Mini 829 - Internal Struggle Mafia (Over)

[DeathRowKitty]

There was a point where DRK said he thought I was less and less scummy. A few posts later, RC votes for me. Then, before I respond, before having gained any new information, DRK returns with basically the same argument and says I'm scummy McScum.

I said I was finding your argument less scummy because it seemed like you honestly believed it. I re-read and changed my mind. Your play the entire game has been questionable and on re-reading your argument, I couldn't see how you believed it and especially not as strongly as you were conveying.

I'm pretty sure I'm right about at least one of them.

How much does buddying play into this?

I disagree with Paradoxombie. Quote wars allow those involved to address the issues on many points.

I was a part of the last quote war and TBH, even I don't want to look through those posts. It gets a lot done between the two of us, but little done for the town.

I won't even attempt to respond to your last wall of quotes because I know it won't accomplish anything. I say you're scummy. You say I am. Nothing you've posted has even remotely changed my mind and clearly nothing I've posted has even remotely changed your mind. I'm really getting the feeling that isn't going to change.

@Town
For what it's worth, IK's town meta does include willingness to become a martyr (the game he linked to before).

@Jason
Have you completed any games on mafiascum? I didn't see any in your profile.

[Idiotking]

I said I was finding your argument less scummy because it seemed like you honestly believed it. I re-read and changed my mind. Your play the entire game has been questionable and on re-reading your argument, I couldn't see how you believed it and especially not as strongly as you were conveying.

I'm invariably agressive as town, at least when I see a case to be built. I never jump on a bandwagon I don't believe in, nor do I follow a case I don't wholeheartedly agree with.

Saying this to you is meaningless, of course, because I'd say the same thing if I were scum. Nevertheless, it's true.

How much does buddying play into this?

A fair amount for you, much less so for RC because in my memory he has never supported you to nearly the extent you've supported him. However, my case against him still stands, which is why my vote on him still stands and won't change until either I am proven wrong or killed.

I was a part of the last quote war and TBH, even I don't want to look through those posts. It gets a lot done between the two of us, but little done for the town.

Paradoxombie had a valid argument for why quote wars are bad things, I just disagree with him, and if you are indeed a town and agree with him, then I just disagree with you, too. Hiphop I think is just looking for something to jump on (hence opportunism).

Town can look through that huge amount of information and huge amount of reasoning to find the heart of the issue. While I'm not saying it's a pleasant thing to slog through that nightmarish bog of neverending arguments, I still believe that it helps the town discover reasoning, motivation, intent, and purpose in the opposing parties. With that information, I believe the town profits. This is why I scumhunt in this fashion.

I won't even attempt to respond to your last wall of quotes because I know it won't accomplish anything. I say you're scummy. You say I am. Nothing you've posted has even remotely changed my mind and clearly nothing I've posted has even remotely changed your mind. I'm really getting the feeling that isn't going to change.

Agreed. It's probably better to just let the town decide who's right and who's wrong. We've hit somewhat of a standstill, though I still think bringing up your experience level was a good thing for the town (now they know both mine and yours).

[Zachrulez]

From what I can see Shrine hasn't posted since the 5th.

Mod, may we have prods on Shrine, jason and Zach?

*Yes, I just arrived home. Prodding...

I'm here. I am going to try to do a catch up read before my vacation starts.

Reading now.

[don_johnson]

hello. replacing in. would like to catch up soon but am off to work. will try tomorrow. i don't do huge catch up posts anymore so don't get your hopes up.

[Idiotking]

Lol, lotta rereads on the horizon.

[alexhans]

Toro will be V/LA until this friday (14th)

Remember, Zach will be V/LA from 10th to 14th too.

[DTMaster]

I'm going to bold my responses. Too many things to quote tag in. I will underline important points as I go along.

@IK
218: TOWN! Is it possible that DRK and RC are buddying each other ever so slightly, or is this just me being paranoid?

Actually I see a reason why you can put the buddying argument on those two. They are expanding on each other's cases which can mean a few things:

1. Scum team partner.
2. Active town/scum [or townies] working together on a case.

Tough to say at this moment because of both pro-town and pro-scum arguments. I'll do an iso read later to see if I catch something.

@DRK

223: You used that to justify your comment about how he should be trying to change your opinion. I don't see how it has any relevance. FYI, your infamous "Person A, Person B" analogies don't apply unless your situation is represented. You just made up a situation that you implied is the same as yours and want to have us take your side in it.

That is usually called a meta defense if I'm not mistaken. Do you not see how meta can be used to defend this position or do you discount it? Explain how.

223: But there ARE other options for reads on people. The only reason you should have a completely pro-town or pro-scum read on someone at this point in the game is that you're scum. You asked for my read on RC and gave me two options: 100% pro-town or 100% pro-scum.

Actually you forget mason and lovers roles. They reveal a partner role, (usually town confirmed).

233: If anyone's still following this, please give an opinion.

Both of you are presenting very valid quotes/points. But an issue is, um DRK you are defending RC. RC should be more capable of defending himself no?

This comes down to difference of opinion where the final issue is: Do you believe RC's explanation or not. I see more of two townies duking it out over a difference of opinion in this whole mess.

250

Meta call noted

@Jason
Remember to answer my post. These walls are drowning it down.

@Hiphop

Um wut. Quote wars is anti-town? Explain what did IK do that you can't apply this to DRK. It takes two to war it out my good sir. Also way to jump onto the bandwagon again with repeated arguments on your 235 and 247. I request your detailed case on IK with more original thoughts please.

FoS: Hiphop

@Don
Well if you don't do real catch up posts can you do a quick mini analysis on your top 3 scummiest players?

@General Town Notes
Please note we had not discounted neutral factions: survivors, SKs, etc. Might be something to keep to the back of your head in the whole process as the day ends.

Also the town is a bit stagnant with the recent post duel. So to every town person thoughts on the debate.

[DTMaster]

URK. I didn't bold everything. Oh well, but I hope everyone knows the difference from the quote and my own statement. I can reedit if you want to (/tiredness from work) tomorrow.

[jasonT1981]

@Jason
Have you completed any games on mafiascum? I didn't see any in your profile.

Alas no, My first game i entered is now nearing an end though. when It is complete I will link you to it, but with my understanding of the rules I can not do so until then.

Catching up with part of the game now, then Have the Man Utd vs Chelsea game at 3pm so will be posting after that.

[DeathRowKitty]

That is usually called a meta defense if I'm not mistaken. Do you not see how meta can be used to defend this position or do you discount it? Explain how.

I don't see how his defense applies at all. He created a new situation, in which we clearly had to side with him, and was using that to show he was right in his current situation.

But an issue is, um DRK you are defending RC. RC should be more capable of defending himself no?

Yes, he can defend himself and was doing so before I came into this. I didn't intend to defend him. I said IK was blowing his case way out of proportion and he asked me how. I pointed out some quotes in which he was blowing the case way out of proportion and we ended up fighting over that. I wasn't trying to defend RC so much as I was showing why IK's case was crap, which I think is different.

Actually you forget mason and lovers roles. They reveal a partner role, (usually town confirmed).

Noted. I'm not either though, so that wouldn't apply to me in this case.

[DeathRowKitty]

Please note we had not discounted neutral factions: survivors, SKs, etc. Might be something to keep to the back of your head in the whole process as the day ends.

I'm not sure that's something we need to consider Day 1. If there's a second kill tonight, we can worry about an SK Day 2 and I can't see I see much cause for concern over a survivor Day 1. First and foremost, we shoud be looking for scum, not neutral parties Day 1.

[DTMaster]

@IK
Before you do more OMGUS reasoning, I asked RC this in my 213 since I predicted this issue would come up. He responded by:

That's understandable. I've done my best to distinguish my vote insomuch as Ik's vote has no bearing on my vote whatsoever.

I intend to make a more organized, more succinct case against Ik, referencing his play so far as a whole.

I would hope the town does not see my vote merely as an OMGUS reaction, but moreso as a calculated opinion reached after having paid close attention to not just Ik, but the entire town.

I'm very interested in this case before we sidetrack on the whole OMGUS reaction.

@DRK
I'm pointing out things that we should consider while scumhunting. I believe these are the "shades of grey" that you might come across, rather then just town or scum. Again I did say you need to keep this in the back of your mind.

I don't see how his defense applies at all. He created a new situation, in which we clearly had to side with him, and was using that to show he was right in his current situation.

Urk sorry lack of sleep = misread. I was commented in the bandwagoning issue, not the "person a/person b scenarios"

At the core of the "person a/ person b scenario" IK worded in a way that would force us to side with him, with a side order of WIFOM in it. But its far from a "new scenario".

His first person a/person b represented the whole RVS issue. (See IK's ISO 23).

His second person a/person b outlines difference in opinions (ie me vs RC). (See IK's ISO 27).

This is very true because the purpose of your argument is to find loop holes in IK's RC arguments. These loop holes will lead to finding scum tells, which will lead to finding out if he is the most likely scum to lynch. The other side is to test these loop holes and watch his reactions for any town tells. There would be no point in your current argument if you aren't doing either. You are voting for him after all.

IK's last person a/person be outlines the OMGUS argument (See IK's ISO 31)

Ik 191 wrote:
I think it's pretty defensive when [RC] says that you're suspicious for suspecting them.

Ah, ok, this will do nicely Ik.

I'm going to vote: Idiotking on the back of this comment. Unlike DTM, DRK, Toro, ryan, or Shrine, who, so far as I can tell, may have had misconceptions about me and my infamous post, but never made it a point to exaggerate anything I may have said or did, this comment definitely strikes me as inflated for effect.

Ik is welcome to either show an example of where I've specifically called out anyone as "suspicious because they suspect me", or retract this statement.

The OMGUS argument was going to come out, I predicted this with my exchange with RC in the above quote I said addressed to IK. In isolation this looks really badly since it portrays: "I am pro-town, I made them have a reaction to judge town tells with a psudo-random vote. One of 3 guys are pursing it. He must be scum because he is pursuing it very actively (and possibly out of proportion)." Which is why I'm interested in this case that RC said he would do a case based on the entire town action to show how IK is scum. It's a tall order, but I'm willing to wait a little bit for it.

If I missed any, can you point them out?

Mod: Can you prod ryan? Its been about 72 hours since his last post.

*Ryan DOESN'T need a prod... check your math...

[DeathRowKitty]

This is very true because the purpose of your argument is to find loop holes in IK's RC arguments. These loop holes will lead to finding scum tells, which will lead to finding out if he is the most likely scum to lynch. The other side is to test these loop holes and watch his reactions for any town tells. There would be no point in your current argument if you aren't doing either. You are voting for him after all.

The purpose of my argument isn't to find loopholes in IK's arguments. It's to show that he's blowing the argument to ridiculous proportions to try to make someone look scummy.

I haven't been pointing out loopholes. I've been pointing out parts of his argument that I can't see as making sense. I'm not looking for these to lead to scum tells, since they are in and of themselves scum tells. The town tells I would be looking for are ways in which his arguments make sense or reasons to believe he's not just trying to frame RC. Nothing has convinced me as such. If I see town tells, I have no problem pointing them out, for example, the fact that martyrdom is part of his town meta, which I did point out.

When I voted IK, I thought there was a decent chance he was scum and I believe that even more so now.

As for the bandwagoning issue, can you clarify what you mean by that?

[hiphop]

I believe that quote wars blow everything out of proportion. They begin to argue about the argument, and not about what the original post is about. It is anti-town. Shrine has complained about wall-to-wall posts, and asked to only summarize the argument, and only expand in dire need. I saw no dire need here. It also will make it harder for don_Johnson to catch up. In being that I believe that it was anti-town, drk commented on anti-town being scummy and not scum. Idk said anti-town was scum. I was using his argument against him for a reason for my vote.

As for blowing it out of proportion drk was willing to stop the argument, while idk would of continued to his grave.

[Idiotking]

@IK
Before you do more OMGUS reasoning, I asked RC this in my 213 since I predicted this issue would come up. He responded by:

That's understandable. I've done my best to distinguish my vote insomuch as Ik's vote has no bearing on my vote whatsoever.

I intend to make a more organized, more succinct case against Ik, referencing his play so far as a whole.

I would hope the town does not see my vote merely as an OMGUS reaction, but moreso as a calculated opinion reached after having paid close attention to not just Ik, but the entire town.

I'm very interested in this case before we sidetrack on the whole OMGUS reaction.

So am I. But I'd be remiss to point out that here again we have a delay, having to wait for him to respond. Obviously RC was available to post at the time, so couldn't he have just done it then?

[Idiotking]

Hmm, maybe it should have been "remiss to not point out". Though that could have been a double negative... gah, I hate having fractured vocabulary.

[Idiotking]

I believe that quote wars blow everything out of proportion.

Maybe I'm just being paranoid again, but I think it's kind of suspicious that you only come out and say this after paradoxombie said it, DRK agreed and was willing to stop, and I wasn't and had several votes on me.

They begin to argue about the argument, and not about what the original post is about. It is anti-town.

Wonderful use of someone else's reasoning there, hiphop. Hell, even the wording is the same.

Shrine has complained about wall-to-wall posts, and asked to only summarize the argument, and only expand in dire need.

Are you Shrine? Do I have to pander to Shrine? Does my not pandering to Shrine make me scum?

I saw no dire need here.

You did for opportunism.

In being that I believe that it was anti-town, drk commented on anti-town being scummy and not scum. Idk said anti-town was scum. I was using his argument against him for a reason for my vote.

Uh huh. So you use someone else's reasoning and my own argument concerning the equality of anti-town and scummy? Have you ever done an original thing in our life, hiphop?

As for blowing it out of proportion drk was willing to stop the argument, while idk would of continued to his grave.

Still am, buddy boy.

[alexhans]

Checking if anyone needs a good ol' prod...

No Prods needed.

----------------------

Those in danger of suppression #9:

hiphop (2)

-

Zachrulez, ryan2754

Idiotking (4)

-

DeathRowKitty, RedCoyote, Paradoxombie, hiphop

jasonT1981 (1)

-

DTMaster

RedCoyote (1)

-

Idiotking

toro (1)

-

don johnson

Not Voting (3)

-

Shrinehme, Toro, jasonT1981

Happiness with Posting Level:

SATISFIED

With 12 alive it takes 7 to lynch.

[Idiotking]

Mod, Paradoxombie's vote is on me, not toro

.

*DAMN!! I was just rechecking and adding that change... You gotta admire the speed of the mind to call you on the things you've done wrong... It's like a conditioned reflex...

[DTMaster]

@Mod

Well I guess I jumped the gun. Ryan's last post was Thu Aug 06, 2009 10:40 pm. about 5-6 more hours couldn't hurt :p

@DRK
The bandwagon issue is the one I pointed out on hiphop correct? Just wanted to clarify.

But your argument about your arguments make little sense. You started off with the initial premise that IK was very scummy. As your case developed you start seeing more town signs then scum signs. The fact that you pointed out his flaws are giving red flags for the rest of the town to critique. This is basic scum hunting on IK really, alerting us to these inconsistencies.

If you aren't convinced that he is scum, you are doing a really good job flagging IK's arguments for an easy attack. (see the current vote count and current turnover to vote IK). Also you are diverting attention from actual scum hunting if you really believe his town tells. Town activity died from your little quote war.

I want you to reaffirm, who do you think is scummy then? Why are you tunneling IK when you just said you aren't breaking down his case to find scum signs, and just prove that IK's points are just stretching his arguments?

Indirectly, by challenging IK's case with your current arguments, it sets him up to be very scummy. But that isn't your purpose is it?, you just wanted to prove that his case wasn't correct.

@IK
You have to admit, that is an extensive post to make. It is going to have time considering RC needs to sift through the entire thread. If he doesn't deliver something of that nature, then I would get more suspicious then.

[DeathRowKitty]

If you aren't convinced that he is scum

I believe strongly that he's scum. Thanks for asking.

As your case developed you start seeing more town signs then scum signs.

I assume you're referring to when I said his case was looking less and less scummy? That was more of a gut read on his case, which a re-read changed.

Why are you tunneling IK when you just said you aren't breaking down his case to find scum signs, and just prove that IK's points are just stretching his arguments?

I'm saying that his case

is

a scum sign. The fact that he's willing to defend a crap case so strongly tells me that he doesn't actually care whether or not RC is scum, just that he gets lynched.

Indirectly, by challenging IK's case with your current arguments, it sets him up to be very scummy. But that isn't your purpose is it?, you just wanted to prove that his case wasn't correct.

How do you think I should have challenged his case then? As far as I'm concerned, he shouldn't look scummy unless my accusations are true.

I want you to reaffirm, who do you think is scummy then?

My top 3 in order:
1. IK
2. Jason
3. hiphop (going back and forth with this one)

I'm really on the fence with hiphop. His play models the role of VI quite nicely. Of course, scum can also appear that way. I wouldn't support his lynch based on current information unless both of my top 2 suspects were out of the question, in which case I wouldn't be against it.

@DTM
You're being very vague with your opinions on this whole situation. Can you give your opinions less cryptically?

[Shrinehme]

I'm back, everyone. I apologize for the absence and will read through the pages I've missed in due time.

[hiphop]

mod: does my vote count even though you spelled my name wrong?

*It won't if you keep complaining, hihop...

[RedCoyote]

RC's case against Ik

Misrepresentation

The foundation of my case against Ik is this comment,

I think it's pretty defensive when [RC] says that you're suspicious for suspecting [him].

as it shows, in my eyes, Ik's transition from someone who is voting me for honest reasons to someone who is making it up as he goes along. I've never said anyone was suspicious directly because they suspected me. Ik has been putting in a serious effort into assuming things about me,

Though [RC] didn't say it specifically, it sounds almost like the next line would read 'how DARE you for saying my vote was random!' I just get this feeling of extreme anger from it.

and I get the feeling that the reason he wants to frame me as "defensive" or "pushy" is so that he can segue into the label of attacking players for suspecting me. This is not the case, and Ik knows this is not the case. I've had calm, level-headed exchanges with Toro, DTM, Shrine, and DRK. At no point have I said any of these players are suspect because of their concerns with me. I gave Ik the opportunity to show this, and he has yet to do so.

I can take pretty much everything else Ik says and does in stride. I have no problem with his vote, nor do I have a problem with him calling me a lying scumbag. These things are all part of the game. This is why my vote is not OMGUS.

Logical Fallacy

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?

Logical fallacies are sometimes a good way of spotting scum. In this post, Ik attempts to push DRK into calling me the best townie of all-time or a defensive, lying mafia.

In Ik's world, there is no gray. There is no such thing as a neutral read. There is no such thing as a slightly town or slightly scum read. You are either the worst scum on Earth, or the best townie there ever was,

In this game, either you are town or you are not. There ARE no other options.

You are either sided with Ik, or you aren't. You either go all-in, or you don't play the game.

Then, before I respond, before having gained

any

new information, DRK returns with basically the same argument and says I'm scummy McScum.

More exaggeration, more division. DRK criticizes an aspect of Ik's post, and apparently that is equal to calling Ik "scummy McScum".

Where's the Vote?

Ik has a persistant problem with using his vote. I am the only player he's seriously voted so far, despite him making these statements,

I saw a problem with a bandwagon forming, and so unvoted my random vote.

Ik saw a problem with the bandwagon on jason early in the game. He made it clear he was going to pursue this wagon. He never did, and his reason for not doing so was because he had to answer questions directed at him.

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.

Toro, according to Ik, "explodes in scummyness" at one point in the game. He never really pursues Toro though, not with a vote and not with any serious lines of questioning.

Contradictions

-Town expects A to happen
-I make B happen instead
-Town is surprised that B happened instead of A

By this logic, B doesn't have to be scummy, just unexpected, or in this case, misunderstood (I'm a confusing person). A is also not necessarily pro-town, just what is expected. My question is, how is it actually scummy for me to have acted in this manner?

I like this idea, Ik. I think I will try it myself. I'll vote dank discretely and see what happens. You see, town expects "A" to happen (me tell them why I am voting dank), but I'll make "B" happen instead (leave my vote there without any reasons and see what develops).

Well, to be honest, I was gauging for town reactions. I had expected someone to ask my why I was voting for dank, so then I could have a discussion with them. Instead, Shrine, Toro, and DTM lectured me for random voting and DTM went so far as to push people into starting a wagon against me because of my "random" vote.

You're right, Ik. Town was surprised that I voted dank without giving a reason why. I used your strategy to scumhunt, what do you think?

I can't believe that you don't understand why people reacted in that manner. I think DTM reacted very appropriately, and now I think you're going back trying to trump up some reasons that weren't there originally. If there was a deeper reason behind our first post, you should damn well say what it is. Subtlety is what'll get you killed in a game like this, because subtlety is what the town is looking for.

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

Even if you're telling the truth it was a needless gamble in quite possibly the most dangerous time for such a gamble.

[...]

That is why I'm saying that the gamble, if it really was one, was needless and anti-town anyway.

Poking your neck out in a risky, pointless move like that does NOT HELP THE TOWN. Are you sticking to your guns here and saying it DID?

Ik is allowed to use subtlety and create situations where he surprises the town, but when I use the same tactics, he calls me lying scum, making a needless, anti-town gamble.

Tunnelvision/Closed Mind

Ik has picked up an added habit of expecting others to convince him he is wrong.

I have not lost this argument because I haven't been convinced that I'm wrong yet.

However, my case against him still stands, which is why my vote on him still stands and won't change until either I am proven wrong or killed.

Ik isn't interested in looking beyond the conclusion that I am definitely scum, that my vote was definitely random. It's our obligation to do it for him.

If I die my arguments will receive validation one way or the other. It would just be delaying the inevitable.

It's going so far as he is making the borderline appeal here for death. He wants to be lynched to "prove" himself right. If he dies as a townie, then that means I have to be scum?

Either it's a serious scum gambit, or, what's really causing me stress, a prideful townie move.

A hunch. A very good, very accurate hunch apparently.

What makes it worse though, is he's spreading guilt onto DRK, Paradox, and hiphop for "siding with me" against him. It's obvious in DRK and hiphop's case,

I believe DRK, hiphop, and RC to be the most suspicious players.

but a little more subtle toward Paradox. Ironically, it was my "defensiveness" that caused Ik to blow up.

Other/Misc

All others who follow are clear, including me

This is a strange quote from earlier on this game. This is something I picked up on my re-read, it shows Ik referring to some early random votes. I'm not exactly sure what he meant by it, could be harmless, but it strikes me as he may or may not know something about "all other who follow" him.

Saying this to you is meaningless, of course, because I'd say the same thing if I were scum. Nevertheless, it's true.

This is WIFOM.

I think they've both blown it out of proportion. Quote wars like that are annoying, and nobody gets their point across.

I recognize this. I hope this post is a bit easier to understand.

---

If you haven't resolved the "random vote" issue, then it's not

obviously

a random vote.

XD

[RedCoyote]

Welcome to don, it's good to be playing with you again.