Karma Mafia (Game Over!)

[Patrick]

Votecount

RichardGHP (6) -- Porochaz, Faraday, bv310, NickF227, Pomegranate, boberz
bv310 (7) -- Papa Zito, Seraphim, Espeonage, farside22, curiouskarmadog, RichardGHP, Albert B. Rampage
Espeonage (1) -- Ojanen
dybeck (1) -- Sando
NickF227 (2) -- Jahudo, Anon
Porochaz (1) -- Javert
Seraphim (1) -- Amished
boberz (1) -- dybeck

Not voting: Nobody
20 alive, 11 to lynch.

Deadline: April 8th, 11 pm GMT.

[boberz]

Ok so Seraphim has announced that the post he said was information instead of analysis had little info and had some analysis. Yet he still thinks it fits into the category. I am expected to answer this?



I do not really get the case against me Dybeck, considering you love conciseness and clearness so much could you sum it up for me?

I accept the post was not clear nad I will try better in future.

If the point against me is lack of scumhunting I apologise, I will try better. But I think there are others that are worse.


---

Dybeck you did point me to #676 which I ignored because I thought it was so useless:

I believe being called out for lurking acknowledging it then going back to lurk again is scummy. Because it shows me that they are reading and keeping up with the thread and not contributing, I think this is scummy. I cannot quite believe you are calling me scummy for saying this. I cannot tell you the potentially percieved reasons because it would stroll us into some intense WIFOM but the point is they inevitable exist, and quite regularly will outweigh the negative connotations of lurking.

I did not quote a stock tell and I do not believe in stock tells. You just didnt read/understand my post properly.

[farside22]

farside22, Post 670 wrote:
If he believes the claim and believes bv310 will flip town why would he freek out being tied to someone he believes will flip town?
That was my whole point.

And my point is: even if you think somebody is town, would you want to be connected to them? If you think that is scummy, please explain why.

If you believe someone is town why would you worry about being connected? I can't tell you the number of times I see people stand on principal of believing a play to be town and not worry about a flip.
Example:
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12867

I have another example but the game is ongoing. Bobz freeked out which is a tell in my book so I don't say it clears him.

[boberz]

Freaking out, overreacting, losing control etc are not scum tells. Why on earth are they? either explain the rationale, show the evidence or just admitt you are wrong.

I am not worried about the flip. I am worried that you are about to lynch atleast one towny. If I make a comment that is meant to make someone else safe, and it ends up making him les safe and me suspicious of course I am going to react in the way I did.

Now please stop pretending your argument makes itself because it is so obvious and actually make your argument.

[Pomegranate]

The pace of the game has really slowed down. That makes me feel good about the bv wagon.

Why? Please explain how you feel about lynching him once he claimed PR.

--

Ok, with my super duper scumhunting in the first 5 pages technique (similar to the 5 point palm exploding heart technique) I will

Unvote
Vote: Seraphim

while also wanting to vote for dybeck.

Sera is obviously scum and it should be clear from just the first 5 pages. dybeck is in the same scum-boat rowing on another oar.

Welcome! Whether it's obvious or not, please explain what it is that you don't like about Seraphim and Dybeck.

--

Boberz, I agree with farside: If you think he's town, you shouldn't care about being tied to him.

If I make a comment that is meant to make someone else safe, and it ends up making him les safe and me suspicious of course I am going to react in the way I did.

I disagree with this.

[Seraphim]

Ok so Seraphim has announced that the post he said was information instead of analysis had little info and had some analysis. Yet he still thinks it fits into the category. I am expected to answer this?

boberz, your post was unhelpful. IIoA was the label I applied to it even though it wasn't technically IIoA because IIoA is the sort of post PBPAs tend to be.

I still find the post scummy because it is not useful like PBPAs tend to be.

[Seraphim]

Also, Amished, while I appreciate the fact that you have already participated more than your predecessor, if you're going to attack me and call me scum and call a wagon, I would like to know why.

[Amished]

@Sera/Pom: Oh I will, I'm just finishing up a full read today and gonna put together something tonight in a while.

@Javert:

1.)

Seraphim, I agree that boberz's post was unhelpful and difficult to read. But it is clearly stating an opinion and giving commentary. When you labeled it as IIoA, you were basically calling it scummy, and that is made obvious since you quipped "thanks for confirming your alignment, scum."

My

point is that I do not find that particular post

scummy

, and I do not understand why you seem to think it is.

There is a difference between Town, Pro-Town, Anti-Town, and Scummy. Please try to differentiate between them -- if you aren't used to doing that, I ask that you humor me.

Do you believe that he {Seraphim} was being intentionally vague in trying to push for a (mis-)lynch or that he was honestly confused as to the use of the terms?

[dybeck]

Freaking out, overreacting, losing control etc are not scum tells.

Yet they are the main reason the Richard wagon got its head of steam in the first place, if you cast your mind back. Do you disagree with the reasons why he was voted by several people early on?

[Pomegranate]

Freaking out, overreacting, losing control etc are not scum tells.

Yet they are the main reason the Richard wagon got its head of steam in the first place, if you cast your mind back. Do you disagree with the reasons why he was voted by several people early on?

...since he happens to be on the wagon...

[Seraphim]

@Amished

Do you think boberz is town? Why?

[boberz]

Freaking out, overreacting, losing control etc are not scum tells.

Yet they are the main reason the Richard wagon got its head of steam in the first place, if you cast your mind back. Do you disagree with the reasons why he was voted by several people early on?

...since he happens to be on the wagon...

Dont you start buddying these guys Pom.

But I have given my reasons for Richard in the very post that stimulated this argument (and elsewhere). It did not include overreaction.

---

[quote="seraphim" I still find the post scummy because it is not useful like PBPAs tend to be.[/quote]

It had analysis therfore it was helpful to some extent. However if it was not helpful due to structure I can only apologise. But I only have to point at one of the thousands of games to show that PBPA are not scummy. You may consider it antitown but in this case they are different things. I like PBPAs and will still make them, I will try to make them easier to read though.

---

I disagree with this

That is a shame. What do you want me to do about it? I have already answered for it and you have provided no reasoning for me to object to. Do I sense that you are just looking for someone to go on rather than someone who is actually scummy.

---

I ask that people are not put off by this discussion exclusively it seems to have dominated too much for little reason. ie only two or three people seem to care so far.

[dybeck]

Freaking out, overreacting, losing control etc are not scum tells.

Yet they are the main reason the Richard wagon got its head of steam in the first place, if you cast your mind back. Do you disagree with the reasons why he was voted by several people early on?

...since he happens to be on the wagon...

Boberz only jumped on the wagon late, to bring it to L-2. He wasn't in the game in the initial stages of the Richard wagon. My question is not about whether he wants a Richard lynch - he's made that very clear. My question is how he feels about the votes that were cast upon Richard in the first place - which were mostly based upon Richard's weird overreaction to the first couple of votes.

So Boberz, do you agree with the reason Richard was wagoned in the first place? To bring someone to L-2 is a clear statement of intent to lynch imo.

[Seraphim]

Alright. Show me an example of a PBPA that was helpful to town.

[boberz]

That is not what I said Seraphim. We have alternative views on theory here but we are not going to discuss the theory and waste everyone's time. But I asked why it this situation in this game it was scummy? A much more pertinent question.

ALso. In your opinion does anti-town always mean scummy?

---

I dont agree with the overreation being a scum tell. But I sensed they were using overreaction because they were struggling to articulate (in some cases I cant remember who specifically) other reasons I think they had. I do think he was being a tad inward looking which is more of a scumtell imo.

[Seraphim]

But I only have to point at one of the thousands of games to show that PBPA are not scummy.

This is your exact wording. Yet you are not able to give me an example. Do you know why?

PBPAs are an excellent way for scum to "contribute". It's a lot of text but it's still style over substance. Not all of a player's posts are scummy or contribute to him being scum...it's a culmination, it's a big picture thing, a number of posts that form a picture. A PBPA does not give this.

Think of a game of Connect-the-Dots. If you connect the right dots in the right order, they make a picture, pointing out scum. A PBPA is like coloring in the space between the dots. Reading in iso is great and can help form a case on scum. But the rest of the town can't see what you are seeing unless you point it out and formulate it in a way that everyone else can understand!

That's why I called it IIoA...it's information about his posts...but it's not

helpful

, you don't prove a point because you've colored in all the dots and all that's left is a mess. You don't formulate

why

you think he's scum.

That's why I don't like PBPAs.

As for anti-town vs. scummy...anti-town is actions against the town. Anti-town by definition is going to not always be scum...town perform "scumtells" too. Self-voting is anti-town but town still do it. I think it's important to look at the context of the anti-town action to determine whether or not it's scummy.

[Pomegranate]

V/LA from now until Wednesday morning, probably- Passover.

[dybeck]

We have 3 days to deadline. Boberz needs to be lynched.

[RichardGHP]

you better have more than two fucking cents coming.

It's a goddamn colloquialism. >_>

Catching up from Page 25 onwards...

It wasn't a claim, it was an observation that in the last several games I've played (and been out in), I've had either VT or mild PR roles.

So, like mason? Have you ever been third party or scum in a completed game?

In fact I dont think BV is scum after that. He definately tried to not claim anything he wrote roles. He was considering it. I think he has never seen any roles and thought every protown role was a VT. How could he do that as scum???

Take a step back everyone.

OK point, but you do realise that it's through and through WIFOM right?

What grade are you in again? Or did you grow up in the streets like bv?

10.) Avoid excessive profanity, flaming etc.

Hey man, I don't know about you, but I'd like to play a peaceful mafia game wherein we don't question the intelligence or childhood circumstances of others. Kthnx.

On the boberz/bv issue:

Townies defend scum
Scum defend townies
Townies defend townies
Scum defend scum

Hey look. My point is, no one is automatically scum (or town) based entirely on the flip of someone else.

After the boberz/bv thing boberz starts coming off to me as either noob or frustrated town (or both).

Post 5:

Scumhunts but against someone who is voting for him. OMGUS

No. I was questioning the validity of farside's vote on me. That's not OMGUS. Get your definitions straight.

[quote="""]Post 6:

No town should say this![/quote]

If you really wanted to attack that post, you would've said "No town would EVER say this!". This part comes across as really scum-like to me.

[quote="""]Post 7:AtE
And still no town should say this.
Beginning his second lurk session.[/quote]

None of them being outright scumtells.

Town use AtE
As if scum would say it
Lurking = nulltell

[quote="""]Post 13:

AtE
More lying [/quote]

Unless you have telepathical powers, you're not qualified to assess whether I was lying or not. And if you are, you need to fine tune your reading abilities, because I was clearly not lying.

[quote="""]Post 14:

Self-meta (i dont mind meta, it is self meta I dont like)
Still lurking, another half hour he was obviously online and could have made some kind of case however weak.[/quote]

What's the difference when the meta itself was correct anyway?

[quote="""]Post 16:

He decided to pretend he got some reads off his gambit, he did not he spent an hour or two reading and making up complete twaddle.
Reaction with farside was fence sitting here.[/quote]

Again, you're not qualified to make that assessment. I WAS gambiting, and the reads WERE genuine. End of story, no longer up for discussion.

[quote="""]Post 17:

AtE
Lurking [/quote]

Frustration =/= AtE. Get your definitions straight (again).

[quote="""]More lurking
More self meta, which this time look sreally scummy. It is as if he is aiming to play to his meta, rather than his meta naturally following.
I dont even understand some of this stuff. It wasnt a gambit, we know that for a fact.[/quote]

Let me explain something to you here. There is no such thing as factual information in this game (bar roleflips). You simply can't correctly state that it's a fact I didn't gambit, because I did. You are not qualified to make the assessment of whether I was lying or not.

[quote="""]Post 19:

he is defensive[/quote]

So you'd rather I agreed with the case against me, self-voted and deprived town of one member?

[quote="""]Post 20:

Still not scumhunting, I think voting someone because of the way they voted for you counts as OMGUS in this case.[/quote]

OMGUS: Oh My God, You Suck. Voting for someone entirely on the basis that they voted you. A cheap shot at retaliation. My vote was unbiased in that the fact that he happened to be voting ME was irrelevant, I would have done it the same if he had voted any other player that way. Therefore, my vote was not OMGUS, period.

[quote="""]Post 24:

Two days later still nothing. Lurking scum. [/quote]

The time between posts 23 and 24 was only 1 day and just over two hours. Get your facts straight. For reference:

Posted: Thu Apr 01, 2010 4:10 pm Post subject: 23

Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2010 6:12 pm Post subject: 24



[quote="""]Post 25:

He promised content but failed, again.[/quote]

I didn't promise content in that post. Learn to read. You may have meant post 26, in which case I'll give you that. I ran out of time yesterday so I'm doing it now, the morning after.

[quote="""]I analyse every single post and you accuse me of IIoA??? [/quote]

He had a right to accuse you of IIoA. All you did was post oneliner comments on all of my posts, you didn't offer your own opinions, and the case in general comes off as contrived and half-hearted. You can't call that "analysis", really.

[quote="""]You may hate them it doesnt make them scummy. The conclusion is, Richard is scum, this is why so many of us have been on him for so long. The analysis was reading into the posts what they actually meant.

This is ludicorus.[/quote]

Lol'd quite hard at this, and don't really know what to make of it. I will say that yet again, your read is wrong.

[quote="""]NB FOR ANYONE NOT READING THIS POST PROPERLY I AM ADMITTING TO BEING WRONG[/quote]

Come on man, you're just getting worse and worse. Your preliminary inference of everyone who thinks your post is wrong is not reading it properly doesn't sit well with me. You have to be able to admit your mistakes, without sarcasm.

@Richard: are you still defending the case against you? what are you feeling right now about your situation?

I obviously just got done defending myself; as for how I feel about my current situation, I'd rather people moved to scum as I feel they're wasting their time with me.

You're an idiot.

Cool flaming bro.

---

Possibly more later today, if anyone wants it.

[boberz]

But I only have to point at one of the thousands of games to show that PBPA are not scummy.

This is your exact wording. Yet you are not able to give me an example. Do you know why?

PBPAs are an excellent way for scum to "contribute". It's a lot of text but it's still style over substance. Not all of a player's posts are scummy or contribute to him being scum...it's a culmination, it's a big picture thing, a number of posts that form a picture. A PBPA does not give this.

Think of a game of Connect-the-Dots. If you connect the right dots in the right order, they make a picture, pointing out scum. A PBPA is like coloring in the space between the dots. Reading in iso is great and can help form a case on scum. But the rest of the town can't see what you are seeing unless you point it out and formulate it in a way that everyone else can understand!

That's why I called it IIoA...it's information about his posts...but it's not

helpful

, you don't prove a point because you've colored in all the dots and all that's left is a mess. You don't formulate

why

you think he's scum.

That's why I don't like PBPAs.

As for anti-town vs. scummy...anti-town is actions against the town. Anti-town by definition is going to not always be scum...town perform "scumtells" too. Self-voting is anti-town but town still do it. I think it's important to look at the context of the anti-town action to determine whether or not it's scummy.

You have now moved the goal posts. You asked me to point out where it has been helpful to town, which is so subjective it is impossible to answer. As for when it is not scummy that is easy. It is not scummy in the thousands of cases where it was noy used by scum. I am not prepared to go into the theory of it, that would also be anti-town. You are fuelling this.

you have now told me that it was IIoA again after withdrawing this only a few posts ago. You are being silly and it is impossible to answer.

---

Dybeck, needless to say I am not the lynch today. But heyho. Now to turn to Richard's post.

[boberz]

A few comments before I absolutely slam Richard for that post.

Firstly I would accept being called a noob by almost anyone in this game but you.

I understand the definitions perfectly well, why assume I dont rather than actually defend the case.

Where is the scumhunting in that post?

Lurking is a scum tell. I have explianed why I believe it is (scum having both tactical and personal reasons to lurk and town only having personal reasons) now it is your turn to tell me it isnt. I accept this is a bit of theory that is disputed but to discount it you do actually have to refute it.

[RichardGHP]

You got the definitions of AtE and OMGUS totally wrong, or at the very least didn't apply them to me very well.

Scum have tactical reason to lurk
Scum have personal reason to lurk
Town have personal reason to lurk
Town have tactical reason to lurk

Would'ya look at that.

Lurking is not exclusively or even predominantly performed by scum, so how can it possibly be a scumtell?

inb4 boberz posts a giant wall of text I have no hope of getting through.

[Albert B. Rampage]

Unvote, vote Richard

[boberz]

OK point, but you do realise that it's through and through WIFOM right?

Actually, by now even I have accepted I dont have a point. So tell me what point I had. The answer is you dont know, you were just looking for something to say. There was no WIFOM in the point it was just plain wrong! So you have misunderstoon one post. Trust me it gets worse for you from here.

---

No. I was questioning the validity of farside's vote on me. That's not OMGUS. Get your definitions straight.

You have lied (and it is testable):

@farside: Forsrs? You're using elusive panic as your excuse to vote me? That's really pretty scum-like you know. Even if I was panicked, it wouldn't make me scum. Nobody wants to be lynched. The fact that I only had one vote on me is irrelevant. I addressed it in a manner I felt appropriate. Lastly, you have a rather interesting and extreme definition of 'obsessed'...

But if as you claim you were not calling someone out for being scum then it was another lurking post. So try again scum.

If you really wanted to attack that post, you would've said "No town would EVER say this!". This part comes across as really scum-like to me.

Why is this scumlike???? The truth is again that you dont know and were making this up on the spot.

I dont think it matters if I say should or would. You are scum and both ways call you it.

" wrote:
Post 7:AtE
And still no town should say this.
Beginning his second lurk session.


None of them being outright scumtells.

Town use AtE
As if scum would say it
Lurking = nulltell

Of course some scum lurk and use AtE. That is a cop out. More scum use these things. You especially.

Unless you have telepathical powers, you're not qualified to assess whether I was lying or not. And if you are, you need to fine tune your reading abilities, because I was clearly not lying.

I do not need telepathic powers to know you were lying. It was not a gambit, but if it was then you were lying when you said it was you making a neejerk reaction to being voted early. Everyone knows it wasnt a gambit, pretending it was has only helped make you more scummy. Not that you need help making yourself look scummy.

What's the difference when the meta itself was correct anyway?

Self meta is crap and scummy. Because if you know your meta you can change it and therefore pointing it out is just leading town towards wifom and mistrust of you. You are not qualififed to say if it is correct, but if it is it tells us nothing. So try again scummy boy.

Frustration =/= AtE. Get your definitions straight (again).

No it was an AtE and one of the most obvious ones ever. for those who forgot this sentence let me quote it for you:

I keep quiet, you put votes on me for lurking.

I post content, you put votes on me because my reads are "terribad" and my logic is flawed.

MAKE UP YOUR GODDAMNED MINDS, PEOPLE!

Let me explain something to you here. There is no such thing as factual information in this game (bar roleflips). You simply can't correctly state that it's a fact I didn't gambit, because I did. You are not qualified to make the assessment of whether I was lying or not.

Dont patronise me. Your crap at mafia, and your scum now. I know you didnt gambit, the delayed time it took you to tell us, the amount of time it took you to analyse responses, the lack of content in the responses, the lack of a testable hypothesis, and the fact you told us that it was an over defensive overreation on your part on more than one occasion tells me you were lying. If you werent you were lying when you did the other things listed above.

So you'd rather I agreed with the case against me, self-voted and deprived town of one member?

Inward looking is scummy unless accompanied by outward looking. I have explained why before you either didnt read or ignored a point you cannot answer. Which is it?

OMGUS: Oh My God, You Suck. Voting for someone entirely on the basis that they voted you. A cheap shot at retaliation. My vote was unbiased in that the fact that he happened to be voting ME was irrelevant, I would have done it the same if he had voted any other player that way. Therefore, my vote was not OMGUS, period.

Yeah sure you would.[/sarcasm]
You would not have done that if someone had attacked someone else for invalid reasons. Show me somewhere in this thread where you have done that. The truth is you cant. Because you stilll scum.

The time between posts 23 and 24 was only 1 day and just over two hours. Get your facts straight. For reference:

Posted: Thu Apr 01, 2010 4:10 pm Post subject: 23

Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2010 6:12 pm Post subject: 24

You logged in for a second day in a row to tell us you might post in the future. So you were online within the timescale when you said you would post and I call you out for lurking. I maintain this so answer it this time. Btw you continued to lurk for a long time after this.

I didn't promise content in that post. Learn to read. You may have meant post 26, in which case I'll give you that. I ran out of time yesterday so I'm doing it now, the morning after.

You promised content in #23 and #24 it hadnt appeared by #26 so I point it out. Btw you broke the promise of a 24 hour post you made in #26 so not a good post to draw me to.

He had a right to accuse you of IIoA. All you did was post oneliner comments on all of my posts, you didn't offer your own opinions, and the case in general comes off as contrived and half-hearted. You can't call that "analysis", really.

He had no right and since admitted he was wrong. Although apparently has done a 180 on this.

There was analysis in nearly every point in that. Nobody has actually refuted any of the analysis in it, so I am working under the assumption everything I said was correct. So try again scumboy.

Come on man, you're just getting worse and worse. Your preliminary inference of everyone who thinks your post is wrong is not reading it properly doesn't sit well with me. You have to be able to admit your mistakes, without sarcasm

There was not sarcasm, I was wrong. Why did I make a thing of it, because I know people arent reading properly and you are one of those people.

I'd rather people moved to scum as I feel they're wasting their time with me

Then do some scumhunting.

Possibly more later today, if anyone wants it.

Bring it. Perhaps make it about someone other than yourself though.

---

I am slightly amused that you state so much as fact but blame me for doing the same thing.

[Albert B. Rampage]

I'm beginning to understand why everyone is voting Richard.