Mini 829 - Internal Struggle Mafia (Over)

[Paradoxombie]

Unfortunately, at this point there's so little actual logic and almost no fact, and as such, it's hard for me to do my job correctly...

@ryan Everything you said on me is the truth how can I defend against it.

Hiphop, yes they are facts, but they are facts that make you scummy, and thus, a good thing to build a case around.

Look at the above two quotes. One person says there is no actual logic, thus no fact. The other says everything is fact.

Interesting dilemma here.

In my opinion, I think we have a fairly large portion of good logic, contrary to what IK thinks.


IK and Hiphop have both responded to the arguments against them. It was obvious who had a legitimate response.

Vote:hiphop

Your cases against IK and Hiphop amount to simply that they unvoted when criticized and haven't done much scumhunting. They both did those things, but hiphop is the one who actually tried to scumhunt even at the cost of more suspicion, while IK has been laying low and on the defensive since RVS. Hiphop admitted that he made mistakes, while IK made a bunch of excuses. Now you vote hiphop who agrees with you and legitimize IK who basically still hasn't left RVS?

And as you pointed out IK is the one who we should have higher expectations for since he's played a game on this site before.


So Im pretty suspicious that you consider hiphop the obvious choice. I'm not saying that voting hiphop is unacceptable, but looking at your arguments and both of their play, picking hiphop without even explaining your logic looks like a slip, because now you're choice seems more based on majority support than the facts. Nothing about IK's response is more legitimate than hiphops. In fact it looks very defensive because it shows much more effort and insight than any of IK's scumhunting. So your whole interest in their responses seems pointless, because I don't think their responses played into your decision at all, they just made it easier to make the vote you already wanted to.

[hiphop]

I look back and find what I accused him of is not what you said I accused him of.

First of all, my case for idiotking being scum number 1, well he unvoted for someone, and his reason was that people were bw another person.

Compared to what you said in the next post.

So, you are fairly certain that Idiotking is "scum number 1" because he unvoted when a bandwagon was forming, yet don't want to vote him, the guy you confidently say is scum, because that'll build a bandwagon?

First, the way you make it sound, it sounds like he unvoted when he was in a bandwagon. I didn’t accuse him of that, I accused him of unvoting because a different bandwagon was forming.

Second I wouldn’t mind voting for someone who is at the top of my list, even if it is in a bandwagon. I asked him a question and I was expecting an answer, just like ryan did, before I was going to vote for him. I found his explanation satisfied me, to the point that he no longer was “scum number 1.”

[ryan2754]

I'm really not liking the way toro unvoted after getting a couple of votes. Toro, I didn't vote you for voting, I voted you for having suspicions that did not strike me as genuine. You were wishywashy when you got on the wagon, but after you'd actually voted it seemed nothing could change your mind. When hiphop tries to reason with you, you essentially shrug him off, like you're not even interested in the possibility that he's town. It's quite different from a few posts before, when you weren't even sure whether to vote him. Then when a couple of people vote you, you hastily unvote. You're all over the place.

Agreed. Seems like the main argument against toro right now.

The first group is trickier. Up until recently, hiphop's been giving scum more than enough to use against him.

You seem to be implying that you know scum are going for the hiphop lynch, which can be followed with you knowing hiphop is town.

But when I place a vote (aside from RVS) I am 100% sure I feel that person is scum.

Really? Only 100%?!? Wow. That's interesting, because if you happen to be a vanilla townie, there is no way in hell, save investigations results/other PR such scenarios that you would know who his 100% scum.

Who are you voting for currently? IK...so you KNOW he is scum? Not to mention, has Jason voted anyone else today (outside of RVS)? If so, that means he has two scum nailed on day one. AMAZING!

IK-says hiphop's "exploded in scumminess" but never votes for him
Jason-already explained [Fencesitting]

Missed these earlier. +1 scumpoint to both.

(I do think this was a tad scummy yes, but I believe he acknowledged he was wrong on)

So just because hiphop acknowledged he was wrong, he's off the hook in your mind?

Logic requires fact, fact can't happen exist without concrete evidence of it, true concrete evidence doesn't exist until night actions have taken place, people are dead, and true roles of the departed are known. Then, using the logic from the next day, the logic of the previous day can be dissected and new facts emerge. At least that's how I see it, and helps explain why I do so poorly in RVS.

I understand that, but I was just pointing out the discrepancies between you and hiphop. He says he can't argue the facts against him (voting, unvoting, etc.), where you say facts are alignments. Thus, you think what hiphop regards as facts, aren't necessarily facts, and thus can't be used for logic. I understand your point of view, but I think it is possible to use logic outside of knowing alignments (aka cases are made not based on alignments). Just different theory on the use of logic.

Also can you elaborate more on IK and Hiphop's responses and how IK's demonstrate better logic then hiphop's? Also can you also elaborate more on "IK has a legitimate excuse" ?

Question 1: Don't understand what you are asking. Is it that you are asking me why I think IK's response to my accusations is better than hiphop's. If so, then the quick answer is that IK actually defended against the attacks whereas hiphop just said "I can't argue because they are facts."
But, according to what IK said about facts, those are necessarily facts. Thus, hiphop CAN defend against them. I am still waiting a defense.
Question 2: I never said "excuse," I said "response." Thus, when you initially read my post did you see/read/think I said 'excuse,' or did you accidently type it in wrong and think I read 'response?'

I would recommend you not be weary of using your vote a little more strategically. Be flexible. Your vote is a tool, not a promise. You definitely do not have to be 100% sure of anything before you use your vote.

Coaching? Just out of curiosity, and I am pretty sure it's been mentioned, what are the other pairs of coaching that have gone so far in this game? Granted, this one seems more geared towards future overall mafia play and not this game specifically, but still wanted to point it out.

I have tried explaining, but I can only go so far.

No, I don't think you really have. Against my accusations on you, you said you can't argue the "facts."

Don’t you believe that sometimes a town can act scummy?

1.) This answer is obvious, and thus makes this a dumb question. OF COURSE town looks scummy. During the course of a game, almost everyone has a scumtell or two. It's multiple instances of scum tells and looking at which scumtells are the worst given the context that reveals scum.
2.) This seems like a deflection away from my accusations and away from the course that the discussion is going. Seems like a game-theory question to change the current discussion. I'm not buying it.
3.) Again implying you are town when it is unecessary.

Your play style is potentially very dangerous to the town. You need to learn as you go and develop your play style into something that is more than just going with the flow.

Coaching? Again, seems more geared towards general mafia play than this game in particular. Again, pointing it out because it caught my eye, and well, because I agree with his assessment.

Oh, I have been trying to be cautious and be sure with my vote because I thought not being 100% sure on my vote would actually be hurtful and dangerous to the town.

AKA agree with DTM's 171.

Your cases against IK and Hiphop amount to simply that they unvoted when criticized and haven't done much scumhunting. They both did those things, but hiphop is the one who actually tried to scumhunt even at the cost of more suspicion, while IK has been laying low and on the defensive since RVS. Hiphop admitted that he made mistakes, while IK made a bunch of excuses. Now you vote hiphop who agrees with you and legitimize IK who basically still hasn't left RVS?

And as you pointed out IK is the one who we should have higher expectations for since he's played a game on this site before.


So Im pretty suspicious that you consider hiphop the obvious choice. I'm not saying that voting hiphop is unacceptable, but looking at your arguments and both of their play, picking hiphop without even explaining your logic looks like a slip, because now you're choice seems more based on majority support than the facts. Nothing about IK's response is more legitimate than hiphops. In fact it looks very defensive because it shows much more effort and insight than any of IK's scumhunting. So your whole interest in their responses seems pointless, because I don't think their responses played into your decision at all, they just made it easier to make the vote you already wanted to.

Your thoughts are misquided, or wrong, on a few accounts.
1.) No, that is not the reason for my vote. In my post for 100, I list, in summary mode, the scumtells/case against each. You will see that hiphops is much more involved and multiplied. Add to that that hiphop is being hypocritical with going after someone for not voting their "most scummy player" when he indeed did the same thing. The majority of the case on IK, however, was his contradictory statements on why he eventually DIDN'T LOOK at the bandwagon.
2.) We must be reading different threads then. IK's posts, in my opinion, have been much more helpful and coherent then hiphop. Thus, hiphop seems like struggling scum. Sure, it would make sense that IK is on the defense, given his situation. If you could give some posts/evidence where hiphop actually scumhunted and how IK has not and has been laying low, that would be fantastic.
3.) Just because hiphop admits his mistakes, doesn't mean it isn't still scummy (you are saying what jason said that I mentioned earlier in this post). Where was IK making excuses? I may have missed that.
4.) How has IK not left RVS? What is hiphop agreeing with me about?
5.) Yes, he does have higher expectations. But the amount of things hiphop has done wrong doubles that of IK. Thus my vote.
6.) If you read my post 100 and subsequent 149, you will see that it was a logical transition. I suspected both, and wanted a response from both. Clearly, one was inadequate, saying he has nothing to argue against (hiphop). Defeatist, and total bs. So no, I DO logically support my vote.
7.) Majority? There was one other vote on hiphop at the time. The bandwagon had fallen apart. There was no majority when I VOTED.

FOS: paradox

8.) A lot of IK's response was more legitimate than hiphops. Hiphop said I can't argue, and I made a mistake. Completely bogus response in the game of mafia, ever.
9.) This sentence from the above quote: "In fact it looks very defensive because it shows much more effort and insight than any of IK's scumhunting" doesn't make sense. I think you may have messed up the pronoun usage. Retry that sentence again because it doesn't make sense as is. Do you mean hiphop's response looks defensive because more more and insight compared to IK's scumhunting? Because again, I don't see it. Maybe I am just missing a post, but hiphop's RESPONSE TO ME was inadequate.
10.) No, my interest in their responses is not pointless. Who was more scummy before they responded, IMO? Hiphop. I wanted to await their responses/defense to then make a decision on my vote. Hiphop allayed no suspicions, thus my vote. Don't see what is so hard to understand about that.

Suspicions
High: Hiphop
Growing to High: Jason
Medium: Toro, IK

[Idiotking]

Alright, well, I'm not sure how I could've sounded more objective. You're welcome to suggest other means of asking DTM why he made said accusation multiple times before hearing and processing my response that doesn't sound as "defensive".

I personally wouldn't have said anything about it. It was an understandable sentiment the first, second, and third times. Repetition like that doesn't make it wrong, just brings it more to the forefront. And you weren't responding (am I correct in remembering that it was because of RL situations that you can only post so often, or was that someone else?).

The bottom line is, the fact that you brought up the repetition like that sounds defensive. Dealing with the repeated issue would have made more sense, and while you did that, you flood the post with "why did you think my vote was random?" when it was quite obviously because you hadn't posted any explanation at the time. And I still hold to my belief that you made up that reason AFTER your initial vote post.

I disagree. I think DRK's response was much more "appropriate" by whatever standard you choose to assess it. I also disagree with your criticism of my playstyle, but I guess we're at an understanding there.

I disagree. We shouldn't have had to wait for your response for an explanation. You unnecessarily made yourself look suspicious by seemingly random voting. More, when you DID state your reason, it didn't explain why you would have waited for the explanation of the vote. Your first post is a RVS post. And now you're still trying to convince me that it wasn't?

Vote RC

Please tell me if I've missed anything glaringly obvious (I tend to do that), but as it stands, this is all I can see.

[Idiotking]

Gah, another thing I didn't address.

RC, you say you were trying to judge people's reactions, yes? Then why the HELL did you go around asking people why they thought it was random, huh? Wasn't that the type of reaction to be expected?

[DeathRowKitty]

The first group is trickier. Up until recently, hiphop's been giving scum more than enough to use against him.

You seem to be implying that you know scum are going for the hiphop lynch, which can be followed with you knowing hiphop is town.

Scum would be going for a hiphop lynch regardless of his alignment, but yes, I am assuming for the purposes of that that he's town. I find it hard to believe a wagon built up so quickly on hiphop without some help from scum and right now I'm likening hiphop to CB from our last game. Right now, I'm leaning toward VI over scum (sorry hiphop) and that's why I'm more interested in analyzing the wagon than I am in analyzing hiphop's actions. This of course could change if hiphop shows more scummy behavior.

[Paradoxombie]

Your cases against IK and Hiphop amount to simply that they unvoted when criticized and haven't done much scumhunting. They both did those things, but hiphop is the one who actually tried to scumhunt even at the cost of more suspicion, while IK has been laying low and on the defensive since RVS. Hiphop admitted that he made mistakes, while IK made a bunch of excuses. Now you vote hiphop who agrees with you and legitimize IK who basically still hasn't left RVS?

And as you pointed out IK is the one who we should have higher expectations for since he's played a game on this site before.


So Im pretty suspicious that you consider hiphop the obvious choice. I'm not saying that voting hiphop is unacceptable, but looking at your arguments and both of their play, picking hiphop without even explaining your logic looks like a slip, because now you're choice seems more based on majority support than the facts. Nothing about IK's response is more legitimate than hiphops. In fact it looks very defensive because it shows much more effort and insight than any of IK's scumhunting. So your whole interest in their responses seems pointless, because I don't think their responses played into your decision at all, they just made it easier to make the vote you already wanted to.

Your thoughts are misquided, or wrong, on a few accounts.
1.) No, that is not the reason for my vote. In my post for 100, I list, in summary mode, the scumtells/case against each. You will see that hiphops is much more involved and multiplied. Add to that that hiphop is being hypocritical with going after someone for not voting their "most scummy player" when he indeed did the same thing. The majority of the case on IK, however, was his contradictory statements on why he eventually DIDN'T LOOK at the bandwagon.
2.) We must be reading different threads then. IK's posts, in my opinion, have been much more helpful and coherent then hiphop. Thus, hiphop seems like struggling scum. Sure, it would make sense that IK is on the defense, given his situation. If you could give some posts/evidence where hiphop actually scumhunted and how IK has not and has been laying low, that would be fantastic.
3.) Just because hiphop admits his mistakes, doesn't mean it isn't still scummy (you are saying what jason said that I mentioned earlier in this post). Where was IK making excuses? I may have missed that.
4.) How has IK not left RVS? What is hiphop agreeing with me about?
5.) Yes, he does have higher expectations. But the amount of things hiphop has done wrong doubles that of IK. Thus my vote.
6.) If you read my post 100 and subsequent 149, you will see that it was a logical transition. I suspected both, and wanted a response from both. Clearly, one was inadequate, saying he has nothing to argue against (hiphop). Defeatist, and total bs. So no, I DO logically support my vote.
7.) Majority? There was one other vote on hiphop at the time. The bandwagon had fallen apart. There was no majority when I VOTED.

FOS: paradox

8.) A lot of IK's response was more legitimate than hiphops. Hiphop said I can't argue, and I made a mistake. Completely bogus response in the game of mafia, ever.
9.) This sentence from the above quote: "In fact it looks very defensive because it shows much more effort and insight than any of IK's scumhunting" doesn't make sense. I think you may have messed up the pronoun usage. Retry that sentence again because it doesn't make sense as is. Do you mean hiphop's response looks defensive because more more and insight compared to IK's scumhunting? Because again, I don't see it. Maybe I am just missing a post, but hiphop's RESPONSE TO ME was inadequate.
10.) No, my interest in their responses is not pointless. Who was more scummy before they responded, IMO? Hiphop. I wanted to await their responses/defense to then make a decision on my vote. Hiphop allayed no suspicions, thus my vote. Don't see what is so hard to understand about that.

Suspicions
High: Hiphop
Growing to High: Jason
Medium: Toro, IK

I only have time for a quick response now, but I'm less suspicious now that you've explained your reasoning in more detail. I'll try to clarify why I think IK is more suspicious than hiphop when I next post.

[RedCoyote]

Scum number 1 certainly sounds more confident than scummy, and most people would vote someone they found scummy. If they see someone as scum number 1, there's no reason why a vote shouldn't be on that person within the same post they point it out.

This still isn't quite the response I was looking for, but I'm willing to drop the issue on account of the possiblity that I overestimated the motivations behind that post. You may be dodging me, but I'm finding it increasingly likely that you're just trying to explain yourself. I'll

unvote

here.

---

Of course Toro, don't read the votecount.

Interesting. You're implying that hiphop is jumping on you solely because you have the most votes to your name? Would you say you've played the game much differently? I seem to recall you "following the leader" a bit yourself earlier.

---

FOS: paradox

[...]

Suspicions
High: Hiphop
Growing to High: Jason
Medium: Toro, IK

?

---

Repetition like that doesn't make it wrong, just brings it more to the forefront.

Despite whether it's incorrect or not? Despite whether or not you've gotten a chance to speak with said suspect yet?

There's nothing wrong with pushing your opinion out there -- that's what Mafia is about -- but a townie should also care about getting enough information to get to the truth of the matter. This game isn't meant to be a screaming contest. A townie should want to persue their leads, certainly, but they should also want to take information, process it, and decide whether or not it makes a difference on their point of view or not.

For one player to come to a conclusion and spread it around multiple times without so much as exchanging dialogue with the person they are talking about is not, in my opinion, productive. Maybe just "bringing it to the forefront" is good enough for you, but it isn't for me. I prefer to hear from both parties and then make my own decision; I have trouble when one side talks for both parties.

And you weren't responding (am I correct in remembering that it was because of RL situations that you can only post so often, or was that someone else?).

I generally make one post a day. That is enough for me, and that is enough for the Mod (who has the overriding decision mind you). Of course there are going to be players who move at a faster or slower rate than that, so we should all try to reasonably accomdate for every player's schedule without letting them take advantage of the game.

If you're going to call 24-36 hours "not responding", then not only are you being unrealistic and unreasonable in general, but you are also wrong according to the rules the Mod set out for this specific game.

Your first post is a RVS post. And now you're still trying to convince me that it wasn't?

It's your opinion that it is, sure. I contend that it wasn't and I delibrately made my post thin in order to see who would get riled up (notably you, DTM, and Shrine) over my supposed lack of attentiveness.

RC, you say you were trying to judge people's reactions, yes? Then why the HELL did you go around asking people why they thought it was random, huh? Wasn't that the type of reaction to be expected?

Yes, I expected some people to go over-the-top. I also expected some players may show levelheadedness and simply ask me about it. This way I could get a better feel for how this town is setup, the different playstyles the players have, and who I should watch out for.

Take DTM for example. I've noticed some eccentricity and an almost hyper-awareness, but I have come to the conclusion, for the time being, that he's sincerely trying to understand my motivations and the motivations of the other players around him. I'm comfortable with DTM at the moment, as I am with a couple of other players.

Are you trying to sincerely understand my motivations, or are you simply trying to appear to be doing so?

[Idiotking]

Despite whether it's incorrect or not? Despite whether or not you've gotten a chance to speak with said suspect yet?

If you'd explained why you had voted when you first voted, we wouldn't have this mess. Withholding information hurts the town, especially when it's reasoning for a vote.

There's nothing wrong with pushing your opinion out there -- that's what Mafia is about -- but a townie should also care about getting enough information to get to the truth of the matter. This game isn't meant to be a screaming contest. A townie should want to persue their leads, certainly, but they should also want to take information, process it, and decide whether or not it makes a difference on their point of view or not.

And they should also want to make their findings and reasoning known, except in special circumstances (which this was not).

For one player to come to a conclusion and spread it around multiple times without so much as exchanging dialogue with the person they are talking about is not, in my opinion, productive. Maybe just "bringing it to the forefront" is good enough for you, but it isn't for me. I prefer to hear from both parties and then make my own decision; I have trouble when one side talks for both parties.

If I had an issue I wanted to bring up repeatedly, I would, whether the suspect was present or not. But I wouldn't develop it any further, and from what I can tell, it didn't in this case. There shouldn't have had to be any exchange of dialogue concerning the apparent RVS vote, because of reasons already stated.

I generally make one post a day. That is enough for me, and that is enough for the Mod (who has the overriding decision mind you). Of course there are going to be players who move at a faster or slower rate than that, so we should all try to reasonably accomdate for every player's schedule without letting them take advantage of the game.

I don't mind it if people make one post a day, but when their first post is a substanceless RVS vote when the town was clearly out of RVS, and then go back and try and convince everybody that it WASN'T a RVS vote, I tend to get suspicious.

If you're going to call 24-36 hours "not responding", then not only are you being unrealistic and unreasonable in general, but you are also wrong according to the rules the Mod set out for this specific game.

You didn't respond in the timeframe of the repetitions, that's what I meant. See? This is what I mean when I say you're getting defensive. You're trying to turn this around and act like I'm bullying you, which I'm not. The fact is that you did NOT respond, for reasonable and fair reasons of course, but the fact remains. It doesn't change just because of extenuating circumstances. In short, had you responded, it wouldn't have been repeated. You weren't online to respond, and so it was repeated.

It's your opinion that it is, sure. I contend that it wasn't and I delibrately made my post thin in order to see who would get riled up (notably you, DTM, and Shrine) over my supposed lack of attentiveness.

Great that you can say that now, very much after the fact. Can you prove me wrong? It's like politics, opinions are votes. You have to change my opinion to change my vote, and unless you can come up with something better than you have, my opinion isn't going to be changed.

Yes, I expected some people to go over-the-top. I also expected some players may show levelheadedness and simply ask me about it. This way I could get a better feel for how this town is setup, the different playstyles the players have, and who I should watch out for.

Take DTM for example. I've noticed some eccentricity and an almost hyper-awareness, but I have come to the conclusion, for the time being, that he's sincerely trying to understand my motivations and the motivations of the other players around him. I'm comfortable with DTM at the moment, as I am with a couple of other players.

Are you trying to sincerely understand my motivations, or are you simply trying to appear to be doing so?

I don't think you have any motivations beyond saving your own skin. You did something to make yourself look suspicious. Fine, it was a gamble. If you can pull it off, great. But if you make yourself look suspicious, don't blame anyone but yourself if others suspect you for it. That's just common sense.

[RedCoyote]

If you'd explained why you had voted when you first voted, we wouldn't have this mess. Withholding information hurts the town, especially when it's reasoning for a vote.

But if I didn't make that post, I may not have gotten town reads off DRK and DTM.

But I wouldn't develop it any further, and from what I can tell, it didn't in this case.

So going from assuming it was a random vote, voting me because of the assumption of a random vote, and asking other players to analyze the "random vote", isn't "developing it any further"? What is your definition of developing something further?

You didn't respond in the timeframe of the repetitions, that's what I meant. See? This is what I mean when I say you're getting defensive. You're trying to turn this around and act like I'm bullying you, which I'm not. The fact is that you did NOT respond, for reasonable and fair reasons of course, but the fact remains.

Yeah, that's what I meant too.

August 3rd 12:52 AM until August 4th 5:12 AM is the time length between my first and second post. That's roughly 28 hours time.

Why don't you tell me what argument you're making here? You accused me of not responding (and, thus, that I deserved to be misrepresented without being given the opportunity to respond), and I am explaining that had I been given a reasonable amount of time, some misunderstandings may or may not have been avoided.

There's that word "defensive" again. I honestly don't know how I could make my tone any more neutral and non-personal. You recommended that I just keep quiet, but I don't think I'll be able to find out the information I want if I do that.

Fine, it was a gamble. If you can pull it off, great. But if you make yourself look suspicious, don't blame anyone but yourself if others suspect you for it. That's just common sense.

Am I blaming others, Ik?

[alexhans]

Those in danger of suppression #7:

hiphop (2)

-

Zachrulez, ryan2754

jasonT1981 (2)

-

DeathRowKitty, DTMaster

RedCoyote (1)

-

Idiotking

toro (3)

-

hihop, Paradoxombie, dank

Not Voting (4)

-

, Shrinehme, Toro, jasonT1981, RedCoyote

Happiness with Posting Level:

HAPPY!

With 12 alive it takes 7 to lynch.

[DTMaster]

@Ryan

Question 1: Don't understand what you are asking. Is it that you are asking me why I think IK's response to my accusations is better than hiphop's. If so, then the quick answer is that IK actually defended against the attacks whereas hiphop just said "I can't argue because they are facts."But, according to what IK said about facts, those are necessarily facts. Thus, hiphop CAN defend against them. I am still waiting a defense.

Question 2: I never said "excuse," I said "response." Thus, when you initially read my post did you see/read/think I said 'excuse,' or did you accidently type it in wrong and think I read 'response?'

1. Yes you answered it correctly. Point noted.

2. Whoops I meant response. Brain fart when I was typing, but yes I want you to elaborate on how IK had a more legitimate response then hiphop.

@RC
Actually you pointed a potential OMGUS FOS on ryan with 177 right there.

[hiphop]

Is it just me or do Toro, Jason, and idiotking, seem to be connected in a way? Jason get bw right off the bat. Idiotking notices the bw and draws attention to it with this post:

Holy bandwagon, Batman!

unvote

What's with the rapid dogpile on jason?

To me it seems that he wants to call attention to it, so that people realize that it is a bw and they will unvote. In post 53, Jason comments on my 4 points, explaining why I am scum. Post 54 Toro agrees with Jason and says something is fishy, so that in his next post (post 61) he votes for me. None of these people have even attacked each other once. The only time they did attack each other was in the rvs, and they did it with a smile. It is the same thing that ryan said idiotking and I were doing in the rvs.

I can't quite put into words what I mean. It seems like hiphop attacking IK without really attacking him. Sort of a buddying proposition that later he can say: "look, I found him suspicious earlier" type thing. I had no trouble understanding IK's vote reasoning about him being the FIRST one to place a second vote, but it seems hiphop misses it, possibly on purpose, and then IK gives a fairly level-headed response, with a smiley. It just comes off as an early form of buddying. Nothing too intense, agains just a vibe.

If he said I and idk were doing it, than those three were definitely doing it more.

Hiphop: Unvotes when called out; revotes a lurker right after Paradoxombie asks why he unvoted and subsequently didn't place another vote somewhere else; attempts to go back to RVS (a form of deflection); claims inexperience, which can only take you so far; worrying about L-3/L-4; Hypocritical on IK's unvote, where he did the same thing; deflecting onto lurkers on PAGE 3; would rather vote lurkers than scum number 1; after voting a "lurker", takes his vote off before allowing said lurker to post, which goes against his strategy to lurker hunt; votes toro without reasons, and says its a hunch.

@Ryan I didn’t unvote when called out. You can have your own opinion, because I already explained mine. You do have to explain why I am hypocritical on Ik’s unvote, because I don’t believe I am. The only reason I unvoted you, because apparently you were not going to post just because I was voting for you. You said yourself once someone knows that someone is targeting them, because they haven’t posted, they are less likely to post, if they have nothing to hide. I am a very impatient guy, as you can see by my many posts, and want to see some activity. So I gave up on targeting you and went against Toro. I also gave a reason for voting toro, which I didn’t have time to do that night.

Right now, I'm leaning toward VI over scum (sorry hiphop)

@ DRK if that is the way you feel, so be it.

[hiphop]

By the way Jason, you still haven't told us who could be scum on that bw. Here I will put down names:
Dtmaster, Dank, Zachrulez, DeathRowKitty, and Toro.
If there is at least one scum on this bw you have at least a 20% chace of picking the correct person.

[Idiotking]

But if I didn't make that post, I may not have gotten town reads off DRK and DTM.

Maybe, maybe not. You could have still gotten perfectly valid reads just b reading through their statements, but instead you take a needless gamble to achieve the same results you would have gotten by now anyway. This is why I don't buy it: even if you're telling the truth and it wasn't just a RVS vote, it was just as useless to the town, since everything you could have learned would have been learned by now

anyway

.

So going from assuming it was a random vote, voting me because of the assumption of a random vote, and asking other players to analyze the "random vote", isn't "developing it any further"? What is your definition of developing something further?

Wagoning. Think about it this way. If somebody else had done as you did, an apparent RVS when RVS was completely over, wouldn't you be a little suspicious? Voting for you put pressure on you, asking others to analyze the random vote is just normal.

Why don't you tell me what argument you're making here? You accused me of not responding (and, thus, that I deserved to be misrepresented without being given the opportunity to respond), and I am explaining that had I been given a reasonable amount of time, some misunderstandings may or may not have been avoided.

There's that word "defensive" again. I honestly don't know how I could make my tone any more neutral and non-personal. You recommended that I just keep quiet, but I don't think I'll be able to find out the information I want if I do that.

My argument is that we shouldn't have had to wait for an explanation in the first place. Even if you're telling the truth it was a needless gamble in quite possibly the most dangerous time for such a gamble. I don't really care if you had a reasonable amount of time to respond or not. You shouldn't have had to have time to respond since we should have gotten the explanation in the first place.

And as I've already said, you'd have been able to get the information you want just by reading the thread. That is why I'm saying that the gamble, if it really was one, was needless and anti-town anyway.

Am I blaming others, Ik?

Are you trying to sincerely understand my motivations, or are you simply trying to appear to be doing so?

Sure as hell sounds like it.

[DeathRowKitty]

Yay Bandwagon is me [...] But I am officailly the bandwagon in the RVS of the game lol

Does Jason seem

too

happy to be bandwagoned to anyone else? More to the point, does anyone else think Jason could be trying to seem happy about it so as not to draw any suspicion?


Now that I look at IK a bit closer, there were only 3 votes when he said hiphop had "exploded in scumminess." A couple of posts later, there were only 2, making IK's reason for not voting hiphop ("at the time, he'd had accumulated quite a number of votes on him already") very questionable. Also from the wording of that post (reproduced below), it sounds very much like IK could be distancing and telling hiphop he's on his own.

Yeah... it's much too early for a lynch. However, I do agree with the sentiment about hiphop; his deflecting is suspicious. Not to mention, it's 1. never a good thing to play the newbie card and 2. if this actually is his 3rd game the newbie card is kinda old.

And no, hiphop, as Toro says, at this point I'm pretty sure most scum would have written you off as dead weight. You've sort of exploded in scummyness.

I'm don't care to look into a hiphop/IK scum pairing as of yet, since I still think hiphop is probably town, but I can see possibly just IKscum. He at one point said that hiphop was his only suspect (besides lurkers) and yet didn't vote. Sounds like the kind of thing scum would do to stay off a bandwagon that could end in a townie-lynch.

Now, it looks to me like IK is just looking for excuses to attack RC.
1. I really haven't gotten much of a defensive tone at all from RC's posts, which IK insists is present.
2. He's harping on RC's potentially random vote. If you look back at RC's original "random vote" post, given what RC has said about it, it makes sense that it wasn't random. I can't say I would have withheld my reasoning for a vote like that, but something about the wording of his original post doesn't sound random in hindsight. Above all this, most importantly,

what would RC gain from saying it wasn't a random vote if it was?

3.

I don't think you have any motivations beyond saving your own skin. You did something to make yourself look suspicious. Fine, it was a gamble. If you can pull it off, great. But if you make yourself look suspicious, don't blame anyone but yourself if others suspect you for it. That's just common sense.

Seems like a possible way of saying "Uh-oh, no one else is following me and I don't want to be pushing this case alone." The quote has a definite feeling of finality to it, as if he's trying to end the case before it gets any worse, without looking bad in the process.

For now,

unvote, vote Idiotking

. I plan on looking through one of Jason's games later in which he was town to see if he really is so cautious with his vote and that will determine whether or not I revote him.

Of course Toro, don't read the votecount.

Interesting. You're implying that hiphop is jumping on you solely because you have the most votes to your name?

I think Toro was alluding to the fact that hiphop was already voting for him, not that he was going with the flow.

[Idiotking]

Now that I look at IK a bit closer, there were only 3 votes when he said hiphop had "exploded in scumminess." A couple of posts later, there were only 2, making IK's reason for not voting hiphop ("at the time, he'd had accumulated quite a number of votes on him already") very questionable. Also from the wording of that post (reproduced below), it sounds very much like IK could be distancing and telling hiphop he's on his own.

DRK, given the fact that there were 3 votes on him on page 3, I don't think I did such a bad thing by not voting for him... that's just too many votes too early.

I'm don't care to look into a hiphop/IK scum pairing as of yet, since I still think hiphop is probably town, but I can see possibly just IKscum. He at one point said that hiphop was his only suspect (besides lurkers) and yet didn't vote. Sounds like the kind of thing scum would do to stay off a bandwagon that could end in a townie-lynch.

Ok, so my wording sounded 'very much like IK could be distancing' and yet hiphop is probably town and I'm not? Is it distancing or not? That's two different cases that don't sit well together.

And as I've already repeatedly said, I don't like voting people when 1. they've already got too many votes on them and 2. it's too early in the game. I like voting when I have a reasonably strong case in my eyes, one that I've built myself, not borrowed from others.

Now, it looks to me like IK is just looking for excuses to attack RC.
1. I really haven't gotten much of a defensive tone at all from RC's posts, which IK insists is present.

It's subtle, but it's there, and from what I can see it's venomous. Perhaps you and I have different definitions of what defensiveness is. I think it's pretty defensive when someone says that you're suspicious for suspecting them.

2. He's harping on RC's potentially random vote. If you look back at RC's original "random vote" post, given what RC has said about it, it makes sense that it wasn't random. I can't say I would have withheld my reasoning for a vote like that, but something about the wording of his original post doesn't sound random in hindsight. Above all this, most importantly,

what would RC gain from saying it wasn't a random vote if it was?

It's

plausible

, not

probable

. I think it's a lie. And what would RC gain from saying it wasn't a random vote if it was? Think about it! Let's say hypothetically that it really WAS a random vote, and now he's got you thinking it wasn't. He has CONVINCED you that it wasn't, which is EXACTLY the thing that keeps him from being suspect. If it was random, he's suspicious. But if he comes up with a plausible

enough

excuse, you'll believe him and he's off the hook. I don't get how this isn't obvious.

3.

I don't think you have any motivations beyond saving your own skin. You did something to make yourself look suspicious. Fine, it was a gamble. If you can pull it off, great. But if you make yourself look suspicious, don't blame anyone but yourself if others suspect you for it. That's just common sense.

Seems like a possible way of saying "Uh-oh, no one else is following me and I don't want to be pushing this case alone." The quote has a definite feeling of finality to it, as if he's trying to end the case before it gets any worse, without looking bad in the process.

Um... what?

I'm saying that he's being scummy when he tries to act like suspecting him for his random vote would be scummy. If he made a gamble (which I think is a post-vote fabrication, A LIE) then he's still being scummy if he finds people scummy for suspecting him. That's the risks of taking a gamble, and I think my statement is perfectly reasonable.

*Fixed tags.

[Idiotking]

Ghaahh!

Mod, could you fix my quote tags, please?!!?

*sure

[DeathRowKitty]

DRK, given the fact that there were 3 votes on him on page 3, I don't think I did such a bad thing by not voting for him... that's just too many votes too early.

A few posts later, that vote total changed to 2 and I hardly consider a third vote excessive with 7 to lynch.

Ok, so my wording sounded 'very much like IK could be distancing' and yet hiphop is probably town and I'm not? Is it distancing or not? That's two different cases that don't sit well together.

I suggested two possibilities. The first is that hiphop is scum and you were distancing. The second is that hiphop is town and you didn't want to look like you were part of the bandwagon. You're mixing and matching the two possibilities.

I like voting when I have a reasonably strong case in my eyes, one that I've built myself, not borrowed from others.

You don't vote unless you built the case? Sounds more like you're trying to appear pro-town than it does like you're trying to be pro-town.

Let's say hypothetically that it really WAS a random vote, and now he's got you thinking it wasn't. He has CONVINCED you that it wasn't, which is EXACTLY the thing that keeps him from being suspect. If it was random, he's suspicious.

How would him random voting after the RVS (in his first post) seem so suspcious? Sure it would be odd and pointless, but why would scum be more likely to do so than town?

Um... what?

Here's how that quote sounded to me:
"You made a mistake. Fine. Let's just be done with this."
It basically sounds like something you throw in at the end of the argument you've lost so you don't sound like you've been defeated.

I'm saying that he's being scummy when he tries to act like suspecting him for his random vote would be scummy.

The only person who voted him for his "random vote" was DTM, who RC said he has a pro-town read on.

Also, I don't see how the quote you brought up amounts to RC blaming you. I see it as him having perfectly legitimate concerns about your intentions.

[Toro]

Of course Toro, don't read the votecount.

Interesting. You're implying that hiphop is jumping on you solely because you have the most votes to your name? Would you say you've played the game much differently? I seem to recall you "following the leader" a bit yourself earlier.

RC, where did I imply that?

Is it just me or do Toro, Jason, and idiotking, seem to be connected in a way?

I'm not connected as I'm not a mason or member of the mafia for that matter. And just because someone agrees with someone (in this case Jason), does not mean that we're connected in anyway. I can see where you get that idea though. And I don't think IdiotKing and I have even spoken to each other in the thread.

[Idiotking]

A few posts later, that vote total changed to 2 and I hardly consider a third vote excessive with 7 to lynch.

I think three is still too many on page 3. That's part of the reason I reacted negatively to the 3 man bandwagon on jason. Days should be 20+ pages long, not three, and while 3 votes still isn't close to a lynch, it's too many that early.

I suggested two possibilities. The first is that hiphop is scum and you were distancing. The second is that hiphop is town and you didn't want to look like you were part of the bandwagon. You're mixing and matching the two possibilities.

Ok, I get it. It just seemed strange that you would be advancing two contradicting theories.

You don't vote unless you built the case? Sounds more like you're trying to appear pro-town than it does like you're trying to be pro-town.

Feel free to go back and check my previous games to see if I'm acting any differently. I've never been scum on this site, so all you'll get will be townie meta, and I assure you, this is how I do things.

Alternatively, if you don't like checking for meta (a lot of people don't), think about it this way: if I built a case, that means I believe in it fully. If somebody else builds a case, that means I could like it in parts, dislike it in parts. I'd rather fully believe a case that warrants my vote than only partly agree with a case.

How would him random voting after the RVS (in his first post) seem so suspcious? Sure it would be odd and pointless, but why would scum be more likely to do so than town?

1. It would be worthless to the town. Worthless actions are anti-town.
2. It appears to be lurking. While subsequent posts have shown that RC is not lurking, it remains that random voting post-RVS shows that it was a half-hearted effort, which is anti-town.
3. More than either of those, fighting to convince everyone that it was NOT a random vote, when it absolutely was, is plainly a lie, and isn't good for the town no matter WHAT excuse he comes up with.

Anti-town = pro-scum, pro-scum = scummy.

Here's how that quote sounded to me:
"You made a mistake. Fine. Let's just be done with this."
It basically sounds like something you throw in at the end of the argument you've lost so you don't sound like you've been defeated.

That isn't the case. I am going to continue to pursue this case until I get sufficient, believable responses. I have not lost this argument because I haven't been convinced that I'm wrong yet. If anything, I'm becoming more convinced as time goes on.

The only person who voted him for his "random vote" was DTM, who RC said he has a pro-town read on.

Also, I don't see how the quote you brought up amounts to RC blaming you. I see it as him having perfectly legitimate concerns about your intentions.

Didn't say it was OMGUS, just defensive. Asking why people thought it was random when it obviously was is defensive. It also puts the people questioned in an awkward position.

I told you, it's subtle. Assuming he took a gamble, why would he be surprised when people suspect him for doing something scummy? Why would he question the intentions of the people who suspect him? I'd question the intentions too if it was completely obvious that RC was town. But this isn't the case, his alignment is completely unproven yet.

Scum would know his alignment. If he was town, scum would go after him for this. Ok. Town would also go after him,

because he did something scummy

. Intentions are impossible to discern because people of BOTH alignments would be after him. If he was scum, well, then it's academic.

[DeathRowKitty]

I think three is still too many on page 3. That's part of the reason I reacted negatively to the 3 man bandwagon on jason. Days should be 20+ pages long, not three, and while 3 votes still isn't close to a lynch, it's too many that early.

I agree 3 pages is way too short for a day and I would not have supported a lynch of hiphop that early. I disagree with your saying that 3 votes is too many, but that's just my opinion. I vote a lot, especially Day 1. Votes carry a lot of weight and if I'm sufficiently suspicious of someone, I feel that the person deserves no less. Three votes really isn't much when you need 7 to lynch, but that's just my opinion on this.

if I built a case, that means I believe in it fully. If somebody else builds a case, that means I could like it in parts, dislike it in parts. I'd rather fully believe a case that warrants my vote than only partly agree with a case.

If someone else made a case, there's nothing wrong with saying which parts you agree with and adding anything you feel the person missed. You're still only voting for what you believe in and only for people you find scummy.

Anti-town = pro-scum, pro-scum = scummy.

I couldn't disagree more. Anti-town definitely is NOT the same thing as scummy. For example, I could attempt to post, in several seperate posts, Wiles' proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, which amounts to around 150 pages. That would definitely be anti-town, since it completely distracts us from the game. It is not, however, scummy. I see no reason scum would want to do that. It just makes you look suspicious and you could very easily be lynched for it.

In the same way, I don't think a random vote would have been scummy. It would have been anti-town since we were out of the RVS, but there's no good reason scum would do it. Hence, I don't see how it's scummy.

2. It appears to be lurking. While subsequent posts have shown that RC is not lurking, it remains that random voting post-RVS shows that it was a half-hearted effort, which is anti-town.

The fact that RC knew hiphop was voting him for lurking means he had to have likely read the game first.

3. More than either of those, fighting to convince everyone that it was NOT a random vote, when it absolutely was, is plainly a lie, and isn't good for the town no matter WHAT excuse he comes up with.

I still don't see why you think that

had

to be a random vote. It wasn't even accompanied by a random vote-type reason.

Didn't say it was OMGUS, just defensive. Asking why people thought it was random when it obviously was is defensive. It also puts the people questioned in an awkward position.

I never said that you said it was OMGUS. This is what you said:

I'm saying that he's being scummy when he tries to act like suspecting him for his random vote would be scummy.

The only person who suspected him enough for his random vote to vote him initially was DTM, who RC has claimed a pro-town read on. How is he acting like suspecting him is scummy?

[hiphop]

Oh, I have been trying to be cautious and be sure with my vote because I thought not being 100% sure on my vote would actually be hurtful and dangerous to the town.

If the deadline were to be coming up in a couple of hours, what would you do? Who would you vote for? That is probably a good question for anyone who hasn't voted yet.

[Paradoxombie]

Ryan, to put it simply the main reason I suspect IK more than Hiphop is that Hiphop has been trying to get things done and IK hasn't. Maybe he is fearful scum struggling, but to me it looks more like someone who wants something more out of a game than defend himself the whole time. Im much more suspicious of a player who jumps into their shell when poked, verses hiphop who continued to apply pressure and seek new leads.

The main reason I found your argument suspicious is how you deal with hiphops response. You call it BS and bogus that Hiphop says he can't defend against your arguments. Doesn't that imply that you know your arguments to be flawed or deserving of opposition?

I've seen players say they have no defense before, and I know I've felt that way before. I don't think it's as crazy as you make it sound.

[Idiotking]

If someone else made a case, there's nothing wrong with saying which parts you agree with and adding anything you feel the person missed. You're still only voting for what you believe in and only for people you find scummy.

Of course there's nothing wrong with it. However, by adding what I feel the person missed, I am building my own case, not solely borrowing from the other person. In my opinion two people can have separate cases against one person, yet the two cases can still overlap on some issues. But all I would have been able to do to hiphop is borrow from others, because everything concerning his scummyness at that point had already been said (and some things I hadn't noticed). My contribution would have been meaningless, barring a vote that I don't think would have helped matters.

Anti-town = pro-scum, pro-scum = scummy.

I couldn't disagree more. Anti-town definitely is NOT the same thing as scummy. For example, I could attempt to post, in several seperate posts, Wiles' proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, which amounts to around 150 pages. That would definitely be anti-town, since it completely distracts us from the game. It is not, however, scummy. I see no reason scum would want to do that. It just makes you look suspicious and you could very easily be lynched for it.

It'd probably also get you modkilled, lol.

Anti-town hurts town, correct? You say your example would have distracted the town from the game. That hurts the town. If something hurts the town, it raises suspicion. You yourself said it makes the troublemaker suspicious. Anything that raises suspicion is scummy. Scum probably wouldn't do that (it'd be suicide) but nevertheless it's a scummy thing to do. Scum don't just do scummy things, and town can do scummy things too.

In the same way, I don't think a random vote would have been scummy. It would have been anti-town since we were out of the RVS, but there's no good reason scum would do it. Hence, I don't see how it's scummy.

Had he not been trying to convince me that it wasn't a random vote, I probably wouldn't have my vote on him. You're right, the random vote in and of itself isn't good enough. But to then turn around and lie to us saying that it WASN'T random is the straw that broke this camel's back.

The fact that RC knew hiphop was voting him for lurking means he had to have likely read the game first.

Skimmed. Given the information he gives, a quick glance-over of the thread could easily tell him that much. I said half-hearted, not nonexistent.

I still don't see why you think that

had

to be a random vote. It wasn't even accompanied by a random vote-type reason.

You're right, it wasn't accompanied by ANY REASON whatsoever. All roads point to it being random, so it's natural to assume that it was a random vote. Just because you say it lacks the usual flavoring of a random vote doesn't mean it wasn't random.

I never said that you said it was OMGUS. This is what you said:

I'm saying that he's being scummy when he tries to act like suspecting him for his random vote would be scummy.

The only person who suspected him enough for his random vote to vote him initially was DTM, who RC has claimed a pro-town read on. How is he acting like suspecting him is scummy?

Examples:

Person A: Your vote was random.
RC: Why do you think it was random?

Person B: It was a post RVS random vote (x3)
RC: Can't you let me respond before you keep repeating that?

Person C: I think your vote was random, and now you're lying saying it wasn't.
RC: I question your intentions for thinking I did something scummy, even though I did something that could be seen as scummy.

This is the feel of what I've gotten from him.

I've got a question for you. RC says he voted dank for being a grammar nazi, basically, even though more suspicious things had happened by that point. He says the reason he didn't post reasoning in his vote post was so he'd get reactions. Then he responds in the above manner when he gets those reactions. In your opinion, is this normal townie play? Doesn't it seem the slightest bit suspicious?

Given the case that I have made, in your opinion, is it or is it not more likely that RC is a lying half-hearted defensive scumbag, or that RC is an angelic epitome of all things townie?