Mafiascum.net

I think I'm caught up to speed now on the posts. From my understanding, the wagon on Gene has more or less started due to a sarcastic retort to a reaction-fishing question, leading to Gene's repeated defensive responses to scumhunting, rather than trying to efficiently retort and scumhunt in turn.

I'm not entirely sure how I should feel about self-admission to playing defensively (post 43). On one hand, being a new player and getting a hefty wagon on you barely three pages in is concerning. On the other hand Gene, you repeated the admission once again, specifically after being told that town shouldn't try to prove innocence. My gut reaction to that would be a vote on you, and I feel like I should follow through, because either you're being sincere about your lack of focus or you have motive to let this bandwagon build.

And I can totally tag bold properly. Cause [card] is totally a forum tag.

Did you realise you were hammering?

Going off of Page 2's votecount, I thought I was 4th vote, for L-1.

@Rikablu

I hammered gene because of an inconsistency in his words. And you can see, doctor immediately lifted that hammer.

and for your information, a hammer on someone means putting him 1 vote away from being lynched. basically L-1 = hammer

Hammering actually means placing the lynching vote.
I missed DoctorPepper's vote change though, so it's safe.

@Rikablu - would you be happy to see gene lynched?

Oh. I thought hammering was the actual act of putting the lynch vote on (like hammering a nail in to place).

Yes, my intention's to keep gene near lynch vote. Wouldn't that usually garner good information? At this point, either the value holds while discussion takes place, people jump off the wagon in which case their reasoning should be justified and examined, or someone actually tries to go for a lynch, which would be a very definitive action whose results should produce good discussion on D2.

@JK: Not yet. He deserves time to compose himself and provide useful information to the town.

In post 74, JKMatthews wrote:Can we please lynch yessiree?

curious as to why

your claims are literally one matchstick away from crumbling down

Can I get a quick answer to Post 75, yess?

Please scratch #post 79, I was being stupid.

"A hammer is a vote on someone which results in the majority needed to lynch them. Once the hammer vote is placed, the game moves into Twilight until the mod posts the death scene. The player who has been hammered is considered beyond salvation as of the moment the hammering vote has been placed; barring the influence of a role like a Governor nothing will stop them from getting lynched. Many mods allow hammered players to post in Twilight but some do not." - Wiki

In post 83, Rikablu wrote:Can I get a quick answer to Post 75, yess?

In post 79, yessiree wrote:@Rikablu

I hammered gene because of an inconsistency in his words. And you can see, doctor immediately lifted that hammer.

I know why you put him at L-1. I want to know why you did it without using the additional post made in the interim.

yessiree, your vote on gene was ridiculously opportunistic and reeks of scum trying to get a lynch happening without having to hammer. Also you voted him because he was concerned about looking townie, and now you're saying it's because he was inconsistent? That's being inconsistent.

In post 81, Rikablu wrote:Oh. I thought hammering was the actual act of putting the lynch vote on (like hammering a nail in to place).

Yes, my intention's to keep gene near lynch vote. Wouldn't that usually garner good information? At this point, either the value holds while discussion takes place, people jump off the wagon in which case their reasoning should be justified and examined, or someone actually tries to go for a lynch, which would be a very definitive action whose results should produce good discussion on D2.

@JK: Not yet. He deserves time to compose himself and provide useful information to the town.

@Rikablu - in the same post you say that you're happy with him being at L-1 because him being lynched would give good info, and say that you wouldn't be comfortable with him being lynched. Which is it?
Also, how do you know he can provide useful information to the town? Don't you think he's scum?

@Rikablu

It will be faster for us to reply if you would quote the previous posts, so we don't have to go back to re-read.

I assume you are referring to post #45, I read it, and it didn't change my mind.

@JKM

at post #41 I was one nail away from voting on him, and #43 was the last nail. so I suspect him on both reasons

In post 57, JKMatthews wrote:Hi all, looks like I'm late to the party!
VOTE: yessirree
Bring up the maths and statistics a bunch which implies that behaviouraly analysis is secondary.
Puts gene at L-1 without even mentioning it, clearly just jumping on the bandwagon.
I agree that gene's squirmishness is pretty scummy, but yessirree's vote makes me think gene's just lynchbait.

I still believe this is jumping to conclusions, maybe you should get your sarcasm meter checked too.

Look how much you're focussing on my vote on you, there's absolutely no pressure on you...

In post 91, JKMatthews wrote:Look how much you're focussing on my vote on you, there's absolutely no pressure on you...

I'm don't think your vote is valid because your reasoning behind it is flawed. I don't focus on votes, I try to make sense of the logic.

You can't possibly have an unbiased opinion on whether your vote on gene looks immensely opportunistic or not...

my vote on gene does look immensely opportunistic, but I would've voted on him regardless of how many votes he had on him at the time.

And I think "logical" would be a better choice of word instead of "unbiased"; no one can stay unbiased, but we can attempt to stay logical.

So... you agree that your vote looks opporunistic, but it's illogical for me to vote you for an ooportunistic-looking vote? Forgive my confusion...

In post 87, JKMatthews wrote: @Rikablu - in the same post you say that you're happy with him being at L-1 because him being lynched would give good info, and say that you wouldn't be comfortable with him being lynched. Which is it?
Also, how do you know he can provide useful information to the town? Don't you think he's scum?

Both, duh. You're compressing my stance in that post to create a black/white impression that doesn't exist. If he's lynched, the act and justification thereof at this stage in time would be useful information, as 3 pages looks too soon in the game for a lynching (though I guess now that that rationale is out in the open it becomes a moot point). I don't want him lynched hastily on account of his flailing, because weak town is better than dead town, and weak scum might create a trail to a partner. This point also answers your second question, but I'll add the point that 9 perspectives is better than 8, and even data from scum is worth merit, once you're confident in determining which statements were purposefully leading/misleading.

In post 95, JKMatthews wrote:So... you agree that your vote looks opporunistic, but it's illogical for me to vote you for an ooportunistic-looking vote? Forgive my confusion...

The way you arrived at your conclusion from your reason showed a lack of consideration.

In post 90, yessiree wrote:

In post 57, JKMatthews wrote:Hi all, looks like I'm late to the party!
VOTE: yessirree
Bring up the maths and statistics a bunch which implies that behaviouraly analysis is secondary.
Puts gene at L-1 without even mentioning it, clearly just jumping on the bandwagon.
I agree that gene's squirmishness is pretty scummy, but yessirree's vote makes me think gene's just lynchbait.

You jumped to conclusion that I implied that behavioral analysis is secondary.
You jumped to conclusion that I voted gene without mentioning it, jumping on the bandwagon, when I had good reason to do so.

Hence why I don't think your vote is valid.

Just to be pedantic, his vote is valid. Whether or not you think it's a vote is, perhaps, what I think is at question.




It would be a vote, but I'm too lazy to count, and I don't want to hammer.

I feel sorry for whoever has to catch up with what is essentially our dialogue, but

In post 97, yessiree wrote:

In post 95, JKMatthews wrote:So... you agree that your vote looks opporunistic, but it's illogical for me to vote you for an ooportunistic-looking vote? Forgive my confusion...

The way you arrived at your conclusion from your reason showed a lack of consideration.

I see you making a vote that I think is opportunistic and just trying to get on a bandwagon, and I'm meant to think "oh well it may be innocent, so I'm not going to worry about it"? That's just not how this game is played...

In post 97, yessiree wrote:[

In post 90, yessiree wrote:

In post 57, JKMatthews wrote:Hi all, looks like I'm late to the party!
VOTE: yessirree
Bring up the maths and statistics a bunch which implies that behaviouraly analysis is secondary.
Puts gene at L-1 without even mentioning it, clearly just jumping on the bandwagon.
I agree that gene's squirmishness is pretty scummy, but yessirree's vote makes me think gene's just lynchbait.

You jumped to conclusion that I implied that behavioral analysis is secondary.
You jumped to conclusion that I voted gene without mentioning it, jumping on the bandwagon, when I had good reason to do so.

Hence why I don't think your vote is valid.

I jumped to the conclusion that you implied something...? That's not how implication works. The words you said have an implication. By the definition of imply.
I witnessed the fact that you voted gene at the time you did, and the reasons you gave. Those things are fact. The only conclusion I reached is that there could easily be scummy motivation behind the vote, and so I voted you. I really don't understand how you can call that illogical.