Mini 499: Just Your typical Mafia Game GAME OVER!!!!!!!!

[shaka!!]

Vote: Cheeky Little Asian

She seems like she is trying to cover for Cicero, and over very weak analogy too.

Sorry... do you really mean "cover for Cicero"? Not that I have any problem with you suspecting cheeky little asian, but why exactly does his weirdo non-logic implicate me?

Because he is referring to you not being scum based on crap logic.

AND he referred to me as BEING scum using crap logic. It really shouldn't mean anything at all, but if anyone insists on it meaning anything it should cancel out.

No, he is referring to you as

not

being scum, based on crap logic.

Let me elaborate briefly.

Scum votes 3rd with no reasoning at all, feels uncomfortable, then unvotes with no reasoning, then distracts with reference to four vote bandwagon and uses crap logic to defend himself when Theopor queries his actions.

Mod Edit

Vote Count

cheeky-little-asian- 5 (Borchmore, cicero, Gorgon, shaka!!, theopor_COD)

cicero- 2 (daedalus, pwayne66)
AlyG- 1 (somestrangeflea)
Orlowski- 1 (AlyG)

Not voting (3): cheeky-little-asian, ChocolateAttack, Orlowski

7 to lynch.

[shaka!!]

Ugh, I just caught myself with my own logic.

Sorry Cicero, I didn't see where you were coming from, ignore my 'covering for Cicero' reasons for the vote and use the above instead.

[Gorgon]

Now it's cheeky-little-asian who's under fire. Allow me to elaborate on my previous words.

I said I was satisfied with his explanation for his actions. The reason is that his logic is just a little too whacky to be something he made up to cover his a**, in my opinion. Crap logic does not unequivocally equate scum, although I guess there may be a certain correlation there. I could therefore easily be wrong here. It should be very interesting to hear cheeky-little-asian's thoughts on the current situation. A bandwagon is justified, although I am, again, concerned with its rapid momentum at this early stage in the game.

Regarding cicero ... no, I don't think he's necessarily implicated by association, just because cheeky-little-asian used his crappy logic on his absence and eventual emergence into the game.

I think I'll continue to list inactive players, as it's good to note who may be trying to lurk in order to fly under the scumdar:

Borchmore (has posted only once, absent for about 5 days now)
somestrangeflea (hasn't posted here since the 5th, but was active elsewhere on the site yesterday)

[pwayne66]

It is unfortunate that CLA has become suspect #1. I don't think he is a big fan of posting. Could be a long day 1 if we have to wait for responces. Oh and

lynch -2

on CLA.

[pwayne66]

also

MOD

, can we see about getting a prod on Borchmore.

Already done, he has just over 24 hours to post in-thread before being replaced.

[somestrangeflea]

Borchmore (has posted only once, absent for about 5 days now)
somestrangeflea (hasn't posted here since the 5th, but was active elsewhere on the site yesterday)

With all due respect, if you think 2 days of inactivity is lurking, I'm fairly sure that you're not going to enjoy your time here...

[Gorgon]

Borchmore (has posted only once, absent for about 5 days now)
somestrangeflea (hasn't posted here since the 5th, but was active elsewhere on the site yesterday)

With all due respect, if you think 2 days of inactivity is lurking, I'm fairly sure that you're not going to enjoy your time here...

Meh. I mostly added you because I didn't want to pick on just one guy, and there was a lot of discussion going on yesterday, so inactivity on that day was kind of noticable, especially since you were active elsewhere on the site on the same day. It's no biggie. I am fully aware of the general pace of the games here.

[somestrangeflea]

CLA has come under fire simply for not responding to posts directed at him. IMO, there are situations where a lurkervote is acceptable.

However

, I don't want lynch-1 on page 4...

FoS: CLA

[shaka!!]

I wasn't aware CLA had 5 votes, I'm going to

unvote

, not because I am backing off but because I don't want a scum hammer.

[AlyG]

I'm sticking with my vote on Orlowski for now.

[ChocolateAttack]

Im back! just woke up and realy tire now "yawn". It look like CLA is possibly a goner now.

Gorgon: It really scum of you to justify for CLA but then go back ang forth between your reason to make you look like a good guy and in the end still keep a vote for him.

FOS:Gorgon

go back to

Vote:Orlowski

[Gorgon]

Gorgon: It really scum of you to justify for CLA but then go back ang forth between your reason to make you look like a good guy and in the end still keep a vote for him.

FOS:Gorgon

Go back and forth? I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I originally voted for CLA because I didn't like how he provided no reasons for his actions, and wanted to hear more from him. He then provided some explanations, which I said I was satisfied with. Later, I felt that this was perhaps not clear enough, and elaborated upon it, and to make it clear that I don't agree with his logic even though I can see how it could make sense to him. I also wanted to warn people that bad logic does not necessarily equate scum.

And I am sticking with my vote because I want to keep the pressure on CLA ... depending on what he says when he shows up, I may or may not withdraw my vote. There's no point in doing it now, and I see no other particular clear candidate for my vote. The perils of the 'bad logic = scum' fallacy notwithstanding, bad logic still is something to go on, at least in the early stages of a game.

So yeah, basically I just agree 100% with cicero's stance here (post 74):

Anyway in the interests of making him speak in posts longer than a sentence and in making him appreciate the importance of good logic rather than weird magic logic that only he understands,

Unvote. Vote Cheeky Little Asian

[pwayne66]

Cicero is still a random vote. So

UNVOTE:Cicero

Regarding the orlowski wagon. Sure, Orlowski's actions were odd as hell and do deserve scrutiny. If it wasn't a mistake, then what are you claiming it was? A scum attempt at a quicklynch? I doubt it. I am satisfied with his explanation. If you aren't why not ask him some pointed questions about it and build a case. Saying that you are sticking with a vote does not make that vote more legitimate.

The CLA wagon seems justified. The town isn't working cohesively to sniff out scum and I blame the unanswered questions leveled at CLA and Borchmore absence. Scum or not, CLA is hurting the town at this point.

[JordanA24]

Seekeing replacement for Borchmore

[ChocolateAttack]

Go back and forth?

Sorry, my bad for not being clear. What i meant was u said his crappy logic doesn't spell scum but then there is a small correlation and yet you could be wrong. Then you said bandwagon is justified but u concern with its voting rate yet you keeping ur vote on him.

Honestly, with or without ur vote, i think he have much pressure already.

[theopor_COD]

I see no reason to move my vote until CLA at least checks in and responds.

[Battle Mage]

HAI GUYS.
I'm replacing someone here. Just got my pm, and about to reread.
meantime,

Unvote

if i am voting.

[JordanA24]

Battle Mage replaces Borchmore, give him a warm welcome please.

[Battle Mage]

Ok, first off, Theo’s early play reeks of scum. However I am more concerned at the play by CheekyLittleAsian, who, after seeing the large wagon on AlyG, subtly joined a counter-wagon. When called up on this, he unvoted quickly. Cicero’s response to the BW on him is weak defensiveness. Post 68 is a real stinker though.

Cheekylittleasian is a bit suspicious, but Cicero is obv-scum.

Vote: Cicero

[cicero]

Ok, first off, Theo’s early play reeks of scum. However I am more concerned at the play by CheekyLittleAsian, who, after seeing the large wagon on AlyG, subtly joined a counter-wagon. When called up on this, he unvoted quickly. Cicero’s response to the BW on him is weak defensiveness. Post 68 is a real stinker though.

Cheekylittleasian is a bit suspicious, but Cicero is obv-scum.

Vote: Cicero

I am, am I? Based on post 68 says:

Sorry... do you really mean "cover for Cicero"? Not that I have any problem with you suspecting cheeky little asian, but why exactly does his weirdo non-logic implicate me?

I would like to know:
a) What is so scummy about this? and
b) What would have been a more appropriate "townie" response.

I'm fascinated to hear this.

[Battle Mage]

It would be my pleasure to tell you where you slipped up.

You said: "Not that I have any problem with you suspecting cheeky little asian, but why exactly does his weirdo non-logic implicate me?"

If you learn 1 thing from this game, it is that no decent townie would say "not that i have a problem with you suspecting player x". An accurate definition of what you are hinting here is:
"I'm happy that you are voting for someone other than myself, but i'd rather you didn't implicate me atall."

A decent townie WOULD have a problem with suspicion on Player x, if said decent townie didn't think the reason was good enough.
i.e. lets say Theo comes in now, and casts a BW vote on you. He doesnt give any reason for it. Now, i appreciate that he is voting for someone i am confident is scum, but even so, i'm going to be very suspicious of someone simply hopping on the BW. Whatever you come up as, it reflects badly on them, and so they fly up my scumlist.

You claimed not to have a problem with a player suspecting CheekyLittleAngel. On one side of the coin, this could easily be seen as an attempt to be non-commital. Going further, your post also hints at defensiveness. The only characters in the game who are going to cherish their own life over anyone elses, are the scum. You basically fuelled the suspicion on CheekyLittleAngel, whilst at the same time, trying to look like you werent totally for such a vote.

I'm not even going to go into the possible psychology behind your description of CLA's play as 'wierdo, non-logic'.

Suffice to say, your whole post reeked of scum, and i'm happy to see you bite the dust today.

BM

Ok, first off, Theo’s early play reeks of scum. However I am more concerned at the play by CheekyLittleAsian, who, after seeing the large wagon on AlyG, subtly joined a counter-wagon. When called up on this, he unvoted quickly. Cicero’s response to the BW on him is weak defensiveness. Post 68 is a real stinker though.

Cheekylittleasian is a bit suspicious, but Cicero is obv-scum.

Vote: Cicero

I am, am I? Based on post 68 says:

Sorry... do you really mean "cover for Cicero"? Not that I have any problem with you suspecting cheeky little asian, but why exactly does his weirdo non-logic implicate me?

I would like to know:
a) What is so scummy about this? and
b) What would have been a more appropriate "townie" response.

I'm fascinated to hear this.

[cicero]

It would be my pleasure to tell you where you slipped up.

You said: "Not that I have any problem with you suspecting cheeky little asian, but why exactly does his weirdo non-logic implicate me?"

If you learn 1 thing from this game, it is that no decent townie would say "not that i have a problem with you suspecting player x".

An accurate definition of what you are hinting here is:
"I'm happy that you are voting for someone other than myself, but i'd rather you didn't implicate me atall."

A decent townie WOULD have a problem with suspicion on Player x, if said decent townie didn't think the reason was good enough.
i.e. lets say Theo comes in now, and casts a BW vote on you. He doesnt give any reason for it. Now, i appreciate that he is voting for someone i am confident is scum, but even so, i'm going to be very suspicious of someone simply hopping on the BW. Whatever you come up as, it reflects badly on them, and so they fly up my scumlist.

You claimed not to have a problem with a player suspecting CheekyLittleAngel. On one side of the coin, this could easily be seen as an attempt to be non-commital. Going further, your post also hints at defensiveness.

First, despite you telling my I reek of scum, thanks for subbing in to the game.

Second, I appreciate your point, but in my view it only makes sense if the player in question is not suspicious. CLA was already being "suspicious". I put suspicious in quotes because it is early in the game and I think the idea of being sure of anyone being scum at this point is impetuous and presumptuous. There isn't enough evidence to hoist anyone yet. But at that point CLA was the one that people were focussing on due to his evasiveness and non-responsiveness. I didn't and still don't have a problem with people suspecting him and don't believe that such a thing is remotely defensive or suspicious.

The only characters in the game who are going to cherish their own life over anyone elses, are the scum. You basically fuelled the suspicion on CheekyLittleAngel, whilst at the same time, trying to look like you werent totally for such a vote.

Sorry but I need to re-iteratete that your argument is based on a

ceterus paribus

assumption that doesn't work here because the ceterus aint paribus. Put in english - all other things aren't being equal. CLA was worthy of suspicion.

I'm not even going to go into the possible psychology behind your description of CLA's play as 'wierdo, non-logic'.

I think you should, actually. People seemed quite comfortable with the fact that CLA was using weird logic... including CLA when he wrote in his own defense in post 47:

i know that sounds random and weird but than again i got random and weird logic

It wasn't me who said it. It was him. I should also note that in voting for CLA I specifically did not say "I think CLA is scum". Because I don't know whether he is scum or not and my suspicion of him is mild at best. I simply voted for him to put some pressure on him in response to his history of not asking questions and of using "weird logic". Like I said earlier, I think being sure of who anyone is at this point is impetuous and presumptuous. I think you in particular need to cool it a bit. If you want to suspect me, go ahead. But you don't have remotely enough information to do so at this point, and being so cocksure is downright unhealthy for the town.

Finally, I'd like to point out that I asked you what you thought a more appropriate "townie" response would be. You didn't answer that. Shall I assume that it would have been more townie just to leave off the clause where I stated that I had no problem with people being suspicious of CLA? (I still don't, by the way. ) I think my answer was a perfectly reasonable one. I was getting sucked into suspicion because of his odd choices. I imagine lots and lots of players would have done pretty much the same thing and it wouldn't be because they were "scum".

[Gorgon]

Welcome to the game, BM. Glad to see someone I know is very likely to stick with it to the end.

Anyway, to business ...

I must say that I find cicero's defense very eloquent. I certainly do like his style, regardless of what his role in this game turns out to be. He makes a lot of good points too.

The only characters in the game who are going to cherish their own life over anyone elses, are the scum.

This is firstly an oversimplification of the issue, and also not altogether true, IMHO. This was never a question of cicero wanting CLA dead and his own skin saved. He simply resented the fact that shaka!! was suggesting that CLA was 'covering for cicero'; an interpretation that I personally disagree with. Also, on more general terms, a townie would of course cherish his life most dearly over someone else's, right? I mean, a town player

knows

that he is town. He doesn't know anything about anyone else (unless he's a mason, of course). So a 100% chance of losing a town player vs. an uncertain chance of losing either a town or scum player is pretty much a no-brainer in my book ... unless we're talking a confirmed powerrole or something, which is certainly not an issue here. But like I said, it's not even an issue here, since all cicero said was that he didn't have problems with people

suspecting

CLA, not lynching him.

Sorry, my bad for not being clear. What i meant was u said his crappy logic doesn't spell scum but then there is a small correlation and yet you could be wrong. Then you said bandwagon is justified but u concern with its voting rate yet you keeping ur vote on him.

Honestly, with or without ur vote, i think he have much pressure already.

Okay, I get your point now ... I can only say that of course I'm not certain of CLA's motives ... but I tend to look at all sides of every issue and give people the benefit of the doubt. Maybe that's the wrong way to go about things; I'm still learning. If this makes it like I'm trying to look like a good guy, well, maybe that's because I am a good guy. Do I find it hypocritical to be a good guy while still keeping my vote? No. I do not want CLA to be lynched at this point (nor anyone else), and I will look at anyone who puts further votes on him with extreme suspicion, and I

will

withdraw my vote if CLA goes up to L-1. Anyway, what about the other people who keep their vote, while not expressing doubt over CLA's guilt? Are they less worthy of scrutiny than I am? Having doubts at this stage is normal. In fact, having doubts is always normal, I think. Is it so bad to state this doubt out loud? Maybe it is ... but it would go against my nature to not make people aware of different possible interpretations of things.

Anyway, ChocolateAttack, you didn't respond to pwayne66's query above. Maybe you missed it. I'll repeat it here for your benefit:

Regarding the orlowski wagon. Sure, Orlowski's actions were odd as hell and do deserve scrutiny. If it wasn't a mistake, then what are you claiming it was? A scum attempt at a quicklynch? I doubt it. I am satisfied with his explanation. If you aren't why not ask him some pointed questions about it and build a case. Saying that you are sticking with a vote does not make that vote more legitimate.

[Gorgon]

EBWOP:

I really should have read that one over. Allow me to rephrase a part that I botched completely:

So a 100% chance of losing a town player vs. an uncertain chance of losing either a town or scum player is pretty much a no-brainer in my book ... unless we're talking a confirmed powerrole or something, which is certainly not the case here. But like I said, life or death is not even an issue here, since all cicero said was that he didn't have problems with people

suspecting

CLA, not lynching him.

[shaka!!]

Personally, I find CLA's weird logic for voting Cicero really.. Not plausible?

He votes Chocolate Attack because he feels like it, no problem there, random voting. But then he randomly unvotes and puts the third vote Cicero, giving no reasons. I didn't see much problem with that at first, but then he gave his really OMGUS reasoning.

Now I don't see any reason why scum would do this, but what I do find odd is that he claims that Cicero isn't scum over crap logic. He is willing to say that Cicero is town because he confirmed last. I'm not comfortable with that.

The reason I linked it to a cover up for Cicero is for the reason that he is willing to dismiss him as being scum over, again, crap logic. Almost as if he is a noob scum trying to cover his scum buddy up.

But I can't make that assumption until CLA posts again.

It has been four days,

mod prod Cheeky Little Asian

please?