Mini 275: Subject Mafia - It's all over!

[Turbovolver]

but dont give me this crap about me dodging a full role claim because I havent.

Understand that saying the word "townie" does not necessarily mean vanilla... different people use the word in different ways. If you are trying to say here that you have already claimed Math, vanilla townie, I suggest you reiterate that so we can all be sure.

[Turbovolver]

Anyways, to answer cropcircle:

My lost post was targetted mainly at Turbo's long post, which I will not do again. Instead, I will just say that that's the wrong way to look at a game. You need to look at the game as a whole, not as little bits that can be analized separately.

OK, I'll look at your position in this game as a whole:

Pads out his posts, rarely contributes actual content. Has voted on suspicious grounds, and tried to encourage the town to lynch on flimsy evidence. Also lurks quite a bit. I think he's scum.

Even if you refuse to refute all my points just because they are individual posts, at least refute this.

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

The second part I'd like to know how it is a tell. Until you give reasoning for this claim, I will

FOS: cropcircle and Turbo

(turbo for agreeing), and in this sentence "fos" does not stand for "finger of suspicion."

So what does it stand for?

And it is most definitely a tell... when scum lurk and people say "oi, post more" one thing they love to say is "but I'm not suspicious of anybody!". Which is usually BS. I'd also say that if you aren't suspicious of anybody, why are you voting at all, but you seem to have covered yourself there by saying it's in the town's best interests to just vote without good reason.

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

However, right now I'm going to

Vote: Stewie

- I find it odd that Stewie decided to write a

huge post

that understandably got lost. However, the main reason I continue to suspect Stewie right now is that his

huge post

was in response

to Turbovolver and not to me at all.

Please read closely:

My lost post was targetted

mainly

at Turbo's long post, which I will not do again.

Can't see how you can interpret "mainly" as "to Turbovolver and not to me at all." When I said "mostly," you were actually the exeption, because your post deserved a response. If you are town, read more carefully next time, and if you are not, then nice try.

Hell, even if you did want to write a post up addressing me it could just have been that you forgot about pablito's post. I'm a bit suspicious of what pablito is saying here.

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

One example of people drawing too many conclusions is Turbo the first time he voted for me (or any other, for that matter) and pretty much any other vote Turbo did after that (basically, Turbo is either scum or town trying

way

too hard). Then there's cropcircles, with the "scum tell" he just made up, and the arguments cropcircle was involved in, and snowmonkey trying to make retaliation votes seem suspicious in an early stage of the game. Then there's the bandwagon on me, which is based on crap, or a deliberate misinterpretation of my posts.

How can one draw "too many" conclusions? You want half-assed reasons to lynch people, I provide full reasons and that's a bad thing? Do you care to refute my reasons for voting?

Please tell us why we should not be suspicious of your lurking. Please tell us where this "deliberate misrepresentation" is.

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

Why I think snowmonkey voted for ranger:

He says "ahh, the old retaliatory vote....very nice." immediatly followed by "the two that stick out the most to me are ranger and turbo. i say we run em up and see what happens." If the two are not connected (the OMGUS votes and the "the two that stick out the most are...") then there should have been an "anyways" or some other form of transition between them to emphasise the fact that both statements are not related.

Quite possibly, but that's why I asked him to clarify (and he has).

That's not her vote though. That's when she pretty much goes against OMGUS votes. Then, later on the thread, after RotN comes back, he says "ranger comes in today and is completely defensive. this game is moving too fast?" What is so suspicious about being defensive? If you are absent, you

better

defend yourself, or else you are going to see votes going your way.

This, to me, seems like a shit reason to vote for someone

. In the last sentence of that post you say "this isn't retaliatory." I guess I was wrong then, because why would you lie about such a thing... oh wait. Right. I don't buy it.

Bolding is mine. I'm just pointing out that you are voting for someone (and putting them dangerously close to lynch) for doing something you consider to be proper pro-town behaviour. Or is his reason less half-assed than everybody else's?

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

Still waiting an explanation on the "wolf buddies have told you you're being run up." I want to know what your posts mean. If I posted in spanish, I'm sure you'd like someone to translate (unless you know spanish, in which case replace that with any language you don't know).

This isn't important. Making a mistake about when scum are allowed to talk isn't scummy. It's WIFOM to call it anything but neutral. PS nice touch with the Spanish - I should add that some people think appealing to emotion is a scum tell. In this case I am inclined to agree.

And the constant dodging of a claim doesn't make it any better.

Well I cant deny this.

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



I'd also like to say that yes, my first vote on Stewie wasn't perfectly well-reasoned. That's how I like to start the game, by voting for reactions. You've all seen how I don't really like random votes.

[Turbovolver]

Damnit, the lines looked right in preview

[Kenji]

Snowmonkey - 5 (RangeroftheNorth, stewie, Sotty7, Don Gaetano,Jimmy the Rez)
Stewie - 3 (CropCircles,Turbovolver, pablito)
Turbovolver - 2 ( Quailman,petroleumjelly)
RangeroftheNorth - 1 ( snowmonkey)

Not voting:
Sineish

Sorry for not being on recently... I'll go prod Quailman now

[Quailman]

I said I'd be away for the weekend. I am back, and will read the tomes of turovolver et al. later. I promise

[Don Gaetano]

God, I hate people who play like Snowmonkey!!!

-----

Snowmonkey, if the reason why you haven't done a full roleclaim yet is because you feel that pressuring people for roleclaims day one isn't in the town's best interest, why the hell did you start hinting at your role long before you had to. It looks to me like you were trying to make your role look "cleaner" later on, because to be honest, math doesn't sound very protown to me. (but I would also agree that that argument is almost pointless, since it would mean trying to outguess the MOD)

But infact I feel that refusing to claim when most of the the town suspects you for legitimate reasons you haven't even tried to argue against, is to try to hold the town hostage, and from a metagaming POW it makes it way too easy for scum.

But when all is said an done, all these arguments are meaningless. Because if you really think that a lynch should be decided solely on a person's behaviour, without hearing a claim, I would advocate lynching you right away.

I expect to see a full roleclaim in your next post, unless in the meantime someone agrees with your refusal to claim, then we would have a real argument to resolve first.

[cropcircles]

Snow, at this point, it is best for the town for you to claim. Please do. I know it is frusterating, but with time and counsling, I'm sure you'll come to forgive us.

Oh, and people, please keep the uber long analysis in your notes. A lot of it is irrelevant, and if you only present the important parts, it is easier for others to read, and cuts down on lurking.

[Stewie]

I'll take a page from snowmonkey's book and write my answers within the quotes, but in this case using italics.

Anyways, to answer cropcircle:

My lost post was targetted mainly at Turbo's long post, which I will not do again. Instead, I will just say that that's the wrong way to look at a game. You need to look at the game as a whole, not as little bits that can be analized separately.

OK, I'll look at your position in this game as a whole:

Pads out his posts, rarely contributes actual content. Has voted on suspicious grounds, and tried to encourage the town to lynch on flimsy evidence. Also lurks quite a bit. I think he's scum.

Even if you refuse to refute all my points just because they are individual posts, at least refute this.

Firstly, I do not refuse to refute all your points - I simply refuse to do it again. Now, as for your quote, I am not sure what "pads out his posts" exactly means; "rarely contributes any content" is a lie, because I have posted in the past, just not often during exams but my first few posts (before exams) and my latest posts (after exams) had plenty of content; "has voted on suspicious grounds" is another lie because I vote for people for the same reasons I always vote for people on day one, and nobody ever called me on it, and they boil down to me wanting to get the game moving, up until but not including my current vote; I encourage the town to lynch because there is a half assed reason out there (which is getting more and more like a real reason as post go by) and we are still in day on page nine (too freaking long); lurking goes back to me having to study (aced two exams, by the way ); and you thinking I'm scum... you are entitled to your opinion, I guess. Everyone has the right to be wrong.

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

The second part I'd like to know how it is a tell. Until you give reasoning for this claim, I will

FOS: cropcircle and Turbo

(turbo for agreeing), and in this sentence "fos" does not stand for "finger of suspicion."

So what does it stand for?

Venture a guess...

And it is most definitely a tell... when scum lurk and people say "oi, post more" one thing they love to say is "but I'm not suspicious of anybody!". Which is usually BS. I'd also say that if you aren't suspicious of anybody, why are you voting at all, but you seem to have covered yourself there by saying it's in the town's best interests to just vote without good reason.

I'm voting because I chose the least-non-suspicious person, and voted for them. I don't think I'd vote snowmonkey right now if this was day three or day four. But it's day one, and we already have nine pages. She seems like the most likely to be scum, and even more as time goes on.

It is in the interests of the town to vote without a good reason because there aren't any (or at least there weren't any at the time) and we gotta lynch someone. If we let this go much longer, we won't be able to get replacements, should the need arise

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



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

One example of people drawing too many conclusions is Turbo the first time he voted for me (or any other, for that matter) and pretty much any other vote Turbo did after that (basically, Turbo is either scum or town trying

way

too hard). Then there's cropcircles, with the "scum tell" he just made up, and the arguments cropcircle was involved in, and snowmonkey trying to make retaliation votes seem suspicious in an early stage of the game. Then there's the bandwagon on me, which is based on crap, or a deliberate misinterpretation of my posts.

How can one draw "too many" conclusions? You want half-assed reasons to lynch people, I provide full reasons and that's a bad thing? Do you care to refute my reasons for voting?

Too many conclusions means that you are coming to conclusions which are irrational. It's too many conclusions because you came up with one (that I am scum, or acted suspicious) when you shouldn't have done so. Hence, too many conclusions. As for you providing full reasons... perhaps full-assed reasons, and yes, that's a bad thing. I think we should lynch on some kind of evidence. My position is that this evidence does not have to be the strongest, at least for day one, and sometimes day two.

Please tell us why we should not be suspicious of your lurking. Please tell us where this "deliberate misrepresentation" is.

You should not be suspicious of my absence because it was explained by joint reasons: I had exams, and with the workload I could not keep up with the game. Is that unreasonable? As for the misinterpretations, read up, I pointed out some. Although I might be mistaken in calling them "deliberate," since they could be an accident, I am fairly confident that they were done on purpose.

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

Why I think snowmonkey voted for ranger:

He says "ahh, the old retaliatory vote....very nice." immediatly followed by "the two that stick out the most to me are ranger and turbo. i say we run em up and see what happens." If the two are not connected (the OMGUS votes and the "the two that stick out the most are...") then there should have been an "anyways" or some other form of transition between them to emphasise the fact that both statements are not related.

Quite possibly, but that's why I asked him to clarify (and he has).

That's not her vote though. That's when she pretty much goes against OMGUS votes. Then, later on the thread, after RotN comes back, he says "ranger comes in today and is completely defensive. this game is moving too fast?" What is so suspicious about being defensive? If you are absent, you

better

defend yourself, or else you are going to see votes going your way.

This, to me, seems like a shit reason to vote for someone

. In the last sentence of that post you say "this isn't retaliatory." I guess I was wrong then, because why would you lie about such a thing... oh wait. Right. I don't buy it.

Bolding is mine. I'm just pointing out that you are voting for someone (and putting them dangerously close to lynch) for doing something you consider to be proper pro-town behaviour. Or is his reason less half-assed than everybody else's?

Are you implying that my vote on Snowmonkey is because he defended himself? Because it's not. I am voting for him because I think he is lying in his defense.

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

Still waiting an explanation on the "wolf buddies have told you you're being run up." I want to know what your posts mean. If I posted in spanish, I'm sure you'd like someone to translate (unless you know spanish, in which case replace that with any language you don't know).

This isn't important. Making a mistake about when scum are allowed to talk isn't scummy. It's WIFOM to call it anything but neutral. PS nice touch with the Spanish - I should add that some people think appealing to emotion is a scum tell. In this case I am inclined to agree.

How am I supposed to know that it was a mistake about when scum can talk? I seriously don't know what he was talking about, and wanted clarification. You are saying it's a mistake on when the scum can talk, so I'll assume you are right unless snowmonkey says otherwise. As for the spanish, I just wanted to point out that if I don't undestand what he's saying, he should clarify in a manner in which I am accutomed to. I fail to see how this is appeal to emotion. You might be able to call it a false analogy, but it's not.

And the constant dodging of a claim doesn't make it any better.

Well I cant deny this.

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



I'd also like to say that yes, my first vote on Stewie wasn't perfectly well-reasoned. That's how I like to start the game, by voting for reactions. You've all seen how I don't really like random votes.

Random voting IS voting for reactions...

PS: the post preview shows text across the whole page, but when you post it some space is left off for the avatar and user info. Next time make it long enough so that it's noticed, but don't attempt to make it go perfectly across the page.

[pablito]

My lost post was targetted mainly at Turbo's long post, which I will not do again.

Can't see how you can interpret "mainly" as "to Turbovolver and not to me at all." When I said "mostly," you were actually the exeption, because your post deserved a response. If you are town, read more carefully next time, and if you are not, then nice try.

I'm a bit suspicious of what pablito is saying here.

If a response to Pablito was the main exception in your

huge post

which mainly addressed Turbo's huge post, then why not say, "I lost a post mainly about what Turbo and Pablito have said"? That's what I'm questioning. But nonetheless, it still adds to my point that you've mainly ignored my questions and still haven't addressed my post 159 - and I believe you're trying to veer away from answering it. And that to me is scummy.

In your original "I lost my

huge post

" post (185), you hinted at replying to Turbo and then you went off and addressed/quoted cropcircles. In my opinion, you did some self-editing (which in itself may be a tell). If I am to believe that your original

huge post

truly did address mainly Turbo and then a little bit of Pablito, then why would you also address cropcircles in the replacement post? I would tend to believe that the replacement post would address in brief the same exact people and arguments that your original post would address. My opinion is that you've been covering yourself by making some retroactive editing in your statements, and is thus why I find you scummy, Stewie.

[Turbovolver]

Now, as for your quote, I am not sure what "pads out his posts" exactly means; "rarely contributes any content" is a lie, because I have posted in the past, just not often during exams but my first few posts (before exams) and my latest posts (after exams) had plenty of content; "has voted on suspicious grounds" is another lie because I vote for people for the same reasons I always vote for people on day one, and nobody ever called me on it, and they boil down to me wanting to get the game moving, up until but not including my current vote; I encourage the town to lynch because there is a half assed reason out there (which is getting more and more like a real reason as post go by) and we are still in day on page nine (too freaking long); lurking goes back to me having to study (aced two exams, by the way ); and you thinking I'm scum... you are entitled to your opinion, I guess. Everyone has the right to be wrong.

Pads out his posts:

As in putting non-game related stuff in them. Not a problem with this, except when it is used to take the place of real content. Which in your case, I think it has. (#51, #139)

Rarely contributes any content:

Let me summarise your posts in this game:

11: Random vote
12: Well, randomish
15: Explaining your actions
36: More explanation/defense, bandwagon vote
51: Answers a useless question, asks for votecount
96: I don't know what's going on
99: Thanks for telling me what's going on
102: The infamous "half-assed vote" speech, and then a bandwagon vote. This has some content.
109: Correction
139: First point is irrelevant, second point concedes you are not posting much (and look, the reason is nothing to do with exams). Third point you had already made.
152: Defends Sotty7. Fair enough.

Between here is when I say Stewie hasn't contributed much

185: Tells me I'm looking at the game wrong, FOS me and cropcircles until we explain why what we said was a tell actually is. I suppose this is some light content.
192: Starts out with some self-defense, then some decent content with the snowmonkey thing.
193: No content.
207: More self-defense

So the sum total you had contributed when I said you don't contribute much was:

"This is why I random voted etc etc"
"We should vote for half-assed reasons and just get day 1 over with. I vote snowmonkey for creating suspicion where there wasn't any"
"Turbovolver those attacks on Sotty7 were BS"

I'm sorry, but that looks pretty sparse to me. After I said you didn't contribute, you've contributed a reason for your snowmonkey vote and an FOS on me and cropcircles, but the rest has all been self-defense.

Votes on suspicious grounds:

Well, actually you haven't voted much. First you voted PJ just for a bandwagon, but that's not really suspicious. Your only "real" vote I have disagreed with the reasoning behind, and we'll come to that point below.

I'm voting because I chose the least-non-suspicious person, and voted for them. I don't think I'd vote snowmonkey right now if this was day three or day four. But it's day one, and we already have nine pages. She seems like the most likely to be scum, and even more as time goes on.

It is in the interests of the town to vote without a good reason because there aren't any (or at least there weren't any at the time) and we gotta lynch someone. If we let this go much longer, we won't be able to get replacements, should the need arise

I'm sorry, but I don't think we should be lynching based on how easily we can get replacements. And there aren't any good reasons? You've accused me of misrepresenting you/lying a few times, and you've attempted to debunk (in at least one case successfully) a few of my arguments against Sotty7.

These actually sound like pretty good reasons to vote for *me*, if you truly believe them

.

Step back and look at what you're doing - you aren't trying to catch scum, you're just picking the bandwagon on the weakest player and sticking to it. This is hugely scummy to me, no matter how much you go on about the day needing to end (PS: Bringing up the replacements thing hinders, not helps, your case, in my view. I think it's reaching for justification of your actions)

Too many conclusions means that you are coming to conclusions which are irrational. It's too many conclusions because you came up with one (that I am scum, or acted suspicious) when you shouldn't have done so. Hence, too many conclusions. As for you providing full reasons... perhaps full-assed reasons, and yes, that's a bad thing. I think we should lynch on some kind of evidence. My position is that this evidence does not have to be the strongest, at least for day one, and sometimes day two.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but does the last bit of this post not say "Town shouldn't vote for the person most likely to be scum (strongest evidence)"? You suggest we should instead just go for the players who will be lynched the easiest?

You should not be suspicious of my absence because it was explained by joint reasons: I had exams, and with the workload I could not keep up with the game. Is that unreasonable? As for the misinterpretations, read up, I pointed out some. Although I might be mistaken in calling them "deliberate," since they could be an accident, I am fairly confident that they were done on purpose.

Yeah I'm sorry for saying you don't post much content when you in your own words have already said "The reason I'm not posting much is...". Gross misrepresentation
And as for the second "misrepresentation", yes I think if you are voting for half-assed reasons that is "voting on suspicious grounds".
As I said before, you're fairly confident I'm deliberately misrepresenting you - that's far worse than anything snowmonkey ever did... why are you still voting for him and not me?

Also, you have previously said you weren't posting much because you weren't suspicious of anyone. Good to see you've changed your tune now that people have pointed out that was a scum tell. You shouldn't really change your tune mid-game though, as now you've given two very different excuses for your lack of posting (and even accused me of lying when I said you didn't post much... go figure).

Are you implying that my vote on Snowmonkey is because he defended himself? Because it's not. I am voting for him because I think he is lying in his defense.

No, I'm implying that you calling him out on "voting for a shit reason" doesn't really gel with

It is in the interests of the town to vote without a good reason

And no, don't try to bring in the semantics of the words "shit" and "without good".

How am I supposed to know that it was a mistake about when scum can talk? I seriously don't know what he was talking about, and wanted clarification. You are saying it's a mistake on when the scum can talk, so I'll assume you are right unless snowmonkey says otherwise. As for the spanish, I just wanted to point out that if I don't undestand what he's saying, he should clarify in a manner in which I am accutomed to. I fail to see how this is appeal to emotion. You might be able to call it a false analogy, but it's not.

I looked at snowmonkeys comments about talking wolf buddies, and the only possible explanation I saw was that he was mistaken. As he himself has since explained (#199), he was talking about other games he's played in where the mafia ("wolves") get a separate forum to scheme in. And perhaps I used the wrong phrase by calling it an "appeal to emotion", but the Spanish stuff was certainly not necessary and I think probably thrown in there to subtly make snowmonkey look worse.

Random voting IS voting for reactions...

Yeah, sure. When you vote someone without reasoning, they've got nothing to respond to. And unless people like Fritzler come along and start putting third or fourth votes on, nothing will happen.

PS: You're almost definitely not going to get a reaction when you use a randomiser (sorry, "claim" to use a randomiser) because then the person knows there's nothing to respond to. This is what my original FOS was about.

Confirm Vote: Stewie

.

snowmonkey has done some really strange things and even acted intentionally obtuse, but the way he has acted doesn't really seem to benefit scum more than town. All he's done is attract attention to himself and *Ranger*, of all people. Stewie on the other hand has picked an easy bandwagon and stuck to it, tried to hurry along the day and has avoided posting about anything other than himself and his lynch target (apart from Sotty7, but she's his scum partner ).

I really think he's the best target today.


PPE: I don't know if I agree with Pablito's rather interesting look at events, but we agree on who the scum is so I'm cool with it for the moment

[Turbovolver]

If anybody wants me to summarise my case against Stewie because they don't feel like reading all that, feel free to ask. I'm happy to give my latest points against Stewie in short-form. He's going down.

[Turbovolver]

It looks to me that Stewie was (and maybe still is) of the opinion that Day 1 will not give us super-solid grounds for a lynching, so his “sticking to a half-assed reason” didn’t bother me, since that’s usually what kind of reasoning there is for a Day 1 lynch anyways.

What about you, petroleumjelly? Do you think it'd be OK if we lynched on a half-assed reason? That's the impression I get if you are OKing Stewie saying this.

[petroleumjelly]

It looks to me that Stewie was (and maybe still is) of the opinion that Day 1 will not give us super-solid grounds for a lynching, so his “sticking to a half-assed reason” didn’t bother me, since that’s usually what kind of reasoning there is for a Day 1 lynch anyways.

What about you, petroleumjelly? Do you think it'd be OK if we lynched on a half-assed reason? That's the impression I get if you are OKing Stewie saying this.

I believe you already know the answer to this. Day Ones often do not give anybody any solid information until later in the game: the town almost always ends up lynching for what I would deem "half-assed reasons" (which makes sense, since I would wager that most Day Ones end with a pro-town lynch, which must build on the false premise that they are scum). I don't find Stewie suspicious for saying what is generally true.

To answer your question, though, I would obviously prefer a lynch with some good reasoning behind it as opposed to one with little to no reasoning. Chances are, we are going to lynch somebody based on less than perfect reasoning.

In case I haven't said as much in this thread:

I will have little to no access to a computer from February 9-12 (Thursday to Sunday) due to Mock Trial competitions.

[Turbovolver]

Hmm, a diplomatic answer. Cant go wrong with that

I just saw you online and was wondering about that point. Thanks for answering.

*waits for pablito to come in and say he thought I was laying a trap there*

*perhaps I was*

[Stewie]

My lost post was targetted mainly at Turbo's long post, which I will not do again.

Can't see how you can interpret "mainly" as "to Turbovolver and not to me at all." When I said "mostly," you were actually the exeption, because your post deserved a response. If you are town, read more carefully next time, and if you are not, then nice try.

I'm a bit suspicious of what pablito is saying here.

If a response to Pablito was the main exception in your

huge post

which mainly addressed Turbo's huge post, then why not say, "I lost a post mainly about what Turbo and Pablito have said"?

I did not answer that because Turbo seemed to agree with me. If I misinterpreted turbo, then I'll post a reply.

That's what I'm questioning. But nonetheless, it still adds to my point that you've mainly ignored my questions and still haven't addressed my post 159 - and I believe you're trying to veer away from answering it. And that to me is scummy.

I answered post 159 in post 192.

In your original "I lost my

huge post

" post (185), you hinted at replying to Turbo and then you went off and addressed/quoted cropcircles. In my opinion, you did some self-editing (which in itself may be a tell). If I am to believe that your original

huge post

truly did address mainly Turbo and then a little bit of Pablito, then why would you also address cropcircles in the replacement post?

Because having only skimmed the thread for the replacement post, I did not remember your question, and answer only what came to mind. The game does not revolve around you, you know.

I would tend to believe that the replacement post would address in brief the same exact people and arguments that your original post would address.

No, it wouldn't. I made it pretty clear that I had answered Turbo's point by point analysis, whereas in my replacement post I did not. I can't see why it's so hard to understand that the replacement post is not identical to the original post, but was aimed at posting whatever was in my mind, so people wouldn't bitch about "#185: posts about a post he lost, but no real content"

My opinion is that you've been covering yourself by making some retroactive editing in your statements, and is thus why I find you scummy, Stewie.

"Retoactive editing"? Please explain.

Now, as for your quote, I am not sure what "pads out his posts" exactly means; "rarely contributes any content" is a lie, because I have posted in the past, just not often during exams but my first few posts (before exams) and my latest posts (after exams) had plenty of content; "has voted on suspicious grounds" is another lie because I vote for people for the same reasons I always vote for people on day one, and nobody ever called me on it, and they boil down to me wanting to get the game moving, up until but not including my current vote; I encourage the town to lynch because there is a half assed reason out there (which is getting more and more like a real reason as post go by) and we are still in day on page nine (too freaking long); lurking goes back to me having to study (aced two exams, by the way ); and you thinking I'm scum... you are entitled to your opinion, I guess. Everyone has the right to be wrong.

Pads out his posts:

As in putting non-game related stuff in them. Not a problem with this, except when it is used to take the place of real content. Which in your case, I think it has. (#51, #139)

51 has no "padding." It answers a question, and points out the fact that there are four votes on someone, so that no accidental lynch happens. 139 has a question, points out that I didn't really find any full reason for a lynched, and that what we need is a half-assed reason. Game related, and the only think that can be considered padding is the initial question, but I think it was important.

Rarely contributes any content:

Let me summarise your posts in this game:

11: Random vote

Nothing wrong with that

12: Well, randomish

Clarification. Even when one is completly clear people tend to misinterpret what you say, so it's better to be as clear as I can.

15: Explaining your actions

Someone questions my actions, I'll explain them. I fail to see how this in a crappy post

36: More explanation/defense, bandwagon vote

Ditto

51: Answers a useless question, asks for votecount

If someone is not clear as to why I voted, answering their question is not useless. If you think explaining your vote is useless, explain why

96: I don't know what's going on

I really didn't. It's hard to post any real content when you don't understand what's going on.
99: Thanks for telling me what's going on

No content, but saying thanks is always nice...

102: The infamous "half-assed vote" speech, and then a bandwagon vote. This has some content.
109: Correction

If I make a mistake, it's important to correct it.

139: First point is irrelevant, second point concedes you are not posting much (and look, the reason is nothing to do with exams). Third point you had already made.

It's not irrelevant if you don't know what it means. If you don't know what it means it could be anything (I had a rough idea, but I wanted clarification). The second point is an attempt to explain my silence without involving my real life in the whole thing. Not that I was lying - all that was true - but there was more to it than that, and by more I mean exams. As for the last point being a repeat, I think it's important to repeat things instead of expecting people to remember all that you said. Not that you should post everything you posted in every post, but you should touch the main ideas every now and then.
152: Defends Sotty7. Fair enough.

Between here is when I say Stewie hasn't contributed much

185: Tells me I'm looking at the game wrong, FOS me and cropcircles until we explain why what we said was a tell actually is. I suppose this is some light content.
192: Starts out with some self-defense, then some decent content with the snowmonkey thing.
193: No content.

clarification on previous post, not really a post to "fill up space."
207: More self-defense

I have do defend myself

So the sum total you had contributed when I said you don't contribute much was:

"This is why I random voted etc etc"
"We should vote for half-assed reasons and just get day 1 over with. I vote snowmonkey for creating suspicion where there wasn't any"
"Turbovolver those attacks on Sotty7 were BS"

I'm sorry, but that looks pretty sparse to me. After I said you didn't contribute, you've contributed a reason for your snowmonkey vote and an FOS on me and cropcircles, but the rest has all been self-defense.

Votes on suspicious grounds:

Well, actually you haven't voted much. First you voted PJ just for a bandwagon, but that's not really suspicious. Your only "real" vote I have disagreed with the reasoning behind, and we'll come to that point below.

I'm voting because I chose the least-non-suspicious person, and voted for them. I don't think I'd vote snowmonkey right now if this was day three or day four. But it's day one, and we already have nine pages. She seems like the most likely to be scum, and even more as time goes on.

It is in the interests of the town to vote without a good reason because there aren't any (or at least there weren't any at the time) and we gotta lynch someone. If we let this go much longer, we won't be able to get replacements, should the need arise

I'm sorry, but I don't think we should be lynching based on how easily we can get replacements. And there aren't any good reasons? You've accused me of misrepresenting you/lying a few times, and you've attempted to debunk (in at least one case successfully) a few of my arguments against Sotty7.

These actually sound like pretty good reasons to vote for *me*, if you truly believe them

.

Ok, forget the replacements, think about us. Do you think that when lynch or lose comes, you'll be encouraged to reread? And yeah, you are kinda suspicious, but snowmonkey is a little more suspicious. Plus, he keeps compounding the problem.

Step back and look at what you're doing - you aren't trying to catch scum, you're just picking the bandwagon on the weakest player and sticking to it. This is hugely scummy to me, no matter how much you go on about the day needing to end (PS: Bringing up the replacements thing hinders, not helps, your case, in my view. I think it's reaching for justification of your actions)

I'm trying to catch scum allright, and our best shot is snowmonkey right now.

Too many conclusions means that you are coming to conclusions which are irrational. It's too many conclusions because you came up with one (that I am scum, or acted suspicious) when you shouldn't have done so. Hence, too many conclusions. As for you providing full reasons... perhaps full-assed reasons, and yes, that's a bad thing. I think we should lynch on some kind of evidence. My position is that this evidence does not have to be the strongest, at least for day one, and sometimes day two.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but does the last bit of this post not say "Town shouldn't vote for the person most likely to be scum (strongest evidence)"? You suggest we should instead just go for the players who will be lynched the easiest?

Don't worry, I'll correct you! What I said is that you will not find strong evidence against someone in day one, so you should go after the least-weak evidence, meaning the strongest, while also implying there isn't any true strong reason.

You should not be suspicious of my absence because it was explained by joint reasons: I had exams, and with the workload I could not keep up with the game. Is that unreasonable? As for the misinterpretations, read up, I pointed out some. Although I might be mistaken in calling them "deliberate," since they could be an accident, I am fairly confident that they were done on purpose.

Yeah I'm sorry for saying you don't post much content when you in your own words have already said "The reason I'm not posting much is...". Gross misrepresentation

Content does not equal ammount of posts or the leght of said posts. You can say a lot by saying very little.

And as for the second "misrepresentation", yes I think if you are voting for half-assed reasons that is "voting on suspicious grounds".
As I said before, you're fairly confident I'm deliberately misrepresenting you - that's far worse than anything snowmonkey ever did... why are you still voting for him and not me?

because I saw something I believe was a contradiction on the part of snowmonkey. He denies it, of course, but I don't happen to believe him. As for the "voting on suspicious grounds," that's bull. I am, just like you, voting on the strongest evidence I see. However, I am a little more realistic and I don't believe these reasons would get someone lynched at a later stage of the game. You also pick half-assed (or full-assed) reasons, the difference being that you call them full reasons, implying it's irefutable evidence.

Also, you have previously said you weren't posting much because you weren't suspicious of anyone. Good to see you've changed your tune now that people have pointed out that was a scum tell. You shouldn't really change your tune mid-game though, as now you've given two very different excuses for your lack of posting (and even accused me of lying when I said you didn't post much... go figure).

Saying you aren't suspicious of anyone isn't a scum tell. Get that through your head.

Are you implying that my vote on Snowmonkey is because he defended himself? Because it's not. I am voting for him because I think he is lying in his defense.

No, I'm implying that you calling him out on "voting for a shit reason" doesn't really gel with

It is in the interests of the town to vote without a good reason

And no, don't try to bring in the semantics of the words "shit" and "without good".

Voting without a good reason doesn't mean that your reason has to be based on something a player is expected to do. It's like voting for someone for capitalizing all their paragraps. Don't vote for someone for something they are supposed to do. Oh, and nice touch with the "don't try to bring in the semantics" thing, almost as if you knew it was coming! Don't tell me what I can bring up and what I can't. My posts weren't contradicting each other, and you can't just tell me not to explain myself in the way which you expected to explain myself. You might as well tell Bush not to use the words "God," "Bless," and "America" in any of his speeches.

How am I supposed to know that it was a mistake about when scum can talk? I seriously don't know what he was talking about, and wanted clarification. You are saying it's a mistake on when the scum can talk, so I'll assume you are right unless snowmonkey says otherwise. As for the spanish, I just wanted to point out that if I don't undestand what he's saying, he should clarify in a manner in which I am accutomed to. I fail to see how this is appeal to emotion. You might be able to call it a false analogy, but it's not.

I looked at snowmonkeys comments about talking wolf buddies, and the only possible explanation I saw was that he was mistaken. As he himself has since explained (#199), he was talking about other games he's played in where the mafia ("wolves") get a separate forum to scheme in. And perhaps I used the wrong phrase by calling it an "appeal to emotion", but the Spanish stuff was certainly not necessary and I think probably thrown in there to subtly make snowmonkey look worse.

Random voting IS voting for reactions...

Yeah, sure. When you vote someone without reasoning, they've got nothing to respond to. And unless people like Fritzler come along and start putting third or fourth votes on, nothing will happen.

PS: You're almost definitely not going to get a reaction when you use a randomiser (sorry, "claim" to use a randomiser) because then the person knows there's nothing to respond to. This is what my original FOS was about.

Then how do all these games get played?

Confirm Vote: Stewie

.

snowmonkey has done some really strange things and even acted intentionally obtuse, but the way he has acted doesn't really seem to benefit scum more than town. All he's done is attract attention to himself and *Ranger*, of all people. Stewie on the other hand has picked an easy bandwagon and stuck to it, tried to hurry along the day and has avoided posting about anything other than himself and his lynch target (apart from Sotty7, but she's his scum partner ).

[petroleumjelly]

Ugh. Is it possible for our

Mod

to slightly edit these posts so we don't have to try and scroll two ways while reading (shortening the lines)? This is getting silly.

[Jimmy the Rez]

So, is quoting people and replying inside the quotes the new fashionable thing to do?? Because it sucks. I've already read the post you're quoting... If I have to

hunt down

your responses from inside of that quote... well, how's about I just ask nicely to break quotes for replies.

Please?

[/content free post]

[Turbovolver]

OK, here we go *sigh*

I'm going to try responding in a different style to make this easier for everyone else in the game.

Stewie refutes my calling posts #51 and #139 padding. I disagree, but really you should all look and decide for yourself.

Then he goes and reviews my summary of his posts. He even says stuff like "I fail to see how this is a crappy post" to posts I never called crappy. He even explains why he had to make a correction? All I did was list all of his posts and what I made of them - he's being awfully defensive by explaining posts I never said were suspicious.

He fails to deny my summary of his contribution to the game up until the point when I said he didn't contribute much. So basically he fails to deny that he hasn't contributed much (if he did, I missed it)

He then makes a really strange reply where he talks about us not finding strong reasons on day 1. Just read it, and you'll see that it doesn't add up.

He then says that despite him posting very little, he has still provided content because content isn't measured in the number or length of posts. While that is completely true, he still failed to deny my summary of the amount of content he has contributed (which had nothing do with number or length of posts).

Then he goes on about why he's voting for snowmonkey, over a supposed discrepancy. I guess that's fair enough, though he then says I'm suggesting my evidence is irrefutable by calling them "full reasons" (I have never said the points I raise are irrefutable). Also he makes a point I don't understand about my evidence "not getting people lynched at a later stage of the game". Please explain?

Next, he says that saying you aren't suspicious isn't a scum tell. Even though I believe it is, I'm pretty sure it definitely is when you later claim you've seen discrepancies in people's posting, and were on the town's biggest bandwagon.

Next he goes off at me for telling him to not bring up semantics. Umm, Stewie? You are right I anticipated semantics from you, but semantics are the easy way out. I wanted a proper explanation, not just "no I used different words therefore I'm absolved from all blame".
His actual response (as in not the semantics stuff) I don't even understand. "Voting without a good reason doesn't mean that your reason has to be based on something a player is expected to do." - does anybody understand what this means, in the context it is in?

Lastly he rolls his eyes, which basically says "I cant deny the points you've raised here" to me.


I don't really understand half of his response. Until I get it explained to me, I'll have to assume that he's just being confusing to avoid a real defense.



Is this type of reply preferred by the town?

[Kenji]

i'm going to see what I can do about having to side scroll....

[snowmonkey]

God, I hate people who play like Snowmonkey!!!

you mock that which you do not understand.

as for a full role, there is nothing else I can tell you about it.

[Stewie]

OK, here we go *sigh*

I'm going to try responding in a different style to make this easier for everyone else in the game.

Stewie refutes my calling posts #51 and #139 padding. I disagree, but really you should all look and decide for yourself.

Then he goes and reviews my summary of his posts. He even says stuff like "I fail to see how this is a crappy post" to posts I never called crappy. He even explains why he had to make a correction? All I did was list all of his posts and what I made of them - he's being awfully defensive by explaining posts I never said were suspicious.

He fails to deny my summary of his contribution to the game up until the point when I said he didn't contribute much. So basically he fails to deny that he hasn't contributed much (if he did, I missed it)

The two above contradic each other. I can't explain why my posts had content, but I fail to deny your summary which implies that my posts lack content? What are you on?

He then makes a really strange reply where he talks about us not finding strong reasons on day 1. Just read it, and you'll see that it doesn't add up.

He then says that despite him posting very little, he has still provided content because content isn't measured in the number or length of posts. While that is completely true, he still failed to deny my summary of the amount of content he has contributed (which had nothing do with number or length of posts).

I haven't. I made a comment explaining why they have content for every single post in which you did not imply or explicity say it had content

Then he goes on about why he's voting for snowmonkey, over a supposed discrepancy. I guess that's fair enough, though he then says I'm suggesting my evidence is irrefutable by calling them "full reasons" (I have never said the points I raise are irrefutable). *Also he makes a point I don't understand about my evidence "not getting people lynched at a later stage of the game". Please explain?*

If this was day three, none of this evidence would get anyone lynched. It's enough for

today

. Also, you call them full reasons, not me (post 201).

Next, he says that saying you aren't suspicious isn't a scum tell. Even though I believe it is, I'm pretty sure it definitely is when you later claim you've seen discrepancies in people's posting, and were on the town's biggest bandwagon.

Next he goes off at me for telling him to not bring up semantics. Umm, Stewie? You are right I anticipated semantics from you, but semantics are the easy way out. I wanted a proper explanation, not just "no I used different words therefore I'm absolved from all blame".
His actual response (as in not the semantics stuff) I don't even understand. "Voting without a good reason doesn't mean that your reason has to be based on something a player is expected to do." - does anybody understand what this means, in the context it is in?

If

you

change the meaning of my posts to make it seem incriminating, I have to show people how the wording of my posts is in such a way in which it does not contradict each other. Next time, you can read carefully instead of conviniently, and I won't need to use semantics because there won't be an accusation to begin with. As for the expectations bit, my point was that when a player is called on lurking, he is expected to defend himself. If he does, a vote on him is wrong because he did what he had to do.

Lastly he rolls his eyes, which basically says "I cant deny the points you've raised here" to me.

It means "these points are so much crap that I shouldn't have to deny them. I will anyways. How easy it is to lynch someone is not a factor, but how scummy they are. I find snowmonkey scummy, therefore I vote for him. The fact that four other people agree should not be used against me. Also, me/sotty scum group is a baseless statement, and a moot point. There, I wasted seconds of my life to answer to something that should have been obvious to everyone, but apparently you find me not answering a point as me not wanting to answer a point because I can't.

I don't really understand half of his response. Until I get it explained to me, I'll have to assume that he's just being confusing to avoid a real defense.

This deserves another .

Is this type of reply preferred by the town?

I think that it's better if they know what we are talking about. Although that was pretty obvious given that we are part in the discussion, other people might have to look back and forth.

To reply to this post, I suggest you quote me, then remove your posts and answer in non-indented text.

[Turbovolver]

Quotes for Stewie's pleasure.

The two above contradic each other. I can't explain why my posts had content, but I fail to deny your summary which implies that my posts lack content? What are you on?

I found it strange that you were justifying things like random votes, or corrections when you voted the wrong person. This has nothing to do with how much content you have posted.

But let's give you the benefit of the doubt, and include all your extra bits. Sure you've justified reasons for posting what you have, but that doesn't mean you've posted a lot of content. Even if we assume the question in #51 is important (i.e. ignore the fact that Sotty basically answered it herself), and that your post #139 is completely relevant... you still hadn't contributed much up until that point. Also, the whole game you still haven't expressed suspicion about anybody

except

your bandwagon target (and me *after* I started attacking you).

He then makes a really strange reply where he talks about us not finding strong reasons on day 1. Just read it, and you'll see that it doesn't add up.

Stewie doesn't even try to deny this.

Also he makes a point I don't understand about my evidence "not getting people lynched at a later stage of the game". Please explain?

If this was day three, none of this evidence would get anyone lynched. It's enough for

today

. Also, you call them full reasons, not me (post 201).

It sounds like we have vastly different playstyles, which scares me, because I could be seeing a lot of things as scummy which I shouldn't because of this (see me vs Raj in Newbie 188... oops turned out we were the two power roles ) For this reason, I'll summarise my points against you that seem more universal in my next post.

Next, he says that saying you aren't suspicious isn't a scum tell. Even though I believe it is, I'm pretty sure it definitely is when you later claim you've seen discrepancies in people's posting, and were on the town's biggest bandwagon.

Oops, Stewie fails to defend against this part too... I think it's rather significant.

If

you

change the meaning of my posts to make it seem incriminating, I have to show people how the wording of my posts is in such a way in which it does not contradict each other. Next time, you can read carefully instead of conviniently, and I won't need to use semantics because there won't be an accusation to begin with.

Well, you said the town needs a half-assed reason to vote, then called someone out for having a shit reason to vote. That seems strange, but perhaps the difference between "half-assed" and "shit" is significant to you. I certainly don't think it's significant enough to use a s a reason for lynching somebody though.

Not to mention you deciding a reasoning for vote is "shit" also counts as over-analysis in your books, as you've been so keen to shoot down any other time the town identifies craplogic as "full-assed reasons and not evidence".

As for the expectations bit, my point was that when a player is called on lurking, he is expected to defend himself. If he does, a vote on him is wrong because he did what he had to do.

Consdering the number of times I've had to repeat myself, it seems strange you bring it up again - snowmonkey didn't vote Ranger because he defended his supposed lurking. snowmonkey himself has said this.

"these points are so much crap that I shouldn't have to deny them. I will anyways. How easy it is to lynch someone is not a factor, but how scummy they are. I find snowmonkey scummy, therefore I vote for him. The fact that four other people agree should not be used against me.

You are right that this in itself isn't very good grounds for suspicion. But when somebody joins a bandwagon for reasons you don't think are genuine, on a player who has been weak rather than scumm, you DO get suspicious, like I have done.

Also, me/sotty scum group is a baseless statement, and a moot point.

We'll see



I'm doing this at my girlfriend's house and she wants me off the computer (hell yeah, I'm whipped) so it was kinda done in a hurry. I'll do up my short-form, non-playstyle points against Stewie at a later time, sorry.

[Stewie]

The two above contradic each other. I can't explain why my posts had content, but I fail to deny your summary which implies that my posts lack content? What are you on?

I found it strange that you were justifying things like random votes, or corrections when you voted the wrong person. This has nothing to do with how much content you have posted.

But let's give you the benefit of the doubt, and include all your extra bits. Sure you've justified reasons for posting what you have, but that doesn't mean you've posted a lot of content. Even if we assume the question in #51 is important (i.e. ignore the fact that Sotty basically answered it herself), and that your post #139 is completely relevant... you still hadn't contributed much up until that point. Also, the whole game you still haven't expressed suspicion about anybody

except

your bandwagon target (and me *after* I started attacking you).

Where are you going with this?

He then makes a really strange reply where he talks about us not finding strong reasons on day 1. Just read it, and you'll see that it doesn't add up.

Stewie doesn't even try to deny this.

I was sure they'd just read it, and see that it does adds up.

Also he makes a point I don't understand about my evidence "not getting people lynched at a later stage of the game". Please explain?

If this was day three, none of this evidence would get anyone lynched. It's enough for

today

. Also, you call them full reasons, not me (post 201).

It sounds like we have vastly different playstyles, which scares me, because I could be seeing a lot of things as scummy which I shouldn't because of this (see me vs Raj in Newbie 188... oops turned out we were the two power roles ) For this reason, I'll summarise my points against you that seem more universal in my next post.

Ok.

Next, he says that saying you aren't suspicious isn't a scum tell. Even though I believe it is, I'm pretty sure it definitely is when you later claim you've seen discrepancies in people's posting, and were on the town's biggest bandwagon.

Oops, Stewie fails to defend against this part too... I think it's rather significant.

Read my post again, I'm pretty sure I addressed this. You even replied to it. If you say something twice, I shouldn't have to answer it twice.

If

you

change the meaning of my posts to make it seem incriminating, I have to show people how the wording of my posts is in such a way in which it does not contradict each other. Next time, you can read carefully instead of conviniently, and I won't need to use semantics because there won't be an accusation to begin with.

Well, you said the town needs a half-assed reason to vote, then called someone out for having a shit reason to vote. That seems strange, but perhaps the difference between "half-assed" and "shit" is significant to you. I certainly don't think it's significant enough to use a s a reason for lynching somebody though.

OK, I'll explain again: A half-assed reason is a reason that is half-good, half bad. A shit reason is completly bad. Therefore, a half-bad reason is good (day one) and a shit reason is not.

Not to mention you deciding a reasoning for vote is "shit" also counts as over-analysis in your books, as you've been so keen to shoot down any other time the town identifies craplogic as "full-assed reasons and not evidence".

Uh... Explain?

As for the expectations bit, my point was that when a player is called on lurking, he is expected to defend himself. If he does, a vote on him is wrong because he did what he had to do.

Consdering the number of times I've had to repeat myself, it seems strange you bring it up again - snowmonkey didn't vote Ranger because he defended his supposed lurking. snowmonkey himself has said this.

You might as well link to this post snowmonkey made, because I sure can't find it.

"these points are so much crap that I shouldn't have to deny them. I will anyways. How easy it is to lynch someone is not a factor, but how scummy they are. I find snowmonkey scummy, therefore I vote for him. The fact that four other people agree should not be used against me.

You are right that this in itself isn't very good grounds for suspicion. But when somebody joins a bandwagon for reasons you don't think are genuine, on a player who has been weak rather than scumm, you DO get suspicious, like I have done.[/quote]

So you are also suspicious of all the other people voting for snowmonkey?

Also, me/sotty scum group is a baseless statement, and a moot point.

We'll see

Indeed we will.

I'm doing this at my girlfriend's house and she wants me off the computer (hell yeah, I'm whipped) so it was kinda done in a hurry. I'll do up my short-form, non-playstyle points against Stewie at a later time, sorry.

That's good. (Just replying to this bit so you don't say I didn't deny it )

[RangeroftheNorth]

There are way too many way too long posts here. Basically, this game is coming down to two people constantly arguing because none of the other people have the time to read all of the posts and still post.

I see what turbo is looking at about stewie, but I don't think it is all that suspicious. that's about all I have to say about that argument. Unfortunately, that argument seems to have been just about all that has gone on recently.

[Don Gaetano]

God, I hate people who play like Snowmonkey!!!

you mock that which you do not understand.

as for a full role, there is nothing else I can tell you about it.

First let me say that it's impossible to understand you, period. Atleast the way you've played in this game. You never give a clear answer to anything, but have it your way. Unless you say otherwise, I'm going to assume that your claim is that you're math, pro-town and have no abilities what so ever. If that claim is proven wrong later on in the game, I'll invoke "lynch a liar" like always. and for god's sake answer my whole post, and not just the pointless first line. Expecially the question: Why did you start hinting at your role long before you had to?

-----

I cannot understand that Turbo has gotten himself involved in yet another stupid argument. Why start this argument now, before we've resolved anything with snowmonkey? We can restart the Turbo/Stewie argument later if you want to, but for now my focus remains on snowmonkey.