Mini 1266 - My iTunes Mafia - GAME OVER

[Slandaar]

Painted, do you have an opinion on whether Sken likes to play as mafia or not?

[don_johnson]

vote: skenvoy

oh slandaar! you are a beacon of light!

[Slandaar]

thanks don! im not so sure you are though.

[Skenvoy]

Well, talk about loaded questions. Want me to answer that for you, or are you waiting for PFoD's response?

I pretty much figured that Deasveil hadn't provided a reason for his vote on me to see who reacted, I just wanted to confirm it, and I wasn't going to say "Did you not provide a reason to see who'd respond?" as that's an easy out if he's scum.

I'm not sure about PFoD at the moment. I'm actually thinking there's a good chance that scum haven't even posted yet (considering that only 4 of us have) - I think they'd, more likely, sit back and watch for a while. That said, I have a small town read as Deas, because reaction fishing was something he never did as scum in our last game.

[don_johnson]

slan: by that i mean as i was reading the thread i found myself agreeing with you. i too am a beacon, but i'm more like a flourescent. gotta warm up.

[Slandaar]

Which question are you talking about?

[Skenvoy]

Painted, do you have an opinion on whether Sken likes to play as mafia or not?

[Slandaar]

I would like painted to answer it

[Skenvoy]

Hokay.

[J]

Wow RVS disappeared faster than I thought. o_O

DJ, what do you like about Slandaar which calls for the buddying/joke posts? What is your take on what is happening between the three (Slan/DV/PFoD)?

[Slandaar]

J, why didn't you include sken and call it 'the four'?

[don_johnson]

okey dokey [j] heres my take:

first page: painted rvs vote looks like it could be scum over the top trying to be funny/fit in with townies. i read the "*evil laugh* more like a nervous laugh if that makes sense. nothing huge, but certainly the first thing to ping any sort of scumdar.

then deas votes serious? i guess so. if you notice, sken had voted painted in confirm stage, then changed his random vote to [J]. why rvs twice? i don't know. again nothing big, but certainly odd.

painted calls deas out. sure he

could

be a concerned townie looking for the first

serious

vote to be explained. but why bother? why not let sken handle it?

deas then produces a wierd "meta" type reason for his vote. ok. whatevz.

then sken says: "point is void". but in fact, if sken is scum the point is not void. infact, nothing sken can say makes the point void. the "point" is really just an opinion. but again, whatevz. i mean, what is sken gonna say? "herp derp, you got me, i'm scum." i don't think so.

then slan quotes the silly question sken asks of deas. not posting a reason until you are asked is a very townie thing to do. it helps you guage reactions. thats kinda mafiascum 101 imo. its just a really weak response to the vote in the first place. its like sken plays it off as though he's not concerned, but then he asks a question which shows concern. just wierd.

i guess to me, slan's post was self explanatory. so painted's "wtf was that?" post reads like chainsaw defense. then looking back at the rvs connection, it seems to all come together for me.

then deas points out what i saw earlier. then painted actually votes deas which reads like an even bigger chainsaw defense of sken. deas points are valid, ah shit, lets just break it down:

Three reasons:
a) not providing reasons at first, then saying "because I knew someone would prompt me." Why not just provide them up front instead of fishing for questions with a useless post?

"fishing" is a large part of scumhunting. and is useful. the "useless post" actually generated reactions, discussions, and so "useless" does not really apply.

b) the reasons he did provide don't make much sense. They're super meta and consist of reading way too much into a comment that the theme seems cool.

Skenvoy didn't say anything about defending her "choice to stay in the game" and there's no need to defend such a choice anyway

.

first, the "reasons" make sense, just because they are "meta" does not invalidate them. in regards to the italicized, exactly the point. so why is sken choosing to defend himself.

c) finally, post 30 doesn't make much sense either. I don't really even want to get into this because it's so meta and besides the point, but DV's theory doesn't work even on its own terms. Skenvoy signed up for the game -- presumably because she was interested -- and then asked if she could get out, which DV finds weirdly suspicious. Yet in post 30 DV seems to think, or try to sneakily imply, that staying in requires some sort of explanation and that Skenvoy's explanation wasn't relevant.

sken signed up. wanted out. pms were distributed. sken wanted in. is there something wrong with the timeline here? cause it makes perfect sense to me. dumb reason for a vote, but a reason nonetheless. deas is not the one making a big deal out of it. in fact, his vote post was rather subdued. the reaction to it is what has been overblown. i don't see deas "sneakily" implying anything. i think his posting is up front. also, paint seems to be referring to sken as "she". maybe i missed the gender tag, but paint certainly seems familiar with the maiden he's whiteknighting atm.

slan notices the same thing i notice at that point, which is the growing connection between sken and painted. hence, "sken you are a beacon of light."

not sure why deas moves their vote next, but that post makes sense.

38 reads like painted trying to downplay his reactions.

slan in 42 is a good point.

so here we go again:

i) First, you vote for Skenvoy, providing reasons when asked. There's nothing wrong with this in itself: it's just that your reasoning is poor.

nope. painted's "a)" from earlier was all about "not providing reasons at first". suddenly its not a big deal?

ii) Next, I vote for you, explaining my reasons. Note that my reasons did not include you being suspicious of a player and voting. That's not what I suspect you for: I suspect you for the reasons I listed.

what?? this makes no sense to me and i have no idea why this is even numbered.

iii) Finally, you switch your vote to me, apparently for providing reasons ("trying to make my vote seem justified"). You backpedal on i), saying it was just a useless RVS post, but RVS ends when people actually get suspicious and start having reasons for their votes. You say I'm nitpicking by voting for you based on my early suspicion, when at the same time, you vote for me based on yours.

this is not an equation imo. painted provided bullshit reasons. deas provided good ones. this an "apples to oranges" type of lgic here.

There's nothing wrong with either of us voting based on our suspicions -- this game is all about analysis -- it's just a matter of whether the reasoning is solid. Yours isn't. There's nothing odd about Skenvoy thinking she'd be ineligible for a newbie game if she joined this one and asking if she could leave, then staying in once she realized she was ineligible anyway, the game had already started, and the theme was kickass. The way you and Slandaar tried to start something on Skenvoy for poor reasons, then backpedal once you're called on it, is pretty suspicious.

i didn't see any backpedaling. i guess if you and sken are town, then this could be some scum mastermind plan, but deas voted sken before she offered her explanation, its not like deas listened to sken's explanation and

then

voted. deas just pointed out that the reasoning was really irrelevant to the original reason for voting. it wasn't a big deal, just a solid piece of logic.

sken 53 could be right, we could all be town here, but it also gives him an out to conveniently not have to suspect painted. if they are buddies, that is probably the right play for sken. start distancing. the fact that he doesn't

really

comment on painted at this point is worrisome. i.e. he just glances the argument and fencesits.

so i guess we're back here. how was that?

[Painted Face of Death]

I can't decide if Don Johnson's post was more scummy or VI. What do you guys think? A lot of spreading confusion and misinformation there:

not posting a reason until you are asked is a very townie thing to do. it helps you guage reactions. thats kinda mafiascum 101 imo.

I have to disagree with this as a matter of strategy. It smells scummy to me, though I don't really think that by itself is a major tell. I'm not familiar with people doing that.

i guess to me, slan's post was self explanatory. so painted's "wtf was that?" post reads like chainsaw defense.

So to me, it wasn't self-explanatory, though I see your point. If you're used to that kind of play then it's not that remarkable.

I can't tell if you're genuinely not understanding the idea of the chainsaw defense, or if you're deliberately muddying the waters. Chainsaw defense is when you argue that someone is innocent by attacking their attacker. It's different from noticing that an attacker is scummy. I have no idea if Sken is innocent or scum, one way or the other: to me, what's far more interesting and important is the bullshit arguments for Sken's guilt which make DV look scummy.

"fishing" is a large part of scumhunting. and is useful. the "useless post" actually generated reactions, discussions, and so "useless" does not really apply.

This is actually a valid point. It didn't turn out to be useless. By itself, not giving reasons is no big deal, but in combination with the other things DV looked scummy.

sken signed up. wanted out. pms were distributed. sken wanted in. is there something wrong with the timeline here? cause it makes perfect sense to me. dumb reason for a vote, but a reason nonetheless. deas is not the one making a big deal out of it.

That was my entire point. Dumb reason for a vote, and it's all we had to go on at the time, so I voted DV. It may have just been DV not understanding the situation with Sken. But looking at what's happened since then, I'm suspecting DV.

also, paint seems to be referring to sken as "she". maybe i missed the gender tag

Seriously? It's under Sken's avatar, just like all the other gender tags. I don't think you missed it, I think you're trying to stir up trouble. This is pretty shady right there.

You seem to be having trouble following post 45. Basically, DV seemed to think that there was something wrong with giving reasons for why I thought someone was scum based on an early suspicion. My entire point was, as you say:

this is not an equation imo. painted provided bullshit reasons. deas provided good ones. this an "apples to oranges" type of lgic here.

except that my reasons were good and DV's were bullshit.

I said DV's reasons were bullshit, DV said "you gave reasons too!" and I explained that the problem was not with giving reasons, but that his reasons were bullshit.

i didn't see any backpedaling.

The backpedaling is a big part of why I suspect DV. His first vote was pretty clear that he thought Sken was guilty, but later he tried to pass it of as just part of the random voting phase.

[Slandaar]

@Don: I think you have outshone me here! that was a great summary of the events so far.

Now;
@Painted: DV's reasoning behind his vote was well thought out and it is a very valid reason, it COULD have been/be true. Do you disagree? There is no chance his theory could be correct?

If you are town I need to understand why you think the reasoning is poor, you need to show me why the theory cannot be correct. AND then why the reasoning makes DV look scummy? - although if you can show me why the reasoning cannot be right this might be explained.

[Noramp]

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Painted

DVs vote seemed rather random/a stab at a real vote and I believe you jumped on something and created a mountain out of a molehill on purpose. It seems as if DV was attempting to get the ball rolling and start discussion on something he believed could at least be possible.

[Painted Face of Death]

Slandaar: Sure, we should carefully look at Skenvoy's posts and determine whether or not she is scum. If you go back to the queue thread you'll see that after the game was declared, Skenvoy asked if it was too late to get out of the game. http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 2#p3558012

Papa Zito said that it was, and she'd have to ask the mod and get a replacement. http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 7#p3560187

Now, when you sign up for a game, once the game has been declared, you're making a commitment to stay in the game. It's ok to /out before the game is declared, but afterwards, you're inconveniencing everyone else and should only leave the game if you have to. So, the way I see it, Skenvoy was asking if it was too late to get out. It was, so she should only have left if there was some really good reason she couldn't stick with your commitment. So, she stayed in. When asked, she clearly explained that the only reason she wanted to be out was that this game would have put her over the newbie limit. But then another game put her over the limit anyway, so there was no reason to be out.

Can someone verify the number of games she's been in and whether she's right about the newbie limit?

This would help settle the situation.

I don't agree at all that DV's reasoning was well thought out. I mean, theoretically it could have been true that she really really wanted to be out of this game, then saw that she got a scum role, got excited, and decided to stay in, sure. It seems unlikely to me. I don't see any reason why this would be true. While it's theoretically possible, there's no evidence that it's the case. Proposing the possibility was no big deal. But then after Skenvoy explained what had happened, DV in posts 30 and 35 muddied the waters by saying that Skenvoy's explanation wasn't satisfactory, for a reason that made no sense at all. This reason was supposedly that Skenvoy explained why she wanted to be out, but not why she decided to stay in. But staying in doesn't need an explanation: she was already in, asked if she could easily leave, was told she couldn't, and then found out that the reason she wanted to leave no longer applied. In addition, DV cast an OMGUS vote for me in direct response, further confirming my suspicions of him.

I hope that answers your question. Would you answer a question or two for me? Why do you think Don's post was a "great summary" given the numerous inaccuracies and mischaracterizations I pointed out? And why did you attempt to misleadingly portray me as defending Skenvoy, when I instead attacked DV for faulty reasoning when he attacked Skenvoy? This really has nothing to do with Skenvoy's guilt or innocence. Even if Skenvoy is guilty -- and I have no clue one way or the other -- the way DV acted is scummy for all the reasons I've explained.

Noramp: that is very strange logic. I am also "attempting to get the ball rolling" and also starting discussion on something I believe could at least be possible. It seems likely to me that DV is scum, and you'd agree it is at least possible that DV made an issue out of the Skenvoy incident as a scum tactic, right?

[J]

J, why didn't you include sken and call it 'the four'?

Reason I didn't include Sken is because I didn't really think of her when it was going between you 3 as you+DV vs. PFoD when he voted DV. She didn't seem like that big a factor.

@DJ: o_o wooooooow that was a lot more then I was expecting and thank you ever so much for that much stuff. I get your train of thought now and I actually do agree to a lot of your post. Then combined on top of PFoD's defense against your post does not sit well with me.

Unvote
Vote: Painted Face of Death

PFoD, look at your wagon and give me an analysis of it so far. Who is scummy on it?

[DeasVail]

Firstly, my theory was not about skenvoy wanting to /out, it was about her staying in, but she gave an explanation of why she wanted to /out, but not why she stayed in.

My suspicion was very very slight. Of course I knew that it was unlikely, but thinking someone is slightly more likely to be scum is better than an RV as far as I'm concerned.

Painted, I was waiting for you to call OMGUS What was wrong with my vote exactly? Also, isn't "it is likely that DV is scum" quite different from it being possible for me to be scum?

My top two suspects at the moment are:
Painted Face of Death
Slandaar- I'll probably explain this soon, but I'll just post what I have for now.

Although, Skenvoy, if you are scum, don't get too comfortable

[Fennin]

This went fast. Already out of the RVS, that's not a bad thing at all. No reason to keep a joke vote active :

UNVOTE: don_johnson

I don't agree at all that DV's reasoning was well thought out. I mean, theoretically it could have been true that she really really wanted to be out of this game, then saw that she got a scum role, got excited, and decided to stay in, sure. It seems unlikely to me. I don't see any reason why this would be true. While it's theoretically possible, there's no evidence that it's the case. Proposing the possibility was no big deal.

I quite agree with this. It's a little bit too easy to just say that she changed her mind because she got a scum role. It may be possible, but frankly I doubt it.

DV's rvs vote seemed serious. No doubt about this. While I find it interesting to end the rvs stage as soon as possible, the reasons of DV's vote were odd. Trying to go for an easy lynch, or just wanting to trigger a discussion and get this game started ? Or maybe it is some smart distancing? It seems like you both have a history, and I don't like meta-gaming interfering.

[Painted Face of Death]

[J]: What doesn't "sit well" with my response? As far as my wagon, I got no idea about you or Noramp. I don't really understand the reasoning behind my wagon. I'm also still waiting for my objections to DJ's analysis to be addressed.

DV: If I understand correctly, an OMGUS vote is a vote for someone who just voted for you? See post 45 for what was wrong with it.
I think it's likely that you're scum, but I'm hoping people will agree that it's at least possible. I said that in response to Noramp's post.
Why do you think an explanation for Sken staying in is required? She had signed up and the game had started. Unless she has a good reason for leaving, she'd stay in by default.

[J]

Can you explain that Slandaar thing soon because that seems entirely random. Alsoooo why the call-out to Sken? You basically called everyone who is having a current convo with you scum-picks so I would like more insight as to why sooner rather than later.

[J]

@My last post: That was directed at DV, I forgot to make that known so apologies. x_X

Seriously? It's under Sken's avatar, just like all the other gender tags. I don't think you missed it, I think you're trying to stir up trouble. This is pretty shady right there.

This is the part that was unsettling to me because it is a really bad point to try and make someone scummy for not recognizing gender of a player. You accuse him of doing it on purpose to make you look worse.

Within the rest of the post, you don't really fend off DJ but more or less qualify what he has brought up against you which is why I don't like it. It's not really a solid defense.

[J]

Whoa wait a second, PFoD, how can you not understand any reasoning behind the wagon on you?

[DeasVail]

[J], What do you think could make me supicious of Slandaar?

[J]

Idk why haha. That's kind of the point of the question. =P