Mini 911 - Mike's Pizzeria Mafia (Game Over)

[DeathSauce]

{heavily edited}
Not surprisingly, I would prefer if neither player gets modkilled.

Hmm, so apparently no one is voting IK right now.

To rehash important points (and adding a couple things I didn't mention):

tl;dr

• Shiv wagon is fail.
• IK is town.
• evilsnail/deathsauce would be a good lynch
• HI CRYPTO!!!

I agree that we do not need any modkilling. Also agree that evilsnail might not be a horrible lynch. Disagree about me (obv) and Shiv

[DeathSauce]

In this game, the most interesting thing to me is that Seven keeps answering questions directed to others, but only a few others.

Care to point out where and who? (Especially if this is actually an element to your top secret case against me.)

I'm quoting this again because it pisses me off.

There is nothing about my "case" on you that is top secret. I have spelled out clearly every suspicion I have. There are three main reasons I think you're scum. Go back and read my posts and see if you can tell me what they are, otherwise I'm just going to assume you aren't reading the game.

More Seven votes please.

[Jack]

I find that kind of language to be pretty pointless and annoying too. If townies use that kind of petty rhetoric it just lets mafia get away with it when someone has something legitimate on them.

[Dragonfly13]

Deadline is in two days.

[Thor665]

We currently have two days left and 4 players who are on single vote wagons and one player who is not voting.

Those on single vote wagons - either start selling your case some more or admit to yourself you're not getting that particular lynch and consolidate somewhere. I can't conceive the advantage to sitting silently on a single vote wagon at this stage.

Lastsurvivor - vote.

I support the DRK wagon for previously stated reasons and would love to see more votes there. I also support the Shiverer wagon mostly for previously stated reasons about SeerPenguin but also because I do find a lot of Shiverer's behavior (voting method and scumhunting) hard to fathom clearly which combined with previous scum feels I have for the slot makes me content to lynch him.

[Jack]

unvote, vote:DRK

My 2nd, and parama is on the shiv wagon.

[Parama]

Seven only seems to appear when called out for lurking.

Can you point out where?

And

@IK

why are you voting for Jack if Shiv is your top suspect? Or DRK before Jack?

A great example is the post at the top of page 33.

Re Parama's vote: Ad hominem attacks can be a scum tell, if a weak one. As scum, it can help to escalate a discussion to steer away from content and muddle the waters a little. Also, putting down their accuser can be an effective way for scum to weaken a case. Do you think overuse of ad hominem attacks are not a scum tell?

It wasn't based solely on the dialogue FYI. The scumminess of SP and RH carried over, plus his asking for a case on LS without giving one himself bothered me, and then in the argument between Shiv and IK Shiv looked much scummier to me.
Also, DRK says both IK and Shiv are town? .-.
Anyways, I support Shiverer and Seven wagons. I do not support DRK wagon.

[DeathRowKitty]

Well, DeathSauce apparently isn't getting lynched.

Unvote, vote evilsnail

.

I still don't see why Shiv is the biggest wagon right now (actually I think I'm tied for that honor now). What exactly is so scummy about what he's done?

[Idiotking]

My reasons for suspecting Shiv are:

1. His original vote placed when he hadn't read the thread and didn't give a reason for it
2. Making every implication that he wasn't going to read the thread, and then lashing out against people who brought up the fact he hadn't read the thread, and then attempting to say that not reading a thread doesn't affect scumhunting ability
3. Supporting gut reads OVER cases, thereby giving scum an easy excuse for their votes
4. Reacting negatively to

any

resistance at all, on any issue.

[DeathRowKitty]

Yeah, I saw that, but that's not really very convincing.

1. Remember don_johnson? Null tell at worst.
2. Also a null tell. I could've sworn don did that too, but I can't find a post where he states as much. Regardless, there's no good reason scum would be more adamant about avoiding reading the thread than town would.
3. Gut feelings are legitimate reasons for a vote. It's nice to get more solid reasoning out of a player if possible, but gut reads can be just as good as more clear-cut reasoning. More importantly, gut read votes are no more likely to come from scum than from town. They're just more likely to come from players who enjoy using gut reads.
4. Arguable. I disagree, but I won't argue it.

I'm just not seeing it. I think it's his playstyle you're objecting to moreso than the content of his posts. Playstyle, barring some sort of meta specific to that player, is a null tell.

[Idiotking]

1. I was opposed to it then and I'm opposed to it now. It doesn't make any difference as to whether or not it's scummy.
2. See above. Not to mention the fact that it is inherently anti-town.
3. After this much discussion, only using gut reads is inexcusable. There is no reason at all to forego logic when there is so much data present. It's not a matter of whether or not gut reads are valid. It's a matter of whether or not gut reads are more useful than cases. Cases are invariably better than gut reads, because cases can be discussed and use logic and reasoning. How can one convey a gut read? It is quite impossible. As such, using only gut reads damages the abilities of the town.

[Idiotking]

I should probably elaborate on what I said for #1. Whether or not don_johnson was town in that game does not change that the act itself is scummy.

[DeathRowKitty]

It all comes back to the argument of anti-town vs. scummy.

Anti-town = against the motives of the town
Scummy = more likely to come from scum than town

Oftentimes, anti-town actions are scummy. Oftentimes, scummy actions are anti-town. The two are not synonymous.

Unless you can come up with a good reason why scum would be more likely to perform a particular action than town, it's not scummy, no matter how anti-town it is.

[Dragonfly13]

Votecount #19

DeathRowKitty (3) - Thor665, evilsnail, Jack
Shiverer (3) - Seven, Idiotking, Parama
evilsnail (2) - Shiverer, DeathRowKitty
Seven (1) - DeathSauce

Not Voting (1) - Lastsurvivor


With 10 alive, it takes 6 to lynch.

Deadline: 2:00PM U.S. Central Time, Monday, February 22, 2010

Prodded LS.

[DeathSauce]

Fine.

unvote. Vote: Shiverer

I am reluctantly moving my vote. Shiverer over-reacts and has been the focus of too many arguments. I hate DRK's play and think his earlier case on me was rotten, but I'm not fully convinced he's scum.

Seven being on the Shiv wagon annoys me, but we'll see if it stays.

[DeathSauce]

Oh yes, I'm Limited Access for the next three days, living in airports.

[Thor665]

Deadline is today and we do not have a lynch, we have;

Shiverer - 4
DRK - 3
evilsnail - 1

and need 6 to make a lynch. At this point I will happily vote either DRK or Shiverer (currently I am on DRK) just to make a lynch happen which means I need at least one of you dingleberries to manage to show up and vote Shiverer or for three of you to vote DRK.

To be frank I'll even help lynch evilsnail if there's some motion that way - but let's please get some motion.

[Thor665]

EBWOP - evilsnail has 2 votes, not 1.

Honestly - just pay attention to Dragonfly's count, I am full of math fail for managing that.

[evilsnail]

I missed Thor's answers to my questions first time around somehow.

I will disagree that voting someone for disagreeing is clearly anti-town. What if I were to declare that I didn't feel it was scummy to lurk and cast votes without any explanation? If I do something you think is scummy you're going to likely vote for me whether or not I agree with you that it's scummy. That's what happened here, they basically were debating the relevance of some scumtells and general game strategies. I have yet to really see the player who fully agrees with the case that gets him lynched.

You declaring that you don't feel it's scummy to lurk and cast votes without explanation is clearly scummy, because you'd be lying. My point was that voting someone for disagreeing with you only makes sense if you believe they're lying. I didn't see that suspicion behind IK and Shiverer's votes.

I see your point about Parama's timing.

To be frank I'll even help lynch evilsnail if there's some motion that way - but let's please get some motion.

Anything I should be worried about or is this just because of the deadline?

Re the deadline: somehow I thought we had more time. Especially given his recent behaviour, but also my prior suspicions of SeerPenguin, I'm willing to support a Shiverer lynch.

Unvote, Vote: Shiverer

[Idiotking]

What about his recent behavior makes you suspicious?

[Thor665]

To be frank I'll even help lynch evilsnail if there's some motion that way - but let's please get some motion.

Anything I should be worried about or is this just because of the deadline?

You're more scummy then a lynch of no lynch. I think no lynch is very townish despite his obvious lurking behavior. It's a gut read but take it for what you will.

Overall I find you have done some scummy things but I don't really see the case on you as currently stands and nothing I've noted seems worth hanging a vote on.

Unvote, Vote: Shiverer

I will absolutely be back at 2pm EST (which unless my timezones are off is 2 hours prior to deadline) to hammer Shiverer. if you disagree with this then please kindly pile on votes to DRK who is really the only player I'd rather lynch then Shiv, or provide some sort of conversation that shows me an obvious scum we've missed.

[evilsnail]

Mostly his attack on me. I felt he was really tunnelling & twisting everything I said and exaggerating it into a case. I still don't see how the supposed contradiction in my posts means anything.

To a lesser extent also his spat with you, but, as I said, the anger seemed genuine to me.

[Idiotking]

It'd be nice to see a claim first.

[Thor665]

It'd be nice to see a claim first.

I'll agree with this.

However I can definitely hammer at 2 pm EST. I cannot definitely hammer at 3 (which is deadline - i was wrong that 2 EST was 2 hours from Central - stupid timezones moving mountain time on me). I'd rather have no claim and a hammer then a claim and a no lynch.

I fail to see how a hammer at one hour prior to deadline will be a true lack of time for Shiverer to defend himself if he was going to.

[Thor665]

Well, if their doth need to be a hammer then surely by the power of mighty Mjolnir and the guidance of the All Father then verily it be Thor who shalt drop said hammer. Forsooth!

No whammy, no whammy...

Vote: Shiverer