Mini Normal 1133 - Mafia in Venice

[Exilon]

/confirm
I see Ythan and RC.

[Exilon]

What is this pile of spam?

VOTE: Erratus

So Ythan, you're scum this time, yes?

[Exilon]

Oh no, a totally town OMGUS. I must be screwed!


(crap trap.)

[Exilon]

OMGUS

I'm not voting you because you're voting me, I'm voting you for using non-town logic. So it's not OMGUS.

Excellent use of sarcasm in place of an actual defense though, it's a good way to hide the fact that you don't have one.

So you're saying my random-voting stage vote needs to be NOT random?
So you're saying I called Ythan scum based on this QUESTION, BEFORE he even posted:

So Ythan, you're scum this time, yes?

I BSOD'd, specially after reading you saying I don't make sense.

---

Spoiler: because it's a contentless reply to Maemuki

Dammit, and here I was hoping that I would get to vote Exilon for living in the end of the world, but then this happens. Besides, all this WIFOM is making me drunk.

Actually screw it, I'll do it anyway. I know I should know how to make miller claims into actual discussion, but that's waaaaay beyond my abilities.

VOTE: Exilon

don't we know each other personally? I remember your name from somewhere.

End of the world my-

---

Ugh a miller claim. Last time I had one of those it was Parama claiming miller. He then claimed scum after we pushed a huge wagon on him. He was VT. I was very sad. Let's hope this situation isn't so painful.

Here are some standard questions I like to ask: (...)

Why would a VT claim miller then scum of all th- You know, let's just forget it.

1) Same as Maemuki, GMT.
2) I've played a handful of games on this site and 2 offsite. I don't count the offsite ones as real experience, though.
3) It pretty much depends on my time. Lately, I haven't been able to post long stuff, and sometimes that harms my ability to explain myself properly. Being concise is valued, though, but it's hard to do it right. I usually post whenever I can, though.

---

YOU TOLD ICENINJA YOU WOULD POST A COUPLE TIMES A DAY. THIS IS YOUR EIGHTH POST IN TWENTY FOUR HOURS. DID YOU LIE TO COVER YOUR TRACKS FOR LATER SCUM LURKING?

Or did you just not have a good idea of how often you were actually going to post?

Are you serious?

Let's walk through what just happened here. I put the FIRST vote on penpen, and I put the FIRST vote on Exilon. Plaguey here somehow comes to the conclusion that this constitutes "ultra-quick wagoning", while ignoring all the people who are, y'know, ACTUALLY WAGONING. Then he puts the FIFTH vote on me, with no hint of reservation. Does this sound like someone who honestly believes that quick wagoning is scummy?

Why are you getting so worked up for? That doesn't bound well for you. I think he was probably trying to say that you vote-hopped excessively, hence "ultra-quick wagoning" (since you started wagoning, or attempted to). I can see your logic, though, and agree partly to it.

Bullshit! Two FoS's is obviously not spamming. Why are you distorting the facts so terribly?

That's YOUR opinion, not HIS, and imposing yourself on him like that, while also accusing him of DISTORTING facts (not true) is bad.

Disagreeing with someone, while providing justification =/= Imposing one's opinions on others

The first is protown, the second is scummy. And you just blew off my radar.

---

Fatso, you should read the wiki a bit. Not take it as granted, of course, but read it. Online mafia can be drastically different from offline mafia, specially in what concerns scumtells.

I like my vote where it is. (no more RVS)

[Exilon]

I'm confused, Plague. Why are you quoting me if you're addressing Erratus? Or am I missing something?

@Ice: Do you feel my vote on Erratus is unjustified?

[Exilon]

First off, my bad on the omgus accusation on my second post. It was obviously not a case of omgus and it created a bit of ruckus that shouldn't have existed. I usually say counter-voting the one who just voted you is OMGUS, although there is more behind it. In any case, that accusation wasn't totally serious.

So you're saying my random-voting stage vote needs to be NOT random?

No. wtf, where did you get the idea that I said that? Other people cast blatantly random votes and I didn't attack them.

I got that idea from the fact you called on me because I supposedly had a reason to vote Ythan instead of you, and I didn't. When you say that, you're ignoring the fact it is RVS and, as bolded:

So you're saying I called Ythan scum based on this QUESTION, BEFORE he even posted:

So Ythan, you're scum this time, yes?

Uh... duh? "So Ythan, you're scum this time" is blatantly calling someone scum. The "yes?" on the end doesn't change that, because you're not asking Ythan if he is scum, you are calling him scum and then asking him for confirmation.

This is what people mean when they say you're arguing about semantics. Look how tenaciously you are interpreting the "yes" portion of the sentence, even though you've been told the intention behind the sentence several times, which would eliminate the need to do that.

Firstly, as long as the question isn't rethorical (And even if it was, it couldn't be considered anything else than a joke), there is implied doubt, no matter how it is structured. Second, if I'm asking confirmation on the fact he's scum, then, as said, it means there is DOUBT, effectively making it a question.

That aside, the POINT is you're taking something seriously that you shouldn't.

You voted me because you believed I was calling ythan scum, yet voted you. Yet you totally failed to reason there was no possible way for me to call him scum (because there was nothing at the time), which destroys that reasoning.

(And in that case, we're (I'm) left with only one other option that remotely justifies your counter-vote: OMGUS. Do you see now where it comes from? You might say you didn't justify your vote like that, but scum usually mask their reasons, so it's not totally unreasonable to think that way.)

Bullshit! Two FoS's is obviously not spamming. Why are you distorting the facts so terribly?

That's YOUR opinion, not HIS

No, actually these aren't anyone's opinions.

These are facts.

I FoS'd twice. That is a FACT. It is normal for townies to have two FoS's out. That is a FACT. TRY AGAIN

See? There you go again. Don't impose yourself like that. "it is normal for townies to have two fso's out" IS, no matter how you put it, an opinion. Why? Look at your adjective: "normal". There is no OBJECTIVE way to define the word normal. Even further, saying something is "normal" comes from your perspective and your perspective only. In your experience, that might happen a lot, but for example, in my case, I rarely see FOS's.

I might be repeating Plague a bit here, but I feel this is important.
Two fos's might even be normal, but maybe two fos's in the same post in the beginning game might not be as so. This can be anyone's opinion, and you yelling TELLING them "YOU'RE WRONG, IT IS NOT OPINION, IT IS FACT" is not going to change that. As I said,

there's a great difference between arguing and disagreeing and simply imposing yourself.

Sorry this is a bit lengthy, but I wanted to leave this very clear.

See that? That's quote-spamming. Or the post where I spammed "I'm town!" I'm saying the same exact thing, way more than is necessary, to the point where it can be considered annoying. Those things are spamming.

Two FoS's is not spamming

. Period. You lose, scum.

I don't think you quite got what he meant by spamming fos. the word spamming seemed to me like a way of saying there was too much of it than he liked. It was a bit exaggerated, true, but it was a way to get the point across.

---

Why are you getting so worked up for? That doesn't bound well for you. I think he was probably trying to say that you vote-hopped excessively, hence "ultra-quick wagoning" (since you started wagoning, or attempted to). I can see your logic, though, and agree partly to it.

Do you have a problem with his reasoning? Because you shifted attention to his tone for some reason.

I did a bit, in fact, since I found it to be a bit off. I can see part of his reasoning (as stated), but felt the way he delivered it was a bit over the top.

Fatso, you should read the wiki a bit. Not take it as granted, of course, but read it. Online mafia can be drastically different from offline mafia, specially in what concerns scumtells.

Telling him to read the wiki doesn't help. If you think there's something specific he needs to read you should tell him. Otherwise this looks like an active lurking line.

Because I don't think there was anything exactly specific I think he should read. The main point was that, in general, the wiki helps to get a somewhat reliable grasp on what online mafia is as opposed to offline mafia, at least in my opinion.

For now, I think this is all. I'll see if I can post later.

[Exilon]

EBWOP: Those last two quotes should be separated. My reply is inside that large box.

[Exilon]

Ythan is actually being VERY productive. I like.

I wasn't saying you had no doubt Ythan is scum, nor that it wasn't a question. But, it's like, if you call up the grocery store and say "You're open right now, yes?" it suggests you believe they're open, but aren't certain. That's how I interpreted your post.

If that's how you interpreted my post, which is basically how it was supposed to be interpreted, then there's no rational way your accusation back then works. You pretty much said I was contradicting myself because I had called Ythan scum yet voted you, but from this post, you know that I wasn't certain. This doesn't make much sense.

Yeah, if you have some weird-ass definition of "normal" maybe. The FACT is that I often FoS early. The word "normal" is indeed subjective, but it isn't subjective enough that it's reasonable to say that early FoSes aren't "normal", given that fact.

It is completely different when you say "I often FoS early and like this" and "It is normal for one person to have two fos's out early". the first implies meta and is indeed a fact, the second implies you're talking generally and usually see a great number of people doing as you do. E.g. 60% of your games have people who FoS early and therefore it becomes "normal" for you; in my games 5% do and therefore my idea of normality is different from yours. It's pretty much subjective.

We need more posts from Budja, Mae, Moz and other lurkers.

[Exilon]

Some of Mozamis' posts seem like useless fluff, and some others are just confusing. Most of Mozamis posts could/SHOULD be glued together. That would avoid some "oops, nevermind my last post, I just read the explanation", such as #145.

Mozamis comments on the miller claim seem contradictory.

[about the miller claim] Am ignoring this. Could be scum trying to mess with us. Could be true.

If you're going to ignore it, why do you go to the effort of commenting on it and making it completely useless? This post achieves absolutely nothing. And yet:

There is no dissection of miller claims. You simply take that with a grain of salt, judge them like a normal player (if they're scummy, you lynch them. If they're townie, you don't) and if they're still alive a phase prior to MYLO/LYLO, you lynch them on policy to keep from WIFOM headaches in LYLO.

well if people want to talk about his miller claim, then we are free to do so. Why are you so dismissive of

what seems quite an imporatant post?

Really?

#148 has Moz asking EA for justification on his town reads. Doesn't sit too well to me.
#149 is just weird, Moz thanking EA for something he said to NE.

although exilon is keen to defend EA. Scumtell or just trying to be objective? Too early to tell.

What the heck are you talking about? Quotes, please.

Overall, Mozamis posting seems to be a bit of "lurk-avoid" kind of posting.

[Exilon]

There's these nifty commands in the reply window you'd do well to explore before asking for help, specially in a game (you could try the Help! section). You can also click the "quote" button on people's posts to see what codes they have used to achieve all those effects. Quoting is achieved with:

Code: Select all

 [quote="name of player"] message quoted [/quote] 

And the underline is the URL:

Code: Select all

 [URL=link address] Title (what's underlined) [/url] 

To get a link to a specific post, all you have to is click the tiny number above every person's posts and copy the address link.

Short, analytical posts are good but separating two sentences into two posts like you've done a few times now clutters up the thread and doesn't look as clean and fluid, besides not being analytical at all. It's also disorganized.

[Exilon]

Some of Mozamis' posts seem like useless fluff, and some others are just confusing. Most of Mozamis posts could/SHOULD be glued together. That would avoid some "oops, nevermind my last post, I just read the explanation", such as #145.

Can you specify which are fluff and which are just confusing?

I hope you don't mind me using ISO numbers instead of quotes, for simplicity's sake (And also because I've already mentioned some of these):
Fluff/Useless Posting:
#143 and then #145 cancel each other out;
#142 achieves nothing;
#149, thanks?
#153, also achieves nothing.

Confusing:
#149, thanking a quote from someone else?
#150 doesn't exactly provide a clear point.
#152

was not explained even though I asked for clarification.

Some of Moz's posts also have a bit of "this could be motivated by x but could also be because of y", which doesn't really help.

Really?

Miller stance reversal is interesting.

I don't understand, what do you mean by saying this?

---

I'm sorry, but I need to reply to this.

yes, i was 100 per cent sure i would get a patronising, cock muncher like response. Christ knows why people cant be more friendly on the internet. I wonder if people think there's link between "forum posting ability" and intellectual apptitude? Only thick people i guess. Now thick people and patronsing people-THERE'S a link. Still, at least you tried to help so thanks for that

I answered to everything you asked, yet you seem to be saying I acted like an ass (for the lack of a better word). If not, what's that rambling for?

[Exilon]

The miller reversal thing, I assume you're confused because I trimmed your quote way down. I mean that moz's reversal on whether miller claims should be analyzed is interesting.

And there is a better word for what she called you. It's cock muncher.

I was indeed confused. Thanks.
Oh. I thought she might have been talking about the other people who didn't help.

And I don't munch cock.

...I'm too skilled to do that.

[Exilon]

Well, I'm incredibly tired right now, but felt like I needed to post something. First,
UNVOTE: Erratus

His later posting has made me feel better about him, and therefore I do not feel he deserves my vote. And:

VOTE: Klazam

for lack (I guess) of a better candidate. It's a pressure vote, granted, but hopefully it'll bring something of him.

[Exilon]

Ok, I have little time today as well. Not much to point out, though. Thanks, Klazam, although I was expecting a bit more of analysis on the first pages of the game.

UNVOTE: Klazam
VOTE: Moz
This is what happens when you sit on the fence. =)

[Exilon]

Yes i am uncertain. Yes I am sitting on the fence. Anyone that is certain (perhaps you think it is being "confident" ) of someone being scum on day 1 is either a fool, or scum.
Get to grips with this fairly simple concept: people have different styles.

And to answer Maemuki (think thats his name?) I can't remember why I voted you. I think you had OMGUSed someone.

UNVOTE

*PUTS EXTRA PADDED CUSHION ON FENCE, SITS ON IT*

[Exilon]

lol crappy justification?
Ok, let's see who's got crappy justification.

quote from Moz

This is where moz says he is fencesitting. Not where he is fencesitting.

You're using craplogic twice to justify voting for people. And note you are not the first to vote, you're the second to vote on both votes. Scum?

Heck, being the second to vote is incredibly scummy. INDEED.
It's not crap logic, in fact, I didn't vote moz because I think she was fence sitting. That's a tiny part of it.

The follow-up comment to my vote was motivated by the fact moz herself said she was sitting on a fence and that she didn't care. I find this position not only scummy, but also un-productive to town. My comment was said in a way that satirized that. A little bit like :"ok, so you say you're comfortable not really doing anything and not building cases? Ok, cool, then let's see if you still keep that cool with another vote on you."

You're reaching for a case here, and you're misrepping me. And if you want to delve into semantics to say my logic is crap, (see bold) here's this for you:
1)If moz says she is fence sitting, then she is fence siting. When moz says, and quote, "*PUTS EXTRA PADDED CUSHION ON FENCE, SITS ON IT*", she is sitting on a fence. Therefore, in that post, SHE IS SITING ON THE FENCE.
2) My name is EXILON. I do not know what an Exilion is.

Oh, and btw? Here:

#141 sits a bit on a fence, no clear impression.
#142 is completely useless, and it's also "yeah, could be, could not be"
#151 same as above.
And also this gem, which clarification I've asked for about THREE TIMES NOW:

although exilon is keen to defend EA. Scumtell or just trying to be objective? Too early to tell.

What the heck are you talking about? Quotes, please.

Further on the subject of my vote on Moz:
a) So far, my list of suspects is tiny (and not very strong) and Moz is the summiest, therefore it makes sense that my vote is on her.
b) I already pointed out several posts from Moz that don't sit well with me.
c) If Moz needs a bit of incentive to get a good case, (or if she's scum), then a vote is the best way to do it.
d) Moz's votes are non-existent.

With that said, I've added Klazam to my suspect list. His over reaching for a case was like jumping a gun and the fact he couldn't even get the name right doesn't sound to me like someone who's read enough. Asides from that, there are certain things he said that didn't gut me well, such as the "I could vote X and Y, but they'd be too easy." His justification for this didn't appease me at all, either.

Exilon is worse, but, yeah, there's no reason for those votes. They are both lame. Mae was reasonable, but Exilon and NE both came off like, "Yeah, I could vote a suspect, but I'd rather hide under the radar."

Problem with that is that there really weren't good suspects to vote at the time. Right now, the only people I'm finding a bit scummy are, in order of scuminess, Moz, Klazam, Maemuki, and Space to a tiny extent.

[Exilon]

I'll respond fully to exilon tonight, but I just wanted to point out that it's stupid to take me spelling your name wrong to mean I'm not reading.

Actually, that was purposefully left there to see if you'd pick it up. Scum generally resort to nitpicking (in other words, picking the weakest part of the argument, akin to strawmanning) MUCH more than town do to appear more convincing.

Maemuki, you've been lacking a bit on the insight/analysis department, parroting a bit, (no matter if you're conscious or not, the point is there isn't much original content) and a bit of gut. Basically, I feel you've been coasting a bit. It's not much but I did say you were JUST slightly scummy.

Fucking IDIOTS. I DONT KNOW WHO IS SCUM YET. ANYONE WHO IS CERTAIN IS A DICKWAD OR SCUM.
USE YOUR FUCKING BRAINS.
Peace and love

*BUMP* Never insult the other players in my game. You used your warning; next one is a modkill

Several points:
1) Guess what: you will never be 100% sure someone is scum as a town player. Does that stop anyone from playing? NO. "Use your brains."
2) No one ever said they were certain and no one ever said you or anyone else needed to be certain to vote.
3) You're defending yourself against things no one accused you of, and producing nothing but scumminess. Right now, you do deserve to be lynched.
4) You have voted once in this game without being certain, so that is NO EXCUSE to not have a vote placed.
5) You're ignoring some people's posts.
Ad infinitum.

[Exilon]

there is a bit of clueless, but there is also a bit of scumminess. That aside, the vote is still well placed.

[Exilon]

I've already justified my vote on you. Read the posts. It's on this same page.

[Exilon]

So I'm gonna post this because I have 10 minutes and this takes 3, but I'll post more later:

MOZ, MAJOR FACEPALM.

YOU CANNOT POSSIBLY BE READING THE THREAD.

IF YOU HAD READ THE THREAD PROPERLY, YOU WOULDN'T BE WASTING TIME WITH USELESS POSTING LIKE THAT.

HERE:
post #253

GET A GRIP ON REALITY, YOU'RE AT L1.

[Exilon]

That hammer was totally scummy. Klazam's latest posting looks awful.

[Exilon]

I do not know if it’s a good idea (

due to my relative inexperience

) but I think we could ask the vig to claim

. If theres a claim, we know that there is only one scum left in the game. If not, we can safely infer a serial killer here, I believe.

(...)
I believe that Ythan

is the third scum here

.

vote Ythan

Something doesn't sit right with these two statements. First, you're not sure if it's a vig or sk, and suggest a vig claim with a bit of "newbie" card thrown in. This by itself seems like a weak attempt at masking intentions. Then you seem very sure that there are 3 scum.

Who should start off the massclaim? Popcorn style?

I'm willing to start

, if a couple more people are willing to claim.

you forgot you claimed miller didn't you?

Oh another slip. How nice!
Also of notice that your general tone day 2 is incredibly different from Day 1. Not only it seems more disappointed but there's also ALOT more of humility in it. Specially the way you're referring back to your case on me Day 1.

ICE - I see your logic, but I didn't see the need to drag it on when we have Klazam cornered here. I'm with RC - tomorrow will be appropriate but today is just not the call.

I quote this for truth. It should also be noticed that ICE's reasoning has a bit too much PR's in it than one might expect in a mini normal. At least, from my experience.

As for Ythan, I usually see him play a bit more aggressively, but then again, I remember one game like that where he was a lyncher. In any case, AT BEST the way he's been playing is null.

Also, there's something about Pope... the way he's posting seems somewhat weird, even though I can't quite put my finger on what, yet.

[Exilon]

forgot to add, I'm willing to (obviously) lynch Klazam today, but would like for the rest of the players to post. I'm also specially interested in Ythan's response to Klazam's case. Please do not hammer.

[Exilon]

@Ice: With that reasoning I can agree ; I haven't played many minis, but generally I don't see Docs paired with cops and vigs :s Doc/SK/RB I can see, not the other one, not counting with one-shot cases, which I've seen more than once. That's my only note.

[Exilon]

so space seems scum. I agree with it.

[Exilon]

WHY would you protect ICe both nights? this doesn't make sense.

[Exilon]

I'm the Vigilante. Ice, you're up.

[Exilon]

Space pope, most of my suspicion from you comes from gut from the way you acted yesterday.
The only thing I'm afraid of is that Ice's claim is fake, but yeah. It's a long shot, specially with a miller. But it seems weird to me that there's 3 PR's, and only a miller and a scum RB. but oh well.
I'll let NE hammer, if no one has nothing else to say

[Exilon]

Yeah, true, agar got a bit lucky, but not that much. the main problem with nailing scum day 1 /night 1 is that we are then left with very few options (we only get to analyze day 1 connections). On hindsight, I don't think the massclaim was that much of a great idea, specially considered that we relied TOO MUCH on the faith that there wasn't a godfather.
Not only did I call the godfather, though, I also called Agar on the dead QT, ah!
This was probably my best town game so far. Nailing scum day 1 and hitting scum while a vig was very good. suffice to say, though, pappums made that choise too easy
Props for everyone for their play, although there were a few facepalms, namely Klazam and, to an extent, Moz.
Also felt like Ythan was a bit more quiet and calm than usually, which, I have to say, raised some flags.
Lewarcher was a verygood mod =) everything went smoothly!

thanks everyone!