Mafia 90-Lolwat? Mafia, Game Over, Mafia Win

[StrangerCoug]

StrangerCoug, GnKoichi said that I was attacking a pro-town post after saying that it was a pro-town post. That implies that I was being scummy consciously. Doesn't that make me look like a jester?

Acting scummy on purpose does not necessarily make a player a jester—it could also be legitimate scum trying to get bussed as a gambit of some sort. I don't see either, but #162 is heavily noted. As in on 10,000 pieces of paper.

Uh, if I were scum and that was a gambit, then most likely either you or GnKoichi is my scumbuddy.

That's partly why I don't see your post as a bussing gambit.

[Litral]

StrangerCoug, GnKoichi said that I was attacking a pro-town post after saying that it was a pro-town post. That implies that I was being scummy consciously. Doesn't that make me look like a jester?

Acting scummy on purpose does not necessarily make a player a jester—it could also be legitimate scum trying to get bussed as a gambit of some sort. I don't see either, but #162 is heavily noted. As in on 10,000 pieces of paper.

Uh, if I were scum and that was a gambit, then most likely either you or GnKoichi is my scumbuddy.

That's partly why I don't see your post as a bussing gambit.

Then why did you even say this:

Acting scummy on purpose does not necessarily make a player a jester—it could also be legitimate scum trying to get bussed as a gambit of some sort.

Since you're not actually offering an alternative?

... oh, and just in case anyone misunderstands, I'm not actually claiming jester or that I'm acting scummy on purpose.

[GnKoichi]

Litral, you can't have it both ways. You can't say that number's post was not-pro-town to avoid one accusation and then turn around and say it wasn't scummy to avoid another. You clearly have an opinion on his post. You give two more evasive answers, the "jester" comment, and the new counter accusation on the bus comment. You really haven't done anything to clear your name.

[StrangerCoug]

StrangerCoug, GnKoichi said that I was attacking a pro-town post after saying that it was a pro-town post. That implies that I was being scummy consciously. Doesn't that make me look like a jester?

Acting scummy on purpose does not necessarily make a player a jester—it could also be legitimate scum trying to get bussed as a gambit of some sort. I don't see either, but #162 is heavily noted. As in on 10,000 pieces of paper.

Uh, if I were scum and that was a gambit, then most likely either you or GnKoichi is my scumbuddy.

That's partly why I don't see your post as a bussing gambit.

Then why did you even say this:

Acting scummy on purpose does not necessarily make a player a jester—it could also be legitimate scum trying to get bussed as a gambit of some sort.

Since you're not actually offering an alternative?

To dismiss GnKoichi presenting you as a jester as a crap argument. I never said you had to be either a jester or attempting to get bussed, no questions asked—my alternative instead of you possibly being a jester was simply the first to come to mind. If you are town, then your post is very suggestive to me of a village idiot. It's obvscum regardless.

[Litral]

Litral, you can't have it both ways. You can't say that number's post was not-pro-town to avoid one accusation and then turn around and say it wasn't scummy to avoid another. You clearly have an opinion on his post. You give two more evasive answers, the "jester" comment, and the new counter accusation on the bus comment. You really haven't done anything to clear your name.

The "jester" comment was entirely a comment out of frustration that you're accusing me both of being scum and of being very stupid and the bus comment was StrangerCoug's, to which I replied. The other parts of my post was the actual argument, which both you and SC seem to have ignored.

Either that, or you do not understand my argument at all, so I'll repeat it in clearer terms. I'm saying that his

post

was scummy, but I have no idea whether the

opinion

contained inside the post is scummy. The opinion and the post itself are two different things. Why? Because his

post

, besides his

opinion

, also contains other information: an important one is the

situation

under which it was made. The situation is that two people voted him for lurking and he immediately comes out with an opinion that should have been expressed earlier if he was pro-town. This is the sort of thing scum more often do than town, which is why I kept the vote on him.

[Litral]

SC: Like I said, you're focusing on the wrong part. The jester comment contains no arguments. I can never argue that GnKoichi's accusation was wrong because it made me look like a jester - but I can argue it is a little frustrating. That's exactly what I meant.

[StrangerCoug]

I'm saying that his

post

was scummy, but I have no idea whether the

opinion

contained inside the post is scummy. The opinion and the post itself are two different things. Why? Because his

post

, besides his

opinion

, also contains other information: an important one is the

situation

under which it was made. The situation is that two people voted him for lurking and he immediately comes out with an opinion that should have been expressed earlier if he was pro-town. This is the sort of thing scum more often do than town, which is why I kept the vote on him.

This makes absolutely no sense to me. As GnKoichi said, you and Lowell opted to vote a lurker in favor of asking the mod to prod him and analyzing the people actually posting content at the time. I rarely like lurker lynches as the mod will replace the lurker if it gets out of hand. Again, Numberfourteen could have had issues that prevented him from posting, and your failure to account for any that might exist is what drove me to vote you.

[GnKoichi]

Coug's on to the heart of it here. The original sin in this line of problems is your vote against a lurker when there had been no attempt to get him involved before hand. He got a little lost in the shuffle, which is understandable with the confusing arguments that were going on. When he DID get involved, you say it's bad timing. Would it have been LESS scummy for him to not respond at all and let himself get replaced? Once you voted for him, what WOULDN'T have been scummy in your eyes?

And if you think his opinion is pro-town, why not lay off the lurker and help push the scum hunt on someone like rofl?

[roflcopter]

this game gets my full and undivided attention a la mañana

i agree that lurkerhunting is v scummy, especially with so much else going on in the game

[Yosarian2]

... please, this is the second time in this game someone has depicted me as some sort of jester.

Others have already pointed out, but saying something like this is just SOO scummy, especally when no one "depicted you as some sort of jester".

Uh, if I were scum and that was a gambit, then most likely either you or GnKoichi is my scumbuddy.

And this line is worse...

Either that, or you do not understand my argument at all, so I'll repeat it in clearer terms. I'm saying that his post was scummy, but I have no idea whether the opinion contained inside the post is scummy. The opinion and the post itself are two different things. Why? Because his post, besides his opinion, also contains other information: an important one is the situation under which it was made. The situation is that two people voted him for lurking and he immediately comes out with an opinion that should have been expressed earlier if he was pro-town. This is the sort of thing scum more often do than town, which is why I kept the vote on him.

..what?

Look, he was lurking, so you were voting for him. That's fine, that makes sense; lurker hunting is an inherently pro-town thing to do in basically any situation.

Then, though, he posts an actual opinion, a scumtell you say makes sense...and you keep voting him because...he didn't say so earlier? Huh? That's the part that confused everyone; usually, if you vote a lurker, it's partly because you are trying to pressure him to post content. When he did post content, you didn't seem to have any problem with the content he posted at the time, but then continued to attack him, and that's what I don't get.

If you vote someone for lurking, either they're going to keep lurking, or they'll post some content. Do you really want to punish someone for posting content in that situation?

The whole thing looks...off. Not a "Scum gambit", exactally, like you claimed in your defense. Looks more a scum mistake, the kind where a scum wants to keep his vote on a bandwagon, so he creates a weak excuse for it that dosn't seem consistat with other things he's said. And your defense has been flail-y, has accused people attacking you with "being your scumbuddies", and made a really bizzare jester comment that dosn't make any sense.

Vote:Litral

for now.

i agree that lurkerhunting is v scummy

Lurkinghunting is pro-town. It's the rest of his behavior that's scummy.

[StrangerCoug]

The whole thing looks...off. Not a "Scum gambit", exactally, like you claimed in your defense.

I believe I mentioned a scum gambit before Litral did, even though I didn't believe him to be committing one either.

[StrangerCoug]

EBWOP: And you forgot to unvote Empking's Alt before voting Litral.

[Vino]

Two scenarios.

A) Townie sees a lurker, and starts prodding him to be more active. Lurkers tend to be scum, so this is a pro-town move.
B) Scum sees a lurker, and uses the pro-towniness of prodding lurkers to try to start a bandwagon, an anti-town move.

So, we can't really establish his vote on a lurker as a pro-town or anti-town move. As these people are saying though, the way he behaved afterwards is particularly revealing.

A Brief History of Litral:

Random vote on Empking, makes a joke about starting a bandwagon
Attacked by Honcho and SSK.
Makes a snarky comment about the previous vote
"anti-discussion is only a scummy mistake if it's intentional" followed by discussions of this comment
tyhess agrees with Litral
Litral attacks SC
Backs off SC, Vote-prod 14, seconded by Lowell
Attacked by dude-whose-name-I-can't-pronounce GnKoichi.
14 not redeemed by a pro-town post
Attacked again by GnKoichi and Penguins and SC, "Jester" comments
Attacked by Yosarian2

And now attacked by me.

I think jester is a very high likelihood for Litral, which is why I'm not voting him. His remarks read more to me of jester than blundering scum.

[Yosarian2]

I think jester is a very high likelihood for Litral, which is why I'm not voting him. His remarks read more to me of jester than blundering scum.

Jesters are very, very rare. And it's not like lynching a jester is bad for the town anyway. Frankly, it's bizzare and kind of scummy to assume someone is a jester just becasue they look scummy.

[StrangerCoug]

A Brief History of Litral:

Random vote on Empking, makes a joke about starting a bandwagon
Attacked by Honcho and SSK.
Makes a snarky comment about the previous vote
"anti-discussion is only a scummy mistake if it's intentional" followed by discussions of this comment
tyhess agrees with Litral
Litral attacks SC
Backs off SC, Vote-prod 14, seconded by Lowell
Attacked by dude-whose-name-I-can't-pronounce GnKoichi.
14 not redeemed by a pro-town post
Attacked again by GnKoichi and Penguins and SC, "Jester" comments
Attacked by Yosarian2

And now attacked by me.

I think jester is a very high likelihood for Litral, which is why I'm not voting him. His remarks read more to me of jester than blundering scum.

Why are you attacking Litral if you think he actually is a jester?

[orangepenguin]

HELLO.

I was checking the queue and I recalled signing up for a Mafia game, because I had only been in Open games before. Then I never got a PM. So I figured I re-/in myself into the sign-ups so I would be included in one, but I noticed I was included on the Mafia 90 list, so I searched for this thread, and found it. I then looked in my PM box, and found my Role PM, which I had no idea what game it was for when I first read it, since there was no link to the thread, and the title only said "Lolwat? Mafia" which confused me greatly. Chaos ensues, and 8 pages already pass, so needless to say, I am a bit behind. I need a random vote, so

vote: Penguin of the Serengeti

for being a penguin. Since the random stage is over,

unvote

.

Now I just have to wrap my head around what's going on, but I have watched the topic, so I guess you're stuck with me. I have never been replaced, and I don't want to start now because of an odd turn of events that have allowed me to not find this thread for so long.

[Empking's Alt]

Is thinking about jesters useful in a large game. (where a jester lynch probably won't end the game.)

Minor FoS: The jester speculators

[roflcopter]

despite nat's warning that there could be jesters in this game, i will not be playing as though there is one.

yos, we obviously disagree on a point of game theory. i think lurkerhunting is as good as lurking in plain sight, it allows one to remain active but take part in absolutely zero real scumhunting and interact negiligibly with anyone who will actually respond.

anyway,

unvote, vote: litral

and

fos: vino

for being his scumpartner

[Penguins of the Serengeti]

Frankly, it's bizarre and kind of scummy to assume someone is a jester just because they look scummy.

I try not to confuse 'assume someone is a jester' with 'suggest your buddy might be a jester so townies lay off him.'

I'm willing and able to hammer Litral or his buddy Vino.

[Penguins of the Serengeti]

anyway,

unvote, vote: litral

and

fos: vino

for being his scumpartner

WOW great minds sure do think alike.

[Yosarian2]

yos, we obviously disagree on a point of game theory. i think lurkerhunting is as good as lurking in plain sight, it allows one to remain active but take part in absolutely zero real scumhunting and interact negiligibly with anyone who will actually respond.

Eh; lurkerhunting is a neccessary thing for the town to do, though. If the town lets lurkers get away with lurking, then the town usually loses in endgame to a lurkerscum. I can find about a hundred examples of that...

[roflcopter]

yos, we obviously disagree on a point of game theory. i think lurkerhunting is as good as lurking in plain sight, it allows one to remain active but take part in absolutely zero real scumhunting and interact negiligibly with anyone who will actually respond.

Eh; lurkerhunting is a neccessary thing for the town to do, though. If the town lets lurkers get away with lurking, then the town usually loses in endgame to a lurkerscum. I can find about a hundred examples of that...

personally, i find the best response to straight up lurkers is a good old mod prod request. active lurkers are a different story, but that is not what litral was after.

[roflcopter]

anyway,

unvote, vote: litral

and

fos: vino

for being his scumpartner

WOW great minds sure do think alike.

yes we do

[GnKoichi]

See, now I'm in a weird spot. I had worked myself over to a Litral vote, but now Rofl is voting for him. Do I really think Rofl is scum strongly enough to assume his vote must either be a bus or proof that Litral is actually town? No, of course not, I say to myself. And I can't judge Litral's actions by Rofl's reactions to them. Okay, self, that helps.

Unvote, Vote: Litral

Also, Vino, you don't say WHY you think Litral is Jester > Scum, which is why people have attacked you for it. You seem to observe the same thing the rest of us have, but you come to a different conclusion. Why? What is Jestery about attacking someone for posting after attacking that same person for lurking?

[Litral]

Well, I'm afraid I have absolutely nothing to add to your accusations towards me, since I already explained myself and you felt it meant no sense. It was perfectly sensible to me, but I guess that's because I'm some sort of stupid idiot who bandwagons after publicly declaring it, and votes someone because they made a good post.

Also, for actually considering that me being a jester is a good argument:

unvote, vote: vino

I guess that's all I can do for this game.