Mafiascum.net

you didn't read my post right btw

-BadCop

In post 50, ɀefiend wrote:

hapahauli wrote:Of course.

However I don't understand why he would vote someone

on the basis that he hates RVS,

while effectively making an RVS vote of his own

.

A random vote is one that is made randomly, without reasoning or justification.

hp [leaves] placed his vote and gave a reason. Therefore, it isn't a random vote. Whether or not you like his reasoning doesn't matter. Whether or not he's already changed his vote doesn't matter. You're misrepresenting his actions (see the italicized quoted part) in order to justify your confusion, or misunderstanding, or whatever (see the underlined quoted part). The point is that you're trying to call his actions into question, but you're pushing too hard on it. This seems forced to me.

Vote: hapahauli

Just this mean I actually have logic with my vote on NicCage?

Well is it after his sheeping of GCBC and other lack of contest so far.

In post 65, hapahauli wrote:Anyway I'm more concerned at this point with some of our 1-post-wonders right now, Daemon385 and Varsoon.

Is there a reason you didn't include Dyslexicon in this statement if you're investigating low content producers?

In post 77, Cheery Pie wrote:

In post 65, hapahauli wrote:Anyway I'm more concerned at this point with some of our 1-post-wonders right now, Daemon385 and Varsoon.

Is there a reason you didn't include Dyslexicon in this statement if you're investigating low content producers?

'cause he's not here. He'll have some 'splainin to do for why he's late to the party, but absence is not alignment indicative.

In post 78, hapahauli wrote:

In post 77, Cheery Pie wrote:

In post 65, hapahauli wrote:Anyway I'm more concerned at this point with some of our 1-post-wonders right now, Daemon385 and Varsoon.

Is there a reason you didn't include Dyslexicon in this statement if you're investigating low content producers?

'cause he's not here. He'll have some 'splainin to do for why he's late to the party,

but absence is not alignment indicative.

But 1-post wonders a cause for concern? (ie. they offer an alignment indication?)

So let me see if I'm following this thought train correctly:

• i. The locomotives (posters) who pull out from the station and start puffing (posting) along are not of concern (at least, in our current thought train)
  ii. However, the locomotives who pull out from the station and travel one stop (1-post-wonder)
  are
  of concern
  iii. Yet the locomotives who sit idly in the station showing no signs of pulling out
  are not
  a concern

Correct? Well let me couple that to the following:

• i. In this game we have had a public confirmation take place. Dyslexicon's "confirmz" is there for all to see.
  ii. Yet why are his no posts of no concern to you? Why is there an arbitrary line drawn between a no-poster and a 1-post-wonder?
  iii. It's strange that you respond to the question about reasoning with an attempted reason. But
  'cause he's not here
  doesn't work, 'cause he
  was
  here.
  iv. I'm willing to see a greater implication by not including Dyslexicon in your 'concern for low content producers' post; you know something most of us don't

Can anyone briefly explain what "headclaim" means and why or why not it may be ethical to ask of someone to do? This is my first game on mafiascum, and I have never heard the term anywhere else.

hapahauli wrote:Sometimes that involves forcing things. Usually everything on Day 1 is forced to some extent, until it reaches the point where you can leverage *actual* suspicion on someone.

I am all for prying information from someone, but only necessarily if they do something genuinely suspicious or questionable. It seems as though you are admitting to "forcing things", albeit for the sake of generating information... so, along with the fact that you are generally being proactive in regards to activity, I will for now.

hapahauli wrote:... but that vote seemed a lot to me like some

early-game RVS antics

rather than a serious vote. ...

Can I be the one to officially say it?? Chalking up statements and votes to "jokes" and "antics" just keeps dragging on the notion that we are not playing seriously yet, and it provides an outlet to fall back on for bad play.

Cheery Pie wrote:Just this mean I actually have logic with my vote on NicCage?

Well is it after his sheeping of GCBC and other lack of contest so far.

If you are talking about your first post of the game, 1) I detected sarcasm, so I believe that it was a "true" RVS-vote 2) If it wasn't sarcasm, then it certainly held no logic. Regardless, I am comfortable moving my vote there as well.

In post 79, Cheery Pie wrote:

In post 78, hapahauli wrote:

In post 77, Cheery Pie wrote:

In post 65, hapahauli wrote:Anyway I'm more concerned at this point with some of our 1-post-wonders right now, Daemon385 and Varsoon.

Is there a reason you didn't include Dyslexicon in this statement if you're investigating low content producers?

'cause he's not here. He'll have some 'splainin to do for why he's late to the party,

but absence is not alignment indicative.

But 1-post wonders

are

a cause for concern? (ie. they

do

offer an alignment indication?)

So let me see if I'm following this thought train correctly:

• i. The locomotives (posters) who pull out from the station and start puffing (posting) along are not of concern (at least, in our current thought train)
  ii. However, the locomotives who pull out from the station and travel one stop (1-post-wonder)
  are
  of concern
  iii. Yet the locomotives who sit idly in the station showing no signs of pulling out
  are not
  a concern

Correct? Well let me couple that to the following:

• i. In this game we have had a public confirmation take place. Dyslexicon's "confirmz" is there for all to see.
  ii. Yet why are his no posts of no concern to you? Why is there an arbitrary line drawn between a no-poster and a 1-post-wonder?
  iii. It's strange that you respond to the question about reasoning with an attempted reason. But
  'cause he's not here
  doesn't work, 'cause he
  was
  here.
  iv. I'm willing to see a greater implication by not including Dyslexicon in your 'concern for low content producers' post; you know something most of us don't

FoS @ hapahauli

What's arbitrary? Dyslexicon is awol from the thread. He posted his /confirmz thing and hasn't shown up since. He could have some RL thing for all I know. The point is that it isn't allignment indicative.

Secondly, did you actually LOOK at my suspicions on Varsoon and Daemon? I'm suspicious of them only because they made one post. It's the content of those posts that I find suspicious.

Stop ignoring my post and tell me what you think of them.

In post 80, ɀefiend wrote:Can anyone briefly explain what "headclaim" means and why or why not it may be ethical to ask of someone to do? This is my first game on mafiascum, and I have never heard the term anywhere else.

headclaim is to do with hydras (multiple people using the same account), and the fact GoodCopBadCop hasn't shared who is actually posting within that hydra.
The other two in this game, however did state in signups who is in them (though the names are fairly obvious anyway) - Cheery Pie = Cheery Dog & pieceofpecanpie; Jake from Rainbowdash = Jake from State Farm & Rainbowdash.

In post 80, ɀefiend wrote:

Cheery Pie wrote:Just this mean I actually have logic with my vote on NicCage?

Well is it after his sheeping of GCBC and other lack of contest so far.

If you are talking about your first post of the game, 1) I detected sarcasm, so I believe that it was a "true" RVS-vote 2) If it wasn't sarcasm, then it certainly held no logic.

But I gave a reason, therefore not random?
I was detecting scasm/unseriousness from hp [leaves] vote as well, and I'm fairly sure it just came up on GCBC because he was the first to post/vote after the game started.

In post 81, hapahauli wrote: What's arbitrary? Dyslexicon is awol from the thread. He posted his /confirmz thing and hasn't shown up since. He could have some RL thing for all I know. The point is that it isn't allignment indicative.

Secondly, did you actually LOOK at my suspicions on Varsoon and Daemon? I'm

not

suspicious of them only because they made one post. It's the content of those posts that I find suspicious.

Stop ignoring my post and tell me what you think of them.

All three have however given out the same amount of content, just the two you mention have more words.
NicCage also has the approximately the same level.

Yes we don't know if real life stuff is happening, but we also don't know if the others also had real life stuff on causing them to post only 1 post. Especially in the case of Varsoon, who as you stated had just checked in.

It's also that you're attacking them only 1 day after they posted, when you had already questioned them once.
It's overeagerness to have people focusing on lurkers.

In post 81, hapahauli wrote:What's arbitrary? Dyslexicon is awol from the thread. He posted his /confirmz thing and hasn't shown up since. He could have some RL thing for all I know. The point is that it isn't allignment indicative.

Right, for the same token those 1-post-wonders could have some RL things keeping them from posting more too. So you either make a point of the low post count or don't bring it up at all. If 1 post is of the reason you find those two concerning, then accept my criticism or find a better way to counter it.

In post 81, hapahauli wrote:Secondly, did you actually LOOK at my suspicions on Varsoon and Daemon? I'm

not

suspicious of them only because they made one post. It's the content of those posts that I find suspicious.

Stop ignoring my post and tell me what you think of them.

Alright, point taken. Post count isn't the only factor, you said some other stuff. I too asked Daemon to expand on his opening post in #30, I didn't like parts of it. As for Varsoon, he's only posted once, so I haven't developed much of a read yet.

See the thing is, if you imagine each player who has posted more than once to have simply made a series of single posts then you can actually take those single posts of theirs, compare them, analyse them etc. etc. What you have done is taken two players and singled them out because they have only posted once you find that one post is suspicious. So is the one post thing coincidental then? Or part of that picture of suspicion? Also, do you have any reads/suspicion on people who have posted multiple times? I consider a series of single posts from an individual much easier to read into than a single post.

In post 83, Cheery Pie wrote:

In post 81, hapahauli wrote:What's arbitrary? Dyslexicon is awol from the thread. He posted his /confirmz thing and hasn't shown up since. He could have some RL thing for all I know. The point is that it isn't allignment indicative.

Right, for the same token those 1-post-wonders could have some RL things keeping them from posting more too. So you either make a point of the low post count or don't bring it up at all. If 1 post is

part

of the reason you find those two concerning, then accept my criticism or find a better way to counter it.

I'm pretty sure I did "counter" your criticisms - I'm not policy voting lurkers here. I'm going after two players that I found scummy for their posts. Lurking is a factor, but far from the only factor.

Alright, point taken. Post count isn't the only factor, you said some other stuff. I too asked Daemon to expand on his opening post in #30, I didn't like parts of it. As for Varsoon, he's only posted once, so I haven't developed much of a read yet.

Yes, but what do you think of my analysis? I thought I laid it out pretty clearly why those individual posts are suspect.

See the thing is, if you imagine each player who has posted more than once to have simply made a series of single posts then you can actually take those single posts of theirs, compare them, analyse them etc. etc.

What you have done is taken two players and singled them out because they have only posted once

and

you find that one post is suspicious. So is the one post thing coincidental then? Or part of that picture of suspicion? Also, do you have any reads/suspicion on people who have posted multiple times?

The one-post thing is coincidental. Their relative inactivity is a contributing factor, but not the sole factor in my suspicions. I think my original post on the subject makes this pretty clear.

As far as other reads go (on people posting multiple times), no scumreads. Well maybe a slight suspicion/annoyance about NC, but my gut says that his sheep vote is more of a "trolly" thing. I have a fairly strong town-read on GCBC though. The "bad cop" side demands a lot of attention to himself, seems very naturally suspicious of people, and has a bravado I associate with aggressive townies.

I consider a series of single posts from an individual much easier to read into than a single post.

Of course. However we don't have the luxury of having giant filters to dive into right now. You have to start somewhere, and this is where I feel best to start.

You're acting as if I've locked on to these players and I'll be suspicious of these guys for the duration of the cycle, which isn't my motive at all. I found two of their posts suspect, and I need to hear more from them. That's how information is generated early in the game.

In post 82, Cheery Pie wrote:

In post 81, hapahauli wrote: What's arbitrary? Dyslexicon is awol from the thread. He posted his /confirmz thing and hasn't shown up since. He could have some RL thing for all I know. The point is that it isn't allignment indicative.

Secondly, did you actually LOOK at my suspicions on Varsoon and Daemon? I'm

not

suspicious of them only because they made one post. It's the content of those posts that I find suspicious.

Stop ignoring my post and tell me what you think of them.

All three have however given out the same amount of content, just the two you mention have more words.
NicCage also has the approximately the same level.

Not quite. Dyslexicon has 0 content. Varsoon and Daemon don't have much content, but that content is scummy, and I think I laid out clearly why that is the case.

Yes we don't know if real life stuff is happening, but we also don't know if the others also had real life stuff on causing them to post only 1 post. Especially in the case of Varsoon, who as you stated had just checked in.

I'm not purely lurker lynching here. It's not doubt a motive of mine to pressure lurkers to be active, but not the only reason why I'm suspicious of the two.

Again, Daemon has made it clear that he's not reading the thread. Varsoon made a post to the effect of "Hi, I'm announcing my presence and doing nothing, but hey you guys should consider being suspicious of Toomai."

It's also that you're attacking them only 1 day after they posted, when you had already questioned them once.
It's overeagerness to have people focusing on lurkers.

I normally play on a site with 48-hour cycles, so perhaps I'm not used to what's considered "acceptable activity" here. However I don't think there's such a thing as "overeagerness" regarding lurky players. I'm of the opinion that you have to start ensuring activity early on by any means necessary.

Active towns win games. Fact.

In post 85, hapahauli wrote:Active towns win games. Fact.

Sure thing, and currently - in your opinion - all these active players before us are town?

It's not the idea to keep harking on about the no post, 1 post, active thing at the expense at what you said about those two 1-post-wonders. But your initial reply to the question in #77 was just sooo interesting in it's specificity.

So you've picked two players with 1 post, and both those singular posts give you an indication of their alignment, yet 0 posts doesn't, and those two players both having made 1 post that so happens to both raise your suspicion is coincidental, so it's not a policy lynch on lurkers, just suspicion on two less than active players, but even lesser active players aren't suspicious, so we should just take it at face value that these posts were scummy and you've openly expressed that they were scummy and in no way should we group to coincidental nature of their post count together or the fact that you collectively referred to them as "1-post-wonders" and have simply identified two scummy posts and directed everyone to them... *gasps for breath*

How can I get round to any details of the points raised when I'm still trying to wrap my head around what's actually going on?

Cheery Pie and hapahauli are both pretty town. I'm not seeing poor logic on either side of their discussion.

In post 86, Cheery Pie wrote:How can I get round to any details of the points raised when I'm still trying to wrap my head around what's actually going on?

Seems pretty simple to me: hapahauli looked for the people that weren't posting, saw the two people with 1 post, and found them to be scummy. You brought up someone who has no posts and hapahauli went either "hmm, didn't think of that, but you can't really do much to no-posters early Day 1" or "I noticed, but you can't really do much to no-posters early Day 1". That's how I see it anyway.

I'm gonna concur with the NicCage suspicion since, while Varsoon and Daemon385 made one bad post each that could be construed as RVS (if you have a really open mind), NicCage has made about three bad posts with about the same amount of content.

(that's 5/7)

It's not a softclaim.

I voted for zefiend because I thought his post sounded overly wordy and constructed, and because I felt that his sureness that hapa was misrepping hp was unwarranted. It seemed like he was just going for the most convenient and safest reason for his vote, hiding behind the technical difference between the definition and hapa's actions.

His recent posts haven't really made me feel better about him, so jake from rainbowdash, why is it obvious that zefiend is town?

Hey Toomai, I think you've started to bus NicCage too soon. I'd move my vote to you if Cage's explanation for his vote wasn't a description of his last vote (you know, if we exclude the reasoning part). But we still have tomorrow, right?

So I take it you don't like my reasoning

Hey, Hapa, I'm not late to the party, I'm fashionably late.
Reading through I also found it a bit strange that Hapa didn't mention me, but only the ones with 1 post. But his and CheeryP's discussion doesn't really scream scumminess on either side.
Btw, can't blame my absence on rl stuff. More wasn't in the mood for RVS and a headache.
NC's vote and explanation is weird. I don't get it.
Meh, that's all.

hapahauli, you're essentially pushing the lynch of people who made random votes. I might vote with you if they keep not providing information for the next few days; but for now it seems pointless to me.

EDIT: @Cage Yep. Your jump on the Cop wagon seems more opportunistic than zefiend's vote on hapa. Also the fact that no reasoning for a vote is poorer than basically any kind of reasoning at all.

EDIT2: Hey Dys, wanna jump on the Cage wagon? It's only been a day and I'm pretty sure we've found 2/3 scum.

Also recommended listening: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBYGjC_hJ9A

@hp, I'd rather stay in my lighthouse where I live, with my binocular, sipping on some coffee. Aka, wait with a vote until I get the urge to read more carefully through. Seems like votes are flying high anyways. Keep it up sports!

Well now the vote has reasoning, is there any particular problem you have with it?

I guarantee that zefiend chose that vote because he thought it was safe, which would either point to scum or newb trying not to stick his neck out. I went with scum.

I'm not sure why NicCage has rounded up so many votes so quickly. it seems like people have latched onto a small handful of things he's said and jumped to seemingly ridiculous conclusions. I don't see how we have enough information about him to justify the number of votes he has. I think NC is more likely town whose wagon is being pushed by scum because it could feasibly give an easy d1 lynch for them.

VOTE: Daemon385. His first post was very iffy and he hasn't posted since then; it could just be his newness clouding his actions but for the moment I think this is a good place for my vote.

In post 95, ac1983fan wrote:I'm not sure why NicCage has rounded up so many votes so quickly. it seems like people have latched onto a small handful of things he's said and jumped to seemingly ridiculous conclusions. I don't see how we have enough information about him to justify the number of votes he has. I think NC is more likely town whose wagon is being pushed by scum because it could feasibly give an easy d1 lynch for them.

VOTE: Daemon385. His first post was very iffy and he hasn't posted since then; it could just be his newness clouding his actions but for the moment I think this is a good place for my vote.

I am afraid I have to agree with this.

Don't know about there being scum on his wagon. There's enough players that this could be a town v town thing.

Anyway, it's finals week for me, so I'm not going to be as active as I usually am. Also, this game is moving at a mile a minute!

In post 86, Cheery Pie wrote:

In post 85, hapahauli wrote:Active towns win games. Fact.

Sure thing, and currently - in your opinion - all these active players before us are town?

It's not the idea to keep harking on about the no post, 1 post, active thing at the expense at what you said about those two 1-post-wonders. But your initial reply to the question in #77 was just sooo interesting in it's specificity.

So you've picked two players with 1 post, and both those singular posts give you an indication of their alignment, yet 0 posts doesn't, and those two players both having made 1 post that so happens to both raise your suspicion is

somewhat

coincidental, so it's not a policy lynch on lurkers, just suspicion on two less than active players, but even lesser active players aren't suspicious, so we should just take it at face value that these posts were scummy and you've openly expressed that they were scummy and in no way should we group to coincidental nature of their post count together or the fact that you collectively referred to them as "1-post-wonders" and have simply identified two scummy posts and directed everyone to them... *gasps for breath*

I thought "1-post-wonders" was catchy and would be more effective in presenting my suspicions. Clearly that backfired somewhat, but my use of a catchy-phrase doesn't determine what my suspicions and intentions are.

It seems as though you object more with how I presented my suspicions than my actual suspicions. If so, stop this pointless nitpicking. You're wasting both of our times.

How can I get round to any details of the points raised when I'm still trying to wrap my head around what's actually going on?

I've laid this out about three or four times for you, so this is the last time I'm going to try this before I just give up on this conversation and move on.

Basically you for whatever reason think that I'm policy-lurker lynching here, when that's not the case. I have two suspicions on different players that are based on their individual posting.

In post 91, Dyslexicon wrote:Hey, Hapa, I'm not late to the party, I'm fashionably late.
Reading through I also found it a bit strange that Hapa didn't mention me, but only the ones with 1 post. But his and CheeryP's discussion doesn't really scream scumminess on either side.
Btw, can't blame my absence on rl stuff. More wasn't in the mood for RVS and a headache.
NC's vote and explanation is weird. I don't get it.
Meh, that's all.

If this is the best you can come up with after being gone for 2 days, I can't say that I'm thrilled. There's not one remotely concrete read in here. I get that it's possible not to be sure of things at this stage, but geez don't you have any questions to ask? Aren't you curious about ?

In post 93, Dyslexicon wrote:@hp, I'd rather stay in my lighthouse where I live, with my binocular, sipping on some coffee.

Aka, wait with a vote until I get the urge to read more carefully through.

Seems like votes are flying high anyways. Keep it up sports!

We have 4 pages of thread. That's not difficult to catch up on at all. You sound lazy and lack any sense of urgency to find mafia. What gives?

In post 96, Varsoon wrote:

In post 95, ac1983fan wrote:I'm not sure why NicCage has rounded up so many votes so quickly. it seems like people have latched onto a small handful of things he's said and jumped to seemingly ridiculous conclusions. I don't see how we have enough information about him to justify the number of votes he has. I think NC is more likely town whose wagon is being pushed by scum because it could feasibly give an easy d1 lynch for them.

VOTE: Daemon385. His first post was very iffy and he hasn't posted since then; it could just be his newness clouding his actions but for the moment I think this is a good place for my vote.

I am afraid I have to agree with this.

Don't know about there being scum on his wagon. There's enough players that this could be a town v town thing.

Anyway, it's finals week for me, so I'm not going to be as active as I usually am. Also, this game is moving at a mile a minute!

Is it just the NC thing you agree with, or his vote on Daemon as well? Do you have any suspicions or reads at this stage?