Open 38 - Jester Mafia 12p (Game Over!) - before 484

[Numenorean7]

Hi everyone, I'm replacing schismatized. I have already given the game a cursory read-through, but I will read it again and post my thoughts when I finish.

[Numenorean7]

This looks like it will be a fun game. It will be really hard to get anyone lynched...

---

Benhalkum/kerplunk: Was ben obvscum, insane townie, or clever Jester? I tend to favor the "insane townie" position, because I get the impression that ben was just playing like he always plays. Now he's been replaced by kerplunk, we'll be able to get a better read. Fairly neutral so far.

d3sisted: He has been flip-flopping all over the place. From what I've seen, this is his playstyle. However, I really don't like his vote of ryan. This wagon has no evidence other than defensiveness, and he put the fourth vote on. Not liking that at all.

distad: Fairly pro-town player as far as I can tell. Makes several good points, brings up scummy behavior.

JDodge: More content please.

FoS

for jumping on ryan's wagon.

Jex: Getting a pro-town read from her. Not incredibly prolific, but she posts a fair amount of reasonable content.

JimmyR: I see nothing in the rolefishing accusation against Jimmy other than ryan being his usual hyper-critical self. One thing that struck me is Jimmy R's comment

I'd be very surprised if any of the people who have replaced in are Jester as it's a pretty rare oppurtunity to play that role in a game like this and I wouldn't expect anyone having that to drop out without a very good reason.

This is reminiscent of the "replacements can't be Mafia" argument I've seen a number of times. I just wanted to point out that this is not true. For instance, some players might be frightened by being the Jester. They might not want to face the challenges associated with the role, and thus ask for a replacement, or not show up in the first place.

Pooky: I like Pooky's analysis of how to play in a Jester game. I have read it a couple times and I can't find any holes. I seriously doubt he is the Jester. However, I really don't like his blatant OMGUS/bandwagon vote of ryan. I am at a loss to explain why such an experienced player would do that, whatever his alignment. IGMEOY

ryan: ryan seems to be very aggressive, which given my past experiences with him counts as a point in his favor. He goes a little far with the JimmyR rolefishing accusation and flies off the handle when ssf points out the importance of context and other people pressure him. This does look a bit suspicious, but I'm much more concerned with the ryan wagon than with ryan himself at the moment.

SSF: I like his comment

The thing about Mafia, is that if you're going to tell us that you have some big secret master plan that you aren't going to tell us, one of two things has to happen:

1. It better be an incredibly good plan which gives results quickly.
2. You're going to have to get used to a large number of people doubting your motives as a Townie

And I personally think that Number 2 is more likely...

and I agree with his stance on Jimmy, but he hasn't posted much content. Difficult to get a read.

---

In conclusion:

Vote: d3sisted

For putting the fourth vote on the fairly baseless ryan wagon without evidence or explanation.

[Numenorean7]

Numen, you act like it only takes 4 to lynch. We need 7. That's another 3 to jump on the wagon before we get a lynch.

The way you go through that entire thought process before voting me, when clearly there are other people who you deem are scummier than I am. What I'd like to know is, why aren't you voting them?

I found your vote really scummy and I voted you for it. Who do you think I "clearly deem scummier than you"?

Furthermore, I am not bandwagoning. I would've voted ryan regardless of JDodge and Pooky.

So you say.

ryan, I have never encountered such a dedicated poster as you. (That's a compliment.)

ryan is always prolific. When he's town, his playstyle is very helpful to the town, as long as it doesn't get him lynched.

[Numenorean7]

@Numen7: ryan comes to mind.

I do not consider ryan particularly scummy:

ryan seems to be very aggressive, which given my past experiences with him counts as a point in his favor. He goes a little far with the JimmyR rolefishing accusation and flies off the handle when ssf points out the importance of context and other people pressure him. This does look

a bit suspicious

, but I'm

much more concerned with the ryan wagon than with ryan himself at the moment.

I never seriously considered joining the ryan wagon. IMO, he deserves one or two votes, not 4 and definitely not 5.
And just a tip: unvoting because your vote has been attacked is not the best way to get out of the situation.

Numenorean:
Can't remember who he replaced.
One does not simply

walk

into Mordor!

I replaced schismatized: the green elephant.
And the Last Alliance

marches

into Mordor. Does that count?

Prod: Nightfall

[Numenorean7]

I'm also going to

unvote

now seeing as everyone seems to think ryan is town, and started attacking me for voting him.

[Numenorean7]

My statement was teeming with sarcasm as well, you just didn't pick up on it.

Giving reasons for a vote or unvote is not the best place for sarcasm. If you are going to be sarcastic about important game stuff like that, you must be extra careful that your real meaning is clear. I detected no sarcasm when reading your comments, and I still cannot see how anyone who didn't already know what you mean could be expected to.

[Numenorean7]

smarmy - unpleasantly and excessively suave or ingratiating in manner or speech. I don't quite understand what was wrong with ryan's comment. I don't see how the word smarmy applies.

[Numenorean7]

Present your case properly, so I have a fair chance to counter and defend myself. And don't give me the same made-up "non understanding" crap that others have tried to hit me with, either.

117: d3sisted replaces SV. He attacks ben for numerous scumtells, and puts ben at L-2 as a "pressure vote"

119: unvotes because of the Jester factor which SSF brought up.

152: agrees that Jimmy's "he must be the Cop" sounded like rolefishing (ridiculous, IMO), and attacks fleaboy for his reductio ad absurdum. He also attacks and votes Jex for trying to start a bandwagon on ryan. This is a baseless accusation, and I feel her vote was sound. Being overdefensive is generally a valid scumtell. Ryan might collect a bandwagon? That's another way of saying he's acting scummy. Post 152 strikes me as pushing the Jimmy "wagon" and defending ryan, without coming down clearly on the issue. In addition, I think he is trying to do with Jex the very thing he accuses Jex of doing.

158: backs off his statements on Jimmy and fleaboy. Subtly encouraging people to vote them, but denying it the moment it is questioned.

165: Now does a complete 180, says the vote on Jex wasn't good (maybe because no one else followed suit), and then starts the bandwagon which he accused Jex of trying to start earlier.

168: "No, I looked over ryan's posts again and I realized his defenses were very insubstantial." Defenses against what? Ryan wasn't under attack except from SSF for taking things out of context, and for Jex for being overdefensive. Now d3sisted attacks him for "insubstantial defenses".

171: Makes another stupid case against ryan based on his FoS of d3sisted and JDodge, calling it "vote-hopping". I see this as an OMGUS case, trying to deflect suspicion from a scummy voting pattern.

173: Accuses ryan OMGUS. Hypocritical, IMO.

179: defends the ryan wagon because it wasn't a lynch wagon. Oh, please!

182: claims he wasn't bandwagoning, simply voting him for scummy behavior. He really thought ryan was scummy enough to warrant 4 votes? The best case against ryan was posted by Jex, which was only four sentences long. And he says that his wagon is baseless!

188: desperate deflecting post. Kerplunk has a vote on d3sisted, and clarifies how strongly he supports the case against d3.

191: tries to get me to join the ryan wagon.

192: "I'm also going to unvote now seeing as everyone seems to think ryan is town, and started attacking me for voting him." The "sarcastic" post. He hopes to weasel his way out of suspicion by removing the offending vote. But the damage has already been done.

195: claims he unvoted ryan because he suddenly looks a lot more town. No concrete explanation of what prompted the suspicions in the first place, nor of why these reasons no longer apply.

198: "Who said I'm trying to get out of a situation?" The two votes on you, and the suspicions expressed by a couple others are the situation. Your behavior is obviously trying to get out of it.

202: Claims his post 192 was sarcastic

210: Votes Atticus basically because he misused the word "smarmy". OMGUS.

216: Claims that ryan's post being non-smarmy makes Atticus's case boil down to nothing. Atticus's reason to vote was d3sisted's voting pattern, not the smarminess of ryan's comments. Also accuses Kerplunk of setting himself up to vote d3sisted, then jumping on the bandwagon when he gets back. Ignoring the fact that Kerplunk had a vote on him before the "I'd be happy to lynch him" comment.



d3sisted has been flip-flopping, especially regarding ryan. He has been spouting OMGUS and hypocrisy. He has been desperately deflecting suspicion away from himself, and has tried (unsuccessfully) to start numerous bandwagons on flimsy evidence.

Scum

,

Jester

, or

Town

? (text size provided for scale)

[Numenorean7]

Wow. ryan and Jex have both said "wow" about my PBPA, and Jimmy R seems almost convinced. This is making me a little nervous.

[Numenorean7]

I presented a complete case on Ben. The only logical thing to do after that is vote him.

Not true. Presenting a case on Ben could end in a vote, or you could simply FoS him and give reasons you don't want to vote (e.g. Jester factor, enough votes already, etc.)

Yes, in a Jester game I am careful about who I vote.

Then why did you vote Ben in the first place?

Unlike you, I do not throw random votes around.

I call ad hominem, as well as BS. The only vote I've placed this game is the one on you, and it was anything but random. You are also implicitly defending yourself because you could be the Jester, which is not smart.

That's your opinion. In mine, he's rolefishing.

Fair enough. You're entitled to your opinion, no matter how bizzare.

And yes, if he's trying to use reductio ad absurdum, I'm not going to hesitate to point the finger.

Reductio ad absurdum is a completely valid form of reasoning, and attacking SSF because of it is completely uncalled for. In fact, his argument puts the burden of proof on you to show how the analogy doesn't apply.

I see a scum-tell, I vote him. It is this poking around that constitutes real scumhunting. Overdefensiveness- ok, so whenever someone's getting attacked, you expect them to just take it while you shove it down their throats and say nothing in response? Who are you to draw the line between defending and overdefending?

I personally think that the scumminess of overdefensiveness is determined by the playstyle of the person under pressure. Ryan tends to overdefend and get emotional under pressure, so I don't agree with Jex's case, but I don't blame Jex. Using overdefensiveness as a scumtell is very common and definitely not scummy.

Ryan might collect a bandwagon? That's another way of saying he's acting scummy.

Never said that. Either you're illiterate, or you misconstrued.

I beg to differ. You said, "As soon as you see

ryan is in a spot to easily collect a wagon

, you threw one on him with baseless arguments."

You call one vote on Jimmy a wagon?

That's why I put the word "wagon" in quotes. It wasn't a wagon, but a number of people had expressed suspicions, and you were encouraging people to think him scummy.

Also, I defend whoever I think is town. My stance on the issue was very clear: ryan town, Jex scum.

Your stance on ryan and Jex was abundantly clear. Of course, it didn't last...

158: backs off his statements on Jimmy and fleaboy. Subtly encouraging people to vote them, but denying it the moment it is questioned.

Jimmy was rolefishing, fleaboy taking quoting out of context. I haven't backed off at all, I still stand behind those assertions.

Wait a minute. You're saying that Jimmy was rolefishing and fleaboy was making terrible cases, but neither of them are suspicious for it?

Whatever you say princess. I gave you my reason for doing a 180, take it or leave it.

I love the ad hominem.

168: "No, I looked over ryan's posts again and I realized his defenses were very insubstantial." Defenses against what? Ryan wasn't under attack except from SSF for taking things out of context, and for Jex for being overdefensive. Now d3sisted attacks him for "insubstantial defenses".

Yes, those are the exact defenses I was referring to.

Let me get this straight: you are attacking ryan for flimsy defenses against a non-case by fleaboy which you have attacked repeatedly, immediately after voting Jex for finding ryan overdefensive. How convoluted is that? It makes absolutely no sense.

He was vote hopping, and I find that scummy. Didn't OMGUS for shit, my vote was already on him.

You attacked him for attacking you, and there is nothing wrong with the way he did it. That's OMGUS. He was not vote-hopping at all. His vote never moved. In case you never noticed, you can be suspicious of more than one person. That's what an FoS is for.

179: defends the ryan wagon because it wasn't a lynch wagon. Oh, please!

4/7 is not a lynch wagon.

Just because it isn't a lynch wagon doesn't mean it's innocuous.

Why should i care what Jex said? I'm voting ryan for my own reasons.

You have never given "your own reasons", other than saying his defenses (to cases you have pronounced null and void) were insubstantial.

No indication here whatsoever that I want you to join.

You said, "...clearly there are other people who you deem are scummier than I am. What I'd like to know is, why aren't you voting them?" When questioned, you said, "ryan comes to mind." You never said you wanted me to join in so many words, but you certainly implied it.

192: "I'm also going to unvote now seeing as everyone seems to think ryan is town, and started attacking me for voting him." The "sarcastic" post. He hopes to weasel his way out of suspicion by removing the offending vote. But the damage has already been done.

Again, just thinking about the Jester role.

Yet another explanation for your infamous ryan unvote!

Scumhunting 101: Find someone scummy, pressure him, evaluate the response. Comes out scummy, keep the vote. Otherwise, take it off.

You never "evaluated the response", at least not in the thread. If you do all your reasoning in your head, you're going to get called on it.

Still haven't answered my question. Give me some irrefutable evidence that I am "trying to get out of a situation".

We can demand evidence all day long. I could demand irrefutable evidence that you

weren't

trying to get out of a situation. But I think it's fairly obvious you

were

in a situation, and it sure seems like you were trying to get out of it by your unvote.

It was [sarcastic]. You just didn't pick up on it.

So you say. Now.

Not OMGUS. He eventually admitted the smarmy statement was false reasoning, and I'm not about to tolerate someone who uses false reasoning to justify a bandwagon vote.

He said smarmy was the wrong word. He never said it was false reasoning. On the contrary. This is what he said:

It's scarcely smarmy at all. In fact, I don't even see how it makes sense with what he quoted in that post.

But that doesn't make it a good reason to decide your vote.

He tried to fake evidence to exaggerate his claim, which also means he's trying to hurl whatever is within reaching distance at me, relevant or not.

The evidence stands: it's the word choice that was bad.

Then he's trying to rally votes into a bandwagon. Just as scummy, if not more.

Since when is trying to rally votes into a bandwagon scummy? Isn't that a basic part of scumhunting: getting the scum lynched?

Well, this is the first time someone has actually responded to my PBPAs point by point. I'm looking forward to it.

[Numenorean7]

I agree with Jimmy: he does seem to be honestly trying to defend himself. Also, look at this:

119: unvotes because of the Jester factor which SSF brought up.

Yes, in a Jester game I am careful about who I vote. Unlike you, I do not throw random votes around.

He seems to be implying that my vote on him is bad becasue he (d3sisted) could be the Jester. I see this as a big non-Jester tell.

[Numenorean7]

A) there should only be 2 members of the mafia
...
A) is aimed at the mod

I think he's saying the game would be more balanced if there were only 2 Mafia rather than 3.

[Numenorean7]

I agree: Pooky's lurking is making me uneasy. But I actually thought Pooky's guide for scum was very pro-town, or at least anti-Jester. Is there some flaw in it you'd care to point out?

[Numenorean7]

Everyone please note: since Max's vote,

any further vote on d3sisted will be a hammer

. Most of you probably noticed this, but I've been in too many games in which someone claims they dropped the hammer unintentionally.

[Numenorean7]

He said, "now admittedly theres a jester but it can't rule the game for all we know it could be me it could be ryan, d3sisted anyone" He never said you're the Jester.

[Numenorean7]

I should have known when you started repeating the Jester defense. Well done.

Who were the Mafia? I was a vanilla townie.

[Numenorean7]

I just noticed: I'm an IC as of now. Ironic.