2 scum trying to distance themselves from each other. I am, however, sticking with my vote until I hear more.
Men's evil manners live in brass; their virtues we write in water.
User avatar
pacman281292
pacman281292
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
pacman281292
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 1823
Joined: July 14, 2008
Location: Always V/LA

Post Post #117 (ISO) » Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:02 am

Post by pacman281292 »

Leaving tomorrow. I might possibly have access tomorrow morning, but don't expect anything.
Show
Current statistics (not counting games previous to June 2010):
Align: W/L/O
Town: 0/1/0
Scum: 1/0/0
Other: 0/0/0
User avatar
Sudo_Nym
Sudo_Nym
Pseudo Newbie
User avatar
User avatar
Sudo_Nym
Pseudo Newbie
Pseudo Newbie
Posts: 1144
Joined: March 12, 2007
Location: Washington

Post Post #118 (ISO) » Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:20 am

Post by Sudo_Nym »

First of all,
unvote
. I'm not sure if I did this before, but I should have done so.
4. He expects me (and presumably everyone else) to already know the setup of the game - or, at least how many scum there are. Who would know that outside of mafia? Nobody. Who other than a mafia member would make the mistake of assuming other players know anything about the game setup re: the size of the mafia? But then, to go one step further and then suggest that we should limit our criticism of our fellow players to a certain arbitrary number is to limit the town's potential for finding scum. If I find that player X, Y and Z are acting scummy, but later on player B does something incredibly scummish, am I supposed to just sit on my hands because player Y, who was a townie, decided to do something stupid and scummish earlier in the game? It's absurd.
Just to address this point. Knowing how many mafia are in a game isn't the hardest thing to figure out, because there's an established amount of scum to townies necessary to ensure game balance. In a 12 player game, there's generally 3 scum. This, of course, assumes that there's no outstanding roles on either side- if the town is really powerful, expect 4 scum. If the scum is really powerful, there may be only 2. If both are really powerful, then they balance out anyway.
One time, back in 'nam, Sudo was set upon by an entire squadron of charlies. He challenged them all to a game of Pictionary, which he won resoundingly. The charlies were forced to not only surrender the skirmish, but also their world-famous chili recipe, which Sudo sold to Texas for a hefty profit. Sudo is a master of diplomacy.
User avatar
charter
charter
Beware of Dog
User avatar
User avatar
charter
Beware of Dog
Beware of Dog
Posts: 9261
Joined: July 12, 2007
Location: Virginia

Post Post #119 (ISO) » Wed Oct 29, 2008 2:28 pm

Post by charter »

[quote="GC"]
User avatar
charter
charter
Beware of Dog
User avatar
User avatar
charter
Beware of Dog
Beware of Dog
Posts: 9261
Joined: July 12, 2007
Location: Virginia

Post Post #120 (ISO) » Wed Oct 29, 2008 2:36 pm

Post by charter »

GC wrote:So, you're no longer asserting that either of these two clauses, together or alone, are scummish? Quite interesting, then, that you brought up these points in your big post of my "obvious" scum activity when apparently you're not wanting to defend your comments.
No. Stop trying to think for me, you're doing it all wrong. You pull this conclusion out of your ass.
GC wrote:You claim that the environment around my vote was one of active contribution - that "the ball was rolling." Let's look at the posts prior to my vote:
No, I made no such claim. You made that for me... By 'ball is rolling' I mean there is something to work with, not just random votes.
GC wrote:In back-to-back posts your espousing a desire to bandwagon three different people. One of the reasons people like to see votes and bandwagons to occur is because they stir up conversation and contributions. Bandwagons used to this extent are sought when there is a distinctive lack of activity/contribution in a thread, especially in the earlier portions of a game. So not only were others acknowledging a distinctive lack of contributing activity, but you were suggesting a tactic on no less than three players which is commonly used to drum up activity when it is lacking.
No. STOP TELLING ME WHAT I'M SAYING. I'M PERFECTLY CAPABLE OF DOING IT MYSELF. Since you seem to need everything written out explicitly so you don't add your own spin, I'll start doing that for you. I like to wagon to pressure people, not to "drum up activity" as you put it.
User avatar
charter
charter
Beware of Dog
User avatar
User avatar
charter
Beware of Dog
Beware of Dog
Posts: 9261
Joined: July 12, 2007
Location: Virginia

Post Post #121 (ISO) » Wed Oct 29, 2008 2:37 pm

Post by charter »

Damnit, I'm having trouble on this computer, rest of that post is on its way.
User avatar
charter
charter
Beware of Dog
User avatar
User avatar
charter
Beware of Dog
Beware of Dog
Posts: 9261
Joined: July 12, 2007
Location: Virginia

Post Post #122 (ISO) » Wed Oct 29, 2008 2:53 pm

Post by charter »

GC wrote:Your suggestion that a town should stick by their original day one vote is preposterous.
No. I said that town doesn't need to change their vote all over the place, or make multiple votes with terrible reasoning. Switching your vote is fine, when done with good reasoning. Your votes did not have good reasoning.

OMGUS is used by scum to vote someone for no reason. Town votes people for a (legit) reason. Don't even try and pull that OMGUS is a null tell. It is not.
GC wrote:For starters, I don't know how many scum there are. At this point, I don't care - it isn't going to help me, or anyone else for that matter besides the mafia, to waste my time trying to deduce what the game setup is. Maybe there's only one scum. Maybe there are 11. How should I know? What's worrying is that you're suggesting I (and anybody else) should already have a notion of how many scum there are and then attempt to find/point out scummish actions of only that many people. This is a great strategy if 1. only mafia act scummish (which they don't, as townspeople have a habit of doing stupid, scummy things too) and 2. if I already knew how many people were in the scum group (which is a right reserved solely for the mafia and moderator at this point int he game).
I have never been in a mini with a number other than three scum.
IF ANYONE in this game has in the last year, please correct me, else I'm going to continue assuming three.

GC wrote:Secondly, your claim of me pointing out crywolf's chainsaw defense is an "example of coming out of the gates ready to jump onto whoever gains support" is a load of crap. crywolf attacked your attacker (me), not on logical grounds (e.g. by pointing out why my reasoning against you was epic failure) but by attacking the post itself (that it was "bloated") in a twist on the typical ad Hominem fallacy. How is that jumping on "whoever gains support?" crywolf wasn't gaining support, she was just complaining about having to read in a text-based game which hinges upon social interaction and logical reasoning.
NO. I DID NOT SAY YOU WERE JUMPING ON CRYWOLF. WHERE DO YOU GET THIS CRAP FROM? I said you're READY to jump on whoever gains support. Crywolf isn't getting support. You're positioning yourself to be there IF he gains support. READ WHAT I WRITE, NOT WHAT YOU WANT TO READ.
GC wrote:Heh. And after reading that, I'm supposed to believe that you aren't certain that I'm scum, even though you said that I'm "obvious scum" and that you would vote me twice if you have the chance because of it?
So me saying wagon you means that I'm certain you're scum? No, READ WHAT I WRITE, NOT WHAT YOU WANT TO READ. (RWIWNWYWTR)
GC wrote:1. He's a liar (and we know what we should do with them). He has mis-characterized a previous voting context and he has mis-characterized my voting pattern to make his case more substantial. The fact that these mis-characterizations are lies puts a pretty big hole in his case.
Ha, LAL is the greatest scum weapon there is. The rest of your point has been shot down, as it stems from your inventing what I'm saying.
GC wrote:2. He bases his opinions off of horrible reasoning. Like, anti-town reasoning. He has claimed that if you OMGUS vote, you aren't town - even though there is an overwhelming abundance of previous games where OMGUS votes were used by townsfolk. He has claimed that town players don't revote, and this is the first day we're talking about - a day when absolutely no information is given to the townspeople and a varied of votes will undoubtedly be necessary as social interactions and arguments evolve. The only people certain enough of their votes on a day start day one that they don't need to change them are scumbags.
RWIWNWYWTR
GC wrote:3. He doesn't fully address points made against him, and shifts his arguments when necessary to save face.
How is this scummy? Where did I shift my arguments?
GC wrote:4. He expects me (and presumably everyone else) to already know the setup of the game - or, at least how many scum there are. Who would know that outside of mafia? Nobody. Who other than a mafia member would make the mistake of assuming other players know anything about the game setup re: the size of the mafia? But then, to go one step further and then suggest that we should limit our criticism of our fellow players to a certain arbitrary number is to limit the town's potential for finding scum. If I find that player X, Y and Z are acting scummy, but later on player B does something incredibly scummish, am I supposed to just sit on my hands because player Y, who was a townie, decided to do something stupid and scummish earlier in the game? It's absurd.
Yes, I do expect people to assume there are three scum. Attacking me on an assumption as common as that is strawmanning.

And yes, stop making monster posts if you're not going to say anything. It's no fun to have to dig through a wall of eye bleeding text.
Mor wrote:Vote: charter
Wait, so you don't agree with his case but vote me anyway? Why not vote him for his craplogic.
User avatar
Moratorium
Moratorium
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Moratorium
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 1533
Joined: September 14, 2008

Post Post #123 (ISO) » Wed Oct 29, 2008 3:55 pm

Post by Moratorium »

I said why, I wanted to see a defense.

What I'd like to see from you is a "My reasoning" summary on your case on GC.
Men's evil manners live in brass; their virtues we write in water.
User avatar
Porkens
Porkens
Jack of All Trades
User avatar
User avatar
Porkens
Jack of All Trades
Jack of All Trades
Posts: 9700
Joined: June 20, 2008

Post Post #124 (ISO) » Wed Oct 29, 2008 4:09 pm

Post by Porkens »

How's this for a WALLOFTEXT?

These are the things which have stood out to me so far:

Page 1 (mostly silliness but a little more):

a) The second random vote (from Charter) was a duplicate vote. -I guess I find it odd to put 2 votes on someone right from the get go. Also, Isaid so at the time; even if it's a random vote; the custom is to give some silly explanation for it. Is this a scum-tell? Not necessarily. It's just wierd.
b) Green Crayons agrees with me and takes it a step further with a vote. -We were still clearly in the random voting stage, so this seems pretty pre-mature, and slightly OMGUS, to me.
c) Raider's asks GC if b) was a "real vote." -I think that's a fair question.

Page 2 (Wait...is this still random stage?):

a) Green Crayons claims that his vote on charter was OMGUS-(right?)
b) Qwints FOS's salempc for not contributing whilst asking for contributions -(maybe salempc was trying to 'raise a flag' himself?)
c) I, personally, was still in silly mode so I voted on Qwints' FOS.
d) Charter says he's happy with his vote on GC. Happy with an off-the-bat random vote? Here's where things start to feel iffy for me. I also don't know Charter's reasoning for saying he'd be fine with a wagon on me -(although I suspect it's just chuckling from a previous game...?)
e) Charter then adds a third to his list of people he'd like to see pressured. -Anyone NOT on that list, charter?
f) Green Crayons "gets the ball rolling" with a vote on me, I assume to fulfil Charter's "I'd lynch porkens" statement. -Is this an attempt to displace attention or votes?
g) Charter implies that GC is actually scum. -how could you possibly know that?!
h) Salempc noobs around, qwints calls him on it, and salem makes a content post...kinda. -(but as sudo says, it's hard to come up with content on page 2 most of the time)

Page 3 (Enter Sandman...err...Stef):

a) Sudo says he wants more pressure on salem, and votes. -this seems contradictiory to what he already said about there not being much content to talk about.
b) Raider says he doesn't want to see salempc's wagon go to a lynch. -That's some distancing right there.
c) Pacman says that things seem confusing, and he's not sure what to think or do.
d) Stef spams (argument ~might~ be made that this was still random stage).
e) Pacman comes back and immediately votes Stef. So, in C, Pacman sounds like he wants to analyze what is going on, but as soon as there is an easy target (stef) he jumps on it immediatly.
f) Crywolf accuses Stef of being VI.
g) Raider makes a contentless post (are you useful...?).
h) Crywolf again brings up the idea that Stef is VI.

Page 4 (The good time are owvah!!!):

a) Salem makes another useless post. (these have to stop soon, right?)
b) and another (...guess not)
c) Sudo calls Steff a moron and asks if the discussion is leading anywhere...but doesn't offer anything to help lead it anywhere himself.
d) Crywolf /ignores Steff.
e) Stef unvotes, declaires the random stage over.
f) Charter flag-waves his wagon on GC.
g) Moratorium declairs the random stage over (thank you)
h) Crywolf says that lynching the V.I. would be playing into the scum's hands. I think there is a huge difference between "ignoring" someone and "not lynching" them. I'm also suprised that crywolf is so weary of the V.I. day one from actions in the, albeit extended, random phase. I could see this as some kind of round-about way of defending Stef.
i) GC makes the first real, for reals, post. Main Points: I have bad reasoning, my vote wasn't "random" enough, tries to draw a line from raider to charter.
j) Charter presents his "case" on GC, going so far as to call him "obvious scum." My PROBLEM with this "case" is that none of it was brought up by charter before someone asked for it.
k) GC rebutts - hence comes the first real conversation of the game.

Page 5 (???):

a) Salem, again, doesn't have anything to contribute except to say he has nothing to contribute. Top it off with some OMGUS on qwints.
b) Crywolf says he doesn't like bloated posts. Well...he'll probably never read this then: Crywolf; Are you just being beligerant for the sake of it or are you trying to muddle the game intentionally?
c) GC presents a defense against Charter's case.
d) Charter Rebutts as only charter can.
e) GC presents a refined case against charter.
f) I don't like this next post (115) much at all. First of all, qwints injects a TON of WIFOM into the conversation really really unnecessarily. Essentially "charter is too scummy to be scum" doesn't hold a lot of water with me. Then, qwints contradicts himself by voting for Charter after all. This post seems to 'cover all the bases.' In one brief post: "I don't think charter is scum," "I'm voting for Charter."
g) Sudo 'defends(?)' Charter by explaining how to count scum in a 12 person game. -hiding in plain sight?
h) Charter freaks out. (you made it 5 pages this time!)

Okay, so I know that was horrible. Here're my conclusions:


1. The biggest and best aspect of the Charter case, for me, hasn't been mentioned yet; He has never changed his vote. You simply can not expect anyone to believe that you still have confidence in your random, day 1, post 2 vote. You have been "confident" about it since early in page 2, and no matter what else has gone on, you've dragged it along like a beloved dolly.

2. Some people in this game need far more attention.
a) Raider - Has been kind of skimming under the radar (I know he's away till friday), but also has been guilty of some suspected distancing (day 2; b).
b) Salempc - Not a single thing to contribute. Posting but saying nothing. In fact, the only noteworthy item was OMGUS against qwints.
c) Sudo - Even his random vote was unhelpful (for the mod)

But, I'm not voting for any of these right now. My choice is...
worse than random
Locked