Mature Mafia: Game Over

[DrippingGoofball]

Nah, mathcam's been rising the hair in the back of my neck. Do you really think that scum would aggressively pursue a mislynch on page 4? First wagons never lead to a lynch, why would I compromise myself if I were scum?

This being said I generally accept your assessment of what is a stretch and what isn't.

As for: A) the rules are unclear (given that the rules post says "You know the rules" or something along those lines); Not sure what you mean because I never read the rules but I do play the game and don't intend anything different here.

And for: B) sabotaging gameposts in the thread is modkillable - that makes sense. If we start doing that, it's not mafia anymore.

[DrippingGoofball]

I'm going to

vote dgb

for blatant wagoning and no more.

Yes it's blatant day 1 page 4 wagoning. I do believe I see more scumtells than average for mathcam. That's my opinion.

[Glork]

I like that you call it Page 4.


I find it interesting that after making seven points, you agree with me that five of them are stretches.


I find it annoying that you actually use "do you think I would out myself as scum by going for a mislynch on the first real wagon" as a defense. I think that scum are just as likely to jump the first wagon of the game as town, so that does not play a factor into my read of you at all. You will not WIFOM me here, missy.

[Phoebus]

As I see it, post 70 makes a lot of sense to me.

I had a little odd feeling about the whole can we/can we not edit posts discussion...and whether it would show up.

No, it does not show up when person B edits person A's posts even if others have posted later...
And no...I don't think this game would be a complete goodie two shoes affair.

Sure, we can agree to pledge to morality and fairness and all that...but then even in a modless game:
A] I would believe that this would've been accounted for
B] Would not be followed.

Sure, I can see the argument against B being what Mac suggested - you cheated and so we will hunt you.

Now here's the thing...

Perhaps the mafia role allows them to cheat
Perhaps it requires them
What if one role is the Mod - who can make up whatever rules etc.

Then again, this could also be a paranoia test a la LOST


Having said all of that...


Cam mentioned my vote post.
Whoever said I was voting you for being a non native speaker?
I'm quite aware of your background.



See...Pooky is hard to read.
Glork can be abrasive.
Mac is... all over the place.

Cam...is supposed to be helpful, if not observant.

I see the first three. Don't see the last one.

Personally, I would not beat at my voters unless they explained their reasons. Cam seems to have gotten defensive over nothing.
Any information is information, as I see it.

As of now, we have none.

If Cam's death gives it to us. Great.

My gut also says Cam and like RAJ mentioned - guts aren't exactly at giving solid reasons.

I also see some weird Cam + logic (heh) faction forming.





hmm...I wonder how long it will be before I get attacked for:
A] playing by gut
B] casting aspersions on Cam (of all people) "without a reason"

[rajrhcpfreak]

vote: mathcam

gut, over meta gaming, i already mentioned it before. just waited for people to respond before a quick lynch.

[Glork]

Lynch-1? I guess Cam should claim.

[PookyTheMagicalBear]

Glork is so scum.

Seriously a player gets wagoned on Day ONE.

and you want FIVE REASONS FOR THE WAGON?

The demand on DGB is absurd to begin with, you're almost setting her up to fail.

The idea of needing to produce five solid concrete reasons for THE FIRST DAY ONE BANDWAGON IS ABSOLUTELY ABSURD.

I REPEAT.

ABSOLUTELY ABSURD.

Do you honestly expect a scumbag to commit not just one slip but FIVE SLIPS this early into day one for her to call him out on?

You are just setting her up to fail so you can pounce on her.

It's mindbogglingly stupid play. If we needed FIVE GOOD REASONS to wagon someone on day @#$%ING one we would GET NOWHERE.

And then when she does produce reasons(That aren't an amazing ironclad case, I wonder why. Maybe its cuz she doesnt have much to work with on DAY ONE?)

You hit her with REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEACH.

Which totally pisses me off to no end.

You asked somebody who jumped on the first day one bandwagon for FIVE good reasons when we're only SIX PAGES into the game and you're surprised some of her reasons are a REACH?

Seriously this absolutely reeks of Glork setting up a DGB hit just because

A)She's not that good at defending herself
B)She's got enough of a rep on this site to be easily bandwagonable
C)She's an easy day one target
D)He knew he could get her to post 5 reasons, being its day one he knew they wouldn't be that good.

I'd be absolutely horrified if this was how you play as town.


So here's what I'm going to ask you Glork.

I'll hold you to the same ridiculously stupid standard you've held DGB up to.

Glork, give me five reasons, based on DGB's posts alone, that contribute to her being scum.

unvote

vote Glork

[PookyTheMagicalBear]

Btw I find it cute that Macros is voting DGB for "blatant bandwagoning"

when he is doing the same thing.

[ShadowLurker]

Vote mathcam

[PookyTheMagicalBear]

Jathan u bum

get on the glork wagon

its going places.

[Glork]

Silly Pooky.

I wanted to see what out DGB would take... i.e., whether she'd actually make up reasons to "suspect" Cam or not. That was the whole point of my interrogation. So I guess that fits into "D" if you want to think of it as maliciously as possible. I see DGB being at least as likely to say that she doesn't have five actual reasons to suspect Cam. If she's town, I see this being more likely the case; if scum, less likely.

To "answer" your request, I'm going to respond probably exactly as you expect me to:
I don't have five made up reasons to suspect DGB. I have two good, solid, legitimate ones.
1) She wagoned Cam for the sake of trying to achieve a quick lynch based on her recent "FIRING SQUAD" notion, when I think this that her behavior in this instance is seriously detrimental to the town
2) As I explained earlier, she fired first and then went looking for reasons. If she'd named her two good reasons up front and settled on a Camwagon, I would have been absolutely fine with that. If she'd thrown down the two good reasons and one or two of the bad ones, I may or may not have given her leeway. She didn't do either of them.


Pooky, if I were the "so scum" that you claim, I imagine that I'd've crapped all over her admittance that most of her points weren't very strong. In reality, I'm just not sure what to make of it. It could be DGB actually playing off this Firing Squad shindig with little regard to the immediate consequences of her behavior; it could be her backing off to avoid getting torn to shreds.

Either way, I am reasonably content with my vote right now.


By the way, B) is utter crap. Having "a rep on the site" doesn't mean shit in this game, because none of the players here are players whom I would expect to wagon DGB for being DGB. If this game had MoS, JD, Quag, and Jath... yeah, you'd probably have a point. In this game, with this playerlist, B is moot.

C) is debatable. I'm not sure I have a firm opinion on it.

A) is more or less true, but I do think there's value to be gained from putting pressure on DGB. I feel that I can accurately read her based on interactions (including self-defense) at least 80% of the time. I like having 80% certainty on a player's alignment ASAP (which also explains C well enough).

As far as D goes, see above. Yes, I wanted to see if she'd put out five reasons or not. I will admit that I did not expect her to be able to put out five good reasons. The answer I would expect would be exactly what I said above: "I don't have five reasons, but here is what I

do

have." The answer she gave indicates something I generally expect scum to do.


Also, Pooky, Jathan isn't in this game. He's not nearly mature enough.

[Glork]

Btw I find it cute that Macros is voting DGB for "blatant bandwagoning"

when he is doing the same thing.

I noticed this, too. Macros is def on my bad list.

[mathcam]

My point is why are you resisting? There is nothing you can do about it other than to not play if you don't trust the players. It's like you're trying to act like townie scared the scum will abuse the setup. Abuse isn't very likely, and also impossible to stop.

I originally resisted because I was (and still am) a confused player of the game, regardless of my alignment. I suppose I had hoped that EmpTyger would come in with more information, though based on what people have said in his responses, I have since realized the futility of this wish. I have continued to discuss these topics because I have had to clarify and/or defend some of my points.

Cam's cries of fustration reek of Scumbag who can't believe he might be lynched for no good reason.(Well no good reason from his point of view)

You must have me mentally reading my posts in a much higher and more strained voice than I am writing them. I see no cries of frustration in anything I've written, nor do I see where I got all "worked up," as you mentioned before. Why do you insist on imposing emotional reactions that aren't actually there?

Cam, would you disagree with me when I say all random voting on Day one is equivalent to the Divestment of Responsbility i performed when I echoed Talitha's vote?

No. For one, there is no guarantee that a random vote is actually random, and I don't mean in the nitpicky sense that it's likely "arbitrary" or "pseudo-random." There is the possibility that the vote contains a hint from a cop with information, or an inadvertent scum-tell from a mafia. On the other hand, your approach is completely divest of any information.

In fact I would argue that I take MORE responsbility for my vote than a player who has divested through random voting due to the fact that I actively picked the player whom I was going to follow, whereas a random voter does not actively pick anything.

Your playful infatuation with Tally is well-known, so it's hardly like you made an in-game decision to "pick" her to follow -- if you had chosen to follow any other player in the game, this argument might possible carry some weight, but as it is, it does not.

I agree that Glork was just setting up DGB to fail, but since she obliged and gave reasons, I feel like I should probably respond to them. In brief:

DGB:
Reason 1 - I think it was early enough in a game with no posted rules for some rampant speculation. Even if not, why is this scummy?

Reason 2 - I can see how you can read that as scummy. My intent in that quote was more like "I'm going to have to hear a stronger argument against DGB before I'm convinced, but it would also be nice to hear what she has to say." Parsing it as "It would be great if someone else could really nail DGB" certainly comes off scummy, and since you can't know for sure that's not what I meant, I'll concede you this reason.

Reason 3 - This is not a reason. I agreed with Adel.

Reason 4 - Pooky-like or not, it does not make his actions non-scummy.

Reason 5 - Again, I disagree that my emotional state was any more elevated than in any other post, but I still maintain that at that time, there was extremely little behind any of my votes. Tally's was uncommented, Pooky's was an echo of Tally's, Macros' was a joke, and Phoebus' directly contradicted what he wrote in that post. The whole "for nothing" argument is for people who don't believe the arguments against them have any merit, not against people who literally have no argument against them.

Reason 6 - I'm still hung up on it because people keep talking to me about it, and my questions are still unanswered (not that other people likely have the answers, but because no one else seems interested in what to me is a fairly important question).

Reason 7 - Acts all innocent, or

is

all innocent?

[Adel]

whats wrong with you people, since when did this become a numbers game? I need 5 reasons, 1.5 over under? WHAT? just play the fucking game dont start throwing this crap out, we've enough to contend with without this bullshit.
I think the Cam wagon is a load of turd, I want to vote pooky but theres no point, he coudl be as eassily good as bad, i suppose it works for him.
I'm going to

vote dgb

for blatant wagoning and no more.

This is a great post.

unvote, vote:Marcos

[Glork]

Adel is prolly protown.


fyi.

[PookyTheMagicalBear]

Everyone is prolly protown

shape up and stop sucking up

it doesnt suit you.

[Macros]

I find myself (disgustedly so) agree with pooky, I'm off to work but I'll get a lunchtime post in

[PookyTheMagicalBear]

@Glork

The tone of your post was not a questioning one,

"DGB, give me five reasons, based on Mathcam's posts alone, that contribute to him being scum. "

that's a command tone, considering your persona on this website is very much forceful, I don't find it surprising that you issued a command and she buckled under.

You also told her in the follow up upon her initially ignoring you

"DGB, answer one of my questions. Now."

I emphasize the Now part of that as being particularly forceful.

It wasn't so much of a "Do you have 5 reasons to suspect cam and if so what are they?" as much of a "Give me 5 reasons.. NOW"

I'm not quite sure why you imagine she would've been just as likely to deflect with fewer reasons. Also, how do you know she "made up" her reasons post=vote?

[Phoebus]

I originally resisted because I was (and still am) a confused player of the game,

regardless of my alignment

.

Emphasis mine.

Yet.... uh.... ???

[PookyTheMagicalBear]

Basically he's saying that he would be confused about the game and this would be indepedent of his alignment.

Meaning he is saying even if he were a townie, he would be confused about this game.

OR

He is saying that if he were scum or if he were town he would be confused about this game. Which he couldn't know unless he knew there was nothing in the scum PMs to give some idea of the nature of the game we would be playing to the scum thus making them not as confused as the townies.

Which also hints strongly towards his scumitude.

[Glork]

@Glork

The tone of your post was not a questioning one,

"DGB, give me five reasons, based on Mathcam's posts alone, that contribute to him being scum. "

that's a command tone, considering your persona on this website is very much forceful, I don't find it surprising that you issued a command and she buckled under.

You also told her in the follow up upon her initially ignoring you

"DGB, answer one of my questions. Now."

I emphasize the Now part of that as being particularly forceful.

It wasn't so much of a "Do you have 5 reasons to suspect cam and if so what are they?" as much of a "Give me 5 reasons.. NOW"

I'm not quite sure why you imagine she would've been just as likely to deflect with fewer reasons. Also, how do you know she "made up" her reasons post=vote?

I was trying to make a point. Here's how I expected the conversation to go:

"5 good reasons now."
"I can't do that."
"Then how are you being condusive to helping the town or finding scum if you're just shamelessly wagoning?"
--response by DGB--

The point I was trying to make is that, even with this "Firing Squad" mentality that DGB has apparently adopted in the last day or two, she should still be using that mentality and her behavior to out scum. Since I did not expect that she really believed mathcam to be scum, I wanted to point out that her wagoning in this instance was :nothelpful:, or I wanted her to convince me that her behavior *was* helpful. When she actually

made up reasons to 'suspect' Cam

, I was surprised and suspicious. When she backed off and agreed that most of her own points were overblown, I was floored.

Furthermore, I'm surprised that you seem to think that being forceful ("abrasive," even, as Phoebus put it) is a big deal. Remember KM2, when I was browbeating PJ D1 because I wanted him under pressure, and he started cracking and appealing to emotion, then you (his scumbuddy) bailed him out by launching an extremely focused attack against me and my behavior towards PJ? I am very much reminded of that here and now. I would expect you to know that I throw my weight around, because that is very often how I like to operate. You yourself even noted that I have a rep for being forceful. What exactly makes this instance different from the dozens upon dozens of other times when I start throwing the

book

entire library at someone?



Cam, you still need to claim, as you are still at Lynch-1.

[DrippingGoofball]

Yep, cam isn't claiming, and any player that is at -1 or -2 that delays claiming is a MEGA-scumtell in my book.

Hey Glork I think that would make it flimflam reason that cam is scum #8.

So we have a Glork-mathcam-Macros scumgroup, wow, you guys must have thought "Dream Team, woo!" when you got your PMs.

[Glork]

Hey Glork I think that would make it flimflam reason that cam is scum #8.

You mean valid reason #3, right?

So we have a Glork-mathcam-Macros scumgroup, wow, you guys must have thought "Dream Team, woo!" when you got your PMs.

So Glork, Cam, and Macros have gotten the most suspicion in general so far and now you believe we are a scumgroup. How unbelievably original and insightful.

[DrippingGoofball]

Fab!

Three valid reasons should be good enough for anyone.

You're defending mathscum, and Macros rushed to bandwagon any player that's not mathscum, which happened to be me.

It is unbelievably original and insightful, I believe you put the wrong emoticon at the end of the sentence.

[Glork]

DGB, aren't you the same person who, not more than 24 hours ago, said "I wouldn't out myself so obviously this early in the game"?