Mini 829 - Internal Struggle Mafia (Over)

[Idiotking]

Vote Dank

For being the first person to make a second vote for someone.

[Idiotking]

Holy bandwagon, Batman!

unvote

What's with the rapid dogpile on jason?

[Idiotking]

I like Jeff Gordon.

[Idiotking]

Well that's complicated.

You misread, though, my problem with dank was because he was the FIRST person to have a SECOND vote on someone. All others who follow are clear, including me

[Idiotking]

Simply put, I unvoted because my vote against dank was essentially a random vote (the reason I gave is usually a pretty good random reason). When a bandwagon started to form, I unvoted because I'd expected the RVS to be over, and was considering investigating the bandwagon. I didn't revote because I can't exactly vote for 3 different people at the same time.

As far as I can tell, this should answer all the questions asked of me. If I've missed any, please point me to them.

[Idiotking]

What case could I possibly have? "A bandwagon was formed, and those 3 were part of it." That's all the information available; everything else that I can see could be explained away as being merely part of the RVS, as you say.

And my wording in my original unvote post was exactly what I intended it to be. I saw a problem with a bandwagon forming, and so unvoted my random vote. My post makes sense in this context.

Who thought I was voting for jason instead of danks?

[Idiotking]

Yeah... it's much too early for a lynch. However, I do agree with the sentiment about hiphop; his deflecting is suspicious. Not to mention, it's 1. never a good thing to play the newbie card and 2. if this actually is his 3rd game the newbie card is kinda old.

And no, hiphop, as Toro says, at this point I'm pretty sure most scum would have written you off as dead weight. You've sort of exploded in scummyness.

[Idiotking]

Wow, didn't realize this initially. Definitely makes IdiotKing look scummier.
1.) IK votes Dank for being FIRST PERSON to make a SECOND VOTE
2.) Jason wagon follows
3.) IK UNVOTES

Dank

, not Jason. If you aren't voting the bandwagon, why unvote and comment on the bandwagon?

1. That was actually just a random vote, not a real reason. I use that reason in every RVS I get into simply because it's a good, reliable, repeatable reason (because someone inevitably makes a second vote).
2. Correct.
3. I don't understand what you mean 'voting the bandwagon'. Do you mean voting ON the bandwagon? As in being part of the bandwagon? In that case, I'd actually thought the RVS was over, and so unvoted Dank (unvoted my random vote) in preparation of an examination of the bandwagon. That didn't occur, however, because shortly thereafter I was pursued because of the unvote.

And my wording in my original unvote post was exactly what I intended it to be. I saw a problem with a bandwagon forming, and so unvoted my random vote. My post makes sense in this context.

Who thought I was voting for jason instead of danks?

1.) You gave off the impression you were voting for jasont by mentioning the bandwagon. You make no transition/segway between your vote on danks and the bandwagon on jason, thus implying you are unvoting jason. Thus, we are confused why you would say the things about the bandwagon on unvote a random vote at the same post, with no transition between the two thoughts. Thus, what you intended the post to be is not clear, and thus it's weird you say it's exactly what you meant it to be.

This is what I get from the town's reactions:

-Town expects A to happen
-I make B happen instead
-Town is surprised that B happened instead of A

By this logic, B doesn't have to be scummy, just unexpected, or in this case, misunderstood (I'm a confusing person). A is also not necessarily pro-town, just what is expected. My question is, how is it actually scummy for me to have acted in this manner?

So you say you were thinking about investigating the bandwagon, then later say the only information available is the bandwagon itself? So you admit that there is nothing to investigate, despite wanting to previously do it? Or is it that everything you could investigate is "part of the RVS?" and thus not readily able to be investigated? You seem to be contradicting yourself.

I can see how it'd be seen as contradictory. It would have been impossible for me to investigate at that exact point. Instead, I was hoping for something else to happen, some new development that I could see concerning the bandwagon. However, thing's didn't turn out as I'd expected.

I could see both IK's and HipHops play as VI/newb/inexperience. IK, what is your level of experience?

... well that's cold....

On this site, 3 games, all losses, the first due to stupidity/inexperience, the second due to obsession over one individual (who turned out to be town), the third due to a biased and insane setup/being overly trusting of one individual (who turned out to be scum).

On another site that I frequent... I think I'm on 7 or 8 now, all wins. I seem to polarize.

[Idiotking]

I don't understand your reasoning on what is stopping

you from pursuing the bandwagon case

. Why does the town have to follow you on this rather then analyze you? This is a really poor excuse to use to defend yourself since there are more effective ways to generate discussion then "waiting for a new development". (I.e. Try a line of questioning with your defense)

FoS: Idiot King

What is stopping be NOW? Nothing, we've moved on to other things. Now I'm more interested in hiphop and answering the questions posed to me.

The town would NOT have to follow me on this. I never said that nor implied that (not intentionally, anyway). It's not an excuse, either, and I'm sort of annoyed that you think it is. It's an explanation; I don't do excuses. Excuses are attempts to get out of trouble, explanations are attempts to make someone else understand why you did what you did. But that's off subject.

I'm also quite fine with the town analyzing me. I don't see anything I've done as wrong, and as such, I can respond with a clear conscience and without excuses. I guess I'm not understanding what you're getting at.

[Idiotking]

1.) Fair enough. Can you link to other games where you used this from this site?

Only one, my second game (first I lurked and third I replaced into):

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... &&start=25

I hope that works... first time trying to make a link on this site. You may be able to draw some meta from that as well.

*For future reference: write shown_text

3.) I guess that makes more sense, I guess. I find it extremely weird you think we are out of the RVS on page 1, and just because someone gained 3 votes. I just see no reason to unvote.

In my experience, when someone gets that many votes in RVS, everyone starts freaking out.

So you chose not to follow up on the examination of the bandwagon because you were being pursued? You can scumhunt and defend at the same time, I do it all the time.

It's more like I chose not to follow up on the examination of the bandwagon because the bandwagon became a moot point as soon as other, larger bandwagons formed. Sadly, the only person I can suspect right now (barring lurkers) is hiphop. I have difficulty in the early parts of games because there's nothing for me to go on. My main strategy is seeing the gaps in people's logic. Unfortunately, at this point there's so little actual logic and almost no fact, and as such, it's hard for me to do my job correctly...

Still, you're right, I should be doing something, at least.

It's even more contradictory given that you now say you didn't pursue because you were being pressure about your unvote. So now we have the following scenario:
1.) IK says he is going to pursue/examine the Jason RVS bandwagon.
2.) When asked later to do it, says there's nothing to look at.
3.) Later says he didn't look at it because he was being pursued for unvote (very scummy)
4.) Admits it may be contradictory, and then says it was impossible for him to look at something at that "exact point." Then why even mention looking at the bandwagon on page 3? Why not save it for later?
All this seems very contradictory.

People can have more than one reason for doing things. A third would be that I was about to go somewhere at that point, and didn't have any time. Is that relevent? Is it a valid reason? No, but it's also true. My point is, it's very possible for someone to not pursue an examination like that because they were BOTH pressured and had nothing to go on. A little contradictory I can understand, very contradictory is a little much. If I were you I'd be more worried had I (me now) had said two things that can't actually both be reasons at the same time.[/url]

[Idiotking]

For clarification, this:

It's more like I chose not to follow up on the examination of the bandwagon because the bandwagon became a moot point as soon as other, larger bandwagons formed.

is why I'm not pursuing the bandwagon NOW. The other reasons are ones for why I didn't pursue THEN.

[Idiotking]

Upon reread, I'm wondering.

RC: Can you explain why you reacted so defensively in your latest post? According to DTM (at least I think it was DTM) you only had one vote on you at the time. Is there any reason for you to snap back like that? Also, can you explain exactly WHY you didn't explain your vote at the time of it's post? As in, a real reason, please.

[Idiotking]

Could you point out exactly what it is you found "defensive"? I am concerned that the term lurker is being thrown around carelessly, and I am concerned players like DTM, Toro, and Shrine are making assumptions about me before asking for my response to things.

Well, the whole thing seems a little tense, but in particular two specific statements jump out at me, both to DTM:



"Are you not content with waiting for me to answer your accusations before you vote me because of them? "

"The first time you brought it up was understandable, albeit presumptive. The second time you brought it up was disconcerting. Now you bring it up a third time, without waiting for my response, in order to do what exactly? "


The first statement is in response to DTM's statement that your reasonless, substanceless vote was random. Am I the only one who thinks this seems a little defensive in the non-good way? Though you didn't say it specifically, it sounds almost like the next line would read 'how DARE you for saying my vote was random!' I just get this feeling of extreme anger from it. How does everyone else think about this?

The second statement also seems pushy. It's a response to basically the same accusation, except that this time the accusation included that it was a post-RVS reason for a clearly RVS vote. Yet you repeatedly question why people thought it was a random vote. My question is, given the knowledge available when you posted your vote, are you actually capable of blaming people for thinking it was unnecessarily RVS in a post-RVS situation?

Well, to be honest, I was gauging for town reactions. I had expected someone to ask my why I was voting for dank, so then I could have a discussion with them. Instead, Shrine, Toro, and DTM lectured me for random voting and DTM went so far as to push people into starting a wagon against me because of my "random" vote.

I'm still not quite certain who has sincere intentions in their heart, and who is attempting to misdirect. I'm not certain who was being extremely critical of me for the sake of the town, or for the sake of making themselves look as if they're helping. What do you think about this Ik? Am I bluffing, making it up as I go along, or do you think there was an deeper reason behind my first post?

I can't believe that you don't understand why people reacted in that manner. I think DTM reacted very appropriately, and now I think you're going back trying to trump up some reasons that weren't there originally. If there was a deeper reason behind our first post, you should damn well say what it is. Subtlety is what'll get you killed in a game like this, because subtlety is what the town is looking for.

@Idiot King
In your 109 can you put your name with that quote. I know this is on the same page, but it makes looking up the source a lot easier (especially since it was the only quote. You can leave out the ="name" tag for a chain of quotes like in your 107)

My apologies, it's a bad habit.

IK-says hiphop's "exploded in scumminess" but never votes for him

In that post or one very near it, I'd also said it's way too early for a lynch, and at the time, he'd had accumulated quite a number of votes on him already. I'm the kind of person who doesn't pressure vote someone if they've got several votes on them already; my vote would just push one more inch to a lynch without actually putting any more pressure on him. Do you have a differing opinion?

[Idiotking]

In my opinion, I think we have a fairly large portion of good logic, contrary to what IK thinks.

Logic requires fact, fact can't happen exist without concrete evidence of it, true concrete evidence doesn't exist until night actions have taken place, people are dead, and true roles of the departed are known. Then, using the logic from the next day, the logic of the previous day can be dissected and new facts emerge. At least that's how I see it, and helps explain why I do so poorly in RVS.

[Idiotking]

Fair enough. What do you think of hiphop now?

Pretty much the same, but it's still too early to lynch. I don't like his repeated line that "this is all some big mistake, the town shouldn't be going after me because I'm town, can't you see that?"

[Idiotking]

Let's say we were 10 or 15 pages further into the game. Would you be willing to vote and/or lynch hiphop? Basically, how scummy do you find him?

If he was still acting the same, probably, unless someone else somehow topped him.

[Idiotking]

Alright, well, I'm not sure how I could've sounded more objective. You're welcome to suggest other means of asking DTM why he made said accusation multiple times before hearing and processing my response that doesn't sound as "defensive".

I personally wouldn't have said anything about it. It was an understandable sentiment the first, second, and third times. Repetition like that doesn't make it wrong, just brings it more to the forefront. And you weren't responding (am I correct in remembering that it was because of RL situations that you can only post so often, or was that someone else?).

The bottom line is, the fact that you brought up the repetition like that sounds defensive. Dealing with the repeated issue would have made more sense, and while you did that, you flood the post with "why did you think my vote was random?" when it was quite obviously because you hadn't posted any explanation at the time. And I still hold to my belief that you made up that reason AFTER your initial vote post.

I disagree. I think DRK's response was much more "appropriate" by whatever standard you choose to assess it. I also disagree with your criticism of my playstyle, but I guess we're at an understanding there.

I disagree. We shouldn't have had to wait for your response for an explanation. You unnecessarily made yourself look suspicious by seemingly random voting. More, when you DID state your reason, it didn't explain why you would have waited for the explanation of the vote. Your first post is a RVS post. And now you're still trying to convince me that it wasn't?

Vote RC

Please tell me if I've missed anything glaringly obvious (I tend to do that), but as it stands, this is all I can see.

[Idiotking]

Gah, another thing I didn't address.

RC, you say you were trying to judge people's reactions, yes? Then why the HELL did you go around asking people why they thought it was random, huh? Wasn't that the type of reaction to be expected?

[Idiotking]

Despite whether it's incorrect or not? Despite whether or not you've gotten a chance to speak with said suspect yet?

If you'd explained why you had voted when you first voted, we wouldn't have this mess. Withholding information hurts the town, especially when it's reasoning for a vote.

There's nothing wrong with pushing your opinion out there -- that's what Mafia is about -- but a townie should also care about getting enough information to get to the truth of the matter. This game isn't meant to be a screaming contest. A townie should want to persue their leads, certainly, but they should also want to take information, process it, and decide whether or not it makes a difference on their point of view or not.

And they should also want to make their findings and reasoning known, except in special circumstances (which this was not).

For one player to come to a conclusion and spread it around multiple times without so much as exchanging dialogue with the person they are talking about is not, in my opinion, productive. Maybe just "bringing it to the forefront" is good enough for you, but it isn't for me. I prefer to hear from both parties and then make my own decision; I have trouble when one side talks for both parties.

If I had an issue I wanted to bring up repeatedly, I would, whether the suspect was present or not. But I wouldn't develop it any further, and from what I can tell, it didn't in this case. There shouldn't have had to be any exchange of dialogue concerning the apparent RVS vote, because of reasons already stated.

I generally make one post a day. That is enough for me, and that is enough for the Mod (who has the overriding decision mind you). Of course there are going to be players who move at a faster or slower rate than that, so we should all try to reasonably accomdate for every player's schedule without letting them take advantage of the game.

I don't mind it if people make one post a day, but when their first post is a substanceless RVS vote when the town was clearly out of RVS, and then go back and try and convince everybody that it WASN'T a RVS vote, I tend to get suspicious.

If you're going to call 24-36 hours "not responding", then not only are you being unrealistic and unreasonable in general, but you are also wrong according to the rules the Mod set out for this specific game.

You didn't respond in the timeframe of the repetitions, that's what I meant. See? This is what I mean when I say you're getting defensive. You're trying to turn this around and act like I'm bullying you, which I'm not. The fact is that you did NOT respond, for reasonable and fair reasons of course, but the fact remains. It doesn't change just because of extenuating circumstances. In short, had you responded, it wouldn't have been repeated. You weren't online to respond, and so it was repeated.

It's your opinion that it is, sure. I contend that it wasn't and I delibrately made my post thin in order to see who would get riled up (notably you, DTM, and Shrine) over my supposed lack of attentiveness.

Great that you can say that now, very much after the fact. Can you prove me wrong? It's like politics, opinions are votes. You have to change my opinion to change my vote, and unless you can come up with something better than you have, my opinion isn't going to be changed.

Yes, I expected some people to go over-the-top. I also expected some players may show levelheadedness and simply ask me about it. This way I could get a better feel for how this town is setup, the different playstyles the players have, and who I should watch out for.

Take DTM for example. I've noticed some eccentricity and an almost hyper-awareness, but I have come to the conclusion, for the time being, that he's sincerely trying to understand my motivations and the motivations of the other players around him. I'm comfortable with DTM at the moment, as I am with a couple of other players.

Are you trying to sincerely understand my motivations, or are you simply trying to appear to be doing so?

I don't think you have any motivations beyond saving your own skin. You did something to make yourself look suspicious. Fine, it was a gamble. If you can pull it off, great. But if you make yourself look suspicious, don't blame anyone but yourself if others suspect you for it. That's just common sense.

[Idiotking]

But if I didn't make that post, I may not have gotten town reads off DRK and DTM.

Maybe, maybe not. You could have still gotten perfectly valid reads just b reading through their statements, but instead you take a needless gamble to achieve the same results you would have gotten by now anyway. This is why I don't buy it: even if you're telling the truth and it wasn't just a RVS vote, it was just as useless to the town, since everything you could have learned would have been learned by now

anyway

.

So going from assuming it was a random vote, voting me because of the assumption of a random vote, and asking other players to analyze the "random vote", isn't "developing it any further"? What is your definition of developing something further?

Wagoning. Think about it this way. If somebody else had done as you did, an apparent RVS when RVS was completely over, wouldn't you be a little suspicious? Voting for you put pressure on you, asking others to analyze the random vote is just normal.

Why don't you tell me what argument you're making here? You accused me of not responding (and, thus, that I deserved to be misrepresented without being given the opportunity to respond), and I am explaining that had I been given a reasonable amount of time, some misunderstandings may or may not have been avoided.

There's that word "defensive" again. I honestly don't know how I could make my tone any more neutral and non-personal. You recommended that I just keep quiet, but I don't think I'll be able to find out the information I want if I do that.

My argument is that we shouldn't have had to wait for an explanation in the first place. Even if you're telling the truth it was a needless gamble in quite possibly the most dangerous time for such a gamble. I don't really care if you had a reasonable amount of time to respond or not. You shouldn't have had to have time to respond since we should have gotten the explanation in the first place.

And as I've already said, you'd have been able to get the information you want just by reading the thread. That is why I'm saying that the gamble, if it really was one, was needless and anti-town anyway.

Am I blaming others, Ik?

Are you trying to sincerely understand my motivations, or are you simply trying to appear to be doing so?

Sure as hell sounds like it.

[Idiotking]

Now that I look at IK a bit closer, there were only 3 votes when he said hiphop had "exploded in scumminess." A couple of posts later, there were only 2, making IK's reason for not voting hiphop ("at the time, he'd had accumulated quite a number of votes on him already") very questionable. Also from the wording of that post (reproduced below), it sounds very much like IK could be distancing and telling hiphop he's on his own.

DRK, given the fact that there were 3 votes on him on page 3, I don't think I did such a bad thing by not voting for him... that's just too many votes too early.

I'm don't care to look into a hiphop/IK scum pairing as of yet, since I still think hiphop is probably town, but I can see possibly just IKscum. He at one point said that hiphop was his only suspect (besides lurkers) and yet didn't vote. Sounds like the kind of thing scum would do to stay off a bandwagon that could end in a townie-lynch.

Ok, so my wording sounded 'very much like IK could be distancing' and yet hiphop is probably town and I'm not? Is it distancing or not? That's two different cases that don't sit well together.

And as I've already repeatedly said, I don't like voting people when 1. they've already got too many votes on them and 2. it's too early in the game. I like voting when I have a reasonably strong case in my eyes, one that I've built myself, not borrowed from others.

Now, it looks to me like IK is just looking for excuses to attack RC.
1. I really haven't gotten much of a defensive tone at all from RC's posts, which IK insists is present.

It's subtle, but it's there, and from what I can see it's venomous. Perhaps you and I have different definitions of what defensiveness is. I think it's pretty defensive when someone says that you're suspicious for suspecting them.

2. He's harping on RC's potentially random vote. If you look back at RC's original "random vote" post, given what RC has said about it, it makes sense that it wasn't random. I can't say I would have withheld my reasoning for a vote like that, but something about the wording of his original post doesn't sound random in hindsight. Above all this, most importantly,

what would RC gain from saying it wasn't a random vote if it was?

It's

plausible

, not

probable

. I think it's a lie. And what would RC gain from saying it wasn't a random vote if it was? Think about it! Let's say hypothetically that it really WAS a random vote, and now he's got you thinking it wasn't. He has CONVINCED you that it wasn't, which is EXACTLY the thing that keeps him from being suspect. If it was random, he's suspicious. But if he comes up with a plausible

enough

excuse, you'll believe him and he's off the hook. I don't get how this isn't obvious.

3.

I don't think you have any motivations beyond saving your own skin. You did something to make yourself look suspicious. Fine, it was a gamble. If you can pull it off, great. But if you make yourself look suspicious, don't blame anyone but yourself if others suspect you for it. That's just common sense.

Seems like a possible way of saying "Uh-oh, no one else is following me and I don't want to be pushing this case alone." The quote has a definite feeling of finality to it, as if he's trying to end the case before it gets any worse, without looking bad in the process.

Um... what?

I'm saying that he's being scummy when he tries to act like suspecting him for his random vote would be scummy. If he made a gamble (which I think is a post-vote fabrication, A LIE) then he's still being scummy if he finds people scummy for suspecting him. That's the risks of taking a gamble, and I think my statement is perfectly reasonable.

*Fixed tags.

[Idiotking]

Ghaahh!

Mod, could you fix my quote tags, please?!!?

*sure

[Idiotking]

A few posts later, that vote total changed to 2 and I hardly consider a third vote excessive with 7 to lynch.

I think three is still too many on page 3. That's part of the reason I reacted negatively to the 3 man bandwagon on jason. Days should be 20+ pages long, not three, and while 3 votes still isn't close to a lynch, it's too many that early.

I suggested two possibilities. The first is that hiphop is scum and you were distancing. The second is that hiphop is town and you didn't want to look like you were part of the bandwagon. You're mixing and matching the two possibilities.

Ok, I get it. It just seemed strange that you would be advancing two contradicting theories.

You don't vote unless you built the case? Sounds more like you're trying to appear pro-town than it does like you're trying to be pro-town.

Feel free to go back and check my previous games to see if I'm acting any differently. I've never been scum on this site, so all you'll get will be townie meta, and I assure you, this is how I do things.

Alternatively, if you don't like checking for meta (a lot of people don't), think about it this way: if I built a case, that means I believe in it fully. If somebody else builds a case, that means I could like it in parts, dislike it in parts. I'd rather fully believe a case that warrants my vote than only partly agree with a case.

How would him random voting after the RVS (in his first post) seem so suspcious? Sure it would be odd and pointless, but why would scum be more likely to do so than town?

1. It would be worthless to the town. Worthless actions are anti-town.
2. It appears to be lurking. While subsequent posts have shown that RC is not lurking, it remains that random voting post-RVS shows that it was a half-hearted effort, which is anti-town.
3. More than either of those, fighting to convince everyone that it was NOT a random vote, when it absolutely was, is plainly a lie, and isn't good for the town no matter WHAT excuse he comes up with.

Anti-town = pro-scum, pro-scum = scummy.

Here's how that quote sounded to me:
"You made a mistake. Fine. Let's just be done with this."
It basically sounds like something you throw in at the end of the argument you've lost so you don't sound like you've been defeated.

That isn't the case. I am going to continue to pursue this case until I get sufficient, believable responses. I have not lost this argument because I haven't been convinced that I'm wrong yet. If anything, I'm becoming more convinced as time goes on.

The only person who voted him for his "random vote" was DTM, who RC said he has a pro-town read on.

Also, I don't see how the quote you brought up amounts to RC blaming you. I see it as him having perfectly legitimate concerns about your intentions.

Didn't say it was OMGUS, just defensive. Asking why people thought it was random when it obviously was is defensive. It also puts the people questioned in an awkward position.

I told you, it's subtle. Assuming he took a gamble, why would he be surprised when people suspect him for doing something scummy? Why would he question the intentions of the people who suspect him? I'd question the intentions too if it was completely obvious that RC was town. But this isn't the case, his alignment is completely unproven yet.

Scum would know his alignment. If he was town, scum would go after him for this. Ok. Town would also go after him,

because he did something scummy

. Intentions are impossible to discern because people of BOTH alignments would be after him. If he was scum, well, then it's academic.

[Idiotking]

If someone else made a case, there's nothing wrong with saying which parts you agree with and adding anything you feel the person missed. You're still only voting for what you believe in and only for people you find scummy.

Of course there's nothing wrong with it. However, by adding what I feel the person missed, I am building my own case, not solely borrowing from the other person. In my opinion two people can have separate cases against one person, yet the two cases can still overlap on some issues. But all I would have been able to do to hiphop is borrow from others, because everything concerning his scummyness at that point had already been said (and some things I hadn't noticed). My contribution would have been meaningless, barring a vote that I don't think would have helped matters.

Anti-town = pro-scum, pro-scum = scummy.

I couldn't disagree more. Anti-town definitely is NOT the same thing as scummy. For example, I could attempt to post, in several seperate posts, Wiles' proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, which amounts to around 150 pages. That would definitely be anti-town, since it completely distracts us from the game. It is not, however, scummy. I see no reason scum would want to do that. It just makes you look suspicious and you could very easily be lynched for it.

It'd probably also get you modkilled, lol.

Anti-town hurts town, correct? You say your example would have distracted the town from the game. That hurts the town. If something hurts the town, it raises suspicion. You yourself said it makes the troublemaker suspicious. Anything that raises suspicion is scummy. Scum probably wouldn't do that (it'd be suicide) but nevertheless it's a scummy thing to do. Scum don't just do scummy things, and town can do scummy things too.

In the same way, I don't think a random vote would have been scummy. It would have been anti-town since we were out of the RVS, but there's no good reason scum would do it. Hence, I don't see how it's scummy.

Had he not been trying to convince me that it wasn't a random vote, I probably wouldn't have my vote on him. You're right, the random vote in and of itself isn't good enough. But to then turn around and lie to us saying that it WASN'T random is the straw that broke this camel's back.

The fact that RC knew hiphop was voting him for lurking means he had to have likely read the game first.

Skimmed. Given the information he gives, a quick glance-over of the thread could easily tell him that much. I said half-hearted, not nonexistent.

I still don't see why you think that

had

to be a random vote. It wasn't even accompanied by a random vote-type reason.

You're right, it wasn't accompanied by ANY REASON whatsoever. All roads point to it being random, so it's natural to assume that it was a random vote. Just because you say it lacks the usual flavoring of a random vote doesn't mean it wasn't random.

I never said that you said it was OMGUS. This is what you said:

I'm saying that he's being scummy when he tries to act like suspecting him for his random vote would be scummy.

The only person who suspected him enough for his random vote to vote him initially was DTM, who RC has claimed a pro-town read on. How is he acting like suspecting him is scummy?

Examples:

Person A: Your vote was random.
RC: Why do you think it was random?

Person B: It was a post RVS random vote (x3)
RC: Can't you let me respond before you keep repeating that?

Person C: I think your vote was random, and now you're lying saying it wasn't.
RC: I question your intentions for thinking I did something scummy, even though I did something that could be seen as scummy.

This is the feel of what I've gotten from him.

I've got a question for you. RC says he voted dank for being a grammar nazi, basically, even though more suspicious things had happened by that point. He says the reason he didn't post reasoning in his vote post was so he'd get reactions. Then he responds in the above manner when he gets those reactions. In your opinion, is this normal townie play? Doesn't it seem the slightest bit suspicious?

Given the case that I have made, in your opinion, is it or is it not more likely that RC is a lying half-hearted defensive scumbag, or that RC is an angelic epitome of all things townie?

[Idiotking]

Hi, paradoxombie, great to see you've been keeping up with my play lately... /sarcasm

[Idiotking]

Anti-town is anything that goes against the town's motives. Discussing Fermat's Last Theorem is against the town's motives and therefore anti-town. Posting the entire proof is even more so against the town's motives and therefore even more anti-town. I wouldn't find either to be scummy. Scummy behavior (to me at least) isn't just anti-town play; it's play that you would expect to see from scum as opposed to town. I agree that town can do scummy things too, but I disagree with your definition of scummy. For example, would you consider me any more likely to be scum if I were to start posting the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem?

Probably. To me being anti-town and being scum mean the same thing. If you hurt the town, you deserve to be suspected. If you hurt the town and then lie about it, you deserve to be lynched.

It's true that it doesn't mean it wasn't random, but it makes it considerably less likely. Why even bother to random vote if you don't give a reason? (Arguably, why vote at all if you don't give a reason but RC's already said why)

...
Random votes are random, they don't need reasons. They're supposed to be reasonless in fact, though I guess most people like to fake a reason jokingly. If you have an actual reason for your vote, it's not random anymore, is it?

I don't believe RC's 'reason'. It was weak and doesn't help justify why he didn't post the reasoning in the first place.

He didn't vote dank for being a grammar nazi. He voted dank for what he perceived as dank intentionally misinterpreting what hiphop said to make it seem scummy.

Ok, ok, maybe it was an oversimplification, but RC isn't even voting for dank anymore. It was a weak reason given the other things that had happened so far in the game.

Whether or not anything more suspicious happened is your opinion.

Like I said, opinions are votes. You have to change opinion to not get voted, and RC has not changed my opinion.

I can see how RC looks a little suspicious because of the situation. I don't see how he looks scummy.

You have to be the first person I've met who thinks suspicious =/= scummy. To me they are the exact same thing. What are your definitions of suspicious and scummy? I'm interested in seeing how you tell the two apart.

[Idiotking]

If I say someone is scummy, it means I think that person is likely to be scum. If I say someone's suspicious, it means I think that person's play has been odd or anti-town, but I don't necessarily find the person scummy.

Ok, I guess I could see that. Like, suspicion is a lead-in to scummyness, maybe? I still think suspicious equals scummy, but I think I get what you're saying now.

[Idiotking]

How about started by others? Shine and I started the RC analysis. I would add vagueness to your argument against RC though with his recent 1 line finishers with his responses.

Started by others is fine, so long as I'm not purely borrowing and avoiding adding input of my own.

195: BTW Anti-town and pro-scum are different. Some people who are town aligned can be very anti town. Take lurking for an example, usually associated with scum or PRs.

PRs are town, they shouldn't be lurking in the first place. In that sense they hurt the town, which helps scum since scum are on a different team as town. Anything that hurts one team helps the other, directly or indirectly.

How would you know that I would've gotten the same information had I not made a post? How do you know what is and isn't helpful for me to try and piece together information about other players?

I'll respond to this with a counter-question: do you deny that it would be quite possible to have discerned the same information had you posted your reasoning in your first post? Your reactions have basically gleaned the same thing they would have by simple analysis of the thread, which amounts to townie reads everyone involved with you (with me as the obvious exception).

I don't give a damn what is and isn't helpful to YOU. I care about what is and isn't helpful to the TOWN. Poking your neck out in a risky, pointless move like that does NOT HELP THE TOWN. Are you sticking to your guns here and saying it DID?

I disagree, all players, regardless of how I feel about them, should be given a reasonable amount of time to defend themselves or explain their point of view.

For most things, yes. For making an obviously RVS vote post-RVS? No, no, no.

Who do I sound like I am blaming?

Nice how you cut out the other quote I put with it. It sounds like you're blaming

me

for suspecting you (makes a whole lot more sense since you vote for me in the post I'm responding to).

I think this is a good point. I don't think this is the first time Ik has tried to disguise a little small but critical comment into a larger post.

I already responded to DRK's statement, I'd like for you to address my response as well, please.

The more I push Ik, the less I'm liking his responses.

Ditto.

I expect resistance, no doubt, but one thing that has really caught my eye is this,

[RC has] to change my opinion to change my vote, and unless [he] can come up with something better than [he has], my opinion isn't going to be changed.

The more I think about this, the less I like the implication. This exchange between me and Ik isn't about me trying to "change his opinion" at all. I feel as though it's a player's duty to respond to anyone who has comments or questions specifically for them, but, even beyond that, it's a townie's duty to try and feel out players as best they can. There are few better ways to do this than with direct Q&A.

It's about changing opinion. Opinions are votes. People make cases to change the opinions of the other players. This whole game is opinion based, forming an opinion of a player and then using logic to change the opinions of the other players into agreeing with you. Do you deny that Q&A changes opinions? Do you deny that it helps form an opinion of your own based on the questions/responses?

In other words, this comment is a red flag to me. I'm not sure if Ik thinks I am out to "change his opinion" or if he is just trying to frame me in that way (e.g. RC is acting defensive again).

I think you

should

be out to change my opinion. I think that's how this game is played. This game is all about manipulation of opinions, which equal votes.

Let's say I am of the opinion that Person A is townie. Person B thinks Person A is scum. Person B builds a case against Person A to convince the rest of the town that his opinion is correct. If I'm of a different opinion than Person B,

will I vote for Person A, even though in my opinion he is a townie?

Why? Were you worried hiphop would've been quick lynched if you put him at L-4 or L-3? Were you worried that it would make you look bad?

No. I don't care if I look bad, which is why I don't mind pursuing an unpopular case (you). If I die my arguments will receive validation one way or the other. It would just be delaying the inevitable.

Having too many votes on someone that early in the game helps nothing. What would pressure do? There's nothing to go on, no facts, just subjectivity. I've already made my statements about fact and logic, about there being none in the early game. No legitimate case can be built because nothing much has happened yet. Pressure votes only amount to so much when there isn't a significant case. Excess votes don't add pressure at all, as mine would have been. Votes mean nothing early in the game, save for the formation of bandwagons to be inspected. It is just too early in the game for a bandwagon to form.

Let's say you were at L-4 on Page 3. Somebody else votes you and puts you at L-3. Would you personally, really feel any more pressure? Or would it just be numbers? I know I wouldn't even notice.

Ah, ok, this will do nicely Ik.

I'm going to

vote: Idiotking

on the back of this comment. Unlike DTM, DRK, Toro, ryan, or Shrine, who, so far as I can tell, may have had misconceptions about me and my infamous post, but never made it a point to exaggerate anything I may have said or did, this comment definitely strikes me as inflated for effect.

And you prove my point masterfully.

I've been going over and over this time and time again. It's subtle, but it's present, that defensiveness that is always there. Defensiveness begets OMGUS, and in my opinion this is an OMGUS vote we have here.

Ik is welcome to either show an example of where I've specifically called out anyone as "suspicious because they suspect me", or retract this statement.

I'm afraid I'm not going to retract this statement, ever. I did show an example of where you specifically called someone out as suspicious becaue they suspected you,

you deleted it from your response

. Or, if you're not willing to go through and find it, here's a hint:

"Are you trying to sincerely understand my motivations, or are you simply trying to appear to be doing so?"

Or you could, y'know, just look up a few paragraphs.

Am I trying to convince people, Ik? Am I making up "excuses" to get myself "off the hook"?

Yes, yes you are. Every single read I get from you indicates this.

No one is advocating for three page long days, nor would your vote necessarily have caused a three page long day.

Do you think my vote would have helped anything?

This argument isn't about winning or losing. If you don't believe me, you don't believe me. You have every right to argue that my vote was random and that you think I am covering it up.

S'exactly what I'm doing.

If I was asking people why they thought it was random and it wasn't, would that be defensive as well?

Hypothetically? No, defensiveness implies hostility. But I simply cannot believe that it wasn't random. All evidence points to it being random and your excuse as a coverup. As such, I see it as defensive.

I question everyone's intentions, regardless of their position on me. That's my duty in this game.

Do you believe that you have received accurate, can-stay-the-same-through-the-course-of-the-game-no-matter-what information, or do you believe that your gamble helped you ascertain the intentions of a few people on just one instance?

This is grossly mistaken. I voted dank for knowingly taking advantage of a newer player.

Which you shortly thereafter unvoted him on with only token discussion. Do you still believe dank knowningly took advantage of a new player, now that you're no longer voting for him?

I don't expect DRK, or anyone, to think of me as an "angelic townie", nor do I hope they would think of me as a "defensive scumbag". I would hope all players look to me with a reasonable amount of distrust until they've made their own individual decision as to whether or not I sound like I am on their side.

In this game, either you are town or you are not. There ARE no other options.

Given the information available, people have to have formed an opinion one way or the other. I think it's a perfectly valid tactic to make them take all information available and form their own opinion from it.

Should that be a townie's responsibility in Mafia? To try not to get voted?

Did I imply that it was? I just said simple fact. People defend themselves so they don't get voted, or at the very least so that when they die their arguments receive due validation. It's to change opinion, and as I've already said, this game is all about opinion.

As for me, unless something else occurs to change my opinion, I'm willing to push this case right to the grave, for you or for me.


@DRK: You seem to be basing a lot of, if not most, of your case against me purely off of that post, or rather, your interpretation of it. Has anything else I've done piqued your interest?

[Idiotking]

1.

That was actually just a random vote, not a real reason. I use that reason in every RVS I get into simply because it's a good, reliable, repeatable reason (because someone inevitably makes a second vote).

You later said you've done this once other time. It also sounds like a way to try to avoid suspicion in the RVS.

The other time I did this was as a townie... and like I said, the first game I had on this site I lurked (didn't post anything at all during RVS if I remember correctly) and the third I replaced into, completely missing the RVS stage. There are other games on other sites in which I've used the same reasoning. I just haven't been here long enough to give any more examples. I don't understand your suspicion on this point.

2.

It's even more contradictory given that you now say you didn't pursue because you were being pressure about your unvote. So now we have the following scenario:
1.) IK says he is going to pursue/examine the Jason RVS bandwagon.
2.) When asked later to do it, says there's nothing to look at.
3.) Later says he didn't look at it because he was being pursued for unvote (very scummy)
4.) Admits it may be contradictory, and then says it was impossible for him to look at something at that "exact point." Then why even mention looking at the bandwagon on page 3? Why not save it for later?

The whole "investigating the bandwagon" sounds like a big excuse to me.

Ok. An excuse for what? To avoid being observed, studied? To get out of scumhunting? If that was the reason I made that 'excuse', why would I be pursuing RC like this now?

3. You've blown the case on RC to ridiculous proportions. Your last post completely cements that. It looks to me like you know you have nothing on RC and you're willing to resort to anything to get him lynched.

Examples, please. Elaborate.

4. Your odd desire to prevent anyone from having more than 1 or 2 votes makes no sense unless you're trying to appear pro-town.

More than 1 or 2 votes by Page 3 are simply too many. I'd like to use the first few pages of THIS game to show you why I think this. Please review it.

I don't have time to post more now, but I'm pretty sure this list isn't all-inclusive.

I sure hope it isn't. It bugs me that in the last few posts when you've tried to bring up more examples of my 'scummy behavior', this is the best you can come up with.

[Idiotking]

Also, now I'm beginning to wonder about buddying. I'm biased on this, though, since I'm the one being suspected by the two. We need outside opinions.

TOWN! Is it possible that DRK and RC are buddying each other ever so slightly, or is this just me being paranoid?

[Idiotking]

Strange, I thought 'quote wars', as you put it, were a basic form of discussion, addressing each issue in its many parts.

[Idiotking]

You were being suspected for your unvote when you saw an RVS bandwagon start. Looking into the bandwagon could have been an excuse for why you unvoted and would seemingly be a pro-town thing to do. The fact that you later said there was nothing to analyze just makes it more likely that you were just using that as an excuse. All of this has been brought up already. I'm not even sure why you had to ask.

I've already discussed this in detail. What are your responses to my responses?

A few selected quotes from your last post:

For making an obviously RVS vote post-RVS? No, no, no.

I still don't see why that was

obviously

a random vote.

This doesn't show anything being blown out of purportion, it's merely a repeated issue that hasn't been resolved yet.

If he's blaming you for suspecting him, then why didn't he vote you as soon as you started attacking him? He gave specific posts as to why he's voting you and I think he would have been completely justified in voting you even earlier.

He has also stated that he didn't want his vote to appear OMGUS. Meaning, he couldn't OMGUS vote outright. He had to find something to tag it to, some outlet for the vote, and as such, chose my argument concerning his defensiveness.

Which is quite possibly the worst thing he could have done. I had basically predicted he would OMGUS because he suspected me who suspected him (and was willing to press the issue to its fullest extent). Unsurprisingly, we now have an OMGUS vote for that very reason. Had he voted earlier, it would have been laughable.

You used that to justify your comment about how he should be trying to change your opinion. I don't see how it has any relevance. FYI, your infamous "Person A, Person B" analogies don't apply unless your situation is represented. You just made up a situation that you implied is the same as yours and want to have us take your side in it.

This is not the case. I use my 'infamous Person A Person B analogies' to show my reasoning behind my explaination. No, the situation presented wasn't immediately relevant. However, it did show why this game is opinion-based, which was the point. I also love how you're defending RC more than RC is defending himself.

I would definitely notice. L-4 doesn't mean much. It means you should definitely be defending yourself, but that's it. L-3 (in my mind) is starting to get into more dangerous territory. Remember that L-2 is where claims are often forced. L-3 means that you're one bad move or one stupid sentence away from possibly being put in claim territory.

I wasn't addressing this question to you.

Complete misrepresentation of what RC said. RC doesn't suspect you for finding him suspicious. He suspects you (the way I'm reading his posts) because you're trying to blow this completely out of proportion.

Oh my! Here we have a problem!

You say I am misrepresenting what RC said? I could say the same thing about your statements concerning MY posts. Misrepresentation? Are you the one who I'm misrepresenting? You yourself say it's the way you're reading his posts! How do you know I'm not reading them a different way?

There is so much hypocrisy in this statement, it's incredible.

But there ARE other options for reads on people. The only reason you should have a completely pro-town or pro-scum read on someone at this point in the game is that you're scum. You asked for my read on RC and gave me two options: 100% pro-town or 100% pro-scum.

MISREPRESENTATION!

Basically what I'm asking you here is this: GIVEN THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE, do you believe RC to be town or not? You HAVE to have reads one way or the other. There can be no middle ground. If there is, you're not searching hard enough. I was exaggerating when I said angelic or satanic, I attempting humor. But the fact remains that everyone has reads one way or the other. Do you or do you not, with the information available, believe RC to be town? This is the very root of the question in its simplest form. I want an answer.

The key point here: you said you're waiting for him to change your opinion, yet you refuse to have your opinion changed!

When did I say I refuse to have my opinion changed?
I said he hasn't done anything to change my opinion.

Now I gotta look up the definition of strawman.

You're not looking for him to confirm that he's pro-town and as far as I can see, you never have been. You came into this argument with the assumption that he's scum and refuse to relinquish that assumption, no matter how many times your points get refuted.

I'm actually waiting for my points to be refuted. I came into this argument expecting RC to react with honesty. Instead, the town is treated to a lie.

Your argument (that you basically stole from others) initially was that RC random voted out of the RVS. After all this arguing, that's still all you have and I really doubt it's even right.

I borrowed, but I expanded on. Haven't you been listening? It's like talking to a brick wall. I said RC tacked a lie on to it. I'm not a die-hard proponent of Lynch All Liars, but when the lie is purely anti-town with 0 redeeming qualities, I think that speaks for itself.

You're willing to argue any little thing he says as if you're hoping something will trip him up and get him lynched.

Um... ok. I'd scream misrepresentation again, but I doubt it'd have any affect on you. Your defense of RC is admirable, but it's again solidifying my opinion that you are in fact buddying him to a degree I haven't seen since my newbie game.

On a side note, what's your experience level?

I don't see how that game you posted has any relevance to your situation. First of all, you weren't even there for the first few pages. Second of all,

no one was lynched in the first few pages

. When the lynch finally occurred, it was 16 or 17 pages in and only because of a deadling. What does that game have to do with not wanting to put a 3rd vote on someone on page 3?

It wasn't about the lynch. It was about the posts and votes tied to them.

READ

the thread. READ IT. It shows how dangerous votes can be, and how naive one is by not caring how high lynches go (read darkdude).

[Idiotking]

But... but arguing about the argument is fun....

[Idiotking]

The fact that I called it an "excuse" should imply I don't believe them.

Ok. Respond to them anyway.

If you haven't resolved the "random vote" issue, then it's not

obviously

a random vote.

Logical fallacy. It is obviously a random vote to those who don't believe RC's excuse. It hasn't been resolved because he hasn't proven to me that it isn't. The burden of proof rests upon the accused.

You suspect him, therefore it's an OMGUS? I'll use one of your "Person A, Person B" situations. Let's say Person A votes Person B. Person A then acts scummy. Is Person B not allowed to vote Person A?

If Person B is voting for Person A because Person A is voting for Person B, then no. This also is not the case, nor does it prove a point, as the situations I present do.

It wasn't immediately relevant, yet you posted it anyway? Why not make up a situation to go along with your situation. I also love how you claim I'm defending RC to avoid adequately addressing this point, when I'm actually just dispelling irrelevant points.

You're not dispelling anything, you're raising new ones for me. I posted it not because it's relevant to the development of the game. I posted it because it explained how this is an opinion-based game. This was not an 'irrelevant point' as you call it. This was a response to the statement he posed to me, and as such, is adequate.

I was saying why that question was unreasonable. If you're willing to use that question as part of your argument, you shouldn't be afraid of anyone's answers.

I wasn't using the question as part of the argument. I wanted his opinion. Is it wrong to Q&A while also advancing a case?

Yes, there can be a middle ground. There can be a whole spectrum of reads I can have on a player. The fact that every player is one side or the other doesn't mean I have to see a player as definitively on any particular side. For example, everyone has a role at the start of the game, yet I have a neutral read on everyone. It's very possible that read stays for some people.

At the start of the game nobody's posted anything, there's no information. This is Page 10, there is information. I said with all information available. If you don't have a read by now, you're not doing your job right.

If I had to pick, I would say RC is town. It wouldn't make sense for both of you to be scum and at this point I think you are.

Fair enough. Why?

Obviously, you wouldn't say that, but that's what your entire argument is saying to me.

That's your read of things. It doesn't make it fact, just your opinion. Also, what indicates this to you, specifically?

You're attempting to refute everything he says, when most of it doesn't deserve to be refuted. Indicative of someone who refuses to have his opinion changed. This would make sense if you're scum, since you would want to do everything possible to portray him as scum.

I have given plenty of opportunities to check my meta. I'm perfectly willing to give more. This is how I have always done things, and how I will always do things. I am not attempting to refute everything he says, I'm attempting to ADDRESS everything he says. Why? Because that's how I do things. In this sense, it would also make sense if I'm town, because I want to pressure him with REAL pressure, not the fabrication that pressure votes are.

Just to show you I did read the game, I'll steal a response from it: It's the opposite of talking to a brick wall-a brick wall doesn't respond.

This just shows that even though you read it, you missed the whole point of me showing it to you.

What bad came of the votes at the beginning of the game? Anything?

"The logic is simple. Scum want a lynch. They'll push wagons. A wagon has formed with 2 votes. Scum sometimes push the wagon with a third. I consider a third vote on someone page 1 telling."
Also true on the third page.

"Considering it's the first page, I'm not sure I like a random wagon going even as high as L-4 myself."
Also true on the third page.

"I'm no big fan of random voting myself, and not liking random voting is no reason for three votes this early on."

I could keep going. It's a lesson learned from watching darkdude nearly get his fool self lynched for saying he's ok with wagons going as high as L-1 that early, and the reaction the town had to that statement.

This is an issue with my playstyle. As such, I have responded with an example that should be more than adequate to describe my feelings on the situation. If you refuse to get the point, then there's nothing more that I can do.

There's a BIG difference between defending someone and showing that someone's argument makes no sense. I've been showing that your argument makes no sense.

Showing that someone's argument makes no sense is part of defending someone. Poking holes in the accuser's arguments is a very simple, universal way to defend yourself or another player. Do you honestly think it isn't? More, you haven't been showing that my arguments make no sense. You have done NOTHING to do that. If anything you've given me ammunition.

I assume you're asking for my experience level under the assumption that I'm blatantly buddying? This is my second game. Yes, I'm inexperienced. No, I'm not stupid.

Uh huh.

I wanted to know your experience level for a multitude of reasons.

1st: It annoys me when inexperienced people say things like "poking holes in the accuser's arguments isn't defending" when it absolutely is.

2nd: Yeah, the buddying.

3rd: A lot of your arguments concerning my personal actions, such as your post 216, were completely obliterated by my post 217. Those that weren't had already been repeatedly addressed before. You have yet to respond to the addresses, and your resistance in doing so is suspicious.

4th: You do a great deal of misrepresentation in your posts.

5th: General hypocrisy. It's ok for you to read my posts how you see them (misrepresent), but it's not OK for me to read RC's posts how I see them (misrepresent)? I'm not saying I'm misrepresenting, I'm arguing from your perspective. You have a double standard going here.

6th: A hunch. A very good, very accurate hunch apparently.



Remember, in games of mafia, no matter how smart you are, if you're inexperienced, you're also stupid.


Oh, and 7th: As in your post 229, you can't take a joke and try to make something more out of it than there is to begin with.

[Idiotking]

1. Yeah, it was after I asked, but it certainly added to it. And in my opinion, my accusations are not meaningless. If it is wrong for someone to defend themselves from 'meaningless accusations', is it therefore right that someone else do it for them?

2. Will do. However, whether you're town or you're scum, you're still buddying. And buddying is a scummy thing to do. You even seem to admit to buddying.

3. Um... you suddenly stopped bringing them up, or you refuse to respond to my responses.

4. Yeah... that makes perfect sense. /sarcasm
Do you deny that my reads of RC could hypothetically be just that, reads, not misrepresentations as you've so adamantly claimed?

5. That's not a response.

6. Just a general feel of your style. There's not anything specific to point out for this one; it's just that your actions, in combination, point to you being a newfie. I haven't decided whether this makes you any scummier or not. Your actions somewhat resemble newb scum that I've seen, in the buddying and double-standards. Then again, they also resemble things I did (and sometimes still do) as newb townie, such as the buddying and double-standards.

7. You seem to be trying to say two things now: 1. that it was a joke, 2. that it was proving a point. You can't do both. You lose points just for that. As for the point you say it proves, paradoxombie didn't require a response; my earlier response to his earlier statement basically explained our thoughts on the issue. His more recent post changed nothing. As such, I joked. And as such, the 'point' you 'proved' never existed in the first place.




I disagree with Paradoxombie. Quote wars allow those involved to address the issues on many points. If they slip, they slip. If they clarify, they clarify. This is how I scumhunt, and I will NOT be changing that merely because you dislike it. I am not going to separate any of my 'particularly pressing issues' from the post just for your convenience. I think they are all parts of one major pressing issue, and as such, should be addressed with reasonable responses.


However, I'm also tired. I'd like to hear the town's views on this little war we've got going before we do anything else.

[Idiotking]

From what I can see Shrine hasn't posted since the 5th.

Mod, may we have prods on Shrine, jason and Zach?

*Yes, I just arrived home. Prodding...

[Idiotking]

It's real, Paradoxombie, but that doesn't mean I care about it.

I'm actually rather fine with it. If I died my arguments would receive validation that is impossible while I'm still alive. They would be coming from a pure, absolute townie. Absolute proof of intent and motivation. As such, when/if my arguments were reviewed in that light, I believe it would contribute to the town in the coming day.

I believe DRK, hiphop, and RC to be the most suspicious players.

My arguments are all readily available for the whole world to see.

I am now ready to go to Valhalla if the town wishes it.

[Idiotking]

God, I've been wanting to use that line for a long time.

[Idiotking]

True, I could be wrong. But I don't think I am. If I am indeed wrong, then RC, as townie, should be able to defend himself adequately. It would be the same situation if I was killed later and had a case built against someone.

I suspect him because he lied and said it wasn't a random vote when it absolutely was. I think he OMGUS voted me, which is also suspicious. If you also factor in DRK's obsessive defense and buddying, well then, you have a right tight little scumteam, don't you?

I am also interested in the timing. There was a point where DRK said he thought I was less and less scummy. A few posts later, RC votes for me. Then, before I respond, before having gained

any

new information, DRK returns with basically the same argument and says I'm scummy McScum. It's on Page 9, near the beginning. That was the first real indication I got that DRK was buddying.

I'm pretty sure I'm right about at least one of them.


Also, martydom is manly.

[Idiotking]

I don't even need to build a case for why I think hiphop is scum. He'll end up doing it himself. He basically already has.

Come on, let's do this.

[Idiotking]

Also, way to go for opportunism, hiphop! Yay!

[Idiotking]

I said I was finding your argument less scummy because it seemed like you honestly believed it. I re-read and changed my mind. Your play the entire game has been questionable and on re-reading your argument, I couldn't see how you believed it and especially not as strongly as you were conveying.

I'm invariably agressive as town, at least when I see a case to be built. I never jump on a bandwagon I don't believe in, nor do I follow a case I don't wholeheartedly agree with.

Saying this to you is meaningless, of course, because I'd say the same thing if I were scum. Nevertheless, it's true.

How much does buddying play into this?

A fair amount for you, much less so for RC because in my memory he has never supported you to nearly the extent you've supported him. However, my case against him still stands, which is why my vote on him still stands and won't change until either I am proven wrong or killed.

I was a part of the last quote war and TBH, even I don't want to look through those posts. It gets a lot done between the two of us, but little done for the town.

Paradoxombie had a valid argument for why quote wars are bad things, I just disagree with him, and if you are indeed a town and agree with him, then I just disagree with you, too. Hiphop I think is just looking for something to jump on (hence opportunism).

Town can look through that huge amount of information and huge amount of reasoning to find the heart of the issue. While I'm not saying it's a pleasant thing to slog through that nightmarish bog of neverending arguments, I still believe that it helps the town discover reasoning, motivation, intent, and purpose in the opposing parties. With that information, I believe the town profits. This is why I scumhunt in this fashion.

I won't even attempt to respond to your last wall of quotes because I know it won't accomplish anything. I say you're scummy. You say I am. Nothing you've posted has even remotely changed my mind and clearly nothing I've posted has even remotely changed your mind. I'm really getting the feeling that isn't going to change.

Agreed. It's probably better to just let the town decide who's right and who's wrong. We've hit somewhat of a standstill, though I still think bringing up your experience level was a good thing for the town (now they know both mine and yours).

[Idiotking]

Lol, lotta rereads on the horizon.

[Idiotking]

@IK
Before you do more OMGUS reasoning, I asked RC this in my 213 since I predicted this issue would come up. He responded by:

That's understandable. I've done my best to distinguish my vote insomuch as Ik's vote has no bearing on my vote whatsoever.

I intend to make a more organized, more succinct case against Ik, referencing his play so far as a whole.

I would hope the town does not see my vote merely as an OMGUS reaction, but moreso as a calculated opinion reached after having paid close attention to not just Ik, but the entire town.

I'm very interested in this case before we sidetrack on the whole OMGUS reaction.

So am I. But I'd be remiss to point out that here again we have a delay, having to wait for him to respond. Obviously RC was available to post at the time, so couldn't he have just done it then?

[Idiotking]

Hmm, maybe it should have been "remiss to not point out". Though that could have been a double negative... gah, I hate having fractured vocabulary.

[Idiotking]

I believe that quote wars blow everything out of proportion.

Maybe I'm just being paranoid again, but I think it's kind of suspicious that you only come out and say this after paradoxombie said it, DRK agreed and was willing to stop, and I wasn't and had several votes on me.

They begin to argue about the argument, and not about what the original post is about. It is anti-town.

Wonderful use of someone else's reasoning there, hiphop. Hell, even the wording is the same.

Shrine has complained about wall-to-wall posts, and asked to only summarize the argument, and only expand in dire need.

Are you Shrine? Do I have to pander to Shrine? Does my not pandering to Shrine make me scum?

I saw no dire need here.

You did for opportunism.

In being that I believe that it was anti-town, drk commented on anti-town being scummy and not scum. Idk said anti-town was scum. I was using his argument against him for a reason for my vote.

Uh huh. So you use someone else's reasoning and my own argument concerning the equality of anti-town and scummy? Have you ever done an original thing in our life, hiphop?

As for blowing it out of proportion drk was willing to stop the argument, while idk would of continued to his grave.

Still am, buddy boy.

[Idiotking]

Mod, Paradoxombie's vote is on me, not toro

.

*DAMN!! I was just rechecking and adding that change... You gotta admire the speed of the mind to call you on the things you've done wrong... It's like a conditioned reflex...

[Idiotking]

as it shows, in my eyes, Ik's transition from someone who is voting me for honest reasons to someone who is making it up as he goes along. I've never said anyone was suspicious directly because they suspected me. Ik has been putting in a serious effort into assuming things about me,

Making it up as I go along? Ok, here's the thing: first you make a 'gamble to see player's reactions' by doing something that is suspicious (otherwise reactions wouldn't be visible). You knew this, correct? Yet you question why people thought your vote was random when, by all indication, that is exactly what it is. Numerous people thought it was random, and I personally still do. Meaning, I wasn't the only one who thought it was random, and I certainly wasn't the first to mention that it was. Yet you still questioned why people thought it was random. To me this indicates a subtle form of defensiveness.

After that begin to bat around some arguments with DTM and a few others, which was fine. But then when I get into the fray you question my intentions for pressuring you. Again, defensive, since you questioned my intentions when I tried pushing the case farther than anyone else had (that's what pressure is

for

, to see your reactions to stiff resistance/argumentation).

Shortly thereafter you vote for me in a manner which I still consider OMGUS, and as paradoxombie pointed out, it would be strange for my vote against you to not be a part of the reason (since your problem with my case was based on your lack of faith in my intentions).

This progression of events indicates to me that you did indeed suspect me for suspecting you, and as such resulted in an OMGUS vote. I am hardly making this up as I go along.

As to your statement that you didn't directly state that, no, you didn't. It would be suicide for you to do so. Yet the above progression of events indicates as much to me, not to mention the subtle hints throughout your posts. I ask you: What is the difference between questioning my 'intentions' and questioning my suspicion of you? If you vote for me because of my intentions, does that not mean that you also vote for me because of my suspicion?

Next you

Though [RC] didn't say it specifically, it sounds almost like the next line would read 'how DARE you for saying my vote was random!' I just get this feeling of extreme anger from it.

and I get the feeling that the reason he wants to frame me as "defensive" or "pushy" is so that he can segue into the label of attacking players for suspecting me. This is not the case, and Ik knows this is not the case.

That was just the read I got from your statement, and I still hold to that. Also, you're assuming I'm trying to 'frame' you as defensive. This is the read I'm getting from you and it's what I've chosen to act on.

I've had calm, level-headed exchanges with Toro, DTM, Shrine, and DRK. At no point have I said any of these players are suspect because of their concerns with me. I gave Ik the opportunity to show this, and he has yet to do so.

I was willing to push the case this far, and am willing to go farther because I believe in it. The others stopped, or at least slowed down, whereas I chose to pressure you. This is what I think you couldn't handle, and as such, we have our little chain of events leading to an OMGUS vote.

And you know, part of the reason I think it was an OMGUS vote is because of the same reason I think your original vote was a random one: no explanation. It took a long time to get an explanation for that original vote, and it took this long to get this post I'm replying to. I've seen this before, I've done it before, and it usually means you couldn't come up with a good excuse at first and had to go back and do your homework to come up with some form of case. Which means, you wouldn't have the case already built up in your mind, which means the vote would be OMGUS.

I can take pretty much everything else Ik says and does in stride. I have no problem with his vote, nor do I have a problem with him calling me a lying scumbag. These things are all part of the game. This is why my vote is not OMGUS.

You've failed to sway me.

Logical Fallacy

Given the case that I have made, in your opinion, is it or is it not more likely that RC is a lying half-hearted defensive scumbag, or that RC is an angelic epitome of all things townie?

Logical fallacies are sometimes a good way of spotting scum. In this post, Ik attempts to push DRK into calling me the best townie of all-time or a defensive, lying mafia.

In Ik's world, there is no gray. There is no such thing as a neutral read. There is no such thing as a slightly town or slightly scum read. You are either the worst scum on Earth, or the best townie there ever was,

There is indeed a slightly town or slightly scum read. But the fact remains that it's a town or a scum read. As I told DRK, I was exaggerating by pushing the alignment reads to their extremes. At the very heart of that question was,

given the information available, do you think RC is town or scum?

The response was town, btw. And I'm waiting for you to tell me where the logical fallacy is. Either you're town or you're not.

In this game, either you are town or you are not. There ARE no other options.

You are either sided with Ik, or you aren't. You either go all-in, or you don't play the game.

Misrepresentation. God, that word's becoming overused in this discussion.

Do you deny that there are players that are townies, and players that are not townies? If you're a townie, good. If you're not a townie, you're what the town hunts. Seriously, I wonder where you think you're going with this.

Then, before I respond, before having gained

any

new information, DRK returns with basically the same argument and says I'm scummy McScum.

More exaggeration, more division. DRK criticizes an aspect of Ik's post, and apparently that is equal to calling Ik "scummy McScum".

Oh hell no, don't you dare go there. DRK said he thought I was less and less scummy for actually believing my case, and said that he would reread. You post your vote. Before I can respond, DRK magically returns from his reread saying that he still thinks I'm scum (I don't remember the exact words, but it went along the lines of "I'm still happy with where my vote is" and then posted more reasons of why he says I'm scum).

This is bullshit and you know it, RC.

Ik has a persistant problem with using his vote. I am the only player he's seriously voted so far, despite him making these statements,

I saw a problem with a bandwagon forming, and so unvoted my random vote.

Ik saw a problem with the bandwagon on jason early in the game. He made it clear he was going to pursue this wagon. He never did, and his reason for not doing so was because he had to answer questions directed at him.

That wasn't the only reason, nor is it my only stated one.

1. I was being pressured to answer questions, yes.
2. Due to the way I scumhunt, it's impossible for me to make a case without fact. I don't pursue anything without having a case to believe in.
3. I don't pressure vote that early in the game.

Only one of which you state, most of which you ignored, all of which were brought up in my discussion with ryan. Honestly, are you only selectively reading what you WANT to read?

Toro, according to Ik, "explodes in scummyness" at one point in the game. He never really pursues Toro though, not with a vote and not with any serious lines of questioning.

God, what the hell? THAT WAS TO HIPHOP, NOT TORO. NOBODY ELSE HAS MADE THIS 'MISTAKE', AND EVERYONE ELSE UNDERSTOOD WHO I WAS TALKING TO. FOR GOD'S SAKE, RC!!!!

-Town expects A to happen
-I make B happen instead
-Town is surprised that B happened instead of A

By this logic, B doesn't have to be scummy, just unexpected, or in this case, misunderstood (I'm a confusing person). A is also not necessarily pro-town, just what is expected. My question is, how is it actually scummy for me to have acted in this manner?

I like this idea, Ik. I think I will try it myself. I'll vote dank discretely and see what happens. You see, town expects "A" to happen (me tell them why I am voting dank), but I'll make "B" happen instead (leave my vote there without any reasons and see what develops).

Well, to be honest, I was gauging for town reactions. I had expected someone to ask my why I was voting for dank, so then I could have a discussion with them. Instead, Shrine, Toro, and DTM lectured me for random voting and DTM went so far as to push people into starting a wagon against me because of my "random" vote.

You're right, Ik. Town was surprised that I voted dank without giving a reason why. I used your strategy to scumhunt, what do you think?

The difference is, your B is actually scummy, whereas mine was not. You fail at using my own logic against me. Random voting post-RVS is scummy. Unvoting in preparation of examining a bandwagon you weren't on is NOT scummy. See what I did there? I shot your argument down because you tried using MY argument, and I know my argument's nuances. Better luck next time.

Also, I still think it was a purely random vote. And I think you have been lying about it ever since. Two scummy acts do not make a right, RC.

Ik is allowed to use subtlety and create situations where he surprises the town, but when I use the same tactics, he calls me lying scum, making a needless, anti-town gamble.

I wasn't trying to make a gamble. I was just doing what comes naturally to me. You? You were trying a gamble. You were trying to gauge people's reactions, yes? Me? I was unvoting because I thought the RVS quite over. No subtlety, no hidden intentions. No lies.

Ik has picked up an added habit of expecting others to convince him he is wrong.

Do you try to convince yourself that you're wrong?

Ik isn't interested in looking beyond the conclusion that I am definitely scum, that my vote was definitely random. It's our obligation to do it for him.

No, I'm not interested in looking beyond the conclusion that your original vote was definitely random. However I have seriously considered the possibility that you aren't scum. It took you lying to me to make me vote for you, and things just steadily got worse from there. Misrepresentation and exaggeration.

If I die my arguments will receive validation one way or the other. It would just be delaying the inevitable.

It's going so far as he is making the borderline appeal here for death. He wants to be lynched to "prove" himself right. If he dies as a townie, then that means I have to be scum?

No, but it DOES means your 'doubts' about my 'intentions' are shot to hell. Currently people are wary of me because they think I could be scum trying to tack an impossible case on someone who isn't scum at all. I'm willing to die to prove otherwise. Validation. Not to mention, I think you could still do with more pressure, more than one person (me) can bestow.

Either it's a serious scum gambit, or, what's really causing me stress, a prideful townie move.

Prideful, or earnest?

What makes it worse though, is he's spreading guilt onto DRK, Paradox, and hiphop for "siding with me" against him. It's obvious in DRK and hiphop's case,

Wonderful how you slip Paradoxombie's name in there when I've indicated no suspicion of him. Coincidentally, I've got a very townie read from Paradox. I just disagree with some ideas as to how things should work in the game, not this particular game itself. Way to go making baseless claims concerning my opinions.

I believe DRK, hiphop, and RC to be the most suspicious players.

but a little more subtle toward Paradox. Ironically, it was my "defensiveness" that caused Ik to blow up.

Boom.

All others who follow are clear, including me

This is a strange quote from earlier on this game. This is something I picked up on my re-read, it shows Ik referring to some early random votes. I'm not exactly sure what he meant by it, could be harmless, but it strikes me as he may or may not know something about "all other who follow" him.

Ok, this one is easy,

and something you should have gotten by reading the preceding posts

. Or hell, the first half of THAT post, even. DTM random voted hiphop. Dank also random voted hiphop. I voted Dank for being the first person to make a second vote on someone. Hiphop voted me, saying it's hypocritical to make a second vote on someone (Dank already had a vote on him) when my reasoning had been the same for voting Dank. I responded that hiphop's argument was flawed, because I had voted Dank for being the FIRST person to make a 2nd vote on someone. Then I said it's ok for others to make second votes on people, because they weren't the first. As such, it wasn't hypocrisy.

Seriously, did you read anything preceding that statement, or did you just ISO read me without context? You still should have deduced as much from the first part of that post, and you CERTAINLY shouldn't try adding it to your case without context.

Saying this to you is meaningless, of course, because I'd say the same thing if I were scum. Nevertheless, it's true.

This is WIFOM.

Um, no it's not. This isn't a choice, this isn't "would I do this if I were scum? Would I not do this if I were scum? If they knew I'd do this as scum, would I not do this as scum because they know that? If they knew I'd not do this as scum, would I do it as scum because they know that?" and so on. This is, "I'd do this whether I was town or scum. Deal with it."






I was hoping for a better case against me, RC. This wasn't worth the wait.

[Idiotking]

For those who don't like quote wars, a summary:

Misrepresentations, exaggerations, assumptions about my opinions and intentions, blatant lies, half-truths and misdirections.

RC, you Sir have the stuff politicians are made of.

[Idiotking]

Oh hell no, don't you dare go there. DRK said he thought I was less and less scummy for actually believing my case, and said that he would reread. You post your vote. Before I can respond, DRK magically returns from his reread saying that he still thinks I'm scum (I don't remember the exact words, but it went along the lines of "I'm still happy with where my vote is" and then posted more reasons of why he says I'm scum).

Allow me to say this for at least the third time.

I said I was finding your case less scummy, not you.

I re-read the thread and realized I was wrong and not only was your case scummier than I thought, you were scummier than I thought. My next post after doing my re-read said so. What's so hard to believe about that???

My point is still applicable. My apologies, I was mistaken, but that in no way affects the point I made.

2. Due to the way I scumhunt, it's impossible for me to make a case without fact. I don't pursue anything without having a case to believe in.

Is this a....contradiction?! You earlier said we don't have facts until Day 2 when we know alignments.

It's not Day 2!

That means you don't have facts on which to make your case and by your logic, you shouldn't be making one.[/quote]

Absolute facts, concerning alignment and intent. I can't do

nothing

on D1, now can I? However, even D1 was

some

facts.

For example,

FACT: I have made a case against RC, he has responded with a countercase.

FACT: My stated opinion is that RC random voted.

FACT: RC's stated position is that he did not random vote, and his vote had the intent of calling out Dank as well as studying the reactions its lack of explanation entailed.

And so on and so forth. The problem is, due to the fact that we don't know anyone's exact alignment yet, the only facts present are stated opinions and positions, whether they stem from townie belief or not. So in a sense, we're dealing with both fact and subjectivity on D1. We see facts in stated intents, but because we don't know ANYONE's exact alignments save our own, we can't go back on previous facts/arguments/claims and see the truth that lies between them.

It's a messy situation. I hate Day 1.

[Idiotking]

Also, now that RC has posted his case against me, I've got several questions to ask you, DRK.

1. What is your opinion of the case?
2. Barring what you have just stated, what is your opinion of my response to the case?
3. Have those two posts, RC's and mine, affected your opinion in any form?
4. I've been accused of blowing my case against RC out of proportion. Given the fact that RC's complete case against me has now been made, do you believe that he too could have blown the case against me out of proportion?
5. If I am lynched and flip town, what will you do then?



As far as whether I'll be the lynch today or not, it depends on the town, as always. The cases have been made. They will probably not change.

[Idiotking]

1. Not as convincing as the build-up had me anticipating. This doesn't change the fact that I strongly believe you to be scum.

Fair enough.

2. I thought your response was....horrible TBH. There are a couple of things you said that I agree with, but I thought your post was almost completely wrong.

Howso? Beyond the two statements you posted (one of which I admitted a mistake but still believe the point was made, the other I clarified my ideas concerning facts) I don't know what exactly you find wrong with it. I'd like to know.

3. It's put RC slightly higher on my scumdar (emphasis on "slightly"). Don't expect him to show up on my scum list anytime soon though unless he does something much scummier.

Why is he slightly higher on your scumdar? What about his post did you dislike?

4. There's a big difference between the two cases. You've been harassing RC with walls of text that aim at nitpicking on every little inconsequential detail. I never saw him try to do anything like that to you, especially since a large portion of his last few posts had been refuting irrelevant and incorrect arguments.

Do you believe I am tunneling RC? Do you believe RC is tunneling me? Do you believe you could potentially be tunneling me?

5. I'm willing to take the heat for that. I don't foresee this being an issue though.

Of course you don't. If we were in reverse situations I'd probably feel the same way.

Let's look back at IK's posts about logic and fact:

My main strategy is seeing the gaps in people's logic. Unfortunately, at this point there's so little actual logic and almost no fact, and as such, it's hard for me to do my job correctly...

Logic requires fact, fact can't happen exist without concrete evidence of it, true concrete evidence doesn't exist until night actions have taken place, people are dead, and true roles of the departed are known. Then, using the logic from the next day, the logic of the previous day can be dissected and new facts emerge. At least that's how I see it, and helps explain why I do so poorly in RVS.

Now let's combine these views and apply them to IK's current situation. First thing I notice is that he changed his mind about what constitutes fact between his original post and his explanation (the second post is an explanation of the first). He goes from saying there's almost no fact to saying there's no fact. Normally, I wouldn't have a problem with something like this. It's not hard to accidentally word something ambiguously or even incorrectly. Under that premise, it's safe to assume that either the explanation post is what he meant or he's lying to get out of trouble. Let's assume for a moment it's the first option and he believes there's no fact Day 1 and therefore no logic.

Then how can he possibly feel so strongly about his RC case if it's "impossible for [him] to make a case without fact?

The way I see this, either IK is playing both sides of the issue or he lied earlier to avoid our suspicion. Either way, VERY scummy.

Did you read my most recent response to that? There are two forms of fact at play here, fact of statement and fact of alignment/intent. Fact of statement isn't concrete fact beyond the fact that it was said, and thus it's not really fact. Yet it's all I can go with on D1, and if enough facts of statement are made, I can see a pattern. This pattern isn't fact either, though. I could be horribly wrong about both RC and you. But I trust the evidence that has been presented, and as such, I have to go through with it.

It sure beats the hell out of lurking, and given your reactions to the pressure I've presented, I believe my case is solid.

And as a general statement concerning fact, I think we're just arguing about the argument. Didn't you say that was anti-town, DRK?

[Idiotking]

I'd like to hear hiphop's thoughts about this.

In detail. With explanations and reasoning.

Why, you might ask?

He has been online more than he's been posting, I can see him looking in this forum. Meaning he's just watching the thread without giving any input other than "I agree wit dem u is scumzy iK". I want to hear hiphop's view.

[Idiotking]

My opinion on you is that you are willing to be lynched, just to prove your point.

Do you find this suspicous?

With your recent posts it is like you are telling the town, nobody, but rc should be lynched, because he lied.

Did I imply that? I'd be fine killing you and DRK off, since I see both of you as scum as well.

Why didn’t you push on me as much as you have pushed on rc?

You'd already built a case against yourself simply by your actions. Killing you wouldn't gain any info for the town really, because I'm pretty sure if you're scum, your buddies have already written you off as a lost cause and would be fine with bussing you. There are very few people who haven't openly questioned your play, and I wouldn't be surprised if you factored extremely high on everyone's scumlist.

That said, I wanted to get something that would get the town information. If you did perchance flip town, we wouldn't gain any info as far as I can tell. Nor would we if you flipped scum. As such, I went for the next most suspicious act I'd seen, and that being RC's random vote. The rest is history.

The only time you have commented to me is when I have made a comment against you.

This is not true in any sense of the word. I suggest you go reread the thread.

You could have made your case against rc in your first post, as soon as it came to your attention. The idea is to look for scum, not clutter the thread with unimportant information.

There IS no such thing as unimportant information. I find this implication suspicious in its own right. If it's information, it's information available to the town.

In my first post concerning RC, I hadn't developed the case, I was just posing a question to get a response and to go from there. Eventually that turned into pressuring RC, which was when we got the OMGUS vote. I do not believe I would have the case I do now had I tried stating my case (which didn't really exist at the time) in my first post to RC.

Make your case and be done with it.

No. Things don't work that way. Discussion does not work that way.

Did you believe that you could have changed rc’s mind with all of those quotes?

Absolutely not. I wanted to see a response. That response would be what changed MY mind. He responded in a defensive/OMGUS manner, and as such, my mind was not changed.

I really don't care if I convince my suspect one way or the other. I care if I'm convinced that my case is incorrect and I went after a townie by mistake. This was/is not the case.

I will tell you one thing people will decide on which side of the case to choose, because you both can’t be scum.

What's that in the sky? Is it a bird? Is it a plane? NO! It's Captain Obvious!

I believe that the idea of day one is to show alignment. If someone with ties is lynched alignment will show more clearly who scum is and who is town, based on support. There is no way to be 100% sure someone is scum, until that person is killed. I saw drk’s top three you, Jason, and me. The person on the bottom of his list(not known) can easily be scum, so obviously this is just who he thinks is scummy. As an example of alignment, with the recent argument, I can clearly say that if you are scum, I doubt that drk and rc are scum as well, unless you are a Sk. If you want to know who are the top three of my list:
1. Idk
2. Drk, the only reason he is not 1 is because you believe that anti-town is scum, while he doesn’t. Otherwise you both would be at the top.
3. Jason, still hasn’t given his opinion on who he thinks is scum on the bw.
I gave my three who are yours?

Surprise surprise.

I already gave my scumlist recently. Read the damn thread.

Even scum can make a solid case nothing on day one is foolproof.

I refuse to accept that. There has to be SOMETHING amiss. The question is whether or not the town notices it.

Nobody but you thinks that somebody deserves to be lynched on day 1.

Oh, so that's why we always have no-lynches on D1, is that it? What the hell is this statement?

The only reason that somebody should be lynched can only be based on the gut feeling of the town. All one can do is speculate. Posts have been made. Day 1 is the day that alignments are made. By the way Idk, can you also tell who you think might be town?

I get townie reads from:

Ryan
Paradoxombie
DTM
Shrine
Zach (when he posts)
Dank (haven't heard anything from the replacement, so I can't say one way or the other)

I'd count toro and jason as town if they'd post more, but due to recent inactivity, I can't tell one way or the other. Perhaps toro would lean slightly to the scummy side for not making significant posts and seemingly avoiding getting into the discussion voluntarily. As for jason, I haven't seen anything he's done jump out and bite me as suspicious, except for the inactivity (I'm always paranoid when people with computer problems can still log on often enough to not be prodded, and yet don't make any posts).

I do believe that the mod is only getting sadder because there are a few lurkers lately. Certainly not because of idk, and drk.

Yeah, we have way too many lurkers. Only two people are ridiculously active, Paradoxombie, RC, you, and DTM pop in often enough, but we haven't heard from Ryan in a while, and everyone else is just plain missing.

[Idiotking]

Well speak of the devil.

[Idiotking]

Or it could be clarifying the situation so as to not let misconception/misrepresention wrongly influence others. Even if I were to push for a given person's lynch, I wouldn't want to allow for incorrect information to cloud someone's cognizance.

That's what an Anti-Town player would want.

That's reasonable to an limit. DRK hurled himself above and beyond that limit. There's only so long you can argue against someone's case on another player before it becomes defense.

You

really

have a townie read from me? I think it'd be silly for anyone to have any justified read on me right now, unfortunately.
Please explain this.

I don't see lurkers as automatically scummy unless they're being obvious about it. It's the difference between "well, maybe it could be RL issues" and "he's making 'I'm here just don't have anything to say' posts, this is stupid." You helped bring up the issue about RC's original vote, and given my opinions about RC, it's natural for you and DTM to get townie points for that.

- Can you refer me to your case againt RedCoyote? I'm sure it's somewhere within the quote forest... I just can't find it.

I didn't make a specific "well here it is all in a neat little box" type posts like RC did (maybe I need to do one for organization), but I'll quote some points that show the gist of the case:

We shouldn't have had to wait for your response for an explanation. You unnecessarily made yourself look suspicious by seemingly random voting. More, when you DID state your reason, it didn't explain why you would have waited for the explanation of the vote. Your first post is a RVS post. And now you're still trying to convince me that it wasn't?

The bottom line is, the fact that you brought up the repetition like that sounds defensive. Dealing with the repeated issue would have made more sense, and while you did that, you flood the post with "why did you think my vote was random?" when it was quite obviously because you hadn't posted any explanation at the time. And I still hold to my belief that you made up that reason AFTER your initial vote post.

You could have still gotten perfectly valid reads just b reading through their statements, but instead you take a needless gamble to achieve the same results you would have gotten by now anyway. This is why I don't buy it: even if you're telling the truth and it wasn't just a RVS vote, it was just as useless to the town, since everything you could have learned would have been learned by now anyway.

And my opinion of the timeline:

Ok, here's the thing: first you make a 'gamble to see player's reactions' by doing something that is suspicious (otherwise reactions wouldn't be visible). You knew this, correct? Yet you question why people thought your vote was random when, by all indication, that is exactly what it is. Numerous people thought it was random, and I personally still do. Meaning, I wasn't the only one who thought it was random, and I certainly wasn't the first to mention that it was. Yet you still questioned why people thought it was random. To me this indicates a subtle form of defensiveness.

After that begin to bat around some arguments with DTM and a few others, which was fine. But then when I get into the fray you question my intentions for pressuring you. Again, defensive, since you questioned my intentions when I tried pushing the case farther than anyone else had (that's what pressure is for, to see your reactions to stiff resistance/argumentation).

Shortly thereafter you vote for me in a manner which I still consider OMGUS, and as paradoxombie pointed out, it would be strange for my vote against you to not be a part of the reason (since your problem with my case was based on your lack of faith in my intentions).

This progression of events indicates to me that you did indeed suspect me for suspecting you, and as such resulted in an OMGUS vote.

IN SHORT:
Random vote
Defensiveness concerning why the town wanted a random vote
Probable lie concerning why the vote was made
When I pressured, I received an OMGUS vote
DRK buddying like you wouldn't

believe

Misrepresentation of my statements and half-truths in his case against me

- I'm judging, from these more recent posts and the vote count, that RedCoyote is your primary focus. But it seems that you single HipHop out curiously often; calling out for his posts and tearing them apart line-by-line as soon as he posts it. It seems like you continuously bring him to the table [even though it's already been established that he's suspicious] because he's an easy target for you.

In Hiphop's ISO 34-35, he uses reasoning and even wording already presented by Paradoxombie and DRK. Not borrowed, not adapted, word for word. Given Paradoxombie's resistance to the quote wars, I think hiphop saw this as an out, trying to jump on my case to draw even more suspicion away from him.

Reading through the posts around it, starting from Paradoxombie's stated dislike of quote wars, it's clear that hiphop was being opportunistic. From there another discussion arose, none of it original coming from hiphop.

Oh, and his stated reason for voting for me was because I'd said being anti-town is scummy. This is why he voted for me over DRK, who had also been one of the key players in the quote wars.

Seriously, nothing but opportunism coming from hiphop.

- Why do you suspect DeathRowKitty?

Buddying. And not in any small way, considering the quote wars were between DRK and me over RC's case rather than any case we had against each other. And now that DMT brought it up, DRK's stated intent for buddying/defending RC was to poke holes in my arguments, not make me look scummy for having those arguments. This is where it slipped into buddying/defense rather than just questioning my logic; protecting RC by trying to make me look scummy in the process.

All in all, it's very complicated, but it makes sense to me. This is why my top suspects are RC, DRK, and hiphop.

[Idiotking]

And to explain why I tore hiphop's posts apart as soon as he posted them, look at the timing for most of my posts in the last day or so; minutes afterward. It's because it's summer, school's out, college hasn't begun and I've got nothing better to do than sit here all day hitting the refresh button.

[Idiotking]

@IK
Explain how stupid you think I am that I would buddy so obviously. Be as detailed as you can.

... I'm going to have to try very hard to make this post not sound like a flame, aren't I?

...

Um...

...very.

Very.

Very.

Very.

Very very very very very.

At least 50% more since you're trying to say "I can't be scummy since my buddying is so obvious". That's just... words can't describe how impossibly stupid that is.

[Idiotking]

I wasn't really referring to the timing as much as I was the fact that you seemed to intentionally lure him, knowing that you could make out whatever he posted to be suspicious.

lol, given that it's hiphop I can see how you'd think that. I don't like it when people attempt to use other player's reasoning and none of their own. I don't like it when people only differentiate who they're voting for by a statement concerning game theory that one of the participants has made. I don't like it when people say arguing about the argument is pointless and then proceed to argue about the argument.

I could keep going. Basically what I wanted to do was show that hiphop was being opportunistic. If my doing that is scummy, I'm willing to take the heat for it.

And I'm waiting for you to tell me where the logical fallacy is. Either you're town or you're not.

Or you're a third party, or you're a power role, or you're a Mason, or you're a Miller, etc. All of these possibilities necessarily interfere with the question in the way you presented it.

It's fine to ask a player if they think someone else is town or mafia, but it's not fine to pressure people into saying they think someone is obviously scum or obviously town. You said you were exaggerating, well okay, but that's the same exaggerating that got you to say I'm making really "pushy, defensive" posts. Why should a townie need to distort the truth to make a point?

Third parties are not town. Power roles are town. Masons are town. Miller... I don't know what a miller is, but if it's not town, then it's not town. None of these possibilities interfere with the question in the way I presented it.

I didn't say you were exaggerating to make pushy or defensive posts. I said you were responding negatively to things that seem obvious. And because of that, I don't buy your reason for your original vote. I'm not trying to distort the truth to make a point. I don't think I'm distorting anything.

If that's who you meant, that's fine. There's no reason to get angry, because the point is the same whether it is Toro or hiphop in that you never voted either of these players seriously. I just find it hard to believe when you are using rhetoric like "exploding in scummyness" and then virtually ignore them after that.

1. Am I ignoring hiphop now?
2. I hadn't explained my lack of vote for toro. I

have

, however, explained my lack of vote for hiphop, who was the one I really suspected. This makes a world of difference to me, RC.

I try to find the truth, regardless of whatever wagon I happen to be on. Right now I think I see some serious red flags when I read you, but I don't need someone to "convince me I'm wrong" in order to move my vote or pressure anyone else.

Without having something change, some new statement being made, you can't change your mind. if you do, it's just flipflopping, and I think we can agree that's a bad thing. It also has to be someone else making that statement. Usually it's the one your investigating. But still it boils down to 'someone else' making a statement that convinces you you're mistaken, or at the very least alleviates some suspicion.

That is a shame.

Were it closer to when you made the post, I would be. But the defensiveness concerning the random vote convinced me that it's random, and now it's too late for that to change; we've advanced way too far to go back to that now. It's a shame, yes, but unchangeable.

I will retract this though. I was wrapping up the post a little too fast yesterday and I thought I had read over you saying something negative toward Paradox, but I think that was ryan's post I was reading. This doesn't really change the fact that your three biggest suspects all coincidentally happen to be voting you.

I noticed that too, funnily enough. Then again, I voted for you before you voted for me. DRK I find scummy because of his buddying, but I can see how you could find my suspicion suspicious (doesn't really matter to me, I still find it to be buddying). Hiphop I've been suspecting for quite some time now, his vote didn't really change that.

Logical Fallacy can be argued by simple difference of opinion. While it is true that IK's posts heavily implies extreme views, this can be written off by conflicting ideologies between two players.

Well, if I hadn't have called Ik on his "extreme views", I wonder if he would've kept on with them?

DRK had already called me out on them, and I'd softened them to just town or scum reads. I'd already abandoned the exaggeration. So no, you didn't call me out on anything new.

Ik: Is RC the best townie ever or the most obvious scum?
DRK: Townie
Ik: BUDDYING!

When he said townie, I think my response was 'fair enough'. I don't know if your quote is a misrepresentation or a blatant lie.

[Idiotking]

@idk You said that you didn’t push on me because I already built a case on me, then why are you pushing on me now? Is it because I am looking more innocent and you want to put me back on the defensive, or is it because you are that bored?

AHAHAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

heh heh...

*aherm*

No.

You look anything but innocent, hiphop. And I'm not bored; I've got a ton on my plate already without your contributions. I'm pressuring you because once again you've done something impossibly scummy by using someone else's reasoning and none of your own.

You said that the only reason that you didn’t state your case in the beginning is because you didn’t have a case then. You also complained that rc didn’t state his case in a timely manner.

I didn't have a case against the bandwagon. You were already deep into your own case when I said I'd suspected you. However, you had too many votes on you for me to vote for you as well. Since we're not on page 3, this is no longer the case.

Can’t it be said that rc was building his case as you were building your case, except that his took longer?

I don't understand what you mean. I built my case over the course of a discussion, he stopped posting and said he was going to build a case. There's a difference.

You also said that in your first post against rc you were posing a question and wanting a response, can’t this be said about rc’s vote for dank, posing a vote and wanting a response?

If it was a gamble, yes, but defensiveness after the fact convinced me that it was indeed random and he hadn't thought the RVS was over. My question to RC had no subtle meanings.

Since DRK, RC, and I are your top three, if Drk is lynched, and it is known that he is town, would you still push for rc’s and my lynch? What about me?

In a heartbeat. Even despite my cases against RC and DRK, you're still the scummiest player. I just don't know how much info we'd get out of killing you. Your play has been horrible.

RC?

I don't know. Almost everything I have against RC hasn't got anything to do with DRK, but is reinforced with the buddying. It may weaken my case that they're not a pair, but it probably wouldn't kill it completely.

What if two of us are lynched and they are both town, would you still push for the third?

I don't know. Your death wouldn't make much difference since I don't see any real connections between you, RC, and DRK. If RC and DRK died, of course I'd try and push for your lynch. If you and DRK died, like I said, I don't know if I'd go after RC, and I know that if I did I wouldn't push it nearly as hard. If RC and you died, I wouldn't go after DRK. My primary reason for suspecting him is buddying, and if RC flips town, it'd kill my case against DRK.

Personally I wouldn't support a DRK lynch today anyway. If he dies I'd be iffy about going after RC. If RC dies instead, I know absolutely whether I'd pursue DRK or not. I'd get more info out of an RC death. You? Your lack of link to them means I'd get the least info out of all from you.

[Idiotking]

I suppose that isn't the best way to try to show I'm not buddying. There is obvioulsy a lot of WIFOM going on in what I said. It all amounts to how much WIFOM you're willing to believe. Given any WIFOM situation, you can extend the logic behind it arbitrarily far. Whether or not you consider it scummy depends on the parity of the number of iterations you're willing to carry it out to. My contention here is that buddying so obviously is a terrible WIFOM situation for scum to get into. Let's say for sake of argument that you're right about my buddying and that RC and I are scum. I could tell you all I want that I wouldn't buddy like that and more than a few people would probably believe me simply because of how stupid it is. As soon as one of us dies and flips scum, the WIFOM ends and suddenly, you've caught two scum instead of one. Obviously, this doesn't prove anything, but that would be horribly play for scum.

It's a somewhat common tactic of newbie scum to use this argument when confronted with a buddying accusation. I don't think you're an absolute newb, but even you've admitted to inexperience.

The argument you present here doesn't prove anything, you're right, but at least you're aware of that.

Now let's say for sake of argument that I think you're pushing a crap case (a.k.a. the situation actually occurring). Is it better that I let you keep pushing what I see as a crap case or that I call you out on it?

Depends. You can call me out on it all you want. But the buddying appears when you try and make me look scummy for having that case, especially if you continue with the argument about my case instead of building a case against me yourself.

I was attacking your arguments, not defending RC. If attacking your arguments included showing why they were wrong about RC, then that's what I was going to do. Interpret it as making RC's defense for him, interpret it as buddying, interpret it as whatever you want; I call it scumhunting.

Scumhunting or just trying to prove my arguments to be logically incorrect? It became buddying when you began trying to make me look scummy instead of just arguing about my logic. You crossed a line in doing so.

[Idiotking]

Pushing for a lynch of someone, because of info is very scummy indeed. You migh as well as lynch someone with the most ties, because he will give the most info.

So you'd rather the town have no info on D2?

[Idiotking]

@IK
Can you elaborate on your townie read on dank? I know he's been replaced, but I want to know.

Nothing he ever did jumped out at me as scummy, for one. His dealings with the other players seemed pretty level-headed, especially when under fire for the scum #1 from hiphop issue.


@Town: I've already said I'm willing to die to prove my innocence and make my case known to be the case of a townie. If the majority of the town wants me to claim, I'll claim right now.

And due to lack of time (I'm going to college in the next two weeks, so I might be gone for a while/request replacement depending on how hellish it is getting used to dorm life) I can't respond to all the statements that have been made since my last post.

If there's any question I missed or major issue you guys think I need to address, please tell me and I'll get around to it as soon as I can.

Again, my apologies, and if it gets too rough I'll request a replacement so the game isn't messed up.

But from the way things look, I'm gonna be the lynch today anyway, so meh

[Idiotking]

@IK
Let's say for sake of argument that you're town and somehow you can see into the future and you know that if you're lynched, we still won't go after RC Day 2. Would you still be as willing to be a martyr for your cause?

Yes. I know the case I've built isn't absolutely rock solid, but it's information. Even if it doesn't cause the town to investigate RC on D2, it may still help if you or RC ever DO come under fire. Information is information.

@IK
BTW for your info: A miller is a weird role. It's town, but to all cop investigations shows up as guilty. So like a psudo-scum aligned townie. It usually acts like a title to attach to a PR usually. :p

Ah, thank you! Last game I played I got screwed by twin millers. It was weird.



DRK, if you think I'm saying that I'm willing to die just so I can look more town-ish, then go ahead and kill me already and stop wasting the town's time.

[Idiotking]

Ok, two things:

1. I want to know the town's opinion on whether or not I should request replacement due to the difficulties surrounding my lack of time. I don't want to slow the game down because of lurking, but I also don't want the poor bastard who would replace me to be saddled with my martyrdom (which I'm still fully ok with doing, btw).

2. Regardless of the town's opinions, I'm going to do a massive reread. I've decided to run with the idea that ok, maybe I'm tunneling RC a little (still think he's scum) but I'm not going anywhere with this. I need other suspects.

Currently the two likeliest suspects other than RC and DRK are Hiphop and Toro, in that order. I want to reread to confirm this, and once I do so, I intend to build cases for both of them. Unless, of course, somebody else pops up that I find scummy.

[Idiotking]

@Ik

Ask yourself: How bad is your real life commitments vs this mafia game? Then the answer will come.

It's college. But I think the worst trouble will only last a week or two, which is why I don't want to give up on this game quite yet. I want to see what the town thinks about this, though, because there's no point in me slowing things down (look at this even, once I stop talking suddenly the discussion about my case/RC's case against me drops dramatically, this can't be a good thing).

You have more posts than anyone.

Means absolutely nothing if I stop posting

now

. Everyone will catch up and I'll be lurking. High activity at one point doesn't forgive low activity in another, regardless of the circumstances; that's why I want to know about whether the town thinks I need to be replaced.

[Idiotking]

Don, don't you think it would have been a smart idea to read through the whole thread before making an idiotic post like that?

Unvote

Vote Don

Textbook OMGUS, I know, but for once I think it's justified.

[Idiotking]

@IK
Your vote came

after

the PR claim. Do you feel someone who just claimed a townie PR is a good Day 1 lynch?

If I don't believe the claim, it certainly helps.

I'm thinking Don's vote is the same as RC's original vote. Even more clearly so because in Don's own words, it's based on the RVS, which is relatively meaningless given all the information we've gleaned since.

[Idiotking]

Don, I'm actually quite amazed that you've got the gall to say you

shouldn't

have read through the thread before making a post. I've read through some of your past games, so I thought you were pretty good, but this? Even hiphop isn't as bad as this.

[Idiotking]

Usually I only saw him in early game, never got past 7 pages or so because the game was over by then. I saw him being combative and not-a-little-bit pushy, but he seemed to know what he was doing well enough.

In other words, acting exactly as he is now, though at this point in the game it's wildly inappropriate considering the fact that RVS is VERY MUCH over and has been for a very long time.

[Idiotking]

I said:

"Don, don't you think it would have been a smart idea to read through the whole thread before making an idiotic post like that?"

Your reply was no.

[Idiotking]

*sigh*

Looks like everybody's suspicious of me. Why don't you just get this damn thing over with and lynch me already?

Then Don's vote will be

proven

to be a bullshit vote, DRK and RC will be shown to be tunneling me (I admit I'm tunneling them, but that doesn't mean I don't still see them as scum), and a whole lot of info will be gained for the town.

Is this OK with everyone? I'm tired of going around and around with this.

Roleclaim: Vanilla Townie

I won't even be missed. Just end this stupidity, please.

[Idiotking]

And before you ask, yes, this is the best path to take in my opinion.

I've been a very active player thusfar, and as such when I die there will be a lot of info to pass around.

It doesn't look like either Hiphop, RC, or DRK is going to be the lynch today, so from my point of view the lynch would just be a townie. Better it be a vanilla townie than a power role.

[Idiotking]

For the record, I do not and have never cared for the number of votes on me. There is a general agreement that I'm scummy, and the simple fact is that somebody has to die today. Better a vanilla die than a power role. It doesn't look like my top three suspects are dying anytime soon, and as such, this is the only option that I see.

I point out Toro's blatant pandering-to-the-town opportunism in his 466 and 468, this exchange with Zach is strange.

I have absolutely no intent now to replace out. My death would be the absolute best thing to happen to gain information, and I'm more than willing to die to give the town tools. Yes, I think that given the circumstances, this is the best road to take.

[Idiotking]

@IK
Why take the suicidal route?

Information. Of the suspects, the town would get the most info from me. Nobody's linked to toro, hiphop, jason, or Don (yes, you too Don). I, however, am linked to a whole lot of people.

Information is a tool, and the most powerful one at the town's disposal. As such, the information gleaned from my death would be the best possible gift I could give to the town at this point.

I don't see this as suicide. I see it as the best course of action for the town's survival. Better a vanilla die than a PR, and better the town have the maximum possible info D2 than any less.

[Idiotking]

Under most circumstances, yes. But if it would help the town enough, I think townies should be very willing to die, and to support their own deaths.

Of course it would be best for scum to by lynched, but from what I can see that doesn't look like it's going to happen. So I ask to be killed instead of someone with a PR.

Oh, and for you guys who think I'm trying to create a WIFOM situation? Then just kill me and get your damn answer!

[Idiotking]

I don't see how you'd be suspicious if I'm town. You've been more level-headed in your dealings with me than most. I'm more interested to see DRK's and RC's reactions to my flip, since at least DRK has been tunneling me and RC hasn't shown any indication that he believes he could be possibly incorrect either.

[Idiotking]

No, Shrine, that's not all that I'm talking about.

RC and DRK have both been tunneling me. Admittedly, I've been tunneling them, but information will be gleaned there. I don't even want you to turn around and say he's scum, I want you to

investigate

. Don's first vote will be forever shown to be bullshit, because there's no other words to describe it. His 'reasoning', his excuse, everything is completely stupid. Information will be gleaned there. Hiphop's and Toro's opportunism, DTM and Ryan's interactions with me, information will be gleaned

everywhere

. I'm not thinking as small as you believe I am.

[Idiotking]

DTM, Don's actions are those of a lurker looking for an excuse. Every single thing he's done is so pathetically wrong that I would feel sorry for him if I cared enough.

Read his posts in isolation. Do they look like the things an honest-to-God townie would do?

[Idiotking]

And I'll go ahead and point out that RC unvoted when I was at L-1 on an obvious bandwagon and the most likely lynch (me). He thinks I'm scummiest, he even put me as only one hyphen away from being scum, and yet he unvotes with

no explanation

. Why is this?

[Idiotking]

If that's true, DTM, then it would be nice if the person he made the anti-town vote on was dead, wouldn't it?

[Idiotking]

All of that information is here now, though.
... But it's not worthwhile looking into/cannot draw complete conclusions from those if we can also presume that you're Scum!

That's why I'm doing this.

I just had a revelation that may affect how I play Mafia from this point onward... Lol.[/quote]

[Idiotking]

Epic quote fail....

[Idiotking]

Ah, I see. I was incorrect in my numbers, my apologies. My brain still had DRK as voting for me.

Nevertheless, I'm the popular bandwagon, and RC's unvote is unexplained. I want to know why he unvoted at such an unusual time.

[Idiotking]

@IK

493: Depends. It's a null tell since I broke the rules with that post. You can chalk it up for both: a guy upholding the rule's, or a guy looking for an easy kill.

That's not what I mean.

Don voted for me originally. Therefore, if I die and flip town, his potential alignment could be substantially affected by D2; you'd be able to see a whole different side to the vote. Not both sides, because we wouldn't know Don's alignment yet, but one side would be clear as day.

I want to hear him try to explain it away then.

[Idiotking]

As a simple act of common courtesy, I won't self-hammer.

[Idiotking]

If I get hammered before RC responds, someone please remember to ask him why he unvoted when he did.

[Idiotking]

Do you or do you not think that my lynch would give a great deal of information to the town, Paradoxombie?

[Idiotking]

Love it when people get hostile toward each other, I really do.

I don't expect it to

prove

everything, I expect it to

influence

everything. And this bandwagon has made new things come to light; jason's most recent jumpy behavior, RC's unexplained vote, etc. etc. Good things are happening whether you realize it or not. Scumtells are happening because of what I'm doing. I don't really care if you're annoyed by my actions. I'm doing what I think is right and there's not a damn thing you can say to convince me otherwise.

[Idiotking]

I admit I'm probably wrong about a lot of things. Which is another reason I'm doing this: this isn't purely based on any weak scumhunting, any false leads, any tunneling I've done. This is absolute and unbiased. I still hold my opinions about the players. But this action is not influenced by those opinions.

[Idiotking]

If you think youre a decent player you should try to survive. I'd rather have you as a remaining townie than someone like who barely posts like Toro or acts erratically like Don. Seriously I can understand your actions if you think you aren't valuable to the town, but you are. All the info you have talked about getting is already there because you are a pretty active player. We get much much more info from you alive and active than in death. Because once the active players begin getting mislynched and NKed things start really going downhill. The info from your alignment is nothing compared to the value of an active player. As you even said, even when you are being bandwagoned and suspected it is helping the town. Even considering that are you going to say you are more valuable dead?

I'd rather say my willingness to die has generated this boost in information. I'm willing to get lynched if it will help the town; that willingness helped stimulate debate.

Don't get me wrong, I'd really rather not get killed. But barring all other options, I think it would help the town quite a bit.

As it is, my scumhunting right now is more focused on the people reacting strangely to my bandwagon, like RC, jason, and toro. Unfortunately jason and toro haven't responded to anyone's suspicions, and RC's unvote goes unexplained.

[Idiotking]

My gut tells me that a lot of Toro's actions could be mistaken newb townie play. I remember my first game on this site, I did a lot of the same things he's done. Hiphop, on the other hand, should know better by now, and by far has more opportunistic scumtells than anyone else here. I would prefer a hiphop lynch to a toro one, but if it comes down to it I'd support either.

[Idiotking]

I would prefer a hiphop lynch to a toro one, but if it comes down to it I'd support either.

what about rc and jason? let me rephrase: are there any lynches you wouldn't support?

Well, I wouldn't support a Ryan, DTM, Shine, Zach, or Paradoxombie lynch, if that's what you mean.

[Idiotking]

BTW IK

New to the forum? Yes. New to mafia? No.

I played several games on another site before I joined this one. Things are completely different here than pretty much anywhere else. You could be a pro on another site and a newb on here. Which is why I'm willing to give Toro a little slack. The reason I don't want to give Hiphop any is because he's

been

on this site and is still acting this way.

[Idiotking]

I agree that Hiphop has been opportunistic at times but his unvote of you at L-1 doesn't fit.

In a sense it does. The bandwagon's faltering, and now it would look rather unfashionable for him, especially when I flipped town. It's opportunism in the other direction. Basically the same thing I think about RC's unvote, but I'd rather not draw any more conclusions about his until he explains.

IK, do you think if Toro continued to play this way all game you wouldn't suspect him?

I suspect him

now

. I'm just prepared to give him the slightest benefit of the doubt given his relative inexperience on this site.

But I'm a little annoyed that this is actually his second game on this site and he hasn't improved.

As for hiphop, I thought it was three games on this site? Yeah, hiphop, could you clarify? My apologies if I missed it.

And is it just me or did Toro breadcrumb a power role in his most recent post?

[Idiotking]

I disagree. There wasn't much reason to breadcrumb at that point, especially when it's a blatant attempt to look imperative to the town's survival. It's strange.

[Idiotking]

@idk this is my first game on this site.

Oh. Well then, my apologies.

But I also don't know how to act. You've been nothing but scummy. Toro has been nothing but scummy. Toro is on his second game on this site, you're on your first. You have more scumtells than Toro, but that could easily be because Toro hasn't said as much.

. . .

I need time to think on this.

[Idiotking]

It seems to me that you have it narrowed down between me and Toro. Are Toro and I the two most likely candidates that you will push a lynch for? Or are there others?

REALISTICALLY, yes, it's probably between you and Toro. PREFERABLY, I'd still like it to be RC or Don. However, I know neither of those lynches are going to happen. So I have to settle for one of you two.



RC, I hate policy lynches. It's one thing to hate anti-town behavior (I still don't get how it was), it's another to lynch someone purely based off of one instance of it. Two wrongs don't make a right.

And I'm not rationalizing. I'm reasoning. Of course, you wouldn't accept that if I told you, would you?

[Idiotking]

Folks, I don't mean to throw a wrench in discussion, but we've got votes flying in every direction now. WE HAVE GOT TO HAVE A LYNCH BY THE DEADLINE. Given a choice between a lynch and a no-lynch, the lynch is

always

better. So make up your minds, who are we going to lynch?

Unvote

Vote Toro

I'd really rather not do this, as I think Hiphop is still the scummier of the two. But I can be fairly certain that Hiphop is not going to be lynched today (why, I do not know), and Toro has also been extremely scummy.

Self-voting would be anti-town, and I think we could get more info out of Jason on D2, so among the popular lynches, my choice can only be Toro.

[Idiotking]

ik: if you are town you definitely need to consider the possibility of the self hammer.

Unless it's 5 minutes till the deadline and I'm at L-1, I'm not self-hammering. That's just ridiculous. You're actually advocating for me to self-hammer?

[Idiotking]

@idk I must follow up on the question that para asked you, because you didn’t answer it. I was thinking the same thing that he asked you when I read post 543. How is my vote opportunism?

Should I have flipped town, you wouldn't have

anything

going for you. It's very possible for you to have unvoted simply to not show up on the final bandwagon. Given my opinion of your play/experience level, that wouldn't be hard to believe at all.

Ik, in as inoffensively and non-personally as I can say it, you are not playing this game well. I'm not trying to be rude, insult you, or anything like that. Look, I'm not trying to pin you to anything here, okay? Gloves off for a second, off the record, whatever you want to call it: Do you really, truly, deep down, not see anything wrong with calling attention to players you think are power roles?

Nope. I think info should be made readily available for all the town to see. If somebody breadcrumbs/soft claims, there's no point

not

to call them out on it. I hate soft claims.

Besides, I don't think Toro even has a power role. I've seen too many scum say things like "Oh look at me, I've got an awesome game-winning power role if you just let me live one more day!" to trust it. Not to mention he wasn't at immediate risk of being lynched. There was no call for it.

I think we could get more info out of Jason on D2

What does this mean? I really don't understand your vote for Toro after your post 543.

Post 543 was based on inaccurate information. I didn't know Toro was on his second game on this site and hiphop was on his first. As for Jason, I'd rather pursue his lynch on D2 if things remain the same. I'd support his lynch, but I'm not going to actively push for it. Suffice it to say I think there are better targets, and those are the ones I'm going for.

[Idiotking]

Funny coming from you. Or are you different/special because you're not a power role and full claimed rather than softclaimed?

Toro softclaimed so he could stay alive longer. I fullclaimed fully intending to die. Yes, there's a difference, if only in the reasoning behind the claims.

^^ absolutely. that's two power role claims you disbelieve and two claimed pr's you seem to want lynched.

Both were completely unnecessary and suspicious claims. And again, I hate softclaims.

[Idiotking]

And folks, I'm going to have incredibly limited activity for the next week. Tomorrow is move-in day, and I'll be busy for a very long time. I'll be as active as I can be, but I can't make any promises.

[Idiotking]

\Bah post

Go town!