Mini 971: Princess bride - They all lived .......

[ekiM]

Not much time to post right now, just going to say that ML is keeping his cool under pressure while ekiM is getting incredibly pissed and is attacking me directly instead of my case, which is not the reaction of a townie to a good case. So ekiM is definitely still top of the priority list.

In 434 and 435 I absolutely attack your case. I also say "I dislike you". Maybe that was uncalled for, but it doesn't somehow mean the rest of those posts isn't attacks on your case.

Your case isn't good. Once again you're refusing to defend the old stuff on the merits. A lot of the new stuff you said is just terrible. "Why did you only vote for the least-content giving guy at the start of D2?" "The most likely explanation for asking someone why they changed their opinion is a subtle plot to drive town's opinion" "Why are you voting for horrordude if you suspect us both, this is clearly a contradiction".

---

I don't see any reason horrordude would be able to claim "I am Westley's lover that Humperdinck tried to marry" but not "I am Buttercup". Hider is a weak role that scum like to claim, and he's even claimed a variant that doesn't have the pesudo-investigative power of the normal one. The second and third best lynches also claimed or soft-claimed.

Still think we should kill horrordude. But we have 4 more days to decide now.

---

As for Parama's claim that he can confirm horrordude's role:

1) Role confirmation isn't alignment confirmation. I've read games with a commuter/hider as scum. Seems especially plausible when horror says "only hiding with the SK will kill me". Would be similar to a bulletproof-only GF in a game with an SK.
2) The ways I can think of that horrordude's claim could be "confirmed" are either only partial confirmation, bad ideas, or don't make sense with the game so far. No, don't explain further.
3) I don't trust Parama to breathe without screwing up.

[Steam-Powered Shovel]

Princess Buttercup doesn't strike me as likely scum. And I have no problem coming up with a way for horrordude's name claim to be confirmed by Parama.

Re: my original reasons for voting you. I don't buy your rebuttal. I don't see why you'd be that concerned with keeping Parama talking.

[ekiM]

In Futurama Mafia the mafia were Leela, Fry, and Mom. In Family Guy Mafia the mafia were Brian, Meg, and Bonny. There's no reason to assume the scum in a farside theme game are the obvious characters. Otherwise we'd just ask everyone to claim their name and lynch the villains from the source material.

And, hey, fakeclaims.

---

re: your original reason for voting for me. It's so weak it's hard to rebut. Like, there's almost no logic to point out the flaw in.

I made a couple of big catch up posts, including noting that Parama apparently didn't suspect Sens when he voted for him. Parama responded, confirming he thought there was no point in doing anything other than bandwagoning. I asked why. He didn't have an explanation why, repeated that he had no reason to suspect Sens. I asked again. He said "because the wagon was illogical but grew". I asked one last time for him to confirm what he was saying. He did. I voted for him.

Why is it scummy to vote for him at the end? At what point would you liked me to have voted for him? If I voted him instead of asking him to confirm one last time, would that be ok? I really don't get this.

Your posited scummy motivation for waiting until the end of the conversation, "ekiM looks like he was concerned in looking justified in voting for Parama" is contrived. You yourself said it was fairly obvious where the conversation was going. Why would it look less justified to vote him as soon as he said "Yes, I bandwagoned him without suspecting him"? If it was I'm baffled how giving someone a chance to explain their action then voting them when they don't have an explanation is scummy. Should I be voting people before letting them explain themselves, is that a better idea?

Especially having trouble understanding how giving someone a chance to explain their blatantly anti-town behavior then voting them when they don't is scummier than, say,

acting in a blatantly anti-town way

??

---

re: DDD's meta reason for voting for me. You've ignored my comments on this. You've not explained

why

you find this a compelling point. You've not explained

why

one scum game where I follow claimed info as scum means it's "out of place" for me to follow claimed info as town.

---

And I have to ask,

again

: are these the only suspicious things you've found after three weeks of play? That I voted someone at the end of a conversation, and some nonsensical meta argument you can't even be bothered to defend? Nothing else scummy has happened? You have no other suspects?

[Parama]

I could fullclaim and explain to you why Horror's claim is almost certainly true but I'm not going to do that.

ekiM, it's scummy because you built up all these arguments prior to the conversation yet in the end you were just paying lip service without acting upon it. And then after a conversation over one minor point you vote. It's like you were just waiting for a chance to jump on me but you couldn't find a good one.

Also ekiM please stop directly attacking me. Ad hominem does not make for good town play.

[ekiM]

And what if I told you that

I can confirm if Horror is telling the truth or not,

if you give it a night

?

I could fullclaim and explain to you why

Horror's claim

is

almost certainly true

but I'm not going to do that.

Now that's an interesting discrepancy.

---

ekiM, it's scummy because you built up all these arguments prior to the conversation yet in the end you were just paying lip service without acting upon it.

What is scummy about building arguments against one player whilst also applying pressure elsewhere? Why is that something scum is likely to do? What is the scum motivation? Why wouldn't town do it?

And once again we have arguments in this game of the form "I don't like the way X did Y" instead of "the way X did Y is more likely to be scum motivated than average, because...". Ugh.

And then after a conversation over one minor point you vote. It's like you were just waiting for a chance to jump on me but you couldn't find a good one.

It makes no sense to say that I was "looking for a chance to jump on you". I'd been voting you on D1, if I wanted to continue to vote for you it would've been a perfectly natural thing to do at any point. As it happens I preferred to try and put some pressure on bv to contribute. That didn't go anywhere, so I moved my vote back to you after you admitted to something especially scummy.

Admitting that you bandwagoned Sens, in the expectation that he'd be lynched, despite not suspecting him, at all, is not "a minor point". It's really scummy. That you frankly admitted it

once called out on it

didn't make it OK.

---

Also ekiM please stop directly attacking me. Ad hominem does not make for good town play.

I'll note that this is amusingly hypocritical and leave it at that.

[Jack]

I don't want to lynch ekiM today. Don't want to lynch mac either.

If we're going to leave the claimed/semi-claimed trifecta alone (sps, par, horror) then we have:

ckd
kmd
ddd
cmar

And I suppose we can cross ckd off because of the investigation.

But I doubt that kmd, ddd, and cmar are our scum team. I'll do a recheck on them before deadline though. They are kind of the lurkiest.

[CryMeARiver]

I don't want to lynch ekiM today. Don't want to lynch mac either.

If we're going to leave the claimed/semi-claimed trifecta alone (sps, par, horror) then we have:

ckd
kmd
ddd
cmar

And I suppose we can cross ckd off because of the investigation.

But I doubt that kmd, ddd, and cmar are our scum team. I'll do a recheck on them before deadline though. They are kind of the lurkiest.

Someone conveniently left themselves off the list LOL

[Parama]

Would you be willing to lynch yourself, CMAR? <____<

[Kmd4390]

Princess Buttercup doesn't strike me as likely scum.

Stop right here. Look who is modding. K, start over.

[CryMeARiver]

Would you be willing to lynch yourself, CMAR? <____<

Well, the point of the game is to lynch scum, so I would prefer not to lynch myself since it took me FOREVER just to get in this game, but if it's for the good of the town, I would contemplate it. I'd much prefer a KMD lynch at this point. In what I have analyzed DDD hasn't come up that much, so I don't really have a read on him. And I don't like Jack's style of play, which might play into my FoS on him.

[Kmd4390]

CMAR, why no response to my defense?

[CryMeARiver]

CMAR, why no response to my defense?

Sorry, I must have missed it in the Parama-ekiM argument...

[Kmd4390]

CMAR:

CMAR:

Yeah, I saw ekiM as scummy, so that is what I pushed. That a problem for you?

I gave my reasons later on ekiM.

Wait, how was my ekiM vote similar to Parama's Jack vote? Serious question cuz I don't see it.

I gave my reason for my Sens vote. I have a meta tell on him that is probably a bigger meta tell than anything I have on any other player in all of mafia. I saw that, so I voted him. I said a few posts before the vote that I was starting to see that tell.

Also, what Parama said. You seem to be buddying to him in that post up until you FoS him.

CMAR, post 424:

"Ends RVS"- For me, RVS never starts. I look for whatever I can find early and blow it up so I have reactions to guage.

Yeah, I didn't see Jack as scum. I saw his posts as reaction-fishing which is generally a protown action and fits as something Jack would do as town based on what I've seen from him in other games.

You are misrepping by saying I couldn't come up with a reason. I just hadn't shared the reason. Was kind of hoping someone would ask so I could make a bigger deal out of it. And like I said above, I don't see where the contradiction thing is coming from.

When I voted Sens, I did NOT drop suspicion of ekiM at all. Hell, I called him scum in the very post you quoted to try saying I dropped it.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

I don't generally do things as scum that blatantly contradict what I believe about Mafia theory, because that's a stupid and unnecessary thing to do and it's easy to get caught out.

If you don't care for that truth, it was an aside anyway. Here's my main "defence" which you seem to have just straight-up ignored: "Everyone is aware that investigative roles can get bad info. That doesn't make it irrational to sometimes decide to follow claimed results. Especially in a pseudo-D1 with little information to go on due to the SK quicklynch. Saying that because I've seen you be implicated by bad info before I should be especially wary of it happening to you again is a bad argument."

And I'm saying that the Muppets game disproves the theory that it's good play to automatically follow someone claiming PR and that after that no rational person should do so blindly. I cannot believe your position is authentic and thus you're stuck using (one of) the reasons I listed previously to try and cover for the mistake you made trying to sheep behind a pseudo-claim like that.

~~~

Parama, can you confirm alignment or just the fact that horror is who he claims to be in terms of role?

[Jack]

I will go for a CMAR lynch.

[Parama]

Parama, can you confirm alignment or just the fact that horror is who he claims to be in terms of role?

I can confirm who he claims to be, and that + the flavor in my role PM leads me to believe he's town if the claim is true <_<

[ekiM]

I don't generally do things as scum that blatantly contradict what I believe about Mafia theory, because that's a stupid and unnecessary thing to do and it's easy to get caught out.

If you don't care for that truth, it was an aside anyway. Here's my main "defence" which you seem to have just straight-up ignored: "Everyone is aware that investigative roles can get bad info. That doesn't make it irrational to sometimes decide to follow claimed results. Especially in a pseudo-D1 with little information to go on due to the SK quicklynch. Saying that because I've seen you be implicated by bad info before I should be especially wary of it happening to you again is a bad argument."

And I'm saying that the Muppets game disproves the theory that it's good play to automatically follow someone claiming PR and that after that no rational person should do so blindly. I cannot believe your position is authentic and thus you're stuck using (one of) the reasons I listed previously to try and cover for the mistake you made trying to sheep behind a pseudo-claim like that.

Muppets has got zip to do with this game. Everybody knows roles can get bad info. That's the only thing your meta from that game brings about me: that I know that roles can get bad info. Everybody knows that. I knew it before I played Muppets. Doesn't mean I can't make the judgment call that I want to follow someone's claimed info in this game. Why would it? Info is right way more often than wrong, no merit to scum coming out like Jack did, not much to go on today. Based on that I decided I wanted to follow Jack. How does this make me scum?

Your logic implies that everyone who followed Jack and is aware roles can get bad info must be scum. Nope.

[Jack]

Yeah, I could go for CMAR--DDD--SPS/horror.

[curiouskarmadog]

ah christ, this has blow up with walls of text...will try to get to this tomorrow (monday)

[farside22]

Vote count

ekiM (3) Parama, Steam Powered Shovel, Debonair Danny DiPietro
Kmd (1) CryMeARiver
Jack (1) Horrordude

Horrordude (4) Jack, ekiM, Kmd4390, MacavityLock

Not voting:

curiouskarmadog

with 10 alive it will take 6 to lynch
Deadline is June 10, 7:30am PST

[horrordude0215]

Back from my V/LA... Expect a post later today.

[Kmd4390]

Back from my V/LA... Expect a post later today.

It's been almost 12 hours. Is this post coming?

[curiouskarmadog]

ok, lied, no way I am going to be able to do this tonight....going to update all my games soon.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

Your logic implies that everyone who followed Jack and is aware roles can get bad info must be scum. Nope.

I'm willing to bet a majority of them are idiots and hacks who could actually hold the terrible position of "lol follow power roles". I know you aren't an idiot or hack which is why you holding that position is uniquely terrible.

But there's no traction for a Mike lynch despite my protests and a minority lynch is completely unacceptable.

Unvote; Vote: horrordude0215

Oh hey, he replaced bv310 who I already tagged as scummy. His intro post isn't good as he completely meanders and fails to take an opinion on three players he mentions, doesn't mention several more and flacks me asking for a claim preparing to lynch me and then probably chain a Jack lynch because of his announced skepticism after I flip town.

And his claim is just a debacle. He can't specifically nameclaim or be modkilled but he can still claim exactly who he is? As recently mentioned it also seems a clever way to grant scum NK immunity in a game with a SK.

[Kmd4390]

That's L-1 then?

Vote horror