Mini 836: Commie Mafia (Game Over)

[SensFan]

Sens, how were Haru's posts legible?

I could tell who he was voting.
I could tell who he was suspecting.
I could tell who he wasn't suspecting.
I didn't need to read novels.

Yeah, I'd say he was an improvement over some people in this game.

[CoCo]

Could you tell why he was suspecting the players he did?

[SensFan]

Could you tell why he was suspecting the players he did?

Its not crucial that we get cases and analysis from all 12 players in the game, especially on Day 1.

[CoCo]

I disagree. It is absolutely crucial to the town that we get cases and analysis from everyone, especially Day 1. Its where townies get the majority of our reads! I cannot fathom why you'd defend someone that offered nothing to the town other than a vote.

Votes are very important, but analysis is doubly so.

[SensFan]

I disagree. It is absolutely crucial to the town that we get cases and analysis from everyone, especially Day 1. Its where townies get the majority of our reads! I cannot fathom why you'd defend someone that offered nothing to the town other than a vote.

Votes are very important, but analysis is doubly so.

Too many cooks spoil the broth.

Why would you need someone making cases to read them? If they're forthcoming about who they suspect, and maintain a solid voting track record, it makes them so much easier to read, since they can't use fluff to distract people.

[CoCo]

And that statement as jack shit to do with Haru's posts. Nor does it refute my statement that Haru's posting style did absolutely nothing good for the town. It was unreadable in both meanings of the word, and, quite frankly, I'd be pushing for his lynch if he was still around just to take out the trash and I didn't feel Charter is scum.

Anti-town != scum.

[Peabody]

I'm so happy with my vote on you it hurts. The response to the charge against Hoopla having "pushed a case" on Haru and Sens has been covered multiple times already. I really don't know why you would pretend as though it hasn't been (I'm making this assumption based on the fact that you didn't actually mention it).

I like to think allowed on the forum. When I find something to be interesting, I point it out/repeat it.

Peabody having an RVS vote when serious discussion had well and truly gotten underway is a huge copout and incredibly lazy.

Please read my vote again. Within the same post, I contributed to the discussion about the bandwagon. Please tell me how this is a 'huge copout' and 'incredibly lazy'. I think you are overexaggerating your point, giving it more validation than it deserves.

My initial vote on Peabody wasn't too strong; I would have in all likelihood unvoted if he'd passed it off as a joke or something. But he didn't - he defended it seriously as a "serious" random vote and went on to pursue a rather OMGUSy attack on me besides that ended up being one of the biggest contradictions I've ever seen.

I'm assuming that this post is what you are referring to as my contradiction, le Chat and Cyberbob?
Someone please explain to me how this is a contradiction. I wanted to point something I saw as suspicious, even if it is a weak argument, and this is consistent with my gameplay the entire game so far. If I notice something, I mention it. I hope that answered your question in post 337, le Chat.


About the charter/Col battle, I'm still not seeing a contradiction in Col.Cathart's play. He acknowledged that he hasn't been posting much

because he hasn't been keeping up with the thread

. Furthermore, Col.Cathart has been making great posts with a lot of content and a lot of questions which is more than you can say about charter (although I don't believe charter is actively lurking).

Charter:

Normally we would policy lynch someone like this, but seeing as that's a poor idea in this game (many actively scummy people more deserving of a lynch), I propose that we just ignore everything he says until he shapes up. Cold Shoulder. 100%.

Not a very protown move in my opinion.
---------------------------------------------

@Peabody re 289: What made you choose Talitha to iso? And after your entire iso, you don't even have an opinion on her. Do you think that was a good use of your time? And who are you going to do next, if you continue?

As I said above, I like to think aloud. Also, I do not regret posting an iso-Talitha because I was able to make observations that perhaps not many people have seen. There was something scummy about her behavior in the beginning of the game, so I wanted to investigate aloud (which no one really commented on the iso. I was hoping someone would at least make a comment about it... disagreeably or agreeably).

If that's not enough I can link you to games where I as scum am extremely active. It's not my alignment that affects my posting rate, it's my RL.

I really don't like people saying, “Hey, look at my meta!” as if it clears them because it doesn't. People change playstyles all the time. I'm not saying that there is no value to meta, because there definitely is, but I wouldn't accept it as canon.

SC: I can understand your point about timing of my responses. It is kinda true. I don't really have a brilliant answer except that I'm having difficulty getting into this game and I've also had limited energy. When I see something directed at me it firstly seems like a priority to answer it, and I find it pretty easy to do, so I can do it even when tired. Talking about other people and their actions seems to require more thinking and energy, and I havent got into the swing of it in this game yet unfortunately.

I think your point here is valid, Talitha. Whenever someone has an accusation leveled against you, its easier to respond quickly.
------------------------------

Because Charter's later behavior in my eyes and Sensfan doesn't seem to blow his defense out of proportion or make attacks at me because of my theory, Charter's vote is the scummiest of the last three votes.

Coco, please explain which of Charter's behavior makes him scummy to you.

Mathcam and Charter: I find it ironic two of the people I dogged the hardest over the early bandwagon fiasco are arguing over my playstyle. Going so far as to suspect each other! Who's to say this isn't a distancing effort?

You pushed a hard vote for mathcam and charter about the early bandwagon? Where?

Upon writing all this, I find Col Cathart much scummier, so
unvote, vote Col Cathart

Classic example of your vote hopping. You've done this plenty of times. Explaining why you made each individual vote does not deter from the fact you've seemingly tried to make a case on several players, reversed stances, and generally give off a scummy vibe to me. [/quote]
I would be careful who you call out for vote hopping...

------------------------------------------------

I would still prefer a CoCo lynch, but Unvote: CoCo, Vote: Charter.

Why?

Look, I don't know CoCo is scum (I'm still suspicious that Charter might know he's not, FOS: Charter), but I do know that if he is, we're never going to catch him unless we make him answer questions. The best way to do this is through voting pressure, and while my vote alone won't do it, it's a start.

I'm willing to jump on this bandwagon.

unvote; vote CoCo

Peabody, what are your opinions about CoCo?

CoCo is very aggressive and outspoken. At first, I believed Coco was pro-town because he took a long time on his summary post, which I saw as protown, even though I fail to see the reason for such a post. Now, after mathcam's willingness to bandwagon, CoCo's tendency to avoid questions, and his very emotional arguments make me lean toward scum. I am voting CoCo to see his response. So far I am inconclusive.

Okay. Regarding Mathcam. Unvote. I probably should have made an FOS: Mathcam instead of going to a vote. I definitely think Charter is still the scummier of the two. Vote Charter.

CoCo's case against charter is very questionable... I do not agree with any of his points against charter in his post. None of them are a compelling case either..
------------------------------

Not at all liking this post from SC, for reasons completely unrelated to those quoting; just gives me a vibe of massive amounts of noise, hoping to obscure the fact the little signal there is isn't very pertinent.

I disagree. SC's posts have been quite helpful and well-thought out. It's hardly 'just noise'.

Haru's votes were legible, Haru's suspicions were legible. I'd prefer someone posting like Haru did to someone posting like your mammoth post was, yes.

.. I'm failing to understand why? SC's suspicions are also legible. What do you have against him?
-------------------------------

Something else I am extremely curious about, Peabody, why is your vote still on me? From what I gather, you voted me because I felt Vaya and Hoopla were town and didn't give any reasons for that. I will
unvote, vote Peabody while he cooks up something good in response. It pains me that Col Cathart is escaping scrutiny, but his scumbuddy is just as good.

My vote on you was more of a pressure vote. My case against you was mostly the early reads, but its also the one-liners. Your interaction with Mathcam and Col.Cathart also raise suspicion to me. You accuse

FoS SensFan

due to his unimpressive recent attacks on SC.

Sorry about the walls of quotes and all. About the coco vote, I'm willing to switch to SensFan if it proves worthy (which that looks promising so far).

[CoCo]

Peabody, are you accusing me of vote hopping? The quote was messed up in both my post and yours.

I'm also curious as to where I've recently dodged questions.

Are you saying Charter's case on me is more credible than his vote hopping and anti-town play (which you pointed out over the "cold shoulder" play.

[SensFan]

I'm starting to get a little disturbed that several people are now willing to lynch me, and yet none have given me a single thing I can defend against.

[CoCo]

I never said I was willing to lynch you. My last post has plenty of things for you to "defend" against.

[Cyberbob]

Please read my vote again. Within the same post, I contributed to the discussion about the bandwagon. Please tell me how this is a 'huge copout' and 'incredibly lazy'. I think you are overexaggerating your point, giving it more validation than it deserves.

The vote was lazy because it allowed you to "get on the board", so to speak, without actually having to make a concrete statement on the game up to that point.

I'm assuming that this post is what you are referring to as my contradiction, le Chat and Cyberbob?
Someone please explain to me how this is a contradiction. I wanted to point something I saw as suspicious, even if it is a weak argument, and this is consistent with my gameplay the entire game so far. If I notice something, I mention it. I hope that answered your question in post 337, le Chat.

You're being incredibly obtuse here. You used almost literally the exact same language in your attack on my position as I did in that position. You came out swinging against my usage of terms such as "feels" rather hard, then - when questioned - immediately switched to "oh it just

feels

suspicious to me".

That's hypocrisy.

[CoCo]

I never said I was willing to lynch you. My last post has plenty of things for you to "defend" against.

I was referring to 430. Forgot about my Peabody directed post. Sorry.


Cyberbob, cut the crap. Peabody made the late RVS vote, made a ------ line and then commented on the game.

[Cyberbob]

Cyberbob, cut the crap. Peabody made the late RVS vote, made a ------ line and then commented on the game.

Comments can be taken back far more easily than votes.

You should probably - how you say? "Cut the crap"?

[CoCo]

But you're saying he did not comment on the game up until that point, and his post shows he did.

[Cyberbob]

But you're saying he did not comment on the game up until that point, and his post shows he did.

This post does not make a single lick of sense, sorry.

[CoCo]

The vote was lazy because it allowed you to "get on the board", so to speak, without actually having to make a concrete statement on the game up to that point..

Show me where he didn't comment on the game.

[Cyberbob]

The vote was lazy because it allowed you to "get on the board", so to speak, without actually having to make a concrete statement on the game up to that point..

Show me where he didn't comment on the game.

I said he didn't make a

concrete

statement. A non-random vote is a lot harder to back away from than one or two lines of opinion.

You're also forgetting this:

Dang it, I need to get a random vote in

before discussion starts

:

[CoCo]

Yes, but he separated it with a line.

I honestly think your line of attacks are incorrect. I don't see it as being scummy. Some of his other behavior? Maybe. But don't reach for straws when you could evaluate his later play.

[Cyberbob]

Yes, but he separated it with a line.

Oh, a

line

!!!! Well, that changes

everything

.

I honestly think your line of attacks are incorrect. I don't see it as being scummy. Some of his other behavior? Maybe. But don't reach for straws when you could evaluate his later play.

I'll agree to disagree about the random vote issue, but I'm only talking about this now because he (and now you) brought it up. Most of my recent pushing of his wagon has in fact revolved around his later play - his previously-mentioned hypocrisy in particular.

[CoCo]

Well, I'm not arguing with you about his later play. I just think calling him scum over a late RVS vote/joke is awful. Conversely, the way so many people accepted the wagon is something that should be examined in detail.

[Cyberbob]

Well, I'm not arguing with you about his later play. I just think calling him scum over a late RVS vote/joke is awful.

*sigh*

This will be the third or fourth time that I've had to point out the fact that it was

not a joke

. Peabody defended it as if it was serious. I have said repeatedly that if he

had

passed it off as a joke I would have accepted that - but he didn't.

Conversely, the way so many people accepted the wagon is something that should be examined in detail.

This is actually a very good point. Once I get done with my charter-read that I promised le Chat I will investigate this one further.

[CoCo]

I'm going to iso-read Peabody right now.

[CoCo]

Didn't take long. By the 5th post, Peabody was already defending his vote. In fact, him saying it was useless to comment on Vaya and my back and forth is junk. Worthless or not, plenty of things happened. Suspicion of me, reactions, suspicion of Charter, etc. To come into the game the way he did is indeed very strange.

FOS: Peabody.

[le Chat]

French, so obv-scum :P

In all seriousness, a little more wordy than I would like, but with a good amount of information, so I can live with it. Not a fan of her not voting, and that's probably the biggest blemish against her, but I'm willing to assume that's a playstyle thing, largely since I'm too lazy to manually search, and that's nowhere near policylynch-worthy.

leChat, can you link to to your 5 most recent completed games?

The french aren't commies! Think of me as... Jean-Jacques le Chat.

Both you and SerialClergyman, and Hoopla, and maybe others but these come to mind, have all questioned my hesitancy to vote and the feeling that I get from this, and my other current games, is that it is something I simply must get over.

I can't link you to my 5 most completed games, but I can explain to you why. I have played on another forum for a while and after playing a lot of games together we are making some kind of migration over to mafiascum. I don't want these other players to know who I am, so I've established le Chat as a new persona. I can tell you that I am currently in Open 166 and Mini 845, but they are not completed, and I know that does not give you what you wanted. It's very similar to Hoopla's request earlier, and I have to give you the same answer, but I'm more detailed because after two requests I guess it is due.

To expand on the word careful, I mean careful that anything he attacks he is unquestionably right on. By that I mean there's almost no gut read, almost no sweeping declarations, almost no theory that can be argued with. His point always start at a minor scummy sentence and regularly stay there, never becoming something even mildly controversial.

This was directed from SC to Cyberbob, but when reading it I couldn't help but think it might also apply to me as well.

--

I feel like Vaya's post 423 cites an opinion that I had towards Peabody when Cyberbob brought up Peabody's "gut feelings hypocrisy," which was that Peabody was getting away with very little and his iso on Talitha was strange and went nowhere. However, I did an iso-Peabody afterwards and found that after educating myself, I didn't feel that way anymore; I discovered that the iso-Talitha that Peabody did wasn't strange seeing as how Talitha was the person he had most conversation with. I also find it different that Vaya does not comment on the reason why I initially found Peabody more suspicious, which was the "gut feeling hypocrisy" that Cyberbob pointed out.

This, combined with his catch-up vote on Col Cathart that he unvoted after recognizing that he was wrong on specifics because he hadn't really caught-up, attract my vote for now. I also think this will be a good way to hear more from Vaya because I feel like you haven't contributed much after the initial wagon on Hoopla and its pertaining discussion.

vote: Vaya

[Vaya]

I feel like Vaya's post 423 cites an opinion that I had towards Peabody when Cyberbob brought up Peabody's "gut feelings hypocrisy," which was that Peabody was getting away with very little and his iso on Talitha was strange and went nowhere. However, I did an iso-Peabody afterwards and found that after educating myself, I didn't feel that way anymore; I discovered that the iso-Talitha that Peabody did wasn't strange seeing as how Talitha was the person he had most conversation with. I also find it different that Vaya does not comment on the reason why I initially found Peabody more suspicious, which was the "gut feeling hypocrisy" that Cyberbob pointed out.

I still don't like his iso-Talitha. Its pretty much pointless in that it comes to no real conclusion.

Yeah, I didn't mention the gut feeling hypocrisy, so what? It's just another point against Peabody as far as I'm concerned.

This, combined with his catch-up vote on Col Cathart that he unvoted after recognizing that he was wrong on specifics because he hadn't really caught-up, attract my vote for now. I also think this will be a good way to hear more from Vaya because I feel like you haven't contributed much after the initial wagon on Hoopla and its pertaining discussion.

vote: Vaya

Yes, my vote on Cathart was a mistake, but how is it at all scummy?