Doctor Who Mafia 2- GAME OVER!

[vollkan]

I'm not disagreeing with what you wrote. I just don't think it's germaine. Can you explain it to me like I'm a three year old? Or is it just not the quote you meant to quote.

Right. You were trying to explain the "lynch a townie" thing that I have a problem with, because it is effectively "I'm a townie don't vote for me". Then you said "Everyone is presumed townie unless proven otherwise" which is something I object to on a playstyle level.

It was irrelevant to the initial point, which was my problem with the "you don't care if a townie gets lynched", but it was relevant to your response.

In this particular wagon on me though - and in the next little while it's going to be even worse. I'm going to be hyper anal and ask a lot of pointed questions. It's a deliberate attempt to do my part to get the game back on track by squeezing out a ton of information while also getting people engaged. I opened another avenue of discussion with Axelrod and another with you. Anywhere I can find something to poke I'm going to poke it. This game almost died. People wanted it resurrected and I'm up for resurrecting it. That's how I'll be helping to do it.

That's good. By all means, prod away. My only problem was the "you don't care if a townie gets lynched" thing.

Finally - I dont accept your "interesting" just "interesting" thing re the townie lynch point I presume you meant I was being defensive. You should have had the cajones to say it so I could reply to it. I was trying - for once - not to anticipate what would happen. Something that is already plaguing me in this game Very Happy. But I cant reply to an accusation if you don't get behind the thing. Know what I'm sayin'?

Well, that's the thing. I don't consider it necessarily defensive in the scummy sense. I have a problem with people explicitly referring to themselves as townies, but I know not to be presumptive about it. I didn't mean to raise it as an accusation for you to respond to. When I note things as interesting, it just means I may want to come back to them later when I read through things.

So, yes, I said it was "interesting" because I believe it could reflect a defensive effort to derail any growing wagon.

[cicero]

@vollkan - fair enough. Just to explain though, I wasn't actually saying it in the sense of "I'm a townie". I was pointing out that players on the town side are more careful because they are the uninformed ones. I was basically calling him scummy. Not calling myself townie. I can understand how you'd see it the other way though.

[Iammars]

Okay guys, I just read the whole thread, and determined that most of it is worthless. I am actually glad that I replaced ChronX, as he seemed like one of the more sane people here.

Has anyone ever played with BabyJesus before he became sane? Like the BJ from Checkmate mafia? He was insane, quadrupal posting with no information except for a quote and an acronym that me in my negative infinite wisdom did not understand. We just kept lynching him D1. Did it matter that he was a townie or a mason vig? No. We just kept doing it. Eventually the novelty wore off and he calmed down slightly. Aisar reminds me of the old Baby Jesus. Aisar's gone now, we should get the suspicious vibes off of Roach.

[Shanba]

Normally at this point we'd all unvote and say "Let's let the replacement talk!". Screw that.

[Roach]

Aisar's gone now, we should get the suspicious vibes off of Roach.

^THIS is what I'm talking about. People are judging me on

Aisar's

play, not

my own

. That's BAD.

[Shanba]

No, it's not, silly. Aisar had the same role as you do now. Imagine player A is scum. He doesn't play a great game and d3 he's under a lot of pressure. Player B then replaces him. We can't simply say that the replacement should be given a clean slate. Hence why I'm still voting ChronX/Iammars.

[Battle Mage]

Vote Count

Roach 4 (Kison, Yamahako, Sikario8, Garnasha)
Cicero 4 (Caps, ABR, Axelrod, Taffmaster)
IamMars 3 (Cicero, Yosarian2, Shanba)
Flameaxe 1 (Roach)
MoS 1 (Flameaxe)
Taffmaster 1 (CDB)
Vollkan 1 (The Fonz)
CDB 1 (DGB)
ABR 1 (Mcpaltp)

Not Voting: Sir Tornado, Ectomancer, Shteven, IamMars, Tarhalindur, Erg0, Pokerface, Vollkan, Vollkan

26 alive and 26 present, means that 14 votes is enough to decide a lynch.

BM

[Yosarian2]

Roach, you're wrong. If a player does something scummy, that makes it more likely they are scum.

If they get replaced, that dosn't change the odds of them being scum(1)

, so

they're STILL more likely to be scum then if they hadn't done the scum tell in the first place(2)

.

1) Who? The player that got replaced or the replacer?

Yes. Both have exactally the same odds of being scum, as they have the same alignment.

2) To me, each player starts off with a clean slate. That INCLUDES players that have replacements (or, more specifically, the replacements themselves). Is that wrong, so wrong that it warrants me a vote?

Well, sorry, but they don't. We have to use all the evidence we have, including the posts made by the person you replaced.

Now, that dosn't necessarally hurt you; in fact, like I said, I think he looked more pro-town then not. You're actually better off, in my eyes, then you would be if it was a "blank slate".

[Battle Mage]

Shteven

is replaced by

Pete D

[Iammars]

No, it's not, silly. Aisar had the same role as you do now. Imagine player A is scum. He doesn't play a great game and d3 he's under a lot of pressure. Player B then replaces him. We can't simply say that the replacement should be given a clean slate. Hence why I'm still voting ChronX/Iammars.

Did you read my previous post? I'm not advocating Roach slate's being wiped clean because he's a replacement, I'm advocating Roach's slate being wiped clean because of who he was replacing.

Although I do agree with Yos2. I did think Aisar was pro-town.

[Garnasha]

So you say I should only use roach's own posts to judge him? Alright. The post numbers are the ones I get when only viewing roach.

Brace for impact

Alright...

WHY IS THERE A BANDWAGON ON ME?

That is my question to you.

dude, cut out the shouting. Only kind of people I've ever seen shouting in mafia is bad townie and scum. And I think you overreacted.

And that means I am? Can't you tell I'm a different person?

this is the first time you ask for a clean slate, I'll only quote this post and maybe his latest post on the subject, everything between I can summarize by saying he doesn't accept he's wrong, he keeps insisting we shouldn't look at Aisar, and is as stubborn as a mule.

Now, I'm not going to be so low to say that you are scum...but then again...

Taking moral high ground? You say you're not going to say it, but you do imply it here. Either make a case against your attacker and go for it or don't mention his scummy or not status at all.

Well, cicero, Garnasha, and mcpaltp...

Sorry, I'm just really focused with getting Flameaxe lynched. I'm drawing blanks on those three.

this doesn't sit right with me. You are actually admitting here what I was thinking about your first 10 posts or something like that: you are so tunnelvisioned you can't analyse anybody else even if someone points you in someone else's direction.

Aisar claimed my character before I replaced him, yes? Therefore, I see no reason WHY I should be lynched, other than you

idiots

people who got this wagon on me are disillusioned. My play is DIFFERENT because now I'm here, meaning that people will start voting for me left and right, which is now bad because I will now:

CLAIM: Pete Tyler

. I'm just a

Vanilla Townie

trying to route out the scum.

My 'attack(s)' on Flameaxe was substantial because I was CITING HIS PLAY, unlike those voting for me who fail to cite mine.

woa, calm down emo. Shouting, saying people should listen while you're the one who only responds to people by repeating they shouldn't judge you on Aisar's behaviour, second time in your post history where you swear in strikethrough text and to top it off claiming without being anywhere near getting lynched. And claiming the only role that doesn't risk a counterclaim at that. Claiming vanilla townie imo is worth exactly nothing, making this feel to me like Slitheen too eager to use his safeclaim

So, please. Aisar claimed, now I will claim. See?

You're proud about it too, aren't you?

Couldn't resist:

Roach, you're wrong. If a player does something scummy, that makes it more likely they are scum.

If they get replaced, that dosn't change the odds of them being scum(1)

, so

they're STILL more likely to be scum then if they hadn't done the scum tell in the first place(2)

.

1) Who? The player that got replaced or the replacer?

2) To me, each player starts off with a clean slate. That INCLUDES players that have replacements (or, more specifically, the replacements themselves). Is that wrong, so wrong that it warrants me a vote?

You make my brain hurt(1)

and I wish I thought you were scum.

Stop playing the victim(2)

. Your question 1 answer makes no sense. and

your number 2 is just plain wrong(3)

.

1) Well, that should be a sign that you should think more often. Anyway, sorry if I do.

2) Well, that's going to be hard, because I

am

the victim. Aisar's play was scummy, yes, and I'm ashamed that I'm replacing a complete ass. But his role (and therefore my role) is PRO-TOWN. And people are voting for

me

, not Aisar, because of

Aisar's

play, not

mine

.

3) Right now, when I read that comment, I try to stifle giggles. Why? There are a million different ways I can misquote your comment and make it into a bad joke.

1) ad hominem much?
2) Maybe a victim of Aisar's play, fair enough. Though I do think you misinterpreted cicero here and he meant you should get into action instead of screaming how badly you're being treated by us.
3) What the hell is your point?

2) To me, each player starts off with a clean slate. That INCLUDES players that have replacements (or, more specifically, the replacements themselves). Is that wrong, so wrong that it warrants me a vote?

Yes. This is VERY wrong.

But is it wrong enough to warrant a vote?

simple question, simple answer: yes. Especially if you keep insisting and being stubborn about it like you did.

Aisar's gone now, we should get the suspicious vibes off of Roach.

^THIS is what I'm talking about. People are judging me on

Aisar's

play, not

my own

. That's BAD.

What exactly did iammars say here? I don't fully understand it I think. Judging by Roach's reaction I guess it's a lifeline. This is the only thing in this post that's not an accusation in the direction of Roach.

From here on he gets help from some people who say that while Roach's reasons are wrong, his idea is right: don't look at what Aisar did, look at what the replacement does. Their arguments, unlike those of Roach, sound sane, so now I'm going to

unvote

and

vote: Roach

again because of his own behaviour.
Yos and iammars (dunno if I miss someone here) also say it wouldn't even be bad for Roach if we looked at Aisar to judge him.

One point I agree about with Roach: Flameaxe is a non-contributing troll. But that doesn't mean you should get tunnelvisioned on him, which Roach did.

[Shanba]

No, it's not, silly. Aisar had the same role as you do now. Imagine player A is scum. He doesn't play a great game and d3 he's under a lot of pressure. Player B then replaces him. We can't simply say that the replacement should be given a clean slate. Hence why I'm still voting ChronX/Iammars.

Did you read my previous post? I'm not advocating Roach slate's being wiped clean because he's a replacement, I'm advocating Roach's slate being wiped clean because of who he was replacing.

Although I do agree with Yos2. I did think Aisar was pro-town.

Eh. I don't think Roach's argument makes sense. It shouldn't matter who Roach replaced, so long as the opinions on is predecessor make sense. Though I do agree I thought Aisar was pro-town.

[Shteven]

I was catching up on the thread, and I come across a very suspicious post....It would seem I've been replaced? is it too late to undo this? I'll be PM'ing BM now; I'll hold off my actual post for now.

I posted earlier in the thread I had intended to post on friday, it just took an extra day, I was rather tired last night.

[Battle Mage]

I was catching up on the thread, and I come across a very suspicious post....It would seem I've been replaced? is it too late to undo this? I'll be PM'ing BM now; I'll hold off my actual post for now.

I posted earlier in the thread I had intended to post on friday, it just took an extra day, I was rather tired last night.

It appears that i have made an error here. It was in fact, not Shteven that i intended to replace, but Sir Tornado. If Pete D has not picked up the role pm yet, i will still allow him to replace Sir T (as was my original intention). If he has, it is unfortunate that he will be unable to play, and as this is my fault, i personally apologise for this.

Sorry for the mistake.

BM

[Yamahako]

Aisar's gone now, we should get the suspicious vibes off of Roach.

^THIS is what I'm talking about. People are judging me on

Aisar's

play, not

my own

. That's BAD.

Part of the unfortunate job of a replacement is attempting to account for the behavior of your predecessor. While you aren't the same person, you have the same role. And you would have some insight in explaining what might have caused the person to act in that manner.

[Battle Mage]

ok I've sorted it, and

Pete D will replace Sir Tornado

tomorrow, when i send his real pm.

BM

[Iammars]

Apparently everybody still skipped over my first post in this thread explaining why Roach should get a clean slate due to a special circumstance with the replacement. If I need to explain the metaphor clearer, then I will, but please read post 827 before you go yelling at Roach for wanting a clean slate.

[TaffMaster]

Taffmaster: Your post acts like I never did post 299.

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 916#812916

As for Jamuuran, I responded to this complaint here in post 664:

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 420#821420

I'm not going to re-explain a bunch of things I already posted for you guys, but I'll happily post links to the discussion.

Taffmaster is clearly voting for any wagon available so he can end the day. I'll need to go back and figure out why I *stopped* voting for this guy.

I dont deny you said therese things, but youre at least partly right about the second part.

[Shteven]

As far as Asiar/Roach goes, I'm pretty willing to excuse Asiar's play as stupid rather than scummy. I do however, take issue with Roach saying:

Garnasha wrote:

Roach, the fact that your playstyle is different doesn't mean your role isn't. You keep insisting we shouldn't judge you by Aisar's play, as if the fact that your playstyle changed(1) means your role changed. I think you are Slitheen. My primary reason to suspect you is the fact that you don't want us to look at Aisar's play to learn what your role is(2). That ain't playstyle, that's dumb(3).

imperfect info? I know just one pro-town role that can vote with perfect info. You make a null argument against the BW. You also are throwing around a lot of "just noting"s, which basically means you think someone is the case and want it known but don't want to be held responsible for it later.

1) I do, because the role doesn't matter, it's the PLAYER that has it that DOES matter. I'm not saying my role is different, I'm saying that I am different.

2) That's because I want you to look at my play instead of Aisar's. When a player is replacing another player, do you start a wagon on the new player right off the bat or do you wait and hope for the new player to slip-up?

3) Like you for voting for me because of my predecessor's play instead of my own? That's dumb, too. We're even now.

In truth, we don't care about what anyone here says. Everything you say is possibly a lie. I care about what Battle Mage wrote in your role PM. So everything that you, and everything that Asiar said, I'm reading with an eye to uncovering what BM said. So if Asiar convinced me that BM told him he was scum, you replacing doesn't change anything. However, I'm initally not all convinced Asiar was scum, so I'm going to wait for you to reveal the role yourself. But I don't like your arguments here.

Reading further in the thread, I now see that about everyone else also picked up on this...heh. When you ask

But is it wrong enough to warrant a vote?

I'd like to say "perhaps not at first, but now that you've asked, yes." It seems as though you're trying to get us to ignore it because it's supposely only half the evidence we need to vote? You want us to round the half down to zero and just forget about it?

-----

More to come, I feel I should comment on Cicero and others, Vote soon.

[Roach]

Before BM prods me, I want to post that I'm alive.

[Yosarian2]

Roach, if you want to convince us you're pro-town, it beehoovs you to start acting in a way helpful to the town.

[Roach]

Roach, if you want to convince us you're pro-town, it beehoovs you to start acting in a way helpful to the town.

Such as getting Flameaxe lynched? Very well.

[Iammars]

Hence why I'm still voting ChronX/Iammars.

I'm not 100% sure why you're still voting me. Could you please explain?

[cicero]

Roach, if you want to convince us you're pro-town, it beehoovs you to start acting in a way helpful to the town.

Such as getting Flameaxe lynched? Very well.

Roach, how about doing a case against Flameaxe followed by your opinion of the other players. If you don't have an opinion of the other players, develop one.

[Shanba]

Hence why I'm still voting ChronX/Iammars.

I'm not 100% sure why you're still voting me. Could you please explain?

Well, mostly cause you're scum. I could go outline a case if you want.