Open 108 - Weak M.D. - Game over before 725

[Badguy]

Badguy, if you were so willing to vote ryan for voting without a reason, why haven't you said a word about Caboose or rofl for doing the same? Scum are the only ones with the need to fabricate false reasons (read: lies) for votes, so it is scummy to not consistently apply reasoning for votes.

FOS Badguy

Caboose gave a quote from ryan that he thought was scummy, roflcoptor didn't give any reasoning but I never had a chance to ask him on it. I only had one quick post after he make this vote and it was just to ask what the hypo order was going to be. The main reason why I gave a vote to ryan was just because he piggybacked on Caboose. I didn't immediately question rofl about his vote and now you think I'm scummy? There are likely better targets to attack.

Next, lets break down some of post 107.

The only other reason given by Badguy was that ryan voted "for serious reasons" on page one.

First, I said a "seemingly serious vote", please don't misquote me again. How is a vote because of lurking to be taken seriously when day one started

less than 24 hours

before my post? It was

obviously

a joke vote in the random voting stage.

I don't see that as a scumtell, and I'm not sure why Badguy does, but the fact that Badguy HIMSELF also voted for serious reasons on page one is odd.

If you look at my 2 votes made in page one, neither of them are serious and I do not understand how you could have taken them as such.

Caboose and Blakadder ALSO voted for at least semi-serious reasons on page one(with non-joke justification), and neither's behavior was mentioned by Badguy; once again, he focused only on ryan.

vote: GIEFF

Why so inquisitive?

Just asking a question.

hi guys.

Post #1 with no random vote?

Vote: sekinj

Die scum die

Another obvious joke vote and the random voting stage.

I agree about Sekinj. Just saying hi in a game like this isn't very effective.

GIEFF, I can't think to believe you are serious about your comments...

ROFL, if you "random vote" someone every game you play, that doesn't seem very "random."

Of the three, GIEFF's saying people are quiet after 17 minutes of being accuses is sketchy.

Vote: GIEFF

This would be perceived much more of a serious vote then the two above. Lets not argue about the seriousness of page one votes anymore. It's a waste of time.

It looks to me like Badguy doesn't really think this behavior is scummy (nor do I) and is using it to justify a vote for another reason.

Again, the "seemingly serious vote" was not my main reason for why I voted ryan.

My answer the the rest of your post all comes down to that my post in page 1 was not a serious vote.

I am not sure who I feel is scummier; it is difficult to tell when neither has answered my questions.

I am waiting on Badguy and Gamma to answer the questions I've asked.

Twice you mentioned that you were waiting for me to answer your questions, implying that I am avoiding them or lurking. I posted on Sunday. I couldn't get on mafiascum.net Monday or Tuesday.

[Netlava]

One thing that stuck out to me about ryan was this:

My reason is the same as Caboose's that post is extremely scummy in my eyes.

While I agree that Gamma has been scummy, "extremely scummy" is an overstatement. I was expecting more of a follow-up on suspicions of these types but he hasn't.

Another thing that I noticed:

The ryan-wagon is obviously scum-ridden at this point.

I find this comment suspicious since I think town would focus more on the specifics rather than vaguely calling out the wagon. Plus, it is a bit of an exaggeration

[Incognito]

Deadline will be pushed back by four days so that I can better assess the current game situation after the recent site crash. I will send mass prods to everyone to make sure you're all still here. Please don't be offended if you've posted some time today and have still been prodded -- I'm taking standard procedure here.

[Badguy]

Still here.

[BSG]

Here

[Korts]

I find this comment suspicious since I think town would focus more on the specifics rather than vaguely calling out the wagon. Plus, it is a bit of an exaggeration

It got carried away very fast. I believe that scum would either jump on a good town wagon at this point or start bussing.I'll analyse the wagon when I have the time. Right now, I got a train to catch.

[popsofctown]

I am here

[EsoMonty]

here. Didn't mean to be a fence sitter. I got busy at work and was unable to review it. Then forgot, then site went down.

Ryan is all I got.

Vote: ryan2574

[Incognito]

Vote Count #5 of Day 1

Korts (1) <-~ popsofctown
Gamma (3) <-~ Netlava, ryan2754, GIEFF
ryan2754 (4) <-~ Badguy, Caboose, roflcopter, EsoMonty
popsofctown (1) <-~ BlakAdder

Not Voting (3) <-~ BSG, Gamma, Korts

With 12 alive, it takes 7 votes to lynch!

[popsofctown]

let's vote on that last resolution so we can get the hypoclaims going soon

[BSG]

Res 4. Seems like popcorn. The only problem is the one who starts. We need something that shows without being able to lie about that that player was indeed picked. And that's why I say that Korts should begin, based upon this:
16) Korts - 3055 posts, 8.28 ppd
He has the most posts of the players here . It's random and can be checked by everyone.

GIEFF, see post 116. It will only cause a lot of problems. If that player isn't scum, the scum can easily kill two players. The only player that can stop this is the doc. So it will only create a circular argument for the doc who to pick.
And if that player is scum, the hider will die. If the doc decides to protect that player, we are out of power roles. That in exchange for one scum. I can't believe that you didn't think about this.

Also, can anyone please explain to me why so many players are announcing who they see as town? I really don't see the point in that.

Will talk about the later posts tomorrow.

[Netlava]

Still here.

For hypoclaims, I like dice rolls. Random and verifiable.

[Netlava]

He has the most posts of the players here Very Happy. It's random and can be checked by everyone.

This isn't really random...

Anyways, Gamma is still suspicious. In his last post, he again comments how we should be scumhunting but still does not comment on anyone's scumminess in the game. He seems to be expressing a desire to scumhunt without actually scumhunting, and subsequently it seems fake.

[BlakAdder]

Still here. Nothing to say at the moment.

[Korts]

I can start the hypoclaims if you want me to; but I will be hypoclaiming later on when I have better reads. I think hypoclaims should be done right before lynching and not at this point, which pops seems to be pushing for.

Net, Gamma hasn't posted between your last post and the one before. Why reiterate the suspicion against him?

[GIEFF]

Caboose gave a quote from ryan that he thought was scummy, roflcoptor didn't give any reasoning but I never had a chance to ask him on it. I only had one quick post after he make this vote and it was just to ask what the hypo order was going to be. The main reason why I gave a vote to ryan was just because he piggybacked on Caboose.

Then why didn't you say so? The reasons you gave were voting for no reason and voting for "seemingly" serious reasons on day 1. You "piggybacked" onto ryan in a very similar manner to the way ryan piggybacked onto Gamma; the second vote, with little logic presented. Are you still happy with your vote of ryan?

I didn't immediately question rofl about his vote and now you think I'm scummy? There are likely better targets to attack.

You

still

haven't questioned rofl about his vote. Do you mean there are better targets than rofl, or better targets than you? Because you claimed that voting for ryan for no reason was suspicious, it is odd that you ignored this subsequent behavior by rofl, especially as it was the fourth vote for ryan rather than the second.

I don't see that as a scumtell, and I'm not sure why Badguy does, but the fact that Badguy HIMSELF also voted for serious reasons on page one is odd.

If you look at my 2 votes made in page one, neither of them are serious and I do not understand how you could have taken them as such.

I said a "seemingly serious vote", please don't misquote me again. How is a vote because of lurking to be taken seriously when day one started less than 24 hours before my post? It was obviously a joke vote in the random voting stage.

It isn't so clear to others what your intentions are if a reason is given (such as lurking). And using your own words, voting someone for lurking IS a "seemingly" serious reason, no? I do see your point about your Gamma vote being just a day after the game started. Because Gamma later WAS quite lurky after this, which is part of the reason I myself find him suspicious, it looked to me like your vote was more serious than it actually was.

The question remains, though; why do you think voting for "seemingly serious" reasons on day 1 is a scumtell? And if you don't think it is a scumtell, why did you use it to justify your vote?

I am not sure who I feel is scummier; it is difficult to tell when neither has answered my questions.


I am waiting on Badguy and Gamma to answer the questions I've asked.

Twice you mentioned that you were waiting for me to answer your questions, implying that I am avoiding them or lurking. I posted on Sunday. I couldn't get on mafiascum.net Monday or Tuesday.

I did not mean to imply this. My first statement was explaining why I wasn't sure which of you two was scummier, and the second was just to be sure my questions for you two were not lost in the hypoclaim discussion. Both statements were more directed at Gamma than at you, as he has been lurky, and I wanted to make sure he sees and responds to my questions.

rofl, I'm still waiting to hear your reasoning behind your Post 103 vote for ryan.

I also agree that we should wait on the hypoclaims until we are much closer to a lynch.

[Caboose]

b]To the mod:[/b]

Life has gotten really busy for me really fast.

I am requesting replacement

because I do not believe I have the time nor energy to do a good job.

-Caboose

Replaced by magisterrain. - Incog-Mod.

[Gamma]

Here.

My Xbox red ringed. I am in a state of anguish. I will proceed to answer questions now

with extreme predjudice and rage

as well as I can.

SECONDLY

What I meant in my post is that I don't want to give scum the day off, here. For the most part hypoclaim discussion is taking over this day. I hate that.

Glad to see you de-lurk, Gamma, but I still find it odd that you complain about the direction the game is taking, yet make no effort to change it. Why not help us resolve the hypoclaim discussion by participating in it, or ensure the scum don't get the day off by posting some analysis, a case, a body part of suspicion, or anything else of some use to the town?

A post is coming against ryan2754.

It will most likely get called out as OMGUS. that's fine with me.

[Gamma]

AN ANALYSIS OF RYAN2754's POSTS IN ISOLATION

I agree about Sekinj. Just saying hi in a game like this isn't very effective.

Agreeing post #1.

Sounds good to me. I dont have a preference either way right now, as this hypo thing is new to me. Ill go with whatever everyone else thinks is optimal.

Unvote
Vote: Gamma as well

&

My reason is the same as Caboose's that post is extremely scummy in my eyes.

Now is anyone else mildly concerned at this point? I'm not, so disregard that. I'm dumb. But we're talking about 4 posts in a role that follows the same opinion of someone else.

good thing for mafia. It detracts from the main goal.

In the board I play on, it is around the same 10 to 13 players that play every game. It's not a message board where there are a crap ton of games going on. Thus, one indicator of scummy behavior is a change in playing style, or subtle changes in playing style from their suual antics. It's fairly easy to pick up, especially if the sample size with that person is > 3, which happens a lot. Here it seems, playing with the same people happens a lot less frequently. Thus, considering playing style changes is one of my biggest leads when it comes to voting, its extremely hard since I'm new to the forums and have no idea who anyone is to use my normal path of logic and argument. Thus, my basic posts and just reading through. Also in my other boards, the first round kill can give a lot of information, and the first round of RVS as you call it isn't as random as it is here. There are a lot of trends when it comes to my other board regarding lynching patterns and such, especially because the same people play every 2 weeks or so (games usually last around 2 weeks).

Thus, since the majority of my analysis comes from playing style changes, I don't have much to say, seeing as this is my first game on this site. Call it opportunistic, call it me having a gut feeling. It just didn't sit well, and that is all I really have to go off of because my normal outlets of analysis are not yet available given that I know well, no one's playing style.

It looks as though my logic is faulty in your eyes, and I see I am going to get lynched. It's ok, this forum plays out a lot differently (discussion is much more intense on things I never thought to previous have looked at in mafia, considering I look a lot into voting patterns and playing style changes, one of which isn't readily available to me yet since I'm new), and I will learn from my mistakes. In addition, a lot of talk has been of this hypo-claim stuff and generally considering, my head is spinning. It all makes sense, it's just a little deep for me.

And and about this not being a newbie game, well I joined the site and thought I was ready to play without reading previous games, which in hindsight was a terrible idea.

I believe mafia is anything but random chance. I attack things because it puts people in a defensive situation, which I find the easiest situation to find scum. My current game on another board if you would like to see how I play (when I know the styles of my fellow teammates - if you would like to know my alignment in the game, I would be happy to discuss: Mafia

There's another word for your strategy, ryan. It's called meta-reading.
But if you bothered to look at my old posts in previous games you would have learned that I am not a behavior-changer. Your votes do not match your so-called style of play.

In conclusion, I have only one question to ask you about your vote: y u mad bro?

fos ryan2754

Meanwhile, Netlava's case against I is generally based on the original spike in activity. And how everything seems fake and manifactured.
which is probably true. I only see what I want to see and people only scumhunt what they

want

to scumhunt. So, Netlava: what do you want to see out of me to feel good about placing your vote on me? What do you not want to see which would make you less safe about a gammawagon?

[Korts]

It will most likely get called out as OMGUS. that's fine with me.

Why pre-emptively defend OMGUS accusations? Are you deliberately making an OMGUS case?

[Gamma]

It will most likely get called out as OMGUS. that's fine with me.

Why pre-emptively defend OMGUS accusations? Are you deliberately making an OMGUS case?

Do you want it to be an OMGUS case?

[Korts]

It will most likely get called out as OMGUS. that's fine with me.

Why pre-emptively defend OMGUS accusations? Are you deliberately making an OMGUS case?

Do you want it to be an OMGUS case?

Would you answer my question with something other than a question, please?

[Incognito]

Searching for a Caboose replacement.

[Gamma]

It will most likely get called out as OMGUS. that's fine with me.

Why pre-emptively defend OMGUS accusations? Are you deliberately making an OMGUS case?

Do you want it to be an OMGUS case?

Would you answer my question with something other than a question, please?

And if I don't?

[Korts]

This is not that kind of game, Gamma

Seriously, answer me properly.