Mini 733- Congratulations! You are... Mafia (Game Over)


Locked
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #4 (isolation #0) » Tue Jan 13, 2009 12:06 pm

Post by Plum »

Yeehaw. Hiya Mirth.

Lemme see, random vote stage? Me? I miss 'em depressingly often. So:
Vote: Zazie
. For old times' sakes (pity you weren't really scum after all :wink:).

First random vote? Go me?
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #8 (isolation #1) » Tue Jan 13, 2009 12:41 pm

Post by Plum »

No one's ever used the explaination that Plum rhymes with Scum, weirdly enough.

New title, Dahill? Bagels are like doughnuts with rigor mortis, you know (but they're good with lox, butter, and red onions, especially everything bagels).
Seriously? Butter and lox? Together? Ew.


I wouldn't put it past Mirth to sneak a few aliens in this game (in a recently ended game I was in which Mirth was modding, Oompa-Loompas turned me into rice krispy treats when I was endgamed :shock:), so that tinfoil hat might very well be a good idea.
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #23 (isolation #2) » Tue Jan 13, 2009 1:36 pm

Post by Plum »

Llamas >/= alpacas, though.

Image
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #25 (isolation #3) » Tue Jan 13, 2009 1:38 pm

Post by Plum »

Greater than or equal to. Blah, didn't come out right, did it? Then again, a lot of people resort to =! instead of =/=.
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #36 (isolation #4) » Tue Jan 13, 2009 2:18 pm

Post by Plum »

Glork wrote:
elvis_knits wrote:Are you faking it?
Nyet.
caf19 wrote:On an unrelated note, does anyone want to buy some lemonade?
Nyet.

Vood joo loik som vodka?
Ты не знаешь ничего?
я могу написать так тоже. с словарем


Mirth's having too much fun with that votecunt, I think.
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #38 (isolation #5) » Tue Jan 13, 2009 2:24 pm

Post by Plum »

dahill1 wrote:
Plum wrote:
Glork wrote:
elvis_knits wrote:Are you faking it?
Nyet.
caf19 wrote:On an unrelated note, does anyone want to buy some lemonade?
Nyet.

Vood joo loik som vodka?
Ты не знаешь ничего?

Mirth's having too much fun with that
votecunt
, I think.
:shock:
Heavens is THAT an awkward typo :shock:.
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #43 (isolation #6) » Tue Jan 13, 2009 3:03 pm

Post by Plum »

SlySly wrote:
imaginality wrote:
Mirth wrote:
Votecount


Zazie - 2609 - [Plum, caf, kmd]
2609/12 > 50%, sat is lynch!
When you said 'sat', did I correctly interpret that as meaning Saturday? The rules have already stated that we have about a month before deadline so I am confused at what you mean by the statement following your formula.
Thought he meant 'that is lynch!', actually.
Glork wrote:
Plum wrote:Ты не знаешь ничего?
Немного.


Bot, I vood loik to tok to deez peepol olso.
Мне всё равно.

And anyway I don't speak too much myself :).
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #45 (isolation #7) » Tue Jan 13, 2009 3:20 pm

Post by Plum »

SlySly wrote:
dahill1 wrote: is dis serious?
do it sound dat way?
Do you think it more likely has to do with:

a) Players' votes on others being weighted differently

b) Players' votes on themselves being weighted differently

c) Mirth having fun messing with our minds

:?:
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #47 (isolation #8) » Tue Jan 13, 2009 3:27 pm

Post by Plum »

Glork wrote:I vill
Vote: MeMe
Any specific reasons, out of curiosity?
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #63 (isolation #9) » Tue Jan 13, 2009 4:15 pm

Post by Plum »

Darox wrote:So I see there's a lot of good discussion here, but I'm shocked to see we haven't covered the most important topic.

Who is better?

Hulk vs The Flash
Green Lantern vs Human Torch
Aquaman vs Superman
Wolverine vs Batman

You must decide!
I'm so ignorant I going to have to guess!

The Flash sounds cooler. Plus, I dunno, exploding green guy, meh?

I'll go with Green Lantern. Like the word lantern.

Er - Superman? Kryptonite has rqather entered the lexicon.

Batman. One movie I've seen at least.
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #71 (isolation #10) » Wed Jan 14, 2009 8:14 am

Post by Plum »

Kmd4390 wrote:
ZazieR wrote:Lügen! Sie haben mich nie vorher gewählt, KMD! (denke ich…)
Vote KMD
<3 dich

(Ich bin so slecht auf Deutsch :()
Gibt es keine Lügen gibt. Ich war gespannt auf Abstimmung, bevor Sie das Spiel einmal begonnen.

(Du bist besser Deutsch als ich.)
Я не понимаю :(.
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #74 (isolation #11) » Wed Jan 14, 2009 9:00 am

Post by Plum »

Kmd4390 wrote:Чтобы эту должность в соответствии с этим.

К сожалению, я посасывать русском языке.
Я тоже :wink:.

К сожалению день рожденья только раз в году?
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #85 (isolation #12) » Wed Jan 14, 2009 9:46 am

Post by Plum »

I, too, have no knowledge about these lawn gnomes you're talking about.

And maybe this game does lend itself to it or something, because this is the longest random stage in which I've ever been involved.
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #97 (isolation #13) » Wed Jan 14, 2009 10:07 am

Post by Plum »

Two questions, both serious (srsbsns):

Darox, why are you avoiding Kmd's question?

Caf, what happens if I decide I want to buy lemonade from you?
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #101 (isolation #14) » Wed Jan 14, 2009 10:17 am

Post by Plum »

Darox wrote:This is a very important issue.

There are two Aliens and three Agents

Who would win if:
They were both unarmed?
The Aliens had ray guns and the Agents had projectile weapons?
The Aliens had psychokinesis and the Agents had reverse engineered Plasma Weapons? If the Agents do not have psychic dampening fields?
1. Agents.
2.
Ouch
. Aliens.
3. Tough call, innit, but you'd have to hand it to the Agents, I suppose.
4. Depends if the Aliens have psychic moistening fields. Assuming not, I'll take Agents. If so, Aliens should have it in the bag.

Now will you answer
my
question???
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #102 (isolation #15) » Wed Jan 14, 2009 10:18 am

Post by Plum »

Darox wrote:
caf19 wrote:I do know, however, that you should buy some lemonade.
How good is this lemonade?

If say, your lemonade had a cage match with apple juice, who would emerge victorious? What if the apple juice was actually hard cider?
What if the lemonade was spiked, eh?
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #104 (isolation #16) » Wed Jan 14, 2009 10:22 am

Post by Plum »

Darox wrote:
Plum wrote:
Darox wrote:So I see there's a lot of good discussion here, but I'm shocked to see we haven't covered the most important topic.

Who is better?

Hulk vs The Flash
Green Lantern vs Human Torch
Aquaman vs Superman
Wolverine vs Batman

You must decide!
I'm so ignorant I going to have to guess!

The Flash sounds cooler. Plus, I dunno, exploding green guy, meh?


I'll go with Green Lantern. Like the word lantern.

Er - Superman? Kryptonite has rqather entered the lexicon.


Batman. One movie I've seen at least.
I think not, heathen.
Fine, whatever. Aquaman pwns. The Hulk's awesomeness hulks over The Flash's firefly flicker. Happy now? I'm not. Would you please freaking answer my question?
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #132 (isolation #17) » Wed Jan 14, 2009 3:09 pm

Post by Plum »

SlySly and/or Caf: Now that a cup's been bought, can you give us any further information regarding the lemonade or not?
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #134 (isolation #18) » Wed Jan 14, 2009 4:19 pm

Post by Plum »

caf19 wrote:SlySly has bought some lemonade and nothing horrible has happened. Therefore, more of you should
buy:lemonade
.

That is all. I'd love to tell you what happens when you buy it, but I don't actually know.
How do you know nothing horrible has happened, aside from the game not haven been
broken
more broken? And can you tell me why you so desperately want us to buy this lemonade? If you can't tell us what's in it for us, can you tell us at least what's in it for
you
?
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #136 (isolation #19) » Wed Jan 14, 2009 4:50 pm

Post by Plum »

caf19 wrote:I babelfished most of them, it's mostly Kmd and Plum saying how they are useless at Russian/german. Nothing too important.
This, more or less, really.
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #155 (isolation #20) » Thu Jan 15, 2009 9:50 am

Post by Plum »

You're voting Imaginality for wondering what the lemonade does and, after he comes up with a plausible idea and decides not to trust Caf and FOSes Caf,
vote
him? Dunno, overreaction, I think. It certainly might not be the case, of course, but I don't see a strong enough of bad logic to deserve a vote on your part. Then again, we don't have too much to go on worth arguing about at this point anyway.

That's one scary
kitty
alien :shock:.
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #157 (isolation #21) » Thu Jan 15, 2009 10:00 am

Post by Plum »

Nothing. I don't trust Caf either, not least because he can't seem to tell us what's up with the whole lemonade business. But I don't have a problem with Imaginality's FOS because . . . oh, I see, I wasn't seeing the suicide deathcult thing as the only component of his supicions which were expressed as that FOS. You did, and, at a glance, it seems that that may be a more correct read of that situation. If your problem is that he's FOSing based on a musing possibility which is far from necessarily what's going on, I see your point, fair enough. I personally don't think that his FOS is so strong that I find it really suspect and want to vote him, but can see what you don't like about it.
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #159 (isolation #22) » Thu Jan 15, 2009 10:06 am

Post by Plum »

dahill1 wrote:
Plum wrote:If your problem is that he's FOSing based on a musing possibility which is far from necessarily what's going on, I see your point, fair enough. I personally don't think that his FOS is so strong that I find it really suspect and want to vote him, but can see what you don't like about it.
yep that was p much the reason
i don't really suspect him THAT much, it was more of a placeholder/"you did something that was slightly scummy" vote
All right, I believe we're on the same page here, then.
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #161 (isolation #23) » Thu Jan 15, 2009 10:20 am

Post by Plum »

Dear me, there go the votes. Dahill, did these aliens you mentioned abduct them or something? I'm just going to hope and pray it's still just Mirth messing with our collective skulls.

Also, Glork, any idea what's with your vote? Wasn't it on the (not in this game, as far as I can tell, and you never can tell with Mirth) lovely Petroleumjelly?

Mirth, I'll go find some cuter kittens for you . . .
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #162 (isolation #24) » Thu Jan 15, 2009 10:26 am

Post by Plum »

Image

Image

Image

Okay. Mod is appeased. You may all live. For now.
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #215 (isolation #25) » Sat Jan 17, 2009 6:12 pm

Post by Plum »

To be quite frank, I realize that I'm going to have to get into this specific conversation sometime and have chosen sooner as opposed to later. I've also realized that I'll have to take some ort of side here, and, to be honest, I don't happen to see anything scummy with Kmd's Zazie vote or his explanation thereof.

That said, we seem to be slowly creeping out of the random vote stage, so I'm just going to
Unvote: Zazie
.
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #223 (isolation #26) » Sun Jan 18, 2009 3:14 pm

Post by Plum »

To be frank, I still do not find Kmd's statement scummy.
Kmd wrote:
Vote ZazieR
not as a bandwagon but because I like jokevoting her.
I honestly do not get any scumvibe off of that. You might, Dahill, but I don't. Might just be me, but I read that as 'Vote Zazie. RVS explanation: My own custom of voting her, though apparently there's an unrelated bandwagon on her as well, how fun'. I understand you're getting a scum-vibe off it.

Ah, Caf has gotten in a post while I had to go vacuum. Quoting Caf's above post for truth here.
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #256 (isolation #27) » Wed Jan 21, 2009 6:17 pm

Post by Plum »

Kmd4390 wrote:I don't mind being called out for bandwagoning if that's what I'm doing. If I was, I'd say so. But I wasn't, so I said I wasn't.

This is starting to turn into arguing in circles...
You appear to be being called out for the disclaimer that your random vote wasn't a bandwagon-related vote. Some seem to think you may have been attempting to preempt suspicion, etc. It doesn't appear to be about bandwagoning or not itself.
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #296 (isolation #28) » Sun Jan 25, 2009 7:10 am

Post by Plum »

Sorry for not having posted in a bit. Hopefully I'll be able to get some hard analysis out of what's gone on in the interim and it'll have been worth the wait.

The last thing I was in a discussion about was Kmd and the various responses to his disclaimer with his random vote - scumtell, nulltell, etc.

Imaginality has continued singing. May I ask how often your PR requires you to Numa-Numa, imaginality (if at all) just for my personal edification?

Back to the Dahill/Kmd discussion. Still am not seeing either side as doing something scummy. I can see where Dahill's interpretation is coming from, and I can see why he'd vote on a fairly mild scumtell at that point in this game, if he saw it as such. At the same time I still see it as a null tell, as explained before. Joy.

EK posts a youtube clip. Null, but vaaguely amusing and irritating :).

Ah, I mentioned again to Kmd that he was being called out for the diclaimer, not wagoning, after he posted this:
Kmd4390 wrote:I don't mind being called out for bandwagoning if that's what I'm doing. If I was, I'd say so. But I wasn't, so I said I wasn't.

This is starting to turn into arguing in circles...
I believe I was hurried off the computer or something at this point in the conversation and never came back to it. Ah, nevermind, I now see the angle he was trying to get at when he wrote the above. This now fits into the conversation much more nicely than when I'd been looking at it a different way. Everything is still pretty null.
imaginality wrote:In thees type of game, our town ees like blind lepers limping in all dirrrections tryingk to catch drrronken criminal.
Yeah, I'm feeling that way, too. Hopefully something will clear up the game and give us something more controversial to stimulate more useful discussion sooner rather than later.
elvis_knits wrote:How do you tell the difference between someone defending themselves and someone being too defensive?
You don't until later in the game when you have other reads on the player's alignment and playstyle. And heck, I've been an overdefensive townie and learned that lesson just in time to avoid being an overdefensive scumbag (both games are over, if you'd care for the links). That's part of why while I can see a reading of Kmd's statements such that he was being preemptive and cautious, the possibility that such was the case doesn't bother me, especially as it was firmly in the RVS.
SlySly wrote:I see the foreign language posts, by all the players doing it, as anti-town. I am now assuming that any post that is not in english is scummy.
This should only be the case assuming

a) You believe a foreign language PR to be faked and invoke the LAL principle (funnily enough I was recently in a game where a townie faked a PR and was instrumental in the town's win)

or

b) You believe Mirth gave foreign language PRs to scum only. This is a bastard-mod game, Sly, do the math. As a matter of fact, to quote you:
SlySly wrote:Well, playing 'outguess the mod' in this game would be senseless as anything can be in a theme game, especially one being modded by my BFF.
So, no.
FOS: SlySly
. Let's see your response. Hey, Isacc, why do you only FOS Darox in your post calling out SlySly's statement and not, say, also SlySly?

Destructor joins. Welcome, I've vaguely hoped to play with you someday, nice avatar, nice kitties. Destructor, why are you interested in buying Lemonade?

I agree with Imaginality and Dahill about Imaginality 'taunting' Sly.

Welcome hasdgfasgfscow.

Glork advocates lynching Darox or Destroctor today. Why? Ah, he seems to suspect Destructor's willingness to buy Lemonade. In my mind someone who's not cautious about this is taking a risk for his/her faction regardless of what said faction actually
is
. It doesn't seem to point to scum more than town unless Caf and Destructor share an alignment; just seems like someone willing to take a risk.

All right, as the scummiest thing I've seen in my reread has been Sly's 'I'm going to consider anyone using a foreign language scum' (and then not really following up the statement, backing it up, etc.). What's your current stance anyway, specifically?

Vote: SlySly
as he's the best lead I've got so far.
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #355 (isolation #29) » Mon Jan 26, 2009 5:07 pm

Post by Plum »

NOOOOOOOOOOO.

My lovely post go eaten by an accidential mouseclick. Now I will have to do it all again. I did not want to have to do that. My evening is ruined (the rest of it, anyway)

Quick:

Welcome Cow;
Cow wrote:Post 215 - Plum: Why are you unvoting "just because we're out of the random stage"? How does this help anything?
Once we're out of the radom stage and others are voting for real if sometimes mild scumtells and I'm at least suspecting people based on actual play, I prefer not to have an actual random
vote
hanging around. Bit psychological, I guess, but it works for me, generally, and doesn't seem to cause any harm.

your suspicions of Isacc were that he was "A) Defending someone else's vote. B) Using the "random stage" defense. This is extremely voteworthy to me." On reread of Isacc's post in question he appears to have misintepreted what Dahill's argument really was (that Kmd's 'not a bandwagon' disclaimer was scummy). It seems that he interpreted Dahill's as an attack on Kmd's random vote, as such, something perhaps worth suspectig Dahill for and hence using the random stage defense, as you call it. His reaction to the accusation is volatile, which is more interesting than the original accusation, more at the bottom of this paragraph-thing. After a bit of discussion and clarification with Dahill, Isacc posts: 'Dahill, I will start by saying you have defended yourself well, and my worries towards you have lessened significantly. That said, there are still some parts of your argument I disagree with.' This is close to my basic stance on the situation. I'm fine with that. Hence I don't find Cow's original reasons for voting Isacc sturdy. Thoughts, Cow? On Isacc's reaction, he does seem volatile. Accuses Cow of tunneling on him, which he certainly did not; he asked questions to many, in that post, including yours truly. Bit OMGUS-y, perhaps. Ah, Isacc clarifies tunneling as 'you IGNORED OTHER PEOPLE for doing something similar to me' - with the many misinterpretations in this discussion, I'll clarify that you seemed to be the only one outright defending Kmd/attacking Dahill at that time out of everyone who said they didn't find Kmd scummy. Having said that, everyone seems to be working off misinfo in this matter and I'm starting to think most of it is really based on null, if not innocent, misinterpretations and attacks, counterattacks, defenses, etc. are mostly based on multiple pieces of misinfo.

Destructor posts in English WTH???
FOS
until further notice on the matter, which I'd really really like, please, Destructor!
Isacc wrote:@Dahill: Pushing a lynch on bad logic = scum.
No, not nearly as simple as that at all. Townies have been known to use poor logic, too. It's one of the major causes of mislynches today, second only to lack of widespread use of birth-control techniques (so I should be applauding Kmd here, I guess).
Glork wrote:If Kaf is not protown, vee probably do not vant to buy. So, ze protownzh people does not vant to buy becozh vee do not know if he is protown or not.

Ze scomzh, however, know vezher Kaf is in zere groop or not. If he izh not in zere groop, zen I vood project zat ze scomzh find him more likely to be ze protownzh (ya, ze neutral is poschibol). Zuss, I vood expect ze scomzh (and/or ze schtoopid playerzh) to be more willing to buy.
Townies will buy from Caf if they find him seeming townie enough to take the risk. Scum will buy from Caf if they're on his scumteam. Scum will not want to buy from Caf if he's not on their team - why give an advantage to someone of another alignment? So it's might be called a very very slight towntell crossed with stupid-risktaker-tell at this point in the game, when it seems no one has any strong read on Caf, correct me if I'm wrong. I certainly don't. So it seems I'm thinking along the same lines as Darox and Kmd are in this matter. How fun!

Sly claims voting him is a waste of the town's time and says he's prepared to claim etc. What seems perhaps related to meta-defense is used by him, not helping his case. Not sure it's a strong scumtell in and of itself, however. Sly, I
am
out here searching for other scum. Perhaps after that exchange Isacc looks a little more likely to be scum. Destructor needs to explain why/how she's suddenly posing in English after he apparent German-language PR. But you also look scummy. Scummiest of the lot of the players to me, in fact. I'll probably make a stronger summary of the case on you as I see it tomorrow. If you ever need to claim, I'll read it and consider it with an open mind, but for now you're still my top suspect, so, please, deal.

Never mind, in the interim you have claimed. At L-4. Joy. Dunno why you feel so compelled to do so, but you apparently do. So, you name-claim and claim some sort of vague psudeo-invincibility, amirite? To make yourself clear, just how lynchproof are you, as far as you're allowed to say? I'll leave bulletproof off what I'm asking, no need for scum to know more about that than necessary, but it would be nice to know just how much of a waste attampting to lynch you will be, as far as you can tell us. Don't love the claim, but don't hate it either, and my open mind for now is saying to put the case on you on the back burner, at least for now.

Destructor, I'd like an answer. Till then, my best vote is on you.
Vote: Destructor


And, for the heck of it:
Buy: Wine


%5 alcohol Moscato D'Asti from Bartenura, please. Jewish wine, but not Manischewitz-y.
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #357 (isolation #30) » Mon Jan 26, 2009 5:15 pm

Post by Plum »

Kmd4390 wrote:
Plum wrote:(so I should be applauding Kmd here, I guess).
Eh, Mod won't let me buy them. Gotta go without.
Much the pity, eh?
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #392 (isolation #31) » Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:41 pm

Post by Plum »

Mirth wrote:
If Plum wishes to buy wine, she must show a valid ID certifying that she is in fact over 21. The mod does not supply alcohol to minors. At least when she is aware that they are minors. Besides, the mod does not advocate the drinking of wine as it is an inferior beverage.
But it's for religious purposes (yes, there are legit religious reasons to give a teenager four glasses of wine over the course of three or four hours, especially if the alcohol content is modest)!

'cept I'm not your rabbi. So :P


Next post will contain actual analysis, but I kinda wanted to post this before slogging through everything (on the plus side, the pace really
has
picked up).
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #396 (isolation #32) » Tue Jan 27, 2009 2:54 pm

Post by Plum »

Unvote: Destructor
. You've at least claimed that your PR isn't explicitly stringent, I suppose. Though
destructor wrote:Why is my English posting vote-worthy?
My role pm implies that
I may die if I don't make some posts in German.
Yeah, that's "may" die, not that I will. Maybe Mirth is lying... but I'm not really up for testing that one.
Do you mean 'may die if you don't post some German-language posts' or 'may die if my posts are not in German' - looking at your post you seem to imply the former; can you just confirm that for me? Also, what makes you feel comfortable taking these risks? Zazie, your predecessor, did seem to say that she
had
to post in German. Thoughts? Expound? I see Dahill has said that
dahill1 wrote:but i was partially just messing around as my role PM is kinda vague as to whether i have a PR or not
i'm assuming i don't since i've gone this long without posting about aliens and nothing's happened
So this doesn't look unique in this game.
SlySly wrote:
imaginality wrote: One thought, only zemi-zerious musing - ve
could
call SlySly's bluff, no? If lynching him = no lynch, is not zo bad. Confirms Sly's claim. Okay, puts us on even nomberrs vhich is bad if means one less lynch, but vhat are chances of zis game proceeding in orderly one kill per night, one lynch per day anyhow?
As long as the town searches for other scum before my lynch attempt, I am onboard with this plan. Although, finding scum to lynch would be a better plan, especially if we expose more than one.
Well, hell, if you're on board with this plan, who am I to refuse :P? Seriously, now, though. You're lying scum, you die. You're not, your claim is at least semi-confirmed (as I don't have any info now that would absolutely preclude you being sasquatch-scum) and we either go into night or continue. So, yes, I see some advantages, especially as I'm still not fully convinced you're town. I'll continue to look in new directions in the scumhunt (want to check some thoughts and vibes on Glork and Kmd, specifically), but I did promise to summarize how I saw the case last night, so, briefly:
SlySly wrote:I am now assuming that any post that is not in english is scummy.
Thus any subsequent non-English posts would be moderate legit scumtells in your opinion? Disregarding the fact that that's at least an anti-town stance to take (which it is, and easily potentially scummy as well)
SlySly wrote:Well, seeing how there are multiple players doing it, and I don't understand what any of them are saying, it is hard to narrow it down to one.

...

Post restriction is one thing, but Imaginality taunting me with it is another. I seriously doubt that there is a clause in his role that says he must immediately taunt anyone who calls the foreign languages scummy.
If you really considered them scumtells, you'd start by voting someone posting non-English posts; even if you were having some trouble narrowing it down it would be an appropriate jumping-off point. And calling out Imaginality for taunting you and not focusing on behavior you actually declared a scumtell doesn't mesh right with what you were trying to do. On the other hand, you agree later with someone (imaginality, perhaps? Excuse my laziness, please) saying that you're probably more frustrated than considering foreign posts to be true scumtells. First, if so, why did you not simply say straight out after you were questioned, that you were mostly frustrated? You also do say that while your stance is flexible, you
have
taken a stance, and that stance appears to be, yes, that you consider foreign language posting to be scummy.

Subsequent cases of what seem to be meta defense etc. Also, you advocate looking somewhere else, take up some new cases on players other than you. I agree that persuing other avenues in our current scumhunt would be beneficial, and, as stated above, plan to do so myself. But you don't seem to have a vote on anyone nor can I think of a case you're pushing off the top of my head. I'd be more comfortable if you, you know, did so.

All right, moving away from the proverbial back burner now :oops:.

Kmd: Er, how serious do you find the question of what we can buy through the mod? Dahill is accusing you of trying to coast through the game, and, to be frank, I've seen you do stuff that could be classified as at least close to such as scum. You do seem to be doing some of that here; to cite a more egregious example
Kmd4390 wrote:That's interesting...

This was the total content of your latest post. If you seriously found it interesting, wouldn't you have made a short comment on what about it you found interesting? It looks like you might be just trying to, well, look active while really not contributing much substance.
FOS: Kmd
. Occasional jokey post is a given, especially in this sort of game. Multiple posts without focus on the issues at hand? Potentially scummy. Say, who would you vote for now if you had to? I notice your vote's not on anyone at the moment.

Glork: It appears you can't vote anyone actually in the game. You've called multiple players 'obvscum' without giving too much explanation as to why. You've made some good points but failed to make too much difference in the scumhunt. Also, if you could vote a player actually in this game, who would it be?
HascgfsfCow wrote:Plus, I don't really feel that him letting go of his attack is a reason for my voting reasons to not be "sturdy".
You find it contrived? Not really my reading. Isacc attacked Dahill for what he saw as Dahill's attack (he thought Dahill was attacking Kmd because he was unsatisfied with Kmd's explanation for his random vote). Dahill voted. Isacc found this scummy. Dahill found it necessary to explain that
Dahill1 wrote:
you're not reading it right

i'm not suspicious of kmd for voting zazie. again to everyone reading,
it's not because he voted for zazier
. however, his explanation of (this is an indirect quote) "btw it's not to bandwagon her" struck me as strange and unnecessary, and i find that scum would be much more likely to say something because of their mindset. please answer this: why would town feel the need to include saying that it wasn't to bandwagon?
After Dahill posts this Isacc seems to disagree with some of his logic (and I didn't find that in and of itself troubling, as I didn't find Isacc's counter-logic as pointing to Isacc-scum). He doesn't officially rescind his FOS on Dahill, but meh, I don't care. You see it as contrived. I don't read it as pointing strongly enough to contrived-ness to make me any more than mildly intrigued.

Vote: Kmd
. Not huge suspicions, but you don't look great right now, I think you're a good new avenue for me to explore, and keeping things moving is generally a good idea.
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #443 (isolation #33) » Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:34 pm

Post by Plum »

Isacc wrote: I would tell you that today I had a talk with a buddy that plays mafia and I decided I need to start realizing that bad logic =/= scum automatically, but I doubt you'd believe that. Though, I am less concerned with you now (although, I still am annoyed that you made a case that I cannot possibly defend myself against, since you don't believe the evidence I presented). Anyways, you could say I am trying to turn a new leaf. And yes, I'm aware I probably look like bad pedaling scum.

I knew you were going to ask that, though. =P
Talking with a buddy and discovering that bad logic =/= auto-scum I'm fine with. Willing to believe it, sure. The whole 'I'm aware I possibly look scummy, and I also just
knew
this would happen doesn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling in my gut, though.
caf19 wrote:
Isacc wrote:@Darox: He claims he will die if he doesn't make any posts in German. This will tell us if he is lying.
So, under your plan either he dies or we lynch him? Seems like a rather violent plan. :? What makes you want destructor to die so much, when he's not the town's consensus lynch right now?
That. Destructor isn't ringing too many bells for me (since the PR question has cleared up enough for me for now). I don't feel the need to test it any more than I feel the need to make Imaginality stop Numa-Numa-ing. I'm not sure what the heck you want Caf and myself to be thinking, so would you please please clarify?

Probably more to come. For the record now, yes Destructor's not having read the entire thread isn't optimal. Nor is it extremely pro-town. It doesn't, in my mind, strongly point to Destructor being scum. Anti-town =/= scum, and in this case I take it as a nulltell. Will do a reread to se the evolution of SlySly's arguable/alleged/whatever lynch-immunity or lack thereof, but Sly, I'd really like you to clarify
as clearly and finally as possible
.
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #456 (isolation #34) » Thu Jan 29, 2009 7:04 am

Post by Plum »

Kmd, while I don't agree that there was absolutely nothing wrong with your 'that's interesting' post at all etc., it pales in comparison to Isacc's recent posting. Destructor has explained the vague nature of her PR-ish-thing well enough for me, and I'm satisfied with her deciding how much German she wants to post as a safeguard against getting modkilled. I don't ned nor want her to risk being modkilled, and I think that attempting to put Des in a position where she has to risk being modkilled to prove that she's not lyning is so far from necessary and so drastic that Isacc is scummy for having done so. Threatening that it's for Des'
own good
etc. just makes it look, well, even scummier.

Unvote; Vote: Isacc


Analysis of Sly's positions and claims hopefully coming tonight (am at school now, and don't have the time to give it the attention I'll need to. See you then).
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #502 (isolation #35) » Sat Jan 31, 2009 3:42 pm

Post by Plum »

Back again. Analysis of SlySly's claims and such below:
SlySly wrote:A vote for me is pretty much a waste of the town's time. I have sent a copy of my claim to the mod to make sure I follow all the rules of my role. Until receiving word back from Mirth, I am not prepared to elaborate on this just yet.
This suggests that the reason lynching Sly will be a waste of the town's time is role-related, not related mostly to Sly's alignment being town. He says he's not yet prepared to elaborate on the fact that it will be a waste of he town's time until his roleclaim has been approved by Mirth - it's role-related.
SlySly wrote:Well, I heard back from the mod and I will claim. Claiming at L-4 is usually pretty needless and stupid but since I don't want the town wasting their time on me, I will.
Again suggesting that lynching him is a fruitless path for reasons other than only standard 'I'm town'.
SlySly wrote:I can't go into detail about my role but I see it as pretty much of a waste of time trying to lynch me as the odds of catching and/or killing a sasquatch are very slim.
So the waste of time
is
related to his role, in that the odds are against the town being able to lynch him successfully? That seems to be the most intuitive interpretation, at any rate.
SlySly wrote:The personal drive to claim now comes from being a victim of numerous previous mislynch bandwagons and knowing how much time was wasted battling about my unusual play in those games. I felt the claiming now would help ease the minds of the town by gaining some understanding of the reasoning behind some of my actions.
So the drive to claim isn't related to any difficulty in being able to successfully lynch him - that the waste of the town's time is related to his tendency to be lynched as a townie with an unusual playstyle? I already smell something of a contradiction here. Yes, it might have eased the minds of the townies here to know why you didn't fear Caf's lemonade, but the claim didn't address the main suspicion against you, so I don't see the necessity for an L-4 claim from that point-of-view. It feels like you're all over the board as the the reason for the early claim.

So, you seemed to imply some degree of lynch-proofness. I thought so, Imaginality thought so, etc.
SlySly wrote:
imaginality wrote: One thought, only zemi-zerious musing - ve
could
call SlySly's bluff, no? If lynching him = no lynch, is not zo bad. Confirms Sly's claim. Okay, puts us on even nomberrs vhich is bad if means one less lynch, but vhat are chances of zis game proceeding in orderly one kill per night, one lynch per day anyhow?
As long as the town searches for other scum before my lynch attempt, I am onboard with this plan.
Still seems like Sly is saying he does have some sort of lynch-immunity.
SlySly wrote: I don't even know for sure that I won't die, but I have never been witness to a successful sasquatch hunt and for that reason, I suspect the lynch will not succeed.
O-kaaay.
SlySly wrote:My PM does not state any lynch immunity but it does state a few specific things about my abilities as a sasquatch which I cannot elaborate about other than saying I am as elusive as one would expect a sasquatch to be. A failed lynch on me would more confirm my elusiveness as a sasquatch.
So - if we try to lynch you we
probably
won't succeed?
SlySly wrote:
destructor wrote: You specifically mentioned how your question to me was related to your own role. Your own role is meant to have an ability that is extremely useful - some sort of invulnerability
or something
.
Or something would be the better descriptor. I cannot elaborate on this without risk of modkill.
SlySly wrote:I don't know for sure that I will be able to slip through the lynch.
SlySly wrote:I do not have any immunities. What I do have is abilities.
Can you elaborate on the odds? Any good guesses as to how likely it is that an attempt to lynch you will fail? Looking over, I don't see outright contradictions about how lynch-proof you are, but at the same time there seem to be misleading statements etc.. Looking over Imaginality's accusations that Sly was bluffing about being lynch-proof: Sly never seemed to say outright that he knew lynching him wouldn't work. However, he does seem to be claiming at least partly to preempt a wagon on himself. He doesn't feel the need to correct people under the impression that if he's telling the truth he won't be able to be lynched, seems to encourage that view . . . :
SlySly wrote:
imaginality wrote: One thought, only zemi-zerious musing - ve
could
call SlySly's bluff, no? If lynching him = no lynch, is not zo bad. Confirms Sly's claim. Okay, puts us on even nomberrs vhich is bad if means one less lynch, but vhat are chances of zis game proceeding in orderly one kill per night, one lynch per day anyhow?
As long as the town searches for other scum before my lynch attempt, I am onboard with this plan. Although, finding scum to lynch would be a better plan, especially if we expose more than one.
SlySly wrote: Am I unlynchable? I don't think so.

Will the lynch on me today be successful? I don't think so.
Hm.

On the other hand, Sly is the scummiest in my eyes so far. The foreign-language PR stance(s), the confusing mess with the claim and immunities or apparent lack thereof, newly, his case on Destructor (which I'll elaborate on below), even, on a small point, his refusal to repeat his question for Darox, which was a completely reasonable request, all combine to make him scummiest in my eyes, and, well, him being sasquatch, as he claimed, doesn't preclude him being scum whether or not the flavor he's claimed is true. I wouldn't mind lynching him but would like to have some more players check in and shout out if they have anything they'd like to discuss or have an alternative case with a huge argument they haven't gotten to yet. In addition, Sly says he has some strong thoughts on who's scum, which, assuming he's actually town, might prove fruitful. I myself, in answer to him, have less strong convictions than he does. I have not seen enough of Glork or Darox to have anything but a slight scum-gut on the both of them, Isacc tried a stupid gambit (elaboration below), and SlySly has acted scummiest of everyone.

The Destructor case: I don't see choosing to participate in the game over reading through the entire game (especially as the first few pages consisted to a large degree of fluff), and that Destructor has managed to read a few pages, at least. She's making an effort, she's contributing, and I don't see it as a scumtell. I, as before, do not think it's unlikely that Zazie misinterpreted a vague not-really-a-PR, and therefore do not agree with Sly's case and do not feel better about him because of it.

On another lighter note, when rescanning Destructor's posts, I found something which I must have missed, because I'm especially fond of my sig and would have otherwise responded
destructor wrote:
Plum wrote:Destructor joins. Welcome, I've vaguely hoped to play with you someday, nice avatar, nice kitties.
Thanks for the welcome =). What's you signature from?
Rosencrantz & Guildenstern are Dead
[/awesomeness]

Isacc's gambit was stupid because no one agrees to risk a modkill. Not town, not scum, not anyone else. We wouldn't have gotten a read on Destrucor even if no one spoke out against the stupidity and apparent scumminess because no player would have consented at all, regardless of his or her alignment.
imaginality wrote:
SlySly wrote:Before I am lynched, other than myself, who do you (townies) find scummy?
Hmm. Intehrrrezting phrase - "you (townies)" = SlySly not townie?
No, it's reasonable that after a short post referring to Darox only as 'you' it's absolutely reasonable to specify 'you = townies' in that case. Not a scum slip, irregardless of his other scumtells. I agree with Dahill on this, it would seem. Imaginality suggested it and EK echoed it in no uncertain terms. When Sly explained the above reason as to why he specified 'you (townies)', she deftly changes the subject.
Fos: elvis_knits
.

Unvote
. After a few things happen (players check in, any last-minute arguments happen, Sly tells us his scum suspects) I'm fully prepared to hammer.
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #523 (isolation #36) » Sun Feb 01, 2009 10:16 am

Post by Plum »

SlySly wrote:
Plum wrote: his refusal to repeat his question for Darox, which was a completely reasonable request
I already pointed it out to him once.
My question to Darox was in post 451.
Meh, all right, fair, give or take.
SlySly wrote:
Plum wrote: In addition, Sly says he has some strong thoughts on who's scum, which, assuming he's actually town, might prove fruitful.
I did not say I had strong cases, I said I already know who I think is scum. I think Darox, Destructor and Cow are scum. Glork is on the bubble.
I meant that you had
strong thoughts
as I said, i.e. some amount of conviction. It's nice that you shared, although I'm curious as to why you call out Cow for lack of contribution (I think he's given the town a reasonable amount of stuff, including the original, though flawed, case on Isacc) while Glork, who has contributed much less is only 'on the bubble'. Anything more you want to say about Darox or Glork? I've already discussed why I really dislike your case against Destructor.
SlySly wrote:Cow, you have said your role is awesome. What more can you tell us about it?
Nice rolefishing attempt there (on preview, I see that Kmd has commented on the same thing).

So, a few more questions to ask before I hammer:

EK, any response to my accusation?
Sly, any elaboration on your scum suspects?
Kmd, what are your thoughts on Isacc now that he's explained his attempted gambit? Still scummy? Elaborate? What about Sly?
Darox wrote:Shiny rocks are way more distracting than comparative statements, any day of the week.
Image

If you have my Silmarils, give them to me
now
.
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #530 (isolation #37) » Sun Feb 01, 2009 10:44 am

Post by Plum »

dahill1 wrote:i say kmd should hammer
Why the preference, out of curiosity?
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #532 (isolation #38) » Sun Feb 01, 2009 10:51 am

Post by Plum »

dahill1 wrote:
Plum wrote:
dahill1 wrote:i say kmd should hammer
Why the preference, out of curiosity?
in the unlikely-but-still-probable-due-to-sly's-vagueness-over-the-lynch-not-going-through case that sly is a supersaint
Probable? I'm not sure about that. I believe Imaginality suggested that such might be the case and Sly never confirmed nor denied it. Sly, can you tell us if your role might imply any supersaint-like qualities?
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #541 (isolation #39) » Sun Feb 01, 2009 5:09 pm

Post by Plum »

Isacc wrote:@Everyone: Here's something I noticed. It would seem Glork cannot vote for real players. However, the vote count still requires a majority as if there were really 12 votes. If Glork was incapable of voting for a real player, why would his vote be included in the majority count? I think this may suggest a fake PR or perhaps something related to his role. Anyways, I thought it was an interesting thing to note.

@Everyone, part 2: So what do we think about the lynch? Does the flavor discredit SlySly's roleclaim, or is it just done so that Mirth can screw with us and we won't know if he's really a Sasquatch? Personally, I think the second is more likely, and I'm inclined to believe that Sly's role claim was honest.
1. Mod-WIFOM won't get us tpp far, and my gut instinct is that we both need seven to lynch
and
Glork can't vote someone actually playing this game. There's a simple way to test this, though: Ask him to vote for a player in this game. Either he'll do it and it'll work, or he'll do it and it won't work, or he'll refuse and be forced to explain more.

So, Glork, would you mind voting for, say, me, at least long enough to see if it'll appear on the votecount? Whether or not your PM says it will work (unless you risk a modkill or something; if so, please speak up about that), please.

2. Flavor - or at least the unsuccessful lynch - strengthens Sly's claim, at least his claim-flavor. Am I ruling out the possibility of him being sasquatch-scum? Absolutely not. Can we try to lynch him again if we feel it's necessary or would be beneficial? Absolutely.

For now, I'm going to follow a new-ish lead and see where it takes me. EK, I've noted my suspicions of you. Care to respond?

Vote: elvis_knits
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #607 (isolation #40) » Tue Feb 03, 2009 3:49 pm

Post by Plum »

Sorry for any absence etc. Bit of analysis and responses to EK:
elvis_knits wrote:Is this it? You have a problem with the me seeing sly's slip?
I have a problem that you state with such conviction that it was a slip, because I don't see that it was any sort of explicit tell at all.
elvis_knits wrote:
plum wrote:Imaginality suggested it and EK echoed it in no uncertain terms. When Sly explained the above reason as to why he specified 'you (townies)', she deftly changes the subject. Fos: elvis_knits.
Well, I have noticed that people never like it when I call out slips or tells. I'm not sure why exactly. Maybe it's because other people don't rely on gut-reaction tells as much as I do. I tend to hit on small things that don't make sense to me. Often, a small thing will make me look harder at a person, and either through questions or through looking at their other posts, I get more (or less) convinced of them being scummy. Maybe this is not how other people work?

Anyway, I do sometimes get caught up in wording. Because I think it can show how a player is subconsciously considering themselves. If they are putting themselves in the town group, or out of the town group. That's pretty significant to me. Other things I have seen, a player voting someone they consider town, a player slip and name an exact number of scum in a game. That is pretty much defnitely a scum slip. I try to notice things like that. You may not agree with me. It's not an exact science, but it helps me a lot.

As to "deftly changing the subject" I don't remember doing that.
First paragraph is a long ramble about how sometimes you will hit on small things during the course of your scumhunt, and how people 'never like it' when you call out slips or tells. I don't care either way, just that you're arguing that something is a slip when it clearly isn't. Ramble smacks of subtle meta defense, which I generally consider a fairly mild scumtell.

Second paragraph also contains a fair amount of filler, but whatever: Did you reread the exchange and notice that Sly had two short posts using only 'you' pronouns. The first was directed at Darox. The second was phrased fairly naturally in a sentence structure which required parenthetical clarification as to who 'you' referred to, as in the last post it had been Darox, not the town at large.

Deftly changing the subject:

You accused Sly, in no uncertain terms, as having shown a scum slip. Sly commented in his usual kinda useless way, and you told him you were suspicious of the fact that he didn't include himself in the 'town' group. Sly elaborated. Instead of either continuing the argument, or ending it with a statement that 'I still see it as a slip/sorry, my bad' and continuing on, you turned to a completely different subject. You made an incorrect accusation, discussed it, and, Sly having elaborated, you ignore the discussion on your bad accusation and turn the conversation towards Sly's apparently evolving degree of claimed lynch-proofness. He'd already shown it to be varied and/or evolving, at any rate. If you'd been suspicious he'd been lying, you might have brought it up before. As it is, it looks like a convenient attack to pick up when your attack fell flat due to its incorrectness.
Isacc wrote:"Got distracted" is code for "changed the subject to."

I'm not liking your explanation here. I don't buy it at all. I don't see how SlySly changed the subject, and the fact remains you jumped from "Your word choice is suspicious," to "That one part of your last defense is suspicious."
QFTrufax.
Darox wrote:Best member of the Tea party, Mad Hatter or the Sleepy Dormouse?
Dormouse, which might have become my dominant internet handle if not for stuff.
imaginality wrote:
SlySly wrote:
Mirth wrote:

The poor fools gathered around one of their own, SlySly
Does this statement mean anything to anyone besides myself?
Yes, it means that flavor has acknowledged that you're among the living players in this game. I.e.: Congratulations, you are... a player in Congratulations, you are... Mafia. Would you like a medal? N, I don't believe it's in any way indicative of your alignment. Sorry.

Back to EK and suchlike:
elvis_knits wrote:If you want to call it that, okay. Maybe I did change the subject, but guess I just don't understand what was weird about it. I stand by the "slip" remark, and I've explaned it numerous times. The fact that I may sometimes talk about other things, doesn't mean anything. It's not like I didn't want to talk about the slip. I've talked about it a lot. We can talk about it all day. I don't understand the problem with me having multiple points and going from one to the other.
I have a problem that you're standing by the 'slip remark', and I have a problem that when Sly argued well against it, you did not acknowledge your mistake or choose to continue the discussion. You changed to topic, possibly in an attempt to save face.
hasdgfas wrote:
elvis_knits wrote: cow because he went on Isaac's witch hunt against des.
Um, I didn't think Isacc's ultimatum against des was a good thing, I wanted clarification on the German thing after zazier said she couldn't speak English.
Rescan confirms Cow's side of the argument. He did not support Isacc's stupid plan/gambit/whatever. He, along with others, questioned and voted Destructor before Des' explanation. This doesn't make me any less suspicious of you, but you did say you needed to do a rescan or something, didn't you? I'll deal with not hounding you on this count.

Sly sees the fact that flavor doesn't in any way confirm him to be town. That's good. Could unlynchable scum exist in theory? Sly seemed to say that if he could be found and caught (I paraphrase) he could be killed. Is there a role or mechanic that would allow that to happen? My gut says yes, whether or not he's town or scum. Sly's in no way confirmed by the fact that our attempt to lynch him failed right now, I think.

The Isacc wagon: Yes, I see Isacc's gambit/whatever as potentially scummy, as the gambit was so stupid, so scummy-looking on the surface, and so, yes, stupid . . .

The thing is, Isacc, if you though you could get reactions from Des out of it, relative to how she reacted - always with some variation on 'acceptance'. If you were stupid enough to think that she'd accept a plan to get herself modkilled, it's far from impossible that you're scum whose gambit was really one to try to get Des modkilled. That said, my gut feelings do not point me in that direction. Stupid, but chance of stupid town is great enough.
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #613 (isolation #41) » Tue Feb 03, 2009 4:51 pm

Post by Plum »

Isacc wrote:I never thought you wouldn't get that it was a gambit. However, you knowing it was a gambit wouldn't have stopped it from working. You couldn't have known what reactions I was looking for.
That doesn't mean much, considering the fact that all of the reactions you said afterwards you were looking for revolved around Des accepting your plan for her to risk modkill. Which would never occur unless Des got a major lobotomy first. Which wasn't about to happen. It was a stupid gambit. Knowing it was meant as a gambit downgrades it from 'really scummy' to ' verging on null because it's that freaking ridiculous to read'. I can just see it's possible that a townie with no foresight at all did it thinking it might actually bear some fruit, but it makes such little sense at all.
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #621 (isolation #42) » Wed Feb 04, 2009 4:35 pm

Post by Plum »

Isacc wrote:About your "If Des knew you wanted a reaction," If you read the quote you JUST quoted, I said that Destructor couldn't have known what reactions I was looking for, so they
wouldn't
be crafted. Christ, you have no clue what you are even saying. It's like arguing with Empking. No wonder Dahill found you scummy earlier.
Plum wrote:
Isacc wrote:I never thought you wouldn't get that it was a gambit. However, you knowing it was a gambit wouldn't have stopped it from working. You couldn't have known what reactions I was looking for.
That doesn't mean much, considering the fact that all of the reactions you said afterwards you were looking for revolved around Des accepting your plan for her to risk modkill. Which would never occur unless Des got a major lobotomy first. Which wasn't about to happen.
The reactions might not have been crafted, but they'd sure as heck have been meaningless along your scale anyway. Any realistic reaction from Des whatever her alignment or honety would have been 'you're crazy if you think I'll risk a modkill like that'. The reactions would have been worthless. Knowing it was a gambit just takes the second reaction from 'Isacc is really scummy for suggesting this' to 'Isacc is stupid'.
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #650 (isolation #43) » Thu Feb 05, 2009 4:00 pm

Post by Plum »

SlySly wrote:
destructor wrote: Sly, nothing has been proven besides the fact that putting you at 7 votes didn't lynch you last time.
Putting me there again today will have the same result.
You sure? I'm willing to try Des' idea, not least because I do happen to find you fairly scummy, as I'm sure I summarized before. As she pointed out, time taken will be trivial. Also, Glork, it would seem you can't vote for anyone in this game. I'd like to ask you again to either try to vote Sly now, and we'll see what happens, or don't try, and explain as fully as possible why you won't.

Unvote; Vote: SlySly
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #697 (isolation #44) » Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:17 pm

Post by Plum »

Hah! Sorry, I'm back from whatever mini-absence there may have been:

News:

The attempted recheck of Sly didn't take too much time, but was fruitless, alas.
Unvote; Vote: elvis_knits
. That subject to change.
Glork wrote:
Plum wrote:1. Mod-WIFOM won't get us tpp far, and my gut instinct is that we both need seven to lynch
and
Glork can't vote someone actually playing this game. There's a simple way to test this, though: Ask him to vote for a player in this game. Either he'll do it and it'll work, or he'll do it and it won't work, or he'll refuse and be forced to explain more.

So, Glork, would you mind voting for, say, me, at least long enough to see if it'll appear on the votecount? Whether or not your PM says it will work (unless you risk a modkill or something; if so, please speak up about that), please.
I seenk joo know ze anzher to zis olredy. I vill not say a vord about zis game, bot I vill zhay that hizhtorikolly, I very moch like to vote and leench people. Dahill and EK and Dezh shood be able to konfirm zis. I vill leave joo to joor own konkluzhonzh on zis mattor.
Very well, then. My own conclusions are that you are not allowed to attempt to vote for anyone in this game and that your role prevents you from saying much further (or even much at all explicitly) to this effect. Thanks.
Glork wrote:Ze plom/EK debate dozh not interezht me at oll, ekzhept in zat Plom izh von ov my scomzh kandidates.

...

So ya, I vood leench Dezh, and zen pozzhibly Plom after zat.
Interesting. You say you dislike my defense of Des and my attack on Isacc? My defense of Des comes after my understanding of her role and not-quote-PR. As I understand it, her posts in English after German posts and Zazie's posts are not at all likely to be the product of scum faking a post restriction. Nor did I feel that attacking her not having read the entire thread, under circumstances, was attacking her for a legit scumtell. Hence I questioned those who attacked her on those points; the attack itself was pretty bad and I explained why it was so. Do you still find me scummy on that count, and if so could you explain why, Glork?

My attack on Isacc came due to Isacc's proposed plan to get Des to either risk getting herself modkilled or be marked down as scum, especially since, as above, I don't find her scummy on the PR-not-really thing. Since he explained it as a gambit, my main attack has been withdrawn, though the claimed gambit doesn't give me fluffy stomach bunnies either, and I believe I attacked some of his logic since. You say you approve of Isacc's inquiry and dislike the fact that I went after it. However, you do list Kmd as looking protown for having further attacked Isacc about his gambit, far longer than I have thought it beneficial or an optimal scumhunting avenue unto itself; in addition, Kmd posted directly before the post of mine you called out attacking Isacc very similarly to my Isacc-vote post. Care to elaborate, please?
caf19 wrote:This game will probably last several Days; we can comfortably wait past Day 1 before considering his potential liability in Lylo. Glork also implies he has other, non-voting means of getting scum killed; waiting until a subsequent day might give us more info as to what the nature of those means are, if they exist at all.
I agree. Also, interesting thing noted by EK:
hascow wrote:I may not have talked about how bad isacc's plan was at the time, but plenty of other people were. I also didn't support it, so if other people are attacking it, why should I? I wouldn't have added anything except "I don't like Isacc's plan either", and that would've looked like following.
I agree that the apparent fear of looking like he's following (as opposed to a nice simple 'I agree that Isacc's plan is stupid', which would have been a decent option) looks potentially scummy.
FOS: Hascow
, 'kay?
Isacc wrote:I don't know why Glork says that EK and Kmd are "obvtown." Wait, yes I do.

Glork, EK, and Kmd are scum.
Not impossible in my mind by any stretch of the imagination, but after a bad experience or two I've learned that it's more prudent not to call scumteams before a lynch and flip. Nor, if I read correctly, did Glork call Kmd or EK 'obvtown'. He noted a post by EK that he said seemed protown and cited a discussion that he thought made Kmd look protwon in his mind.

Something in me wants to find the time to do an in-depth reread of Imaginality along the lines of what Isacc has wanted to do.

Mod:
Des, did you get a sex change or something?
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #701 (isolation #45) » Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:50 pm

Post by Plum »

Isacc wrote:@Plum: Glork's last post, fourth paragraph (single lines count as paragraphs). It's the parenthetical part. He says EK and Kmd are "obvtownzh".
Thanks, sorry, my mistake. Now that I see that, I will say that I disagree strongly with that - and considering where I'm at with my suspicions of EK, I'll take the liberty to
FOS: Glork
.
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #713 (isolation #46) » Thu Feb 12, 2009 7:00 am

Post by Plum »

elvis_knits wrote:Dear Other Players,

It looks like Sly is not going to die today. We have to lynch someone else. Please come back.

xoxo,
elvis
Yeah. And deadline is Monday, unless I'm mistaken. Right now I have my vote on Elvis, who I think would be a decent choice to lynch at this point. If that doesn't start happening, there are others I'd be fine with, especially if the alternative is a no-lynch. I'm at school, so details on my opinions to follow.

Though Kmd, I have time to say that there are probably others I'd rather lynch than Isacc if the Elvis wagon doesn't hit a stride soon, but I'd have to at least skim Glork's and Darox's (off the top of my head, players who might be decent lynches) posts in isolation before I give a preliminary thumbs up.
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #721 (isolation #47) » Thu Feb 12, 2009 5:40 pm

Post by Plum »

Glork wrote:
hasdgfas wrote:
Plum wrote:
Isacc wrote:@Plum: Glork's last post, fourth paragraph (single lines count as paragraphs). It's the parenthetical part. He says EK and Kmd are "obvtownzh".
Thanks, sorry, my mistake. Now that I see that, I will say that I disagree strongly with that - and considering where I'm at with my suspicions of EK, I'll take the liberty to
FOS: Glork
.
So you're FoSing someone because you disagree on how scummy you find people? That doesn't make sense to me.
Zat'zh exaktlee vot I am kveczonink. I vont to know if Plom typikolly sospektzh people bazhed on differenzh in opinionzh.
Moderate suspicions based, among other things, on calling EK (and, to a lesser degree, Kmd) obvtown with relative lack of explanation, especially as EK is where I have my vote right now. However
Glork wrote:Wrong. "Obvtown" is hyperbolee. Zey are ze same ting.

I can deal with that; it's just not my usual way of expressing relative lack of suspicion. If you meant "looks pro-town" when you said "obvtown", I'm more comfortable with the amount of reasoning provided. After a quick rescan of both, I've determined that Darox would be a lynch I'd prefer over a Glork lynch today (considerable sense I'm getting that he has, at times, actively lurked/provided little content). EK is someone I'd be fine seeing lynched. Des keeps mentioning Imaginality . . . but I haven't yet put together a decent reread of the guy.
imaginality wrote:3. Re. Sly's comment: I accept it vas a stretch and I vas tunnel on him zomvhat for the vhile. But I do not seeing vhy that is a concern. If scum, I vould know Sly was not scum, so I vould know he is likely truth-telling wif unlynchable claim, so vhy stretch to get him lynched?
Or you and Sly could be scum together. Much of the defense you present in this instance is WIFOM. There are other reasons, too, why scum-Imaginality could have tunneled and stretched badly to attack whatever-alignment-SlySly. Subtle, I'm sure, but arguing that it wasn't scummy because scum would certainly have avoided the Sly wagon after Sly's claim is misleading.
Plum wrote:
Mod:
Des, did you get a sex change or something?
Plum, who comes in the night and gives people surprise sex-change operations :lol:! Sorry Des - believing random male players to actually be female is actually something I've done more than once. I'm in a game with Crazy, for instance, and was pretty sure he was a she. Then I checked, this time before I messed up my pronouns. In this instance, I think, the lack of a little gender sign by the av combined with an av with a girl in it combined with the abbreviated name Des all sorta combined unfortunately.

I was gonna correct you the first time you did it, but then I decided to wait around for a bit and see if he felt like doing it himself. Apparently not
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #733 (isolation #48) » Fri Feb 13, 2009 11:02 am

Post by Plum »

Kmd4390 wrote:Mirth doesn't technically require unvotes. (I found that out the hard way in Mayo.)
Good times, those :P.
Glork wrote:Darox, even if joo are "ztill typink," pleazhe give us vot joo have so far, even if it is jost notezh or a draft of vot joo vant to say. Since joo are ze leading kandidate vith four votezh, if joo have nothink to lose by pozhting joor thoughts.
This, please. I understand you're still working on this promised post, but deadline approacheth and if you do not want to be lynched (which you don't) it's in your best interest to tell us stuff ASAP, and make a counter-case, if you care to.
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #779 (isolation #49) » Mon Feb 16, 2009 3:59 pm

Post by Plum »

Sorry for any neglect you've all felt. I think, for my sake as well as everyone else's, I'll do a recap post with analysis throughout, to better get back in touch with the game.

The Darox wagon's peak came right around just after my last post in this game (i.e. it stalled at Darox's long post and fell apart as a let's-avoid-a-No-lynch wagon soon afterward due to deadline extension; thanks, Mod). Right now I'm inclined to analyze a few players in the context of how they affected or responded to the Darox wagon: EK, Des, and maybe Glork or Imaginality - I'll see if anything interesting comes up as I reread in depth.

Going back to the beginning of the wagon for EK, then. EK's votes, from the beginning of the game: Random vote on Glork, early vote on CC for lack of scumhunting. Cow replaced CC. EK weakly disagrees with Cow's case on Isacc in the same post in which she unvotes him and votes Sly, but I notice that that was the day she triple posted. What were you on, again, EK? Ah, nyquil. It was after a few posts with questions and jabs at Sly, so fine on that count. On the other hand, interestingly, immediately before this she notes Darox as scummy for 'his unexplained pile-on vote on kmd'. Not totally - as the case progressed Darox expressed sentiments that Kmd was being more self-contradictory than a compulsive liar, from which one may deduce that he saw the 'Kmd's responses are becoming scummy and contradictory' side of the debate . . . But I digress; apologies. To the matter at hand - the next unvote and vote were both regarding Sly, etc.
elvis_knits wrote:I have to look through the thread and see where I want to put my vote now. I'm thinking darox or maybe cow. Darox for that weird bandwagon vote on kmd with no reasons explained. cow because he went on Isaac's witch hunt against des.
As above, I don't think her case on Darox at the ime was that strong, but whatever. More interesting, as I believe others have pointed out (myself included?) was he comment on Cow. In this case I don't believe any silence on Cow's part could be rightfully interpreted as actually going along with Isacc's stupid plan. Which is the argument EK makes in support of her statement.
elvis_knits wrote:Since you had voted des (although, I don't think you were voting him at the time) because of the english/german question, and Isacc's plan had to do with that issue, it's not easy to tell your feelings on the subject. I thought you might support isaac, because you brought up that exact same issue against des.

And why are you worried about "following" or appearing to follow?
I dropped the issue at its inception, partly because at face value the accusation was so ridiculous and EK had said, if I recall, that she'd been in need of a reread. However, following up, she did not acknowledge that the accusation was inane but attempted to justify it with weak points. Cow's lack of comment on Isacc's plan was in no way ambiguous enough, much less as scummy as the original accusation's tone would imply, to justify considering a vote. Basically, saying that Cow 'went on Isacc's witch hunt against des' is a lie, implying that he did something scummy he did not do is itself scummy, and the weak justifications don't help.

Oh yes, I was supposed to be analyzing EK's votes in the context of how the Darox wagon formed and grew. Back to that. She was considering putting her vote on Darox after the failed lynch (she did participate in Des' second lynch attempt) because of 'that weird bandwagon vote on kmd with no reasons explained'. Weak but arguably fair case there, as I stated above. However EK's next vote is on Cow. Let me break out a quote:
elvis_knits wrote:If we can't lynch sly, I'll go for cow since I sensed something scummy with the Isaac plan/des stuff. I really didn't like when cow said he didn't say how he hated Isaac's plan because he "didn't want to look like a follower." Being overly worried that your actions might look scummy is usually a sign of being scum.
Not quite related to the original crap argument, and better, than it, too.The quote from Cow isn't verbatim, and arguably Cow's statement could be read such that he meant all he would add to the conversation by saying he didn't like the plan would be him looking like a follower, which would be detrimental to him and add nothing to the conversation, and thus be a nulltell. However I'm pretty confident that EK's approach here isn't itself a scumtell.

Back to the votes

HEAVENS THIS IS GOING TO BE A BIG WALL OF TEXT

now.

Next post after the Cow vote is a Darox vote stating that she hasn't seen him do much in the game besides the bandwagon vote on Kmd, which implies lack of contributions, which from memory I find myself agreeing with. Second vote on the wagon, shortly after Imaginality's vote.

EK's Darox vote itself doesn't look conclusively scummy itself, I conclude. The stronger scumtells I've picked up along the path, however, are still relevant, at least in my mind. I'd wondered whether my vote on EK needed reconsidering - on reread, however, I think EK's a pretty good pick for scum right now.

Des' place on the Darox wagon: Interestingly enough, Des also has an earlier vote on Darox after the first failed lynch. Des notes Darox's 'opportunistic' vote on Kmd early and also notes Darox's overall lack of contribution as reason for his vote and ends his long post by saying that 'I think Darox needs to die'. Bit strong for that amount of proof, but I'll deal. In a subsequent post Des says that ' I think the only good wagons today are on Darox or imaginality'. Interesting. Next comes the second attempt at the Sly lynch. Between that and Des' revote on Darox there are two posts; one continues to push the attempt on Sly and one is discussion with Glork (which I hope to cover later in this post).

THIS ALWAYS HAPPENS WHEN I PROCRASTINATE.

With Des' revote on Darox comes a strange accusation towards Imaginality which seems to imply that Des is quite sure that Imaginality is Mafia, either bussing Darox or jumping on an easy mislynch. Which I believe is the 'blatant false dilemma' to which Glork was referring. The revote is the third vote on the Darox wagon in a very short period of time. It was, however, preceded by an extended expressed desire to lynch Darox, so I'd be hesitant to slap the label "opportunistic" on it and call it a day.

The next vote on the Darox wagon is Sly. Aaaaannd to be honest by now we're really coming up to deadline, and it'll be harder and harder to judge motivations and scumminess based in subsequent wagoning. So maybe I'll get back to EK and Des. I'm kinda pressed for time here.

Des' response to Glork's accusations regarding Des' false dilemma are interesting. He doesn't actually respond to the false dilemma accusation itself as far as I can tell (though does elaborate on Darox case vs. Imaginality gut for all of us). The only actual defense I can see here is 'I could have done it for reactions and that would be legit, you know'. Which is iffy, in my humble opinion.

The Darox reread - the part he's been able to post thus far. Does it make him less scummy? Yes and no, unfortunately. He's at least breaking out of the 'little contributions made' mold, which is good. Does turning over a new leaf make a towntell? Not really. Decent scumhunting, if that's what this turns out to be, would, however.

Odd thing I notice in his analysis of Caf is that his semi?-defense for an accusation that he voted Sly with little case to back him up is that 'One would think placing a vote is a pretty good way of saying "Yep, I think this guy is scummy"'.

In the analysis of EK, I find that Darox says
Darox wrote:Strangely, the biggest complaint to this is raised by Plum who manages to miss the mark completely, attacking EK for changing the subject after Sly explained why he used the phrasing he did. This completely falls through though, because Sly explained it before EK ever called it a scum slip. Isacc also tries to push this "changed the subject" angle. It's very bizarre and really, out of all the people involved in the argument over the Scumslip thing, EK comes out looking the best despite not really showing anything of substance against Sly.
Interesting, and something I plan to address later. Simply do not have the time right now, and other things are pressing in this already over-long post.

Des continues to push for the Darox lynch afterwards, citing, of all things, a quote of his in which he attacks Glork for 'giving Darox lip service' on his lack of contributions. Huh? Did I miss something here?
elvis_knits wrote:
dahill1 wrote:
elvis_knits wrote:I think Darox is the play today. His participation has been pathetic. The fact that he has promised things and not come through really makes me suspicious. Combined with the bandwagon vote on KMD with no explanation, he remains my choice.
what are your thoughts on him now that he's completed the review?
I don't like his review. It's only of half the people in the game. I don't like that at all. When you pick only certain people to review, that makes me suspicious... like he's shaping his answers. Why choose the people he did? Why leave out the people he did? It's not like his review was only people he found scummy. He said I was scummy, buddied up to hascow and lucifer, says a whole lot of nothing about caf, dahill, and glork. I don't agree with him about hascow, and feel he was sucking up. And the only person he accused of being scummy was me, and that's basically OMGUS.

I still support his lynch.
As I believe others have noted, weird. First, I believe Lucifer etc. references Darox himself, EK, just for clarity's sake. Second, he warned us that he was only half done with the post he was making, and, yes, he wrote about the first six players on the list as they appear on page one.

More than one person comments on Darox buddying up to Cow. Honestly, I can't focus on that or any motivations behind it right now. I didn't see it as being strong enough to be really disconcerting/a scumtell, but I may need to reread it.

On Des, Glork, and controversy:
destructor wrote:On Glork, I'd like to see a claim. If he can't vote for any player in this game, he's useless to the town besides through scum-hunting, but he's hardly been doing any of that.

What this means is that with Glork alive, we'd be in lylo one day early.

So, Glork, if you can't vote for anyone, I think you should claim right now and explain to us why we should be keeping yo alive.
Yes: no. This is a clear request for a claim right now. Request is clearly not warranted and in my opinion scummy. As has been said by myself and others, asking for a premature claim isn't the way to go here. Ensuring that Glork isn't a LYLO liability is, but we're not near LYLO yet.
Glork wrote:
destructor wrote:"Wait and see" was what I said. I didn't vote you, I didn't say, "let's lynch Glork". I said you, as a voteless player, are a policy lynch one day before lylo. I asked for a claim because that was all I could see that would change that. All of this was easier for me to say because you didn't look very town either. I wanted the idea out there now, so it wouldn't be a scramble later in the game.
Liezh. Ven joo firzht mentioned it, joo said joo had to think on vot ze alleged restrikzhon said. Zen joo came out vith joor "Glork should claim or else we should leench him" idea.
Dezh wrote:So far, no one, including yourself, has provided a compelling argument against my suggestion, which is on purely theoretical grounds, and I have asked for feedback on it. Most of the responses seem to be based on preferences as opposed to real probabilities.
Ze policy itself is only part of ze issue here. Joo demanded a klaim
immediately
becoz joo said zat vizout one, zere vas no reason joo shood "be keeping [me] alive." Vot I kant onderstand is vy joo vood vont a klaim D1 for ONLY ze reason zat we may lose a day if I kannot vote in endgame.

First of all, zis is a DIREKT KONDRADIKZHON to vot joo jost claimed, zat joo vanted to "vait and see" how my role and gameplay vood play out. Before I ever had ze chance to respond, joo vere saying I shood klaim or die.
How in ze Motherland does "klaim or ve have no reazhon to keep you alive" translate "letzh vait and see vot happens over ze korse of ze game before decidink if Glork izh aktually ze scomzh"?

Dezh wrote:So, basically, your argument here has always been that I'm blindly pushing for your lynch without considering context, which isn't true at all.
Dezh wrote:So, Glork, if you can't vote for anyone, I think you should claim right now and explain to us why we should be keeping yo alive.
Joo tell me vezher joo vere "considerink knotekst" or giving me a "klaim or die" ultimatum, based on vot joo originially said. Don't joo dare try to change vot joo pushed. Joo vere blatantly fishing for a claim, else joo didnt vant me alive. Joo didnt say "perhaps Glork vill be investigated and vill bekome konfirmed town" (vich vood obviouzhly negate ze desire for a policy leench). Joo never said "perhaps Glork vill have anozer ability vich vill become evident vithout him having to klaim on D1 for no reason at all." Joo never said "perhaps Glork's lack of vote is temporary, and he vill be able to vote later." Tho joo never outright DENIED zese possibilitizh,
joo implied zat me klaiming is preferrable to exploring ze dynamics of my role vithin the context of ze game.
And ZAT is vot botherzh me so moch about joor play. I vood NEVER expekt joo to take soch an onreazhonable approach as town, and zat is vy I think joo are ze scomzh.

Hopefully zis post hazh artikulated my pozition moch more.
It certainly looks like a contradiction to me. While still suspicious of EK, I'll feel free to

Vote: Destructor
.

tl;dr coming soon!
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #789 (isolation #50) » Tue Feb 17, 2009 6:05 am

Post by Plum »

Kmd4390 wrote:Plum, would you mind presenting your case on Des in bulleted points so it's easier to read?
Sure. To be honest, that's sort of where I started running out of steam. I should have something clear up by tonight.
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #804 (isolation #51) » Wed Feb 18, 2009 2:00 pm

Post by Plum »

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Real promised post coming very very soon/now, but the Mod is demanding more kitties. And I'm loathe to tempt the Mod.

You
may live. For now.
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #805 (isolation #52) » Wed Feb 18, 2009 3:23 pm

Post by Plum »

Glork vs. Destructor

destructor wrote:On Glork, I'd like to see a claim. If he can't vote for any player in this game, he's useless to the town besides through scum-hunting, but he's hardly been doing any of that.

I find it unlikely that he's scum faking a vote restriction, but, unlike Sly suggested in 526, I don't see why that mean he couldn't be scum who actually HAS a vote restriction. Whatever the case, he's a serious liability to the town because that's one vote we KNOW will never land on scum.

What this means is that with Glork alive, we'd be in lylo one day early.

So, Glork, if you can't vote for anyone, I think you should claim right now and explain to us why we should be keeping yo alive.
As has been pointed out, this premature call for claim is itself scummy. Des is correct is his assessment that if Glork is town we'll be in LYLO a day early (i.e. - assume 1 scum and 4 townies left, three votes to lynch. If we miss the lynch, that's 1:3, add a scum kill that night, 1:2. However, with Glork-town alive town only manages one vote against the scum's one vote, and will never reach the two needed to lynch scum, no lynch goes through, scum win. Hence town needs to hit that lynch at 1:4 or lose, assuming nothing unmentioned here getting in the way. Or town has to lynch Glork at 1:4 and proceed as per usual. Thus LYLO is, as it were, a Day early if Glorks alive).

The fact that having Glork around late might put the town in an uncomfortable position does not, however, mean that we should force an early claim from him. I'm willing to believe that Glork has a useful role and it isn't remotely worth giving the scum that sort of info this early because of his votelessness. Des further implies that unless he's convinced by the roleclaim that Glork is worth keeping alive, Glork shouldn't be kept alive. This is extremely premature claim-or-die. Des hadn't even noted much that Glork had done that looked really
scummy
. He'd said Glork needed to post more; fair enough. He said that without a vote Glork was useless except for scumhunting and he hadn't been doing enough of that. I'm all for calls for more scumhunting, fine, but Glork's uselessness as a player was exaggerated by Des, who didn't and doesn't know what beneficial powers Glork may have. Further, the uselessness in and of itself was not nearly enough to warrant a "claim now, and unless your role sounds useful I'll feel free to lynch you based mostly on your votelessness".

Which reads way scummy to me.
destructor wrote:
Glork wrote:Olredy addrezhed most of zis, but re: engame.
A player who kannot vote in endgame kannot vin, period. If, theoretically, I vere ze scomzh vis soch a restrikzhon, zen ze ozer two towneezh in endgame vood vote and kill me, becozh zey kood not leench each ozer, and zey vill not no-lynch.

I olso find it interesting zat joo label me aszh being kompletely uselezh, vith no thought that I may have any ozher abilitiezh. Zat is not to say vezher I have an ability or not, but it iszh a very unsettling assompzhon for joo to make.
If you can't vote for scum, you can't vote for scum in end-game. Mirth says that we need a majority of living players to lynch meaning that you being alive in end-game is likely to result in a scum win. Unless you have abilities that are incredibly likely to save the town in the above mentioned end-game scenario, which is not something I'm willing to count on... without a claim and improvement of play, I think your lack of vote is a liability large enough to trump whatever ability you might have. Why do you think I asked for a claim in the first place? :roll:

In fact, I'm not seeing how you could possibly miss my intention given that I said this:
destructor wrote:So, Glork, if you can't vote for anyone, I think you should claim right now and explain to us why we should be keeping yo alive.
What other explanation could I possibly be asking for?
Here Des makes it clear that he's not willing to wait and let Glork try to make himself and his role useful without a claim. Why is he more willing to let the scum in on Glork's role by making him claim rather than letting Glork try to work stuff well on his end? He doesn't note anything sketchy about Glork except relative lack of scumhunting, which Des did not push as being any sort of strong scumtell, as far as I know.

His only solution is to get Glork to claim or risk death. It kinda reminds me of Isacc's plan/gambit which involved asking Des to potentially risk getting Modkilled for not posting in German. Do something detrimental to yourself and your faction at my call or die. Despite the fact that Des is far from certain that Glork is town. I'm willing to kill Glork late if it appears he'll be a town liability during/right before LYLO, if necessary, but an early kill for his votelessness alone is simply scummy.
destructor wrote:
Glork wrote:
Dezh wrote:Elvis even said she'd played in games where voteless players were lynched on account of them being a problem for the town.
Zis is true, bot she obviouzhly doezhn't believe zat it is unekvivikolly right to leench voteless playerzh, vich is vot you are soggezhting. Vot EK said and vot joo vont to do are
kompletely, 100% different
. "Vait and zee" is ze right vay to approach it. Leenching people in ze manner joo soggezht is jost terrible.
"Wait and see" was what I said. I didn't vote you, I didn't say, "let's lynch Glork". I said you, as a voteless player, are a policy lynch one day before lylo. I asked for a claim because that was all I could see that would change that. All of this was easier for me to say because you didn't look very town either. I wanted the idea out there now, so it wouldn't be a scramble later in the game.
Now this looks like self-contradiction or backtracking. Des didn't say "wait and see". To whit:
destructor wrote:So, Glork, if you can't vote for anyone,
I think you should claim right now
and explain to us why we should be keeping yo alive.
The call for claim, obviously premature, is obviously called for by Destructor "now". I'm pretty sure that my interpretation of the second part as "if I don't get a good explanation as to why we should be keeping you alive, we shouldn't keep you alive at all". Des didn't say "he's a policy lynch the day before LYLO". He said "we should get you to claim and explain why we should be keeping you alive". Nothing about witing till the day before LYLO.

Lies or backtracking. Either way, it looks damned scummy.
Glork wrote:
Dezh wrote:So, basically, your argument here has always been that I'm blindly pushing for your lynch without considering context, which isn't true at all.
Dezh wrote:So, Glork, if you can't vote for anyone, I think you should claim right now and explain to us why we should be keeping yo alive.
Joo tell me vezher joo vere "considerink knotekst" or giving me a "klaim or die" ultimatum, based on vot joo originially said. Don't joo dare try to change vot joo pushed. Joo vere blatantly fishing for a claim, else joo didnt vant me alive. Joo didnt say "perhaps Glork vill be investigated and vill bekome konfirmed town" (vich vood obviouzhly negate ze desire for a policy leench). Joo never said "perhaps Glork vill have anozer ability vich vill become evident vithout him having to klaim on D1 for no reason at all." Joo never said "perhaps Glork's lack of vote is temporary, and he vill be able to vote later." Tho joo never outright DENIED zese possibilitizh,
joo implied zat me klaiming is preferrable to exploring ze dynamics of my role vithin the context of ze game.
And ZAT is vot botherzh me so moch about joor play. I vood NEVER expekt joo to take soch an onreazhonable approach as town, and zat is vy I think joo are ze scomzh.

Hopefully zis post hazh artikulated my pozition moch more.
I'm going to QFT what Glork said here. I may be becoming redundant. If so, I apologize, but I'm busy etc.
destructor wrote:Funnily enough, Glork, as town, should be more than happy to be lynched at the appropriate time because of this.

(Something for anyone who's voting me to think about: If I were scum, wouldn't I want to keep a voteless player alive?)
WIFOM defense. There are plenty of plausible reasons, not least that Glork may have a useful role to compensate for his votelessness, not least that you wanted to appear to scumhunt and Glork looked like a juicy target. Not least a bunch of other possibilities. Imaginality thought of another: "Azide from hoping to get claim, destrructor may alzo haf been hoping if ozzer vagons fizzle out ve vould fall back on a 'lynch Glork he iss useless' lynch as deadline apprroaches". The WIFOM defense is noted, however.
destructor wrote:
caf wrote:Right now, as his missing vote is hardly crucial D1, it seems natural simply to lynch him if he's scum, and not if he's town. (Ain't that groundbreaking logic?
Winner!
Which is why I've made arguements against Glork
that have nothing to do with his lack of vote!
Where? Before the post where you ask Glork to claim etc. I see little attack on Glork at all - asking him to post more. Nothing in the manner of "He's not scumhunting at all . . . [insert a few sentences of case here] . . . so I'm fairly suspicious of Glork." Unless I've missed something, but I do not think I did. I think afterwards you bring in a point about disparate reads on myself and Darox. The fact remains that this came after the post in which you demanded a premature claim and implied, or seemed to, that we should lynch Glork based only on his votelessness and current unsatisfactory level of posting/scumhunting. Which I still think is way too much and still think is scummy.

Another decent quote capturing some feelings on some of your defenses, Des:
Glork wrote:A klaim is only von vay of covering zis, and it is easily ze VORST vay to cover it.
Agreed.
destructor wrote:
Glork wrote:
Dezh wrote:Yeah, but I never actually said "if glork doesnt claim we should lynch him" in the first place. Neither did I mean it.
Bot joo said "klaim and explain vy ve shood keep you alive." I'm sure joo can see vere I interpreted it as such.
Maybe,
but you're still
ignoring the obvious
: I didn't vote you.
Yeah. Then if I say "I have a scumvibe on Player X, and Player X also wears green underwear. Therefore I want a claim from Player X now so he can explain why he's worth keeping alive; if he isn't, I say bag him for the reasons mentioned above" and don't vote Player X . . . I haven't done anything weird or scummy? Maybe I'm not getting something here, but I'm pretty sure I am. Granted votelessness is more dangerous than green underwear (or is it?!), but not Day 1 to the degree that a claim demand or a statement about not seeing the point in keeping a player alive at all if the claim doesn't indicate usefulness is so overdone that it is, in fact, scummy. The fact that you didn't vote him didn't erase the fact that you demnded a claim in what really looked and still looks to be "claim well or die" language.
destructor wrote:Why? How is giving a player who doesn't look pro-town lenience for "what could happen" remotely good play?
Because the alternative is lynching everyone you have any decent case/vibe on and a limitation (remember Sly's foreign-languages-are-scummy stance? This is scummy just like that was) because even though it "could happen" that they have useful roles, etc. giving lenience to someone with a limitation who doesn't look too townie would be bad play.

Gah, I'm getting incoherent and long winded. Sorry, pals; I tried my best to address the case as I see it; a lot like Glork sees it, as a matter of fact. There you go.
Mirth wrote:
You
may live. For now.
I'm only happy that the Mod is pleased with my efforts :wink:.
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #815 (isolation #53) » Thu Feb 19, 2009 6:59 am

Post by Plum »

Kmd4390 wrote:I was asked about Glork vs. Des.

As far as policy lynching Glork, I actually do see Des's point. I was against the idea until I thought up a hypothetical scenario. Glork being alive at LYLO hurts us more than lynching Glork hurts us. And that's if he's town. If he's scum, that's even more reason to lynch him.

As far as Des, he seems pretty protown IMO.

I honestly think both are town and Glork is a policy lynch at most.
What about Des asking for a claim from Glork earlier today? Still protown?
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #817 (isolation #54) » Thu Feb 19, 2009 7:09 am

Post by Plum »

elvis_knits wrote:
Plum wrote:
Kmd4390 wrote:I was asked about Glork vs. Des.

As far as policy lynching Glork, I actually do see Des's point. I was against the idea until I thought up a hypothetical scenario. Glork being alive at LYLO hurts us more than lynching Glork hurts us. And that's if he's town. If he's scum, that's even more reason to lynch him.

As far as Des, he seems pretty protown IMO.

I honestly think both are town and Glork is a policy lynch at most.
What about Des asking for a claim from Glork earlier today? Still protown?
Not pro-town.
Mhm, good to know. I'm more wondering what Kmd's stance is.
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #821 (isolation #55) » Thu Feb 19, 2009 2:58 pm

Post by Plum »

Darox wrote:Glork shouldn't claim, he's picked up a lot recently in my eyes.

Big posts are hard and take time.
What did you think of Des' demand for a Glork claim earlier? I'm interested in that.
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #845 (isolation #56) » Sun Feb 22, 2009 11:01 am

Post by Plum »

Darox claim sounds like the right thing about now. He hasn't struck me as particularly townie, has lurked/contributed relatively little, overall, etc. I'd prefer a Des lynch over a Darox lynch, but deadline Darox lynch sounds decent if not, in my mind, ideal. So I'm up for a Darox claim and will switch my vote if deadline approaches and such is necessary. And yes, we do need Darox to show up ASAP.
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #851 (isolation #57) » Sun Feb 22, 2009 12:59 pm

Post by Plum »

elvis_knits wrote:I don't think we have anything better. I don't think we can get a des lynch together before deadline.
Would you prefer a Des lynch over a Darox lynch, ideally? Inquiring minds want to know.
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #857 (isolation #58) » Sun Feb 22, 2009 2:44 pm

Post by Plum »

Darox wrote:I can't tell you anything about my role that won't result in death on my part.
I'd rather not have that happen. Modkills are not fun.

Vote: Destructor
, the Glorken business is a load of rubbish.
In other news, damn I'm terrible. I'd say I'll have it posted in time but I'm not sure that I will.
I'd rather lynch Des than you, but at this point it looks like you might get lynched no matter what you post now (I'm confused - do we have about three hours or about a day and three hours? If the latter, I'll still give what time I can to make a last stand for a Des lynch, if not, there's too little time). Assuming that's the case I'd like to ask you to post whatever else you have of your reread. I don't care to much if it's a mess or incomplete or what. Et cetera.
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #872 (isolation #59) » Mon Feb 23, 2009 10:12 am

Post by Plum »

Darox wrote:
Kmd4390 wrote:
Darox wrote: As for the analysis, unfortunately in the pile of things I have to do, this game isn't currently high enough that I have the time to do the rest of my analysis.
Scum caught not wanting to give the town more info.

Town Darox would consider this game high priority right now.
God that is terrible logic.

That's like the assumption that only scum fight hard to avoid their own lynch.
News flash buddy - I'm not a jester, so dying hurts everyone who shares my alignment. Period.
At this point it's not necessarily about fighting your lynch - it's more about giving the town as much as you can before you're gone. As scum, you wouldn't give a damn unless you thought it could save you or help a buddy. As town, you have nothing to lose at all by giving us whatever you can of your reread and analysis. To be very frank, I agree with Kmd. The fact that you're refusing to give us info only makes you look scummier to me.
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #908 (isolation #60) » Tue Feb 24, 2009 5:21 pm

Post by Plum »

Yum, Mirth's flavor text always whets my appetitie :P.

I'm going to have to do some sort of reread on the dead players before I can say anything with some surety that I'm not spewing nonsense. Obviously my read on Des was wrong. Beyond that I'm going to need some actual time, which I don't have in sufficient quantity right now.

In memorial for Des, though, a video. Ironically, I considered posting it yesterday after the Numa Numa stuff. I even know the dance - the Jewish version, that is . . .
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #925 (isolation #61) » Wed Feb 25, 2009 4:04 pm

Post by Plum »

If I recall, before he died Des made an argument against against Glork, saying that he wasn't playing to his town meta. Des has died and flipped town, leading me to wonder whether that accusation is strong or not (by-the-by, I have heard that in general Town!Glork is an excellent scumhunter).Before I go wading through Glork's meta, does anyone have an informed opinion on the subject, and how strong a tell early lesser scumhunting from Glork actually is?
Isacc wrote:Now, I have a more important case. I think I has found scum numero dos.

As most of you ought to know, EK has been pinging my scumdar since Day 1. Her actions have been a little off here or there, as I have pointed out before. Also, now I am noticing a suspiciously similar playstyle to another game where she has recently flipped scum. Meta is making me worry.
I, too, have not forgotten my case on EK from yesterday. The pounce on a weakening SlySly by calling out a scumslip which was in fact nothing of the sort looked pretty bad from my point-of-view. Additionally, that accusation against Hascow still looks weird and potentially scummy, to be honest.
Darox wrote:Synopsis: EK has been acting pretty strangely, and there is several things that strike me as being off. A bit suspicious of her, but mostly confused.
Odd post (stupid 20/20 hindsight is seeing red over Darox's PBPA post, that he either called players solid or was wary. No strong stances on someone looking suspicious. Meh).

Isacc, can you elaborate on EK's scum-meta-playstyle-thing you mentioned? The other thing you mentioned . . . I've often used similar logic in my own mind, but to be honest it's very hard to determine if what you believe is the 'logical conclusion' is really what happened. Too many other variables.
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #934 (isolation #62) » Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:27 am

Post by Plum »

I'll be V/LA until Sunday afternoon EST. Sorry about any inconvenience.


noted
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #938 (isolation #63) » Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:52 am

Post by Plum »

Glork wrote:Zen, after EK said I don't think we can get a des lynch together before deadline, Plomzh lobbied for EK to veigh in on Dezh again. I really think zat Plomzh vos again lookink for somebody to shift to Dezh so zat he vood bekom ze deadline leench.
I'll respond to this right away because I happen to clearly remember why I did it: EK's phrasing seemed to suggest that EK might prefer a Des lynch if there was any chance it was possible. I wanted EK to confirm or reject that interpretation, which was the first one that occured to me, so that we could have a clearer general understanding of all players' positions on Des and Darox as we approached a lynch influenced partly by the deadline.

Regarding my question to Kmd: I had made a case on Des and thought it to be a good one. One of my major beefs with Des was the call for you, Glork, to claim prematurely. Kmd, when asked to weigh in on the subject, answered only about Des' call for you, Glork, to be policy lynched, and after addressing that as he saw it, declared that Des looked pretty pro-town to him. Seeing as he didn't address a major concern I had with Des, I wanted him to weigh in on what he thought about it, and why he thought Des looked pro-town despite it.

Basically, overall I was aiming for thoroughness and the best clarification of players positions on facets of the cases and viable wagons.

I'll third the call for Hascow to take notes to present tomorrow. It can only do good.
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #958 (isolation #64) » Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:40 pm

Post by Plum »

The llamas ate my brains D=. No, I'm just a bit overtired and have some suspicions on myself to address and then hopefully soon will have analysis of current cases and maybe some sort of reread.

On to Caf's problems with me, which seem to be the most extensively expressed thus far:
caf19 wrote:- Plum is another interesting one: post 779 she makes a huge case culminating in a vote for des. This case seems to be made from the assumption that Darox is town; players are analysed in relation to how scummy their vote on Darox is perceived to be. EK is criticised for her attack on Darox ... and des's push for a Darox lynch is brought up again and again.
Mostly because that monster post started out as an analysis of the Darox wagon, which, as has been noted, moved pretty fast as we approached the deadline, which was eventually moved a week up. As I started, I thought it would be a good idea to do a minor reread of the people who joined the wagon quickly, to see if their votes for Darox were coming out of nowhere or not. In wagon-analysis of a wagon rather out-of-the-ordinary, yes, votes out of nowhere are the ones equated with opportunism and hence suspicion, suspending, for that part of the analysis, discussion of how/whether Darox was scummy. I admit that I did ramble a bit about EK, and my conclusions about her previously expressed suspicions of Darox re the early Kmd wagon might have been wrong, though I later referred to them as 'arguably fair'. I did, however, admit to digression, as the point of the exercise was to see how suspicious she had been of Darox previous to the quick wagon. Though I did bring up Des in relation to the wagon, it was only because I was analysing the people who got on the wagon looking for possible opportunism. I see that I concluded that neither EK's vote nor Des' vote could be conclusively considered opportunism, as they'd both shown to much fairly reasonable suspicion of Darox previously. I'll address one of the quotes of mine Caf brings:
Plum wrote:Des continues to push for the Darox lynch afterwards, citing, of all things, a quote of his in which he attacks Glork for 'giving Darox lip service' on his lack of contributions. Huh? Did I miss something here?

I'll admit that apparently I was missing something here, which was that I read the accusation wrong. I weirdly interpreted Des to be weirdly applying his attack on Glork as some supporting point against Darox. Now I see that (am I mistaken?) it was a reiteration of the 'Darox has contributed little' point.

Yes, at that point I was not strongly certain whether Darox was scum or town, though, yes, I did note that he'd made an odd, not-awesome answer to an accusation about his vote on Sly.
caf19 wrote:At that stage of the game figuring out whether or not to lynch Darox was vital, and Plum avoided the question entirely in favour of judging other players on an implicit assumption that Darox is town. For the record, Plum doesn't clarify her position on Darox in other posts, until post 845 (about a day before the deadline), where she suddenly becomes receptive to it. That looks like buddy behaviour to me, pushing for other lynches until it becomes clear they won't happen, then turning round and sending him to the grave.
At that point, I didn't consider a push for strong consensus on Darox as pressing as my case on Des (which did not happen to be built on Des' positions on Darox - Des' positions on Glork were my main concerns - see post 805). We had a week, I thought. According to the rules, if deadline started to loom without good consensus on who was really worthy of getting lynched, it would take only four players to lynch. I thought that surely in this game there were four players good enough to vote avoid a no-lynch, myself included. And I believed that if Darox fell into that position, as he had when the deadline which had been moved fell out, as his play hadn't grabbed me by the shoulders and shouted 'pro-town' at the top of its lungs, I would find a Darox lynch more than acceptable. Had it been necessary, I absolutely would have voted Darox and pushed for his lynch to avoid a no-lynch. That didn't ever become necessary. Having said all that, I believed at the time that all that considered, making my Des case was my priority, as he was my preferred lynch at the time. I thought it was clear that my feelings were 'Darox isn't awesome, but I think Des is scummiest'. I was wrong there, obviously.

More stuffs coming sooner or later, depending mostly on how tired I am/will be.
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #992 (isolation #65) » Fri Mar 06, 2009 9:39 am

Post by Plum »

My apologies. I've been somewhat short on time (though not completely, as EK noted) and basically have been ontinuing to dread the thought of the megapost I'll have to make, analysing the case on Isacc, the case on EK (I'm leaning towards voting her, for reasons I've stated, though not fully elaborated on, previously) and other stuff.

But first, it seems I've neglected to answer some of EK's questions:
elvis_knits wrote:Plum, you answered caf, but didn't answer me:
elvis_knits wrote:There was always a rival bandwagon to darox, which makes it very interesting to note which wagon people chose. First I was rival bandwagon to darox, and then des was the rival wagon. Plum was on both these rival wagons. Both rival wagons were close to succeeding and overtaking the darox wagon. Plum was looking anywhere for a lynch but at Darox.
elvis_knits wrote:
Plum wrote:
Glork wrote:Zen, after EK said I don't think we can get a des lynch together before deadline, Plomzh lobbied for EK to veigh in on Dezh again. I really think zat Plomzh vos again lookink for somebody to shift to Dezh so zat he vood bekom ze deadline leench.
I'll respond to this right away because I happen to clearly remember why I did it: EK's phrasing seemed to suggest that EK might prefer a Des lynch if there was any chance it was possible. I wanted EK to confirm or reject that interpretation, which was the first one that occured to me, so that we could have a clearer general understanding of all players' positions on Des and Darox as we approached a lynch influenced partly by the deadline.
I see plum's away for a few days. When she gets back I would like to know what Plum's conclusions are about me and what I said about des vs. darox lynch from yesterday.
Was I looking anywhere for a lynch but Darox? Interesting accusation, as I undeniably was on what EK refers to as the 'rival bandwagons'. On page 29, for instance, I notice I'm already voting EK, and that I'm the only one voting her. No one, at this point, is voting Darox at all. It's on this page that the Darox wagon starts; first imaginality then EK vote him in quick succession, mostly for lack of scumhunting, fair enough. EK was one of the first on the Darox wagon - this might be a slight point in your favor, EK. Something I'm having trouble coming to a strong conclusion on is the fact that Darox seems to argue EK's side in the 'Sly's scumslip or not?' case. I'll refrain from spending time on analysing how right either side of that case actually was any more; suffice it to say that on reread the change of subject is there, though possibly not as strong as I'd suspected, and the fact that Sly had already explained why he'd used the phrasing he did only makes EK's subsequent slip look worse. Thus I still find it a point of curiosity that despite the fact that he calls EK out for her assertation that Hadcow jumped in with Isacc's witch hunt, Darox claimed to be slightly suspicious but much more confused. The problem is that Darox said little more conclusive about anyone (aside from Hascow) than that. Still, for someone he said made a 'rediculous accusation' and implying that her vote on Hascow for what he did was out of place, I might expect something stronger. This makes me lean slightly more towards the possibility that EK is Darox's buddy. If so, she bussed early-ish, though at that point he looked as likely a lynch as any besides her own, and I have seen excellent bussing so well-done and early it was undetectable as bussing.

Back to the accusation that I was looking anywhere but Darox for a lynch. I'll count you wrong on the first wagon you mention, as at the time I joined it I'd both expounded on my reasoning and there was no Darox wagon at all. I was on the Des wagon, and yes, at that point it was a rival to the Darox wagon. I hope I explained sufficiently why I was on that wagon and why I strongly believed Des was very scummy.

In the context of Darox, I conclude, EK does not show too many strong signs of sumbuddyhood. Overall, though, my gut and a few incidents with her make me feel she's scummiest.

In regard to what you said with the Darox wagon vs. possibly last-minute Des counter-wagon: If you had proffessed to prefer a Des lynch at that point, after Darox's lynch and flip you would have been, in my mind, either stupid scum (deadline was that night and the general consensus was that Darox was the play,
and
you'd been pushing him for a while) or honest town who reconsidered and legitimately found Des scummier. You supported the Darox, lynch, however, making you either decent scum or honest town. "Honest-to-goodness, Plum," you say, "but that was a useful piece of information! Now we know that . . . EK is either scum or town! What usefulness we have here!" No, my conclusions from your answer to that one question don't happen to be earth-shattering at all on their own they don't give us all that that much. But as the question (am I wrong?) was '"What did you get out of asking that question" the answer is "clarification for myself and anyone else who felt EK had said something somewhat ambiguous, that EK did not believe Des scummier than Darox as the day ended". Is that fact in and of itself conclusive of anything but the above? Not much, sorry.

My conclusions about EK on the whole of it, however, are a bit stronger: I think she's the best candidate for scum on terms of her own scumminess thus far. Re: the carp accusation on Hascow:
Plum wrote:I dropped the issue at its inception, partly because at face value the accusation was so ridiculous and EK had said, if I recall, that she'd been in need of a reread. However, following up, she did not acknowledge that the accusation was inane but attempted to justify it with weak points. Cow's lack of comment on Isacc's plan was in no way ambiguous enough, much less as scummy as the original accusation's tone would imply, to justify considering a vote. Basically, saying that Cow 'went on Isacc's witch hunt against des' is a lie, implying that he did something scummy he did not do is itself scummy, and the weak justifications don't help.
As I've posted before,
Plum wrote:Bit of analysis and responses to EK:
elvis_knits wrote:Is this it? You have a problem with the me seeing sly's slip?
I have a problem that you state with such conviction that it was a slip, because I don't see that it was any sort of explicit tell at all.
elvis_knits wrote:
plum wrote:Imaginality suggested it and EK echoed it in no uncertain terms. When Sly explained the above reason as to why he specified 'you (townies)', she deftly changes the subject. Fos: elvis_knits.
Well, I have noticed that people never like it when I call out slips or tells. I'm not sure why exactly. Maybe it's because other people don't rely on gut-reaction tells as much as I do. I tend to hit on small things that don't make sense to me. Often, a small thing will make me look harder at a person, and either through questions or through looking at their other posts, I get more (or less) convinced of them being scummy. Maybe this is not how other people work?

Anyway, I do sometimes get caught up in wording. Because I think it can show how a player is subconsciously considering themselves. If they are putting themselves in the town group, or out of the town group. That's pretty significant to me. Other things I have seen, a player voting someone they consider town, a player slip and name an exact number of scum in a game. That is pretty much defnitely a scum slip. I try to notice things like that. You may not agree with me. It's not an exact science, but it helps me a lot.

As to "deftly changing the subject" I don't remember doing that.
First paragraph is a long ramble about how sometimes you will hit on small things during the course of your scumhunt, and how people 'never like it' when you call out slips or tells. I don't care either way, just that you're arguing that something is a slip when it clearly isn't. Ramble smacks of subtle meta defense, which I generally consider a fairly mild scumtell.

Second paragraph also contains a fair amount of filler, but whatever: Did you reread the exchange and notice that Sly had two short posts using only 'you' pronouns. The first was directed at Darox. The second was phrased fairly naturally in a sentence structure which required parenthetical clarification as to who 'you' referred to, as in the last post it had been Darox, not the town at large.

Deftly changing the subject:

You accused Sly, in no uncertain terms, as having shown a scum slip. Sly commented in his usual kinda useless way, and you told him you were suspicious of the fact that he didn't include himself in the 'town' group. Sly elaborated. Instead of either continuing the argument, or ending it with a statement that 'I still see it as a slip/sorry, my bad' and continuing on, you turned to a completely different subject. You made an incorrect accusation, discussed it, and, Sly having elaborated, you ignore the discussion on your bad accusation and turn the conversation towards Sly's apparently evolving degree of claimed lynch-proofness. He'd already shown it to be varied and/or evolving, at any rate. If you'd been suspicious he'd been lying, you might have brought it up before. As it is, it looks like a convenient attack to pick up when your attack fell flat due to its incorrectness.
Those are the main points in my case on EK, though I might have forgotten to note less major points. I may do a reread of EK but unfortunately my time will be somewhat limited until Wednesday, though I'll be about for anything current.

Right now I'll take the liberty to
Vote: EK

Mod: There are Nine alive and by my count seven votes in play, though yesterday Glork counted for the majority needed. How many votes will be needed to lynch today?
That would be telling. :P


Also, Kmd seems to have somewhat convincingly proved that Caf's lemonade sales may be instrumental in keeping Caf alive. I'm willing to buy, as Caf hasn't struck me as noticably scummy yet, and he doesn't look worthy of death yet. I'm starting to be less worried about detrimental effects, as none have shown themselves so far, though I wouldn't really put anything past our Mod.

Buy Lemonade
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #1007 (isolation #66) » Sun Mar 08, 2009 9:42 am

Post by Plum »

elvis_knits wrote:Did darox seem pro-town to you?
Were you trying to get me to switch my vote from darox to des at the last minute?
1. Not very, especially the last day or two when he kept refusing to provide the PBPAs he'd promised. Des, however, looked scummier.

2. No, I was trying to clarify, as your wording seemed to suggest you might go for a Des lynch if it had any realistic chance of happening.
elvis_knits wrote:Okay, you thought des was scummy, but was darox NOT scummy? We have to reach a consensus in this game to get a lynch. I respect pursuing different candidates, but when most of the town is looking at a certain player, and moving towards a lynch, you have to decide whether you want to help lynch the person or not. You decided not to. Why?
I thought Des was scummier and I therefore persued a Des lynch. We now know that Des wasn't scum, but at that time the best case I could see, and the best case I made, was on Des.
elvis_knits wrote:So you're saying you asked for clarification on smething where the clarification leads you to conclude nothing. And you're saying, even if my answer had been different, you probably couldn't have been able to conclude anything. So... what was the point?

It seems more like you were trying to see if you could get me to switch my vote to des. Your explanation would make your actions pointless, which I don't believe.
There was the possibility that, as I'd thought your wording implied, you did prefer a Des lynch, which today would have been interesting and useful in the context of the flips we've gotten, especially because you were one of the first on the Darox wagon. As it stands, you didn't. No, not every probing gets an extremely useful result. This one had the possibility of getting something interesting, but it only served to clarify your position. I try to leave fewer stones unturned; hopefully this will be helpful in the long run, but no, not every stone will turn up little nuggests of gold.

I'd like to urge you to reread the post to which I asked this question, and consider both how realistic the possibility of a Des lynch was at all, and also how clear or ambiguous you were, and why I might have asked for clarification on my interpretations.
elvis_knits wrote:I fail to see the problem in my suspicions over hascow. If I remember correctly, he didn't comment on isacc's plan, but voted with him. That is enough evidence to suggest he supported the plan. IF he didn't support the plan, he should have said so, since he's voting with the guy. Otherwise it looks like they're in the same boat.

And hascow saying LATER that he never supported the plan looks like a lie to me. Because of where his vote was.
You must remember incorrectly. Hascow seemed to be voting Des because he'd already stated before that he believed Des to be lying. Isacc was also voting Des at that time.
Then
Isacc issued his scummy-looking ultimatum, and very shortly thereafter Hascow unvoted and voted Sly. I see one bit of Hascow play in between the ultimatum and his vote of Sly, that being a quick question to Isacc re Hascow's past case on him.

It seems a very weak point, in my humble opinion, far too much to use as proof that Hascow in any way "went along with Isacc's witch hunt" as I believe you put it.
elvis_knits wrote:And I've answered all that before. You're writing us a novel here to say that you think I'm scum because I noticed a "slip" that you don't agree with, and because I talk about more than one thing at the same time ("deflty changing subjects"). Both these points are weak and lame and speculative.
And I still say you're wrong and that my points are fairly strong. But I'll consent to let everyone else judge for him/herself and not actively argue about it anymore. Everyone can see our arguments on the subject and draw conclusions, as the two of us have explained our positions about as much as they can be explained on this topic. Fine with you?
elvis_knits wrote:OMGUS

It's a useful little label when misapplied, isn't it? No, your vote on me in and of itself doesn't seem to have specific scum motivation. To be frank, you were already my top suspect, and I doubt this came as a surprise. I've made prior cases on you and reiterated them here. The vote on me itself I don't object to, because there was some degree of neglect or delay in my posting to answering your questions to me, for which I sincerely apologize - but adding a vote because of apparent neglect, possibly with the added hope that it would pressure me to answer, was not out of place.

@ Sly: Yeah - he made townie-looking attempts at scumhunting, specifically the cases he put together on me and you. Not necessarily arguments I agree with, but they both look and feel pro-town. As Kmd said, it seems fairly clear that if Caf doesn't sell enough lemonade he'll die. EK buying lemonade (especially as she seemed to do so just so we could try to change the topic) could have plenty of motivations, not least in trying to look pro-town by doing so (or, again, it's possible I'm wrong about her) - but not doing my part in keeping a townie-looking player alive because of unclear possible connections with EK would not be a smart or pro-town move on my part.

Next priority is analysis of the Isacc case. Hopefully coming before Wednesday. Still a bit busy (neglecting my term papaer that's due tomorrow :shock:).
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #1012 (isolation #67) » Sun Mar 08, 2009 2:40 pm

Post by Plum »

@ Isacc, SlySly, anyone who might benefit from a reminder: I'm a girl.

I know there's more stuff for me to address, but I have a term papaer to finish up. Mostly I'm posting here to:

@ Mod: I'll be V/LA Monday possibly through Wednesday night. There's a possibility of access tomorrow afternoon and possibly access even from Tuesday evening on, but no promises, heads up, and all that lovely stuff.
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #1039 (isolation #68) » Thu Mar 12, 2009 1:12 pm

Post by Plum »

I can't believe I spent my lunch period making a post and it
didn't go through
. Ugh, sorry about that. Stuff I've been asked for coming up:
Caf19 wrote:Those quotations sum up her approach. Fair enough, but why was this not articulated? Plum is a very verbose player and had no problem expressing in great detail her thoughts on the players she suspected (779, for example, is a megapost that addresses both EK and des). Even when players turn up 'middling' on her scumdar, she still tends to elaborate on it (e.g. her posts on dahill vs Kmd, neither of whom she found especially scummy). So why the silence on Darox? I can't seem to explain it. Plum, you said you'd thought you'd made it clear that you thought Darox was not terrible but not brilliant - can you point to any examples of where you might have said this? Without evidence, I can't help but view the case as a 'trust me or don't' affair, which is not entirely solid.
Darox was middling-bad but with little to analyze due to lack of activity, which I do believe I counted as a point against him. You asked for some quotes:

Plum wrote:I have not seen enough of Glork or Darox to have anything but a slight scum-gut on the both of them
Plum wrote:Though Kmd, I have time to say that there are probably others I'd rather lynch than Isacc if the Elvis wagon doesn't hit a stride soon, but I'd have to at least skim Glork's and Darox's (off the top of my head, players who might be decent lynches)
Plum wrote:After a quick rescan of both, I've determined that Darox would be a lynch I'd prefer over a Glork lynch today (considerable sense I'm getting that he has, at times, actively lurked/provided little content).
Plum wrote:Darox claim sounds like the right thing about now. He hasn't struck me as particularly townie, has lurked/contributed relatively little, overall, etc. I'd prefer a Des lynch over a Darox lynch, but deadline Darox lynch sounds decent


Caf19 wrote:The 'scumtells I've picked up along the path' I assume refer back to the 'false slip and change the subject' debate... In other words, yet again no new strong evidence is brought up against her, but she remains a top suspect. Am I missing something?
Re: Hascow going along with Isacc's witch hunt of Des:
Plum wrote:I dropped the issue at its inception, partly because at face value the accusation was so ridiculous and EK had said, if I recall, that she'd been in need of a reread. However, following up, she did not acknowledge that the accusation was inane but attempted to justify it with weak points. Cow's lack of comment on Isacc's plan was in no way ambiguous enough, much less as scummy as the original accusation's tone would imply, to justify considering a vote. Basically, saying that Cow 'went on Isacc's witch hunt against des' is a lie, implying that he did something scummy he did not do is itself scummy, and the weak justifications don't help.
I'd brought up the point before, but as in the quote I mostly dropped the matter at first because I believed the accusation stupid and thought it likely EK
was
desperately in need of some sort of reread. In that megapost I noted that
a) such was not the case - thus the original accusation was scummy of EK

and

b) EK tried to back up her crap accusation with weak points.

I don't in fact believe I brought up the 'scumslip or not' argument in my analysis of EK proper. In any case, you may see for yourself, Caf, that I did bring up new arguments in that post and did not merely cite the old 'scumslip or not' argument as new evidence reinforcing my belief that EK was fairly likely scum. Again, this is an important part of my case against EK - fairly integral. You said you read up and analyzed the EK wagon, but you didn't mention this point. What say you?
Isacc wrote:The reason it would be likely for Darox to attack a scumbuddy is just simple distancing. He flips scum, and attacks often become looked at as reversed, sometimes just subconsciously.
Trying to predict scum thought process in the case of an almost-lynched scum's words is prone to extreme WIFOM and it's very difficult to come up with anything nearly this conclusive.

The Isacc case sponsored on your local station by Kmd: In honor of Kmd having noted in the Marathon Day game I ran that I have a rather wordy style over all, I'll make this fairly brief.

What's interesting about the Isacc case:

1. Really the most interesting part is the connections to Darox. As noted, one thing detracting from my case on EK is the fact that there's nothing strongly pointing at the possibility that she's Darox's scumbuddy - and arguably there are certain things she's done that would indicate she's not Darox's buddy.

But Isacc - first thing after he takes off his random vote we see two FOSs on Darox but no vote on anyone at all - possibility of distancing here - after all, if you don't have a vote in the early stages, where better to put it but the guy you've semi-officially suspected twice? But he doesn't, suggesting that he might have been attempting distancing without actually drawing too much attention to Darox.

Isacc - you didn't join the original SlySly wagon, fine. However, riddle me this: Why did you join the second wagon on him after not having wanted to lynch him previously? Did you express suspicions between the two wagons that I've missed? Did the desire to test the theory override the fact that apparently you hadn't really found Sly too suspicious?

To continue: Issac is disturbed by Darox fairly early, and promises a PBPA on him. It never materializes (not unlike Darox's oft-promised analysis). Hey Isacc - do you
have
the PBPA you said you were working on? if so, could you please post it (maybe in a quote box if that's how you roll)?

Re: Isacc's eventual vote on Darox: Did it come after it became clear that Darox was most likely going to get lynched? Actually, that's a fair possibility. I believe Isacc stated that it came actually when - hey lemme break our a quote:
Isacc wrote:And NO I definitely did NOT vote Darox when he was our most likely lynch. In fact, I'm pretty damn certain I voted Darox about the time everyone was switching away from him in favor of Destructor.
I dunno - it seemed likely that Darox was going to be lynched - this was Tuesday, recall. I kinda dispute that Des was ever a huge contender against the Darox wagon at all, as at its peak it only had three vote-capable supporters of it over the Darox wagon - which wouldn't have even gotten a deadline lynch in and of itself. Having said that, does the Isacc vote look like likely bussing? At that point, again, Darox looked like the most likely lynch. Decent scum would likely have tried bussing at that point.

The 'gambit or what' point has been done to death, and I think I've expressed feelings that it's a mild scumtell, as the whole thing looked stupid, and there weren't strong signs pointing to it as scum stupidity as opposed to unable-to-tell-stupidity.

All in all - Isacc makes a stronger case than EK for actually being a Darox buddy. I still can't quite shake the feeling that EK is scum, though, and I'm still uncomfortable with the points in the case on her that I've discussed previously - I see them as scum making really false accusations against players and backing up her scummy behavior with very weak defenses. It's also possible that EK is scum not aligned with Darox (SK is a possibility) - I see her as scummier in her own right of her own deeds than Isacc, whom I see as not quite as scummy but with a distinctly stronger possibility of being Darox's buddy

HOS: Isacc


And now some questions for the peanut gallery:

@ Sly: What do you mean by the abbreviation 'WoW'? How did you not note Isacc's gambit and vote him before? The gambit was out in the open and argued about prominently, if I recall. Have you never heard of a town gambit, truthfully? I myself can remember both scum and townie gambits.

@ Imaginality: You're back, great. Thoughts?

Image

Image

Image

Mod seemed hungry.
Nom Nom Nom. I am seriously considering just announcing that you won the game for the kitten pictures. Hmmmm
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #1048 (isolation #69) » Fri Mar 13, 2009 7:41 am

Post by Plum »

SlySly: I and another townie are both dead in a game ongoing. Other townie was under pressure, fakeclaimed Cop to draw out scum (he assumed that because the possibility of the claim's truth wasn't high due to previous events the townies wouldn't believe him whereas the scum, knowing he was town, would be more likely to do so). It was an extraordinarily stupid gambit in my humble opinion, but the guy did flip townie. Likewise, as Kmd has posted, there are other, better gambits townies can try. I've already expressed my opinions on Isacc's gambit specifically.

I agree with Caf re: your FOS on me regarding my 'walls of words'.

Isacc: Yes, you did post your PBPA. Saying you did not was my error entirely and I sincerely apologize. That accusation and request retracted.
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #1057 (isolation #70) » Fri Mar 13, 2009 10:27 am

Post by Plum »

SlySly wrote:I have yet to see a link to
a game
, not a wiki entry, where a protown player called their actions a gambit,
in game
. That is the truth. You now sound like scum that is squirming over a player being against you for a weak reason.
Sly - If you'd care to scroll down to the last post on this page, just to quench your curiosity. OP specifically called his move a gambit and flipped town. It did, however, to paraphrase EK, seem to screw the game up pretty badly.
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #1065 (isolation #71) » Sun Mar 15, 2009 1:51 pm

Post by Plum »

destructor wrote:Privyet!

I am replayzing Glork. Giv me a day to catch up, ya, and I vill produze vor joo a grant and mighty post.
:shock:

Здравствуйте!

This makes for an odd turn of events.
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #1093 (isolation #72) » Wed Mar 18, 2009 4:58 pm

Post by Plum »

New thoughts, in no particular order:

- Re: Des asking for Hascow to be prodded: At first I didn't get this at all. Looking back at the wording of the request, it makes me realize that it was a bit of harmless experimentation on Des' part which didn't really come to anything ("And, I vonder iv ziz vill vork.")

- Des makes good argument against Kmd's belief that Isacc did not actually plan the gambit to be a gambit, and I'm interested to see what Kmd will make of that when he comes back, as his biggest beef with the gambit was the fact that he thought it was really a scummy attempt to get Khan-Des to risk modkill or be lynched covered up, after pressure, by claiming it had been a gambit.
Caf19 wrote:Just so you know, I'm coming at this from the view that while Isacc has done some stupid stuff in the game, it hasn't necessarily made him scummy, and I don't find that he joined the Darox wagon as late as everyone keeps saying (Sly and Plum were later).
Here's how I see it:

- Issac has committed various minor scumtells (lingering a bit in the random stage, over-aggression in response to attacks, the gambit [I've explained my position here]). A somewhat more meaningful scumtell is the noncommittal stances on Sly. So he's done scummy stuff, just like multiple players.

So now I want to do a more in-depth analysis than before re: whether Isacc's behavior with the Darox wagon looks strongly like bussing. The
first
Darox wagon grew to five votes without Isacc there at all - after five quick votes had been placed on Darox, Mirth announces that he's been prodded. There is little to glean from here - though I did actually check, and he posted little on the site in the interim, and in another game had the opportunity to explain that he was suffering computer difficulties. In fact, he only comes back after the deadline has been put off a week. At that point it had been clearly proven that multiple players thought that Darox would be a very decent lynch, he was under more scrutiny after the first wagon on him, and deadline was about a week away. Distancing is everyday stuff and scum will take it when they can get it, but bussing only pays dividends when the bussed player already looks too likely to be lynched. In any case, Darox still looked overwhelmingly the most likely to be lynched - recall, this was before I made my case on Des-Khan. At the point Isacc first voted Darox there was literally no wagon with more than one vote except on EK (myself and Isacc before he voted Darox). When I look at the timing of his vote . . . in regards to his own posts, he voted EK, posted a bit about Darox buddying, and then quickly joins the wagon. Pushing for the lynch once you start bussing is only ensuring that your investment is as strong and useful as possible. It looks like likely bussing on Isacc's part - decent bussing, not weak-willed and not wishy-washy. In any case, the defense:
Isacc wrote:Call it what you will, but I would be making a
terrible
play to bus so hard all the way to a lynch on Day 1.
In that situation, bussing that hard may well have been the best play.

The thing is that Isacc looks like a fair call for a Darox-buddy and his actual play hasn't been scumtell-free either. Frankly the EK case doesn't look like it will get enough support to translate into a lynch, whether I will or no. But rereading Isacc, he seems a very worthy candidate for the lynch, especially considering his connections with Darox, as I've explained in this post and another fairly recent one of mine. Mostly I'm waiting out here for Des' Imaginality case and analysis of Kmd's case on Isacc.

We don't seem to have confirmation on how many votes it'll take to lynch today. There seem to be nine alive, and seven or eight votes counted in need for majority, which would suggest five to lynch either way, as GlorkDes' lack of vote still counts in the count as a player alive.
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #1110 (isolation #73) » Fri Mar 20, 2009 11:39 am

Post by Plum »

Happy birthday, Imaginality! And EK, happy belated birthday! Now, to business, which I started before Isacc claimed, which happened in the interim. I believe the claim and believe Isacc is town. He also basically clears me, which is a pleasant bonus. Now I note that many, myself included, were previously suspicious of Isacc, but a recent post by SlySly re: his reasons for voting Isacc struck me as shady even before the claim:
SlySly wrote:I agree with this on some levels. My vote remains on Isaac mainly for 3 reasons: 1) Semantics over 'gambit' (minor), 2) ridiculous mod suicide plan (less minor, but not major), 3) if pushed to L-1, a claim might clear him in my mind. I'm not pushing for that claim at this point though but not yet ready to move my vote.
Um. Wait. You voted him for, in your mind, a minor reason, a not major reason, and the fact that a claim which you explicitly weren't pushing for might clear him? Have I
FOS
ed you yet today?
SlySly wrote:Isacc, EK could have hammered you if her suspicion was true about the majority count, her reluctance suggests townness, unless of course she is just acting to create that effect. I'm assuming EK is town from this action. That doesn't mean scuminess from her will be tolerated in the rest of the game and she should not considered herself immune from my suspicion.
I brought up the point and realized that it was doubtful that four votes would achieve a lynch unless Glork's nonvoting-but-counts-for-majority-purposes status had changed. The prudence doesn't go unappreciated, but I don't find it such a strong town-tell.

Must be off, more later.

Sly, could you make a case on Caf? Brief if that's how you roll.
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #1152 (isolation #74) » Sun Mar 22, 2009 1:12 pm

Post by Plum »

Hi, I've been trying to scrape together some time today to focus enough and make a coherent post. Here goes.
elvis_knits wrote:First of all, Isacc, the bulk of my suspicion on you is over my read of kmd's case, which you already said was a fair assessment. Also, whether you are town or scum, claiming was the right thing for you to do to advance the game, since deadline was coming and you had the most votes. It is very scummy that you held off this long when virtually nothing has changed for weeks.

On to the claim... Any type of depowered cop or doc claim is suspect in my book. I mean, sometimes it's real, but most of the time it's the safest type of power role to claim, because it's likely they will get counter claimed.

Even if we lynch you Isacc and you fliptown, you confirm Plum. Because I am pretty sure you were not blocked last night.
I don't love this post. EK, if you think even a bit about it, Isacc's play today backs up the claim - I'm thinking specifically of his 'Plum looks town but I'm not defending her' stuff, which makes a whole lot more sense in context of Isacc's claim. The semi-suggestion that we lynch Isacc anyway and confirm me (as has been said, one semi-confirmed townie + one unconfirmed Weak Doc > one confirmed townie, and as I have enough belief in the claim such as it is I'd rather avoid killing a useful if now vulnerable powerrole). The fact that you continue to keep [discussing it as a viable option to consider, noting both the above and
especially
the fact that we have little time left until deadline and I don't see anyone but you, EK, still suggesting we possibly try to lynch Isacc . . . doesn't look any better.

New stuff: sudden wagon on Caf, on charges of . . . not rambling on about the lemonade after three cups had been sold (I'm not sure how that would have helped). SlySly's attack kinda comes out of nowehere. As has been pointed out, he's said little against Caf besides expressed wariness re: the lemonade sales.

The major linchpin of Sly's case seems to be that Caf wasn't rocking the boat, content to leave things hanging as they would. If this could be proven a strong 'active lurking' accusation, I might be more open to voting Caf, but little in the way of back-up case seems to have been made. Also, leaving the Darox wagon until it became inevitable - a more intriguing accusation, at least because useful quotes have been provided.
SlySly wrote:Paraphrasing... 'I have to get everyone believing I am town so they can help ME out.'
I haven't seen enough shady wording in the quotes you provided to see anything but a nulltell in this.

Re: your response to me: Agreed, time is too short to waste, and with likelyhood being that you still can't be lynched, pushing for a test on that will only waste what little time we have left. To some, yes, FOS seem useless. But as you say you're unlynchable today, I say what's wrong with bolding my suspicions of you and making them slightly more official?
SlySly wrote: 1. The best scum actively lurks to avoid bringing suspicion on himself.
2. The best scum avoid discussing suspicions on themselves unless forced into it. (3 free passes are hardly pressure).
3. Possible Darox deadline bussing/distancing.

If caf does flip scum, he will shoot to the very top of the best players I have ever had the pleasure of playing against. He has been relatively squeaky clean; too squeaky clean.
I detect traces of too townie to be town here, but not enough to write a paragraph-long attack on (as oft is my wont). (3) is possible, but I need at least some scumtells in addition to possible bussing. (2) you seem to have tried to argue, but I haven't really seen it. (1) would be a good point, but you've barely argued it, let alone persuasively. As Caf said, he has contributed. He brought up a case on myself
Caf19 wrote:I went over something similar with EK earlier. I first expressed suspicion of Darox in post 515; it continued throughout the rest of the day. I didn't express major suspicions of anyone else in that time - I wasn't conforming to the standard buddy behaviour of "FoS your partner and vote (or plan to vote) someone else". As I said at the time, I didn't want to vote until enough lemonade had been bought, as that seemed a bit counter-productive. After the lemonade had been bought, it didn't take long until I voted, but I wanted to wait until the rest of Darox's defence/thoughts because that seemed the pro-town thing to do as opposed to instantly jumping on the wagon.
This is the only thing about the case so far that really bugs me noticeably: Late Darox vote, little prior voting, etc. Now knowing what the lemonade does for you . . . it makes enough sense. It doesn't make me feel great, because usually in the serious stage of a game I think it's best, info-wise, to always keep one's vote out there at all times (or, you know, off for a post or two in between reevaluating suspects). But knowing how much you'd want to avoid the Day ending without all your lemonade sold, I can see universal motivation (i.e. not alignment-related, hence generally a nulltell).

Caf19 wrote:
I'm dying
to tell you the answer to this question, but unfortunately I'm not at liberty to do so.
Funny little thing I found; obviously of little practical use at the moment except amusement value. Feel free to carry on.


However, considering that Caf didn't really have a serious vote the entire day, it's at least consistent with what he's been claiming and implying (seriously, I'm slapping myself for not noticing that earlier, and noticing that Caf's consequences were likely extremely serious, at least personally). The late delay in voting Darox
after
the third cup of lemonade had been bought . . . thus far that's the shadiest thing I see. Not, however, as shady as EK.

Kmd's concern re: Caf as liability late in the game seems to be overridden, to a degree, by the role info Caf has provided in response. I still think that EK lynch is better than semi-policy Caf lynch.
Caf19 wrote:Since I've got the most votes, I may as well add that the mod put something in my role to make me believe that - something along the lines of 'if X happens... who knows'. Heavy paraphrasing obv. The gist of it is that Mirth has clearly considered outcomes such as that one.
Seeing as I haven't found Caf scummy, this is enough for me right now.
Kmd4390 wrote:Page 44:
Isacc, for Day 1 bussing to a lynch being "terrible" play, see a game I have referenced many times as amazing scum play: Mini 628. LlamaFluff bussed me hard Day 1. Had me as his number 2 suspect all day. Forced a mason claim from his number one suspect. After the claim, he told everyone they should be voting me. I was lynched. Now even better yet, Day 2 he comes out of nowhere with a case no one saw at all Day 2. He gets that lynch. It was our other scumbuddy. We won that game. I never rule out bussing after that game. "I voted for scum" is not a defense IMO. (Not just here. Any time.)
Agreed. I lost in my Newbie game in great part due to strong, unwavering Day 1 bussing. I agree with this strongly enough that I'm willing to go out of my way in this post to mention it.

Ah, in the interim Caf has claimed. No, not apparently a very interesting or useful role . . . so, Caf, can you tell us your role name? Is it literally just 'someone selling lemonade' or does it have a name?
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #1209 (isolation #75) » Mon Mar 30, 2009 9:01 am

Post by Plum »

SlySly wrote:Plum, cat got your tongue?
Plum has been busy and stuff and in fact must run to class ASAP. She does, however, promise a post much more extensive than this one tonight.
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #1211 (isolation #76) » Mon Mar 30, 2009 4:44 pm

Post by Plum »

Hey, guys.
SlySly wrote:I would like to know what everyone thinks about the following things...

1. How many scum do you think are left?
2. Which is more likely amongst us, a serial killer or a protown vig that had unfortunate aim on night 1?
3. Is a mass claim a good idea at this point in the game?
1. 1 Mafia member, probably. If not that, none.

2. At first my gut instinct was 'SK, because this is a Bastard Mod game and I wouldn't put it past Mirth to throw in a scum team
and
three neutral/third-party roles (dahill, Caf being two who've already flipped). However, the possibilities would be:
3:1:1:1:6 = unlikely - Town isn't even a majority, and that's beyond unusual, even for a Bastard game. Mafia might be rather overpowered?
2:1:1:1:7 = still relatively few town numbers, but as two of the neutral/third party roles don't go around shooting people up and stuff, this looks more balanced and likely than the above.
3:1:1:7 = with a Vig, Cop, and a smattering of unknown-as-yet powers, possible.
2:1:1:7 = Less likely, Mafia looks a bit underpowered, especially with relative flips, but there's some hidden info. Possible, but not probable.

So, having thought it all out, the likelihood is on killing, anti-town role still out there. Most probable thing is 3:1:1:7 with a Town Vig, to my relatively unpracticed eye. As others have said, the kills make plenty of sense for a Vig to make.

Assuming that's the case - can we assume that a massclaim would be worth it? I find myself woefully undereducated in the matter, as I've usually had to face massclaims only in more dire, LYLO situations. Many do seem to support it, though, and the possibility of being able to rule out certain possibilities today might make that final push, I suppose.

@ Sly - you were the first to bring up a massclam, so can I ask you to highlight the specific benefits as you see them?

Thoughts on potential suspects:
des-Glork wrote:I voz gettink more pro-town feelink from sly in day 2. Only major concern I hav is zat he voted for caf over elvis and made a comment about elvis beink moor likely town vor somthink zat did not vorrant it.
Those are concerns of mine as well. The moderately scummy play Day 1 combined with Day 2 erratic play (claiming not to have strong feelings or cases and attacking for weak reasons for that point of the game) do not sit well with me.

Having taken a quick scan of Glork, I note that he did feel that EK was pretty pro-town. My gut on des-Glork, I realize, is likely screwed to heck, with my subconcious having processed des as having flipped town, I may not have seen her as clearly as I should have. Though I des-Glork was for the EK lynch (though he had no vote . . .). Will have to do another reread. Had a vague thought that Kmd might be Lyncher with Isacc as target, but want to reevaluate.

On another note, Hascow's post does read like a total train-of-thought and looks like he did what we asked. I get a vibe of honesty off of it, to tell you the truth, so good gut on Hascow.
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #1225 (isolation #77) » Thu Apr 02, 2009 6:20 am

Post by Plum »

Sorry; I've been busy with stupidity in another game (first time I've been lynched! So that's over, anyway) and being unexpectedly pretty tired last night.

New thoughts:

1. After having read the arguments for a massclaim, I'm pretty firmly convinced it would be a good idea. I'm fine with Des' order for claiming and I'm willing to claim if I see it benefiting the Town, which will likely end up being the case.

2 @ Sly: no, I haven't cleared Kmd or imaginality. Mostly I was focusing on things I needed to deal with. One was the possible subconcious impact Des' replacement in had on my perception of Des-Glork. Another was Hascow. I didn't have any specific immediate thoughts on Kmd or imaginality. Notwithstanding that, they are legit suspects and I do plan on analysis etc.

@ Kmd: Sly has said that there's not much claiming left for him to do, though he did imply today that he, as Sasquatch, has aged and is now vulnerable to the lynch.


Votecount


Not Voting - 0 - [Des, Sly, Has, Plum, Kmd, Imaginality]
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #1235 (isolation #78) » Thu Apr 02, 2009 3:02 pm

Post by Plum »

Would you like to say something, imaginlaity?

Analysis coming soon to a theater near you!
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #1244 (isolation #79) » Sat Apr 04, 2009 8:13 pm

Post by Plum »

hasdgfas wrote:
Plum wrote:Would you like to say something, imaginlaity?

Analysis coming soon to a theater near you!
I don't like posts of this sort where you say you're going to analyze and then don't.

FoS: Plum
And then am busy and try to make up for it. Sorry about that. You, meanwhile, haven't commented on the claim yourself.

Imaginality: When did you steal Isacc's sparkly pouch, please? Ah, wait, you say Night 1. Never mind; I misremembered, because you did unvote Isacc in your post immediately after the claim. That fits together well, at least. Sly's found breadcrumb also looks legit, so, flavor-wise, the claim seems to check out just fine, overall. Bit iffy that he didn't explicitly say that he
had
to bite at least one player a night at first, however. WIFOM-y things start to make me believe that it's not a strong indication that it's not an organic part of his role, as it makes him more likely, not less, to be suspected.
imaginality wrote:For rrrobberry, I haf only vun target itch night. Firrst night my tarrget vas Isaac. Last night, I vill say who my tarrget vas vunz all claims arre done. As vhat I found may haf uzefulness to confirrm or contrrradict somvun.
Was going to ask, but this is a better plan. Carry on.

Also, I wouldn't be so quick to conclude that Imaginality's bite didn't cause' Hascow's silencing. There may well be Roleblockers/redirectors/other funky stuff which blocked the power N2. Sly might well
have
been immune Night 1. But the massclaim might help illuminate this.

Conclusion: Believe the claim, flavorwise, at least. Otherwise, certain things (rolecop-like powers) might indicate slightly more likely to be Town; biting is unreadable. Biting two people Night 1 - he claimed he did it as insurance to make sure that even if one target was NK'd - well, I don't find it as questionable as Des does. If there's an obvious effect, whether negative or positive, and you
have
to bite someone every night, it might be best to be surer of what you're doing. Conclusion: Imaginality's claim makes me feel a little better about him. Slight-town feel as opposed to vague-feelings-of-not-so-awesomeness.

I have other fish to fry. Kmd, you're up, and I'm interested in what you have to say.
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #1253 (isolation #80) » Mon Apr 06, 2009 4:22 pm

Post by Plum »

Mod: I'll be V/LA Wednesday through Saturday evening; among other things, I'll be drinking the sort of wine you wouldn't sell me.


Enjoy Passover. And as far as I'm concerned, still no wine for you from me. You can have grape juice.
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #1260 (isolation #81) » Tue Apr 07, 2009 5:04 pm

Post by Plum »

dahill1 wrote:
Plum wrote:
Mod: I'll be V/LA Wednesday through Saturday evening; among other things, I'll be drinking the sort of wine you wouldn't sell me.
פֶּסַח
You know it, Dahill.

I'm mostly inclined to believe Des' claim and therefore would prefer that he not claim the rest of his role.

Anyway, I'm up. I'm the Raven, from Edgar Allen Poe's poem of the same name. What I like best is to sulk and caw around places where the mood is rather dreary, like where people are dead or mourning. Every night I target a player; if he/she has a hand in any death that night, I follow so I can hang out there - basically, I'm told if the player had a hand in any deaths that night (so I'd get a positive on a killing Vig but not on a Mafia member who didn't perform the kill action). Night 1 I targeted SlySly, who didn't kill anyone. Night 2 I targeted EK but got roleblocked - I was told that my action could not go through. If EK was telling the truth about her lady-love search action being roleblocked Night 1, this would seem indicate that Kmd's actions caused us both to be roleblocked; we both got roleblocked when he searched us for gnomes. Also,
if
EK was totally roleblocked N1 and none of her actions could go through, another Mafia member made the kill, and Sly can't be that other Mafia member.
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #1265 (isolation #82) » Wed Apr 08, 2009 9:15 am

Post by Plum »

Can I do you a filler post before I go away to Matzah Land, Imaginality?
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #1271 (isolation #83) » Sun Apr 12, 2009 6:00 pm

Post by Plum »

Some things on Plum's mind:

- Unless EK was lying about being RB'd, or wasn't fully RB'd or whatever, there's a third Mafia member out there who isn't SlySly.

- If additionally we had an SK, the setup would be 3:1:1:1:6, with the Town not even being the majority at the beginning of the game. Possible? Yes, but is it balanced? Possibly. Do I think it's the more likely case, based on that alone? No.

- Imaginality presents the difficulties posed by his claimed chessboard thievery as such that either he or Des must be lying scum, and votes Des.
GlorkDes wrote:Ze way I am seeink things:
imaginiality is town - he is havink sanity issues or ze items he receives are misleedink or random (bastard mod)
imaginilaity is schomz - he is lyink ebout his "theef" ability.
So, Des, which of the possibilities do you think is more likely?
Additionally, what can we gather from the fact that Imaginality was fairly willing to go into a 'one of us must be lying scum' scenario whereas Des hasn't even come to a conclusion? I'm not sure myself. Des, Imaginality seems quite convinced that his stolen items aren't random, that he's a semi-viable flavor-Cop. Why do you still believe it's a fair possibility that the claimed chessboard was random?

- I was pretty sure that Des would claim Vig. This doesn't preclude DesSK.

- Flavor seems fairly random in this game - Don Quixote Godfather, for instance. Real-life SK as game SK would be out of left field. It would appear, additionally, that scum and third-party roles either don't have fakeclaims for rolenames or that use thereof is generally not urgently necessary. I realize I'm playing with elements of mod-WIFOM, but my gut is wondering whether that sort of thing makes any sense.

- Des' claim accounts for lack of voting ability. Imaginality's theory does not.

@ Sly - you didn't answer Imaginality's question. Did you not do so because you cannot? Also, did you even have a vote anywhere - you unvoted - ? Also, when you suggested the massclai, you said you had reason to believe we have only one scum left. Can you elaborate on why, and how strongly you believe this is the case?

Apologies for disorganization. Want to read both players in isolation, but it's late.
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #1275 (isolation #84) » Mon Apr 13, 2009 3:16 pm

Post by Plum »

Hascow, EK claimed that her Lady Love search action was blocked, and her flip seemed to confirm that such an action was an integral part of her role, leading me to believe that it's not unlikely she was really roleblocked, which leads me to believe that all her actions might have been blocked and the scum kill went through anyway, indicating a third scum member. Which in turn lead to my theory that Kmd's garden-gnome search acts as a Roleblock without his knowledge of the fact, as EK claimed to have been blocked the night he used it targeting her and I was blocked last night, when he used it to target me. I know that this theory isn't watertight, but at the moment it looks like something I'm willing to lay a bit of weight on.

Also, what's your theory behind Town Lyncher as to win condition? It would appear that Kmd was dahill's target - does your theory that dahill was Town-aligned affect your opinion of Kmd's alignment?
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #1291 (isolation #85) » Sat Apr 18, 2009 6:12 pm

Post by Plum »

Here I am.
imaginality wrote:More zan Fanya Baron?
Fair point.
imaginality wrote:I also am beink keen to zee vhat SlySly has to say about my and your qvestion. I sink ve cannot be zure zere is only vun scum left, and ssso zere is zerrrious rrrisk in hafink two killing rroles alive and zere is more rrreason to kill destructor today if you haf even yust some doubt about destructor, razzer zan rrrisk havink an SK and a scum still alive (if ve mislynch somevun else or no lynch).
Other option is we manage to lynch the last Mafia member today. It would seem that one of you and Destructor
must
be a lying scumbag of some sort. So we lynch whichever one of you is scummier. If Des is scum he's SK and there's probably another scumbag out there. If you're scum, imaginality, you're probably the last Mafia member - so from you I'm checking for Mafia-tells, including connections with the two dead Mafia members. From Glork and Des, other stuff.

But here's the thing: I personally do not think it's likely we have more than one killing scumbag to get rid of. I also have reason to believe that we have at least one Mafia member left. This all adds up to me having come to the conclusion that SK is pretty unlikely, which means DesSK is unlikely and that Imaginality is more likely the Mafia scumbag we want gone.

I'm sorry; my brain feels fried, especially because when trying to pull together thoughts on imaginality and Des there's a lot of accented posting to wade through.
des-Glork wrote:I haf not seen imaginality play before, but if he confident as schomz, then then I vud not be seeink thinks ze same way.
Are you working under the assumption that imaginality is not so gutsy as scum?
Kmd4390 wrote:0-1 mafia, 1 possible SK. We've had 3 anti-town roles flip. More than likely only one left.

Could be either [SK or Vig left]. If I had to guess, I'd say SK.
Do you think that it's still possible no member of the Mafia remains?
imaginality wrote:On a differrrent but imporrrtant qvestion: SlySly, you said you think a mislynch today could be 'dizaztrrus'. Vif your mention of gettink old, I am vunderink if zazqvatch vill die naturral death tonight maybe. Because zen I can see, mislynch townie = 5 left, Sly dies in ze night = 4 left, vig/SK kill + maf kill = 2 left and ve lose.
SLY, I'D JUST LIKE TO CONFIRM THAT YOU CANNOT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THIS. IF YOU CAN, GIVE A SHOUT, PLEASE.
Plum wrote:Can you elaborate on why, and how strongly you believe this [that there is only one scum left to kill] is the case?
Answering this would also be useful. If you do not answer this I will assume that you cannot answer and further speculate that both things you cannot answer are related.

Has much of a previous case been made on Glork and/or des-Glork? Re Imaginality I see some sketchiness - admitting to tunnelling and reachy comments on SlySly, for one, the early Kmd case and vote not helping (the other two on the wagon were Darox and dahill, Lyncher with some motive above and beyond normal scumhunting) . . . though I think Des earlier mentioned that he had reason to believe Imaginality was not likely to be scum with EK. If you could refresh my memory?

Des - if claiming the rest of your role will help convince us you're not scum (and you aren't actually scum), it may be beneficial or necessary to do so. Given stuff, I'm leaning towards Imaginality being the lying scumbag - combo of being more sketchy overall and the general lower likelyhood of an SK existing.

Vote: imaginality
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #1300 (isolation #86) » Sun Apr 19, 2009 1:33 pm

Post by Plum »

Imaginality has something to say?
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #1310 (isolation #87) » Sun Apr 19, 2009 4:56 pm

Post by Plum »

Kmd, a question. Why did you choose to search EK for gnomes Night 1 and search me Night 2?
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #1342 (isolation #88) » Mon Apr 20, 2009 5:16 pm

Post by Plum »

Fun lynch scenes. I think by now we've had more that
haven't
gone through than have actually produced a lynch. Anyyway.

Stuff has happened, and my mind is still trying to sort it out.
Unvote
for now. I'm trying to figure out what, if anything, makes sense. Also, weirdly, I can absolutely see an SK which kills a killer but dies anyway in this game.
imaginality with apprpriate edits wrote: Re: destructor's unniytkillability claim. Zis zeems like it could vell be gud vay for mod to help balanze 3 scum + SK + 8 town.

If destructor is town and ve haf vun mafia left:

1 mafia goon (Darox)
1 mafia godvafer (elvis_knits)
1 mafia X (?)

vs

1 invinzible townie (SlySly at firrst, Kmd now)
1 cop (destructorv1, ssanity unknown)
1 thief (me)
1 likely rrroleblocker (Kmd)
1 veek doktor (Isacc)
1 trrrackerr-if-ze-trackerr's-target-makes-a-kill (or visits a corrrpse zumvun elze killed?) (Plum)
1 kills-the-killer vidge (destructor)
1 hascow (unclear vhat if anyting hiss rrrole does)
1 prro-town lyncher (dahill)

-1 (vun of ze above vud be mafia)

and

1 zurvifor (caf) (alzo werre-llama *shrrrug*)


Vhat do ozzers sink? Zat ssseems to me kinda a strrrong town. Two townies zat cannot be nightkilled, plus varrrioz ozzer power rroles?

Compare vif:

1 mafia goon (Darox)
1 mafia godfafer (elvis_knits)
1 mafia X (?)

and

1 kills-the-killer SK (destructor)

vs

1 invinzible townie (SlySly at firrst, Kmd now)
1 cop (destructorv1, ssanity unknown)
1 thief (me)
1 likely rrroleblocker (Kmd)
1 veek doktor (Isacc)
1 trrrackerr-if-ze-trackerr's-target-makes-a-kill (Plum)
1 hascow
1 prro-town lyncher (dahill)

-1 (vun of ze above vud be mafia)

and

1 zurvifor (caf)
Re: imaginality's question: I pictured you as possibly scum thief or scum rolecop who set up the claim you did with the breadcrumbs etc. A lot of that was due to the fact that an SK existing was extremely unlikely, making you the liar in 'countering' Des' claim. Now, however . . . I'm starting to get the sense that any assumptions should be dumped out the window (meaning that stuff I didn't anticipate, basically being the two new claims, makes me see how the game could have an SK and still have a shot at being balanced. The thing was reviewed, after all, and bastard game though this be, Mirth has too much . . . er . . . honor . . . you get the picture?). I need to sleep on this, reread Des' posts and see if anything agrees to add up. Good night.
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #1344 (isolation #89) » Tue Apr 21, 2009 8:17 am

Post by Plum »

Kmd4390 wrote:Des is SK or Imaginality is scum. It's as simple as that.
I know. Before your claim of ivincibility I thought that having an SK left was quite improbable, making DesSK pretty improbable as well, making Imaginality more likely to be Mafia than Des the SK. Now, however, I feel I need to reconsider and do a more extensive analysis of the both of them, to figure out which of the clauses in the post of your I quoted is (more likely) to be true.

And Sly still seems to not be able to speak more on the matter of his statement regarding the probability that we have one scumbag left. New question, let's see if anything has changed in his mind:

SLYSLY: Do you still believe us to have only one scumbag (Mafia or SK) of which to get rid (gah, English language is weird)?
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #1361 (isolation #90) » Wed Apr 22, 2009 5:11 pm

Post by Plum »

hasdgfas wrote:
SlySly wrote:cow, have you targeted kmd for any action during this game?
Nope.
What chance of him being a were-llama like caf was?
Possible, I suppose. With his claimed flavor, it could fit, but then Caf didn't have any invincibility of the magnitude Kmd has demonstrated or the further invincibility he claims. If we leave Des alive (and NOW with this possibility my brain is frying again) attempting to NK him is an idea with merits.
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #1374 (isolation #91) » Sun Apr 26, 2009 9:48 am

Post by Plum »

Nice kitty but gah, imaginality. Page strech :(.

SlySly: No, I didn't block Isacc. Anyway, I'm personally pretty sure Isacc would have been told that his action was blocked if it had been blocked. I'm told if my target killed anyone. When I targeted you I didn't get any response, so I assumed that unless I was blocked, you didn't make any kills Night 1. Night 2 I targeted EK and was explicitly told that my action didn't go through. Having seen that, I concluded that I, at least, was told specifically that my action was blocked when I was roleblocked and was only contacted otherwise if I had a positive (and, because I hadn't gotten a PM from the Mod Night 1, concluded that you didn't kill Night 1).

I'm tired and very busy. I hope to be able to do a major-ish reread of Des-Glork and Imaginality on Tuesday or Wednesday night and vote then. In other news, I want Imaginality and Des to talk about their top suspects and, if necessary, fully explain any disasters we might incur if we do not lynch a specific suspect.
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #1397 (isolation #92) » Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:50 pm

Post by Plum »

I . . .
think
I agree with Imaginality's plan at this point. Frankly, after thinking about Kmd's apparent invincibility, an SK in the setup looks, as I said, much more plausible, and a major part of my initial reaction - that Imaginality was more likely the lying scumbag of the pair in which we know there must be a lying scumbag, because I had reason to believe there was another Mafia member alive and that balance-wise an SK was rather unlikely - needed reevaluation.

While I can see scenarios where Imaginality was scum with the sort of power needed to set up his crumb and claim, Occam's Razor now seems to be in his favor (as opposed to before Kmd's claim of invincibility). Not an easy claim for scum to set up (and his stances on Isacc add up as well, I see) points to the likelyhood that he's town and therefore that Des is the SK who needs to die. While I belived that the chance that he was scum with the stuff to claim what he did was more possible than an SK in the setup before . . . md's role makes sense to balance things out.

I looked at Hascow's suggestion for 'No-Lynch, Des NKs Imaginality, and, if necessary, we lynch Des', but having seen Imaginality's analysis of the disadvantages thereof, I'm inclined to agree that finding the scum in the pair of Des and Imaginality should be something we do sooner, rather than later. As soon as possible would be best, and while frankly I don't recall much sketchyness on the part of Glork or Des2.0 (and don't have the time tonight I though I would for extensive analysis, see below for details), the end of a recent game makes me think that the setup and the probability of someone being scum in the setup I think we're seeing should not be underestimated.

Here's hoping Des is the scum in this equation.

Vote: destructor


Mod: I went out to practice the flute for a concert of flute students (six years of 5/5 scores in duets and solos earned me a place :)) and at the house of the pianist I was practicing with (she's going to accompany something I'm playing) there was a very cute cat. I got no pictures, unfortnately, but I spoke to her in Russian (my vocabulary, though very limited, is enough to tell a kitty that I love her and that she's a very nice cat). It gave me a warm fuzzy feeling.
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #1423 (isolation #93) » Mon May 04, 2009 1:22 pm

Post by Plum »

I'm pretty confused here, because I targeted Imaginality and received a message saying my action could not go through, but Kmd says he blocked Imaginality and Imaginality says he was roleblocked as well.
Kmd4390 wrote:Either a weak doc protected scum and lived or scum was roleblocked and performed the kill.


The first one isn't true, unless Mirth outright lied to Isacc. And I really don't know how Isacc could have been roleblocked:

1. Imaginality targeted him Day 1 and stole the sparkly pouch, but Des seemed to be able to kill EK Night 2 when Imaginality stole that chessboard. Thus the steal action doesn't roleblock Isacc.

2. Kmd targeted him Night 1 with a cop investigation, but Imaginality was able to steal the chessboard Night 2 when Kmd investigated him. Thus the investigation action doesn't roleblock Isacc.

3. If I were scum, no one had any motive to lie about having actually targeted Isacc Night 1 so as not to shed suspicion on me, because I would be the only scumbag left, so overwhelmingly likely no one lied about actions which might have roleblocked Isacc.

4. I don't roleblock and I didn't target Isacc Night 1.

5. I still think it's more likely that Isacc would have been explicily told he was blocked if he were, but that's not a confirmed fact.
Isacc wrote:I must protect someone each night. If they are town, I protect. If they are scum, I die.


The thing is we had two kills last night, both on this suddenly exposed pink-flipping alignement, and Sly was not who he said he was - and I have a theory:

1. Hascow was a sort of cult recruiter.

2. Hascow recruited Sly Night 2.

3. Kmd's action both roleblocks the target and any actions targeting the target - modified Jailkeeper-type role? Thus the N1 EK targeting prevented EK getting recruited by Hascow's action and roleblocked her Lady Lover search. Thus Kmd's block of Imaginality blocked my action targeting Imaginality. In any case, this is the only explanation for my blocked result to come to mind.

4. SlySly implied that he might self-destruct Night 3, and flavor fits that picture.

5. Kmd could have killed last night.

6. Imaginality looks less likely to have killed last night, because he sure looks like he was blocked. Possible only his stealing and/or biting actions were blocked and he was informed of such and took advantage of knowing Kmd tried to fully block him? That's something I want to think about more.

Imaginality, I'd like to know who you targeted last night and exactly the sort of roleblocked message(s) you received.
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #1429 (isolation #94) » Mon May 04, 2009 2:31 pm

Post by Plum »

imaginality wrote:2. It alzo explains vhy Isacc did not die - EK vas jailed zat night.
Huh? Is the mindsmurf catching up to me? Because I don't know what you meant to say there.
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #1436 (isolation #95) » Mon May 04, 2009 3:51 pm

Post by Plum »

imaginality wrote:Zo. Here iss a new thought.
Isacc wrote:I must protect someone each night. If they are town, I protect. If they are scum, I die.
Vhat if 'scum' means
literrrally
scum
and scum
only
? And Plum is
not
scum but SK?
If that was the case Isacc would almost certainly not have phrased his results quite like this:
Isacc wrote:Plum is most likely town, as I targetted him last night and I did not die. The only exception to this is if I was roleblocked.
He didn't say "the only exception to this is if I was roleblocked or Plum is some anti-town faction other than scum" and a non-Mafia anti-town faction would have been possible enough in his mind that he wouldn't have put it 'the
only
exception', I daresay; as Town, especially a Townie now exposed to likely being NK'd, he would have avoided misleading town by saying that if he meant that he had only cleared me of being
Mafia
. The term 'scum' can and is very often used as a generic term for 'has an actively anti-town-wincon' (and in this game the Mafia have flipped specifically Mafia); it seems pretty clear, especially having phrased it as a dichotomy (scum or town), that he was using it in that sense.
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #1440 (isolation #96) » Mon May 04, 2009 4:14 pm

Post by Plum »

imaginality wrote:- qvestion: vud I as mafia get into 50/50 vif desglork yezterday?
If you were scum rolecop? With Des as a threatening SK and a chance to possibly gain townie points, I could see distinct advantages in doing so. And scum rolecop or something along those lines seems eminently possible.
imaginality wrote:- qvestion: does it make zense to haf targeted his scumbuddy EK on niyt 1?
If he didn't know what it did . . . eh. Maybe. Not certain.
imaginality wrote:2. Plum iss SK and Isacc only died if he prrrotected mafia
I already explained why the second clause is very unlikely, and your follow up:
imaginality wrote:I agrree zat Isacc himzelf clearrrly did ssink 'scum' = 'all non-town-aligned players'.
Your bastard-mod argument is possible, but I'm still inclined to think that if it were at all ambiguous to Isacc whether it was one or the other he would have mentioned that fact. I don't think Isacc would have risked saying 'Plum is confirmed Town unless I was roleblocked' unless he was certain that such was the case.
imaginality wrote:- con: verrry rrrare for jailed scum to be able to kill
I had an idea about a possibility for you being jailed scum whose kill went through, but I have to sleep on it and I'll see if it still makes sense in the morning or what.
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #1444 (isolation #97) » Tue May 05, 2009 6:08 am

Post by Plum »

All right, I have something new to say: I didn't make the kill last night because I'm not the sort of scum who is
able
to kill at all. The killer is still alive and is one of the two of you. I'm not the Raven. I am the original Were-Llama and I recruited Caf Night 1. I attempted to recruit Kmd Night 2 but was told that my action could not go through; Night 3the same thing happened when I attempted to recruit Imaginality. Kmd may or may not actually be a were-llama - my recruit - the post he made yesterday about his mid-day transformation notice isn't clear. If he is a were-llama, Imaginality must be the last scum, according to my win condition. If not, I can't be sure of anything except that I did not make the kill and that the killer is still alive. I can't win unless the other anti-town factions are all dead and the were-llamas outnumber the townies. I'm willing to cut a deal with whoever is willing to vote with me: You vote with me, we both go into Night, and I recruit you and you win along with me. I can guarantee a win for you if you - either of you - does this. If you're town, I can guarantee you that the remaining scum will win if you lynch me. Scum, you win if you lynch with me and I recruit you.
Plum wrote:Llamas >/= alpacas, though.

Image
Plum wrote:The llamas ate my brains D=. No, I'm just a bit overtired and have some suspicions on myself to address and then hopefully soon will have analysis of current cases and maybe some sort of reread.
As you can see, I breadcrumbed. To summarize my role, I am a were-llama (got bitten by one of my pack before is the flavor summary). However, because I'm a were-llama I cannot communicate with my pack, hence the crumbing (otherwise you'd of course ask why the heck I breadcrumbed a cult recruiter role, yeah). I also
cannot
kill. At all. I only recruit via my bite. If you desire further reading, see my play with Caf versus my play with EK, which should be further indication that I'm not Mafia but am Caf's cult recruiter.

Vote: imaginality


I'm willing to vote Kmd off if imaginality gets here before me and votes Kmd. Scum, you have nothing to lose voting with me. Town, if you do not vote with me you will have lost everything.
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #1451 (isolation #98) » Tue May 05, 2009 3:27 pm

Post by Plum »

BAAAHHHHHH. Kmd I'll get you yet.
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #1456 (isolation #99) » Tue May 05, 2009 3:46 pm

Post by Plum »

I couldn't cult you. Man, I was doing so almost well, too.
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #1458 (isolation #100) » Tue May 05, 2009 3:50 pm

Post by Plum »

Mirth, you said you'd comment on my roleclaim . . .
also, where did Kmd get the were-llama flavor? Did he make it up? Huh???
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #1461 (isolation #101) » Tue May 05, 2009 4:06 pm

Post by Plum »

Kmd4390 wrote:
Plum wrote:Mirth, you said you'd comment on my roleclaim . . .
also, where did Kmd get the were-llama flavor? Did he make it up? Huh???
Made it up. Didn't even see were-llama next to Caf's name. Funny how there were actual were-llamas in the game. But actually, if you look at my claim, I mentioned "alpaca" and "weresasquatch". I never actually said were-llama.
Maybe you were crumbing to me, I thought :wink:.
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #1468 (isolation #102) » Tue May 05, 2009 4:26 pm

Post by Plum »

Mirth wrote:
Plum got Cult Recruiter because I think that she's a good player and would do well with it despite the bastardliness. And also not freak out too much or flake out.
Aw, Mirth, that gave me a warm fuzzy feeling despite my crushing defeat.
User avatar
Plum
Plum
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Plum
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4519
Joined: August 20, 2008

Post Post #1480 (isolation #103) » Wed May 06, 2009 5:25 am

Post by Plum »

Mirth wrote:
PokerFace wrote: This game had a Were Llama which Elvis was chasing for love
It may have not been an alpaca but this game was made of win
This was a complete accident. I swear. I asked random.org, and it picked Plum, after I had already made Plum the CR. I guess Elvis's taste in
men
lovers is just that well known.
The further irony of how we were both at one another's throats Day 2
and
she was scum GF
and
I was the Cult Recruiter . . .
SlySly wrote:Who knew that imaginality would have a bite too?
Me too!
Mirth wrote:
I was also enjoying your freakout when you say the second "cult" That was beautiful. I kinda wish Kmd's roleblocks didn't effect the culting as much as they did, since the cult freakout wasn't as intense as I was hoping for.
I actually was thinking it probably wasn't a cult, and that even if it was it was gone. But even so, it was like - suddenly it turns out that a cult you had no idea even existed completely kicks the bucket Night 3". Wheee.
Locked

Return to “Completed Mini Theme Games”