NY Mafia 155 - New Age Mafia II - Game Over!

[nhammen]

Wagon wagon!
VOTE: Tierce

Flameaxe why didn't you put a second vote on a wagon?
Simenon same question, especially since you stated that you want to have a wagon.

[nhammen]

It's a trap!

What makes you feel that there is a trap?

Vote: nhammen

Why does the sun shine? Why is the Earth round? What is the meaning of existence?

It appears that you are trying to create some sort of analogy between my questions to Flameaxe and Simenon, but I'm not sure in what way you view these questions as analogous. Could you explain?

Also, I'd like to note that the fact that you vote me soon after seeing Quilford's trap statement makes me suspicious that you are just joining in on accusations that you don't understand.

Because I want a wagon on AGar.

Fair enough. Any particular reason?

Why do you care on page 2?

Do you realize that this appears very much like trying to stifle discussion, right? This is very odd, especially after your comment that the game has a slow start.
UNVOTE: VOTE: umoms

So I've been trying to understand this:

Flameaxe why didn't you put a second vote on a wagon?

But I still don't and I think it's weird. Why didn't you ask Quilford the same thing when he voted Tierce instead of JDodge? Flameaxe's vote was only the third in the game.

Only one player had actually created a wagon yet, and creating a wagon is one of the best ways to generate discussion. Now I know that I was only the 6th vote in the game, so this was quite reasonable, especially in a game this size. But I decided to ask questions anyways, because questions help too. Obviously the first vote has no way of creating a wagon, and so I can't ask her. And I think that I've usually seen the second vote tend to be on a different player from the first (note I don't have stats to back this up, and it may just be my memory), so any response would probably be of the form "it was only the second vote". So it wouldn't give much information to ask him. Thus I only asked people after the second vote.

[nhammen]

In the event that umoms does not get quicklynched (or that he gets quicklynched as town), I fully support killing nhammen. The whole "let me find a different-bad-bullshit reason to pile onto the wagon" thing is easily the scummiest vote on here.

I didn't think my reasons were bad-bullshit. In fact, I am absolutely positive that my reasons for voting umoms were definitely better than my reason for voting Tierce.

http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.ph ... 1#p4193041 <-- nhammen's vote. Acuses me of trying to stifle discussion, though I don't recall telling anyone to STFU yet.

I was referring to you saying "Why do you care on page 2?" This question seemed to imply that Quilford, or Staeg, or whoever you were responding to shouldn't care about things on page 2. However, no information can be created until people do care about the game.

(Channeling Glork-scum? You betcha.)

How can you think that there is any pro-town benefit to knowingly channeling a player's scum meta?

In what universe is the third vote always, or usually, a wagon vote? Flameaxe's vote was obviously a random vote. Have you literally never seen random voting?
It looks like a bullshit way of trying to subtly casting aspersion and I still don't like it.

Unvote
Vote nhammen

I didn't say that third vote is always or usually a wagon vote. But there is a better expectation for it to be one than for a second vote. I have seen random voting before, and you can check my wiki if you want to see previous games. But, I believe that random voting and asking questions was strictly better than just random voting alone, so I asked the questions that were available for me to ask. In any case, there was no casting of aspersion, subtly or not.

What exactly would you like umoms to address, Rhinox? It's a page 3 lol quicklynch in a large, it's not like there's a case against him, unless you're willing to make one for him to address.

Ummm... he was one of two (or three if you include yourself) people that actually did make a case rather than wagoning for the sake of wagoning. So... yeah. And umoms has addressed those cases, and you in #99 replied to this by stating that you had a reason for your vote. So I'm not getting this at all. Please explain.

[nhammen]

And my reason for my umoms vote was because I like page 3 quicklynches.

That was the only reason for your umoms vote?

[nhammen]

yeah p much, also 44.

You do realize post 44 was one of my reasons for voting him as well. Except you say that my accusations "looked really contrived." The only difference is that I explained what I didn't like about it. But you also said part of the reason for your vote is because I'm "being overly verbose and analytical", so that is consistent. Question: Why do you believe being verbose and analytical is scummy?


JDodge and UT in #150 to #152 are interesting. JDodge calls UT out for lurking and only coming when called, and UT comes when called for the second time. This indicates that UT is definitely reading the thread and not posting. This is somewhat scummy behavior.

Let's double this one back on you: do you think channeling another player's scum meta is scummy? If so, why?

It is both bad play and scummy.
It is bad play because if you are channeling someone's scum meta, then by definition you look like scum. This is the exact opposite of what any alignment wants. It also makes it very difficult to determine your alignment, which could be considered bad play for town, and scum would absolutely love it.
It is scummy because it allows a player to say that their behavior wasn't scummy, they were just channeling this other meta. In short, it gives scum a free out for bad behavior.

This is also bothersome, because saying it 'appears like' stifling discussion suggests that nhammen knows that is not actually umoms' intent. But nhammen has been so consistent in sounding contrived at all times that I suspect it could be a personality tell more than a scumtell. Could do some meta reading to get a better idea if this is true or not, but let's be honest, I probably can't be bothered.

What I meant by 'appears like', is that it looked that way, but I wasn't sure. I actually went back and forth in my head about that vote before deciding that whatever else, it was still a better reason for my vote than 'wagon wagon' was.

My reason in post 99 was because I like day 1 quicklynches, iaun.

Then why does your post #149 say that umoms post #44 was also a reason? In addition iamausername's case brings up an inconsistency that has been confusing me, and explains it well.
UNVOTE: umoms
VOTE: redFF

Not quoting this big post. I just have one thing to say about it. You offer up a lot of critisisms of Rhinox's play here, but do not explain even once why this play is scummy play rather than bad play. Isn't this the exact problem you had with Rhinox's umoms vote? Why is it bad for him, but OK for you?

My thought would be start with Nhammen since he has the strongest wagon, popcorn from there.

I agree, although I wouldn't have much say in the matter anyways... As for the idea of a D1 massclaim itself, I can see how it could help greatly, although I am a little uneasy about it because I've never been in a game where it's been done. The reason we usually don't massclaim is because it would give the scums a roadmap for who to kill, right? Then in low power games, scum can take out PRs easy, and turn this into mountainous. In high power games, it allows town to easily catch scum and break the game open. Is this all correct so far? If so, then massclaim is a bit of a gamble on how much power the town has, right?

[nhammen]

I think Flameaxe had a good point about waiting, but since we've started already, I claim VT.
And you were who I was going to popcorn to if I went first, so... popcorn to Tierce I guess.

[nhammen]

This is scummy.

Would you mind letting me know what makes you feel this way?

I suppose. My initial reaction to the claim was that it was town, but it's faded. I'd feel like a bit of an ass jumping back onto Rhinox though, so I'll wait.

I agree with AGar that its bad. Except, why would scum say this either? Seems more playstyle than scummy.

[nhammen]

JDodge does have a point singer. Did you notice anything during your reread that you would like to comment on?

[nhammen]

Not while a mass claim is going on please and thank you.

UNVOTE: redFF
VOTE: singersigner
How about now?

Also singer is prob town.

Mind explaining why you feel this way?

[nhammen]

also would like to point out redff starting the massclaim while we were still discussing it and then suggesting we stop it - that's putting up all sorts of red flags for me

I also noticed this. But with my previous view of him, combined with the fact that I cannot find a scumplay in which this is intentional, this may just be confirmation bias on my part. His play before this has been legitimately scummy regardless of this though, so it doesn't change my read on him.

red kinda-townread

Can you explain this one? He is currently one of my three big scumreads, along with singer and Tierce.

(I'm mostly ambivalent here, feels like a prepared position from singer and don't see enough in UT).

May I ask what you mean by prepared position?

#388 looks all sorts of "Oh, me too!" after Tierce threw her little fit. Here's a hint, while what Quag does is fucking retarded? It's extremely on a town-side of things, because everything he does on D1 is in fact from a practically confirmed-town mindset. The reason it's so retarded is because of how hard he can fuck his scumbuddies in the process either by running up a wagon on one of their power roles or generally forcing himself into an unplayable proposition on Day 2 when he now has to emulate that behavior and genuineness. Quilford's reactions seems like someone who feels slighted by the inherent pro-townness of it.

Ummm... so, you only gave examples of how Quag's play is a problem for scum if Quag is scum. I will have to keep this in mind if Quag flips scum. Also, yes, scum base their play on what makes them feel slighted rather than what makes them likely to win.

Last couple of pages thus far...
JD seems a little try-hardy but I've never played with him before so.
Primate's town.
Glork...do you feel that "short-sighted"=scum? Or are you basically calling everyone who thinks you're scummy for a bad idea dumb? For the record, I wouldn't consider that a gambit if you had legitimate reasons for doing so, and you actually got half (more than half?) the players on board. What do you think of Tierce emulating your scum-play if you consider it "too reserved"?

Yay! A few reads from this slot! Now, what about scumreads?

Tierce's fit felt legitimate - I feel like she actually was pissed off that Quag didn't read his role PM without thinking it through, whereas Quilford was just upset because scum were distinctively at a disadvantage in that situation. I've got other problems with Tierce's game so far, but I feel like her fit was alignment independent.

Your fit was solely an attempt to force something.

Meh, I'm not sure scum would have tried to force something after two other players had already expended effort in that direction. Also would like to reiterate that you only gave examples of it disadvantaging scum if Quag is scum. Do you believe Quag is scum? If not, why would Quil feel the need to make this play?

[nhammen]

I'm kinda surprised. I could swear I have been endgamed as VT before, so there should be actual VT examples here. I'm going to have to go over games I've been in to see if this actually matches. If it does, the only thing I can think of is that both of the other two were power roles.

Dinner now; will look over my games after that.

[nhammen]

oh shit let's see if nhammen can come back with a town game or scum game where he doesn't do what iaun's post says and if not we should lynch him on the spot.

Those two claims as scum are my entire history of claims as scum. I have only been scum 3 times on site, and the first one the SK killed me N1, so I never claimed. So to find something, it has to be a town claim.



I found one that IaaUN missed in the search:

How about a haiku?

A cop claim's value
reveals itself to the town
when RC is scum

vote: RedCoyote

Note: I said claim here. Although, this one is kinda weird because I claimed in a weird style because...
...I was trying to get nommed for funniest role claim [/embarrassed]
(incidentally this is a good reason that that award shouldn't exist)
(also structuring my claim for the purpose of winning an award is bad and I feel bad)


I also read through my wiki to find some of my games in which I had to claim, and after taking a long trip through my memories of this site, I have 3 more examples:

vanilllllllla.


who's left? nhammen? is that it?

he's the mason I assume.

Correct. Konowa breadcrumbed it in a response to farside (I know this because he mentioned in QT before I replaced him).

I am Tubby, and I'm a VT, to prevent Tubby's criticisms from having an impact. There's also something about modkilling me if I go to far, but it's only flavor and has no impact on the game.

Since it has now come out, yes I am Mafuyu's mason partner.

Now, these last two do match with the pattern that iamausername observed, in that I said I am "blah". So that makes a total of 4 claims as town with that format, and 1 in which I state claim. But, if you don't accept the haiku claim because of the weird style, I can still say that only one of these town claims is not a power role. (Have I really only had to claim VT once before this? It seems that when I am VT I always get nightkilled before I have to claim, which is good.) Thus the sample size of VT claims is apparently too small to draw any correct conclusions from. Either way, this is a bad argument.

[nhammen]

I can't see how someone can see redFF's latest posts and miss the opportunistic bullshit right there.

I agree. I showed that the logic behind this was wrong, and he decided to jump on anyways without refuting my arguments. Singer did the same thing. So, two of the people that I think are scum decided to act exactly how scum would act. How interesting.

This is true, the accusation itself is kinda crap, but nhammen justifies the accusation by trying to counter it, when he could have just said this:

Either way, this is a bad argument.

and been done with it.

So, what you are saying is if someone accuses me of something, I shouldn't respond to it and should just say lolno instead? I do not agree with this at all. If I see a logical argument which I know is false, I will use logic to show everyone that it is false.

I think nhammen has been scummy this game, and I definitely agree with Rhinox that his reaction to this has been tragically desperate, but unless I can get a list of the games nhammen has been in and for which this pattern holds true, this case is dumb.

Both username and myself provided links to the posts in question in the quote format. This shows where it holds true and where it does not.

In any case, why do you automatically assume it's an uncritical acceptance of iam's case as opposed to a critical unacceptance of nhammen's reaction? That's pretty clearly neither my thought process nor my reason for voting nhammen.

There wasn't anything critical about your post. You never mentioned me or the case on me in that post.

Vote: nhammen

Reasons? Do you agree with the case? If so, why didn't you vote me earlier?

That's an interesting thing to do a study on.

What do you mean by interesting? Is there a reason you brought this up?

[nhammen]

Did you realize that you replaced the person that did that study?

[nhammen]

@nhammen...I never mentioned the case, you're right. What I DID do was react to your reaction to it. I didn't clearly define what I found scummy about it, no, but your reaction to my reaction only makes me feel better about my vote. You're either jumping to conclusions about why I voted, or intentionally putting incorrect motivations behind it, neither are town-motivated.

Your reaction was precisely "The fuck...", a vote on me, and then lining up of lynches. That doesn't look to me like town behavior and it does look opportunistic. At least you admit that you didn't clearly define what you found scummy. So, would you care to rectify that now? Because as it is, the way you jumped on my wagon looks extremely scummy.

So, what you are saying is if someone accuses me of something, I shouldn't respond to it and should just say lolno instead? I do not agree with this at all. If I see a logical argument which I know is false, I will use logic to show everyone that it is false.

You didn't use logic to prove iama wrong. You used logic that ended up just showing that iama was being logical, and then just tacked on your "lolno" at the end regardless.

You seriously don't see how my argument disproved his argument? Care to read it again and explain why?

[nhammen]

No I don't. I see you list some examples that support iama's case actually and a skethcy haiku claim that doesn't really count. Then at the end of your post you say the sample size is too small and either way its a bad argument. Nothing you posted actually refutes iama's evidence at all. So why bother trying to find evidence to prove iama is wrong if your fallback is that its a crap point?

Evidence is better than no evidence. It lets everyone have as much information as possible so that they can make informed decisions. If my case is strictly more than calling it a "crap point" and that would have been good enough, I don't see why you can say that this is a bad reaction.

She's pushing vague, simple cases on people who have received little to no attention...and this is coming from someone who supposedly reads a lot of games and has to have studied up on good case practices. Both Rhinox and redFF had virtually flown under the radar at that point...a QuagScum meta, mind you, is to push cases on those under the radar D1 so in the future I can be seen as scumhunting and still avoid the potential spotlights that come with simple bandwagon lynches on protown players (which Tierce has done today also, while defending it with GlorkScum meta)*. Thus, I view this behavior as a scumtell. In addition, other than these few light and fluffy posts, she's been posting contentless one-liners** while still maintaining the illusion of being active.

I agree about her behavior concerning Rhinox, and add to it that she is doing pretty much the same thing she accuses Rhinox of. I disagree with the statement about Red, both because I find him to be scummy, and because I do not feel that he had flown under the radar prior to this. However, I haven't taken a close look at his playerslot for quite some time, so this could be confirmation bias from my earlier read on him. I actually gave Tierce a few townpoints in my mind because of her points on Red, but if my judgement of Red is flavored with confirmation bias I may have to rethink that as well.

@nhammen: I mean it feels like an opinion that predates this game and isn't tied very strongly with alignment.

I remember when I asked that question, I was reading it as this, but thinking that there is no way refusal to comment on the game can be alignment independent, so I must be reading it wrong, but looking back I can understand your viewpoint (although I don't agree), so I don't know what I wasn't seeing.

He's not even confident in his own reasons for why he claims the way he does, which looks like he's just

looking

for something we might believe.

What makes you feel I'm not confident? If it is the alternate case for people that don't accept the weird claim, I decided that anticipating an argument and giving a counter ahead of time is much more efficient than waiting for the whole inevitable back and forth. Like I'm doing here.

The fact that Nhammen jumped all the way back to something said before at least four of my posts since then shows that he's reaching for anything at this point. Again, with the continued bad reactions thing I explained earlier in this post.

Wait what? What is this you are accusing me of now? Can you show me where I did this? If you are going to make a case, at least give evidence thank you.

Given that this is how you feel about the claims (

and your reaction to my partial claim

), how do you feel about singer softclaiming a PR that "we probably don't want her to claim".

I missed that the first time I read #529. Thank you for bringing it to attention. I can say I don't like it.

[nhammen]

I agree with most of the reads in this wallpost, but I have to strongly disagree with your reads on me (obv), IAUN/Psych, AGar and red. I find the colorful phrases you use to describe my play very amusing, but completely wrong and pointless. In fact, if you take away the fluff, you are left with three sentences, one of which describes my RVS vote. What the heck JD? On IAUN, I don't see him making that case on me as scum. Scum do not go to that much effort to meta someone, even if he did miss the contraindicative (is that a word?) evidence in his search. At this point, Psych is my strongest townread in this game. I do not agree that AGar looks townish, and would definitely not go so far as to say "heavily pro-town" as you do. I have a null read on him and barely remember any of his content. And you say that red is now hyperlurking, but you don't put two and two together to notice that this began after the pressure on him dropped. He's prob scum.

You have townreads on two of my scumreads (Tierce and red). I don't see their actions as town behavior at all. I completely agree about username though. I also agree that we should lynch from the VT claim pool, although we need to add the people that haven't claimed to that as well. Singer in particular seems like obvscum to me (as you can tell from the fact that my vote has remained in place for quite some time).

@Tierce: I dislike how singer entered the game. She went on for a week hiding behind a massclaim as a reason to hold off information (seriously, who the fuck decided no content during massclaims should be a thing?). When the massclaim wrapped up, she not only avoiding taking part, but continued to avoid content, at one point saying it was just the way she plays. Generally a turn off set of events for me.

I'd be okay with moving my vote for a bit. This is the result of me sleeping on it, for the record. I'll move my vote to one of Singer/Nhammen if this doesn't go off the ground. But, lets be honest: It should.

Unvote, Vote: Staeg

First paragraph is thumbsupgood. After this... no! Bad! Staeg should not be under consideration for today. He is a claimed role, and although his posts have been light on content, I do not agree with Tierce's attack at all. Singer is the lynch of the day people. UT was quite scummy for his lurking and showing up the instant anyone commented on him, and singer hasn't done any better with her refusal to actually comment on most anything. When she finally decided to vote, it was a vote on bv without any explanation whatsoever, and her next vote was an opportunistic hop onto my wagon. And I don't think she ever did describe her reasons for the bv vote. singer, any thoughts?

[nhammen]

Oh, I realized you were probably truthful. Its too weird of a claim to be fake. But, my meaning was that if we targeted you, then your BP would cause us to waste a kill rather than the worse effect of using a kill on a teammate. Your claim made even that possibility disappear.