Dont worry, my comment about you being scummy was purely In-Character. I didnt mean it as an insult or whatever.
I can sort of understand why you might have made that post, in the knowledge that CLA was highly suspicious to you. The problem i have is that not being suspicious of people is a weakness of a mafia player. I do it as much as the next guy, but i do realise that it is a bad thing, and i try to keep it to a minimum. It's not necessarily the ACTIONS of a player that can help you find out their affiliation. It is their REASONS. You found CLA scummy, but i'd like to think that if you were not 100% sure on this, you would keep your eyes open and see what others did with relation to him. Your comment suggested that as long as people went along with lynching CLA, you werent going to criticise them. This is of course, bad play, because, had CLA been lynched as town, you would have very little information on where to turn next. It is better to make sure you agree with the reasons that people use for making a vote, otherwise you should make a note of it.
I dont speak fluent latin, nor do i find it especially appropriate here. As i dont know wtf it means, i obviously cannot respond to it, nor can i even consider it a response to my original points.
with regard to the 'wierdo non-logic' bit, its not the words as such that i find scummy, but the overall meaning. The whole sentence had the putred stench of blatant distancing.
From a general PoV i agree with you that certainty of someone being scum without strong evidence is bad. On the other hand, there is a concept known as 'reasonable doubt'. I often use this concept to decide whether i am happy for someone to be lynched or not. Often i might only be 75% sure of someone being scum, but if there is information to be gleaned from their lynch, and they are my top suspect, it is definitely work letting them hang imo. I'm not sure how much experience you have of playing mafia on this site, but generally, it is better to be over-aggressive, than defensive. Whether you like it or not, i've gained a reaction from you, which is the most i could hope for. Had i claimed that i had little/no confidence in my vote, i expect you would have simply ignored me. As it goes, i am confident that i have plenty enough reason to suspect you. I've lynched people for significantly less before. I dont believe i have claimed to be totally set on you as scum, but if you were spontaneously Day-Vigged, i wouldnt complain.
Your last paragraph here does you no favours. again with the WIFOM defence of 'this is what townies normally do'. In case you hadnt noticed, scum tend not to make themselves obvious by acting deliberately scummy.
In conclusion, your comments can at BEST, be attributed to lack of experience with the game of Mafia, or a general lapse in concentration. At worst, it is a blatant exhibition of how inexperienced scum can slip up.
which is it?
BM
cicero wrote:
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:
Cheeky Little Asian wrote: 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".
