NY 174: Oldy Mafia 2 (Game Over)

[Save The Dragons]

Yeah, sure all of that behavior might be expected during Day 1, but it's the way that the behavior is implemented that I think is actually really telling. It's when scum is least prepared to put on whatever face they will. It's when you get to see the basis of the playstyle that they'll carry over. Did you not see this in my post? Do you disagree with my analysis?

I pretty much believe the exact opposite of everything you think about the glork wagon.

[MafiaSSK]

Yeah, sure all of that behavior might be expected during Day 1, but it's the way that the behavior is implemented that I think is actually really telling. It's when scum is least prepared to put on whatever face they will. It's when you get to see the basis of the playstyle that they'll carry over. Did you not see this in my post? Do you disagree with my analysis?

I pretty much believe the exact opposite of everything you think about the glork wagon.

Fair. Good to know.

[Glork]

I officially condemn the SSK wagon for all eternity until I say otherwise.

[Patrick]

Votecount

LoudmouthLee (3) -- DrippingGoofball, VitaminR, Albert B. Rampage
Tigris (1) -- MrBuddyLee
MafiaSSK (5) -- Tigris, petroleumjelly, Seol, Porochaz, CrashTextDummie
Seol (6) -- Sotty7, Shanba, Cogito Ergo Sum, chamber, Save the Dragons, Glork
chamber (1) -- farside22
VitaminR (1) -- Yosarian2
Save the Dragons (1) -- LoudmouthLee
Cogito Ergo Sum (1) -- MafiaSSK

Not voting: Green Crayons, Untrod Tripod, undo
22 alive, 12 to lynch.

[Green Crayons]

@Tigris:

Back in Post 47, why did you feel the need to state that your style could be unorthodox as a response to CTD's query about what you wanted to learn from your not-main-bandwagon vote on MafiaSSK? It seems to be a strange non sequitur in light of what CTD was asking.

-----

@LoudmouthLee:

Back in Post 62 you FOSed MafiaSSK while maintaining your vote on Tigris. You defended your FOS suspicion of MafiaSSK in Post 70. But I didn't catch where you actually explained why you were suspicious of MafiaSSK (so much so, that you would have voted MafiaSSK if not for Tigris's invocation of the third-on-the-bandwagon tell).

Why were you suspicious of MafiaSSK, and does that suspicion still linger?

-----

@PJ:

Any particular reason why you picked the two players that you did in your Question 3 of Post 107?

-----

@CTD:

I wish I could find that smiley, but I agree with Yos2. This just makes sense.

And I think it makes more sense than Tigrisscum at the moment so..

Even after admitting that he should have kept it on the "joke" level, he

still

tries to legitimize his Tigris vote.

unvote, vote: MafiaSSK

I don't see where MafiaSSK disowned the legitimacy of his Tigris joke, and I think you're misapplying something MafiaSSK said about his choice to respond to Tigris's question with a theory position rather than his choice to vote Tigris. (Incidentally, it looks like PJ also conflated these two separate things in Post 160.)

Please respond. Best, GC.

-----

@STD:

UNVOTE: MafiaSSK

I don't want my vote there anymore.

Why not and where do you want it?

Why not? Because my original reason for voting MafiaSSK has run its course, I'm not terribly convinced that he's a worthwhile target to keep voting, and I don't feel compelled to have my vote

somewhere

just so that it's not anywhere.

Where do I want it? (Going to take the high road on that one. ) I wasn't sure at the time because I didn't want to do

thinking

, man. So I went a reread the entire thread with my thinking cap on.

-----

VOTE: VitaminR, because:
- Yosarian's Post 108.
- Vitamin's response to Yosarian in Post 167, which explains how Vitamin acts when scum, reads as if Vitamin is outright explaining why he acted the way he did in this game. That is: (1) Vitamin-scum is "overly concerned with 'leaving a paper trail,'" (2) "One of the ways of <leaving a paper trail> can be to leave a FOS or to call out a specific post, so you can refer back to it later when you actually switch your vote," and (3) in Post 65, Vitamin left a paper trail for developing suspicions of all of the MafiaSSK voters, while targeting one in particular (LML).
- Although I recognize Sotty reacted in a similar way as Vitamin (Post 58), her particular word usage is more than a difference in degree: it looks like Sotty is saying that she finds the reasons for voting MafiaSSK were bad, whereas Vitamin is saying that he finds the voters voting MafiaSSK were bad/scummy.


I wasn't voting VitaminR, I would probably vote seol (I find his Post 162 not sitting well with me), MrBuddyLee (one post all game), and maybe even LoudmouthLee (for reasons I'm letting simmer).

And, really for my own future reference than anything else, I find UT, Sotty, Glork, and STD likely town based on these first 8 pages.

[Green Crayons]

@CTD:

I wish I could find that smiley, but I agree with Yos2. This just makes sense.

And I think it makes more sense than Tigrisscum at the moment so..

Even after admitting that he should have kept it on the "joke" level, he

still

tries to legitimize his Tigris vote.

unvote, vote: MafiaSSK

I don't see where MafiaSSK disowned the legitimacy of his Tigris

joke

<GC Edit: "vote">

, and I think you're misapplying something MafiaSSK said about his choice to respond to Tigris's question with a theory position rather than his choice to vote Tigris. (Incidentally, it looks like PJ also conflated these two separate things in Post 160.)

Please respond. Best, GC.

Beep boop. Embarrassing. Fixed.

[chamber]

Back in Post 47, why did you feel the need to state that your style could be unorthodox as a response to CTD's query about what you wanted to learn from your not-main-bandwagon vote on MafiaSSK? It seems to be a strange non sequitur in light of what CTD was asking.

... really?

[Green Crayons]

Yes.

[Save The Dragons]

- Vitamin's response to Yosarian in Post 167, which explains how Vitamin acts when scum, reads as if Vitamin is outright explaining why he acted the way he did in this game. That is: (1) Vitamin-scum is "overly concerned with 'leaving a paper trail,'" (2) "One of the ways of <leaving a paper trail> can be to leave a FOS or to call out a specific post, so you can refer back to it later when you actually switch your vote," and (3) in Post 65, Vitamin left a paper trail for developing suspicions of all of the MafiaSSK voters, while targeting one in particular (LML).
- Although I recognize Sotty reacted in a similar way as Vitamin (Post 58), her particular word usage is more than a difference in degree: it looks like Sotty is saying that she finds the reasons for voting MafiaSSK were bad, whereas Vitamin is saying that he finds the voters voting MafiaSSK were bad/scummy.

How would you compare this to how I have categorized the voters on MafiaSSK's wagon?

[Green Crayons]

- Vitamin found MafiaSSK voters suspicious because "Feels like a bunch of strong players going for an easy target."
- STD found MafiaSSK voters suspicious because one of the later wagon joiners (plus LML) is "highly likely to be opportunistic mafia."

The only point of comparison is that you two are referring to the same group of players.

Do you think his rationale is comparable to yours?

[Patrick]

Natirasha replaces farside22.

[Natirasha]

And now ssk and I can vie for least qualified replacement.

[VitaminR]

That's pretty silly reasoning, GC. Even setting aside the stupidity of the idea that I would describe a scum tell that I committed in pointing out the scum tell (requiring me to be self-aware enough to know that I do this generally, but not self-aware enough to recognize it

while specifically talking about it

), practically anything can be described as 'leaving a paper trail'. My whole point was that the wagons were particularly weak and that LML is not the type of player to just go with the crowd.

[Save The Dragons]

VitaminR:
"Feels like a bunch of strong players

going for an easy target

."

STD:
"highly likely to be

opportunistic

mafia."

The bold is equivalent, the only difference (just from the quoted texts) that is immediately visible to me is I said "mafia" where he said "strong players". I suspect that mafia was implied.

If there is some suspicion with the way he chooses to use the phrase "strong players" then that would be the difference I see. But I'm not exactly sure what's ticking people off about that.

tbh I'm more curious about the list because I want to know what PJ hopes to accomplish with it.

Do you think his rationale is comparable to yours?

Other than that (and to be perfectly fair, VitaminR's discussion on LML's meta that I cannot vouch for nor particularly care about) ...yes?

[Green Crayons]

@VitaminR:

I never said that you lacked self-awareness when specifically describing your scum play. Nor do I think you lack self-awareness generally, or when you made that comment.

Also, your point about LML -- while well taken -- does not really address my suspicion of you.

-----

@STD:

A main thrust of Vitamin's suspicions is, apparently, there was a "power disparity" (Post 167) between those who were voting MafiaSSK and MafiaSSK himself. That colors what Vitamin meant by MafiaSSK being an "easy target." That is, MafiaSSK was an easy target because was not "perceived as being strong at theory discussion."

In contrast, I had previously understood your term "opportunistic" to simply refer to the more general scum strategy of finding a building bandwagon and jumping on at the right time to help propagate that bandwagon without seeming suspicious in doing so.

However, if you are now clarifying that Vitamin's stated suspicion is what you meant by "opportunistic" -- that a scum was jumping on the MafiaSSK bandwagon

because of this "power disparity"

-- that is an entirely new position from what you have previously stated. And, if you are in fact adopting that position, then I would say that, yes, there is much overlap in y'all's two suspicions of the late MafiaSSK players.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

GC doesn't really feel like he's trying to grok VitaminR's play or what's going on.

In other news, I'm going to Paris tomorrow and I shan't be back until Seol has been lynched (or next Saturday, one of the two). My hotel'll have wifi access, so it shouldn't be too bad V/LAwise.

[chamber]

This VitR stuff is getting dragged out way too long. I hate when people snipe my questions to other players, so make a conscious effort not to do so myself, but I agreed with VitRs stated thoughts that you are getting so bent over (at least in the general, it lead me to Seol instead of LML) and I suspected many others did too, including most of those with me on Seol.

[Save The Dragons]

Ah. I see the difference now.

[MafiaSSK]

That's pretty silly reasoning, GC. Even setting aside the stupidity of the idea that I would describe a scum tell that I committed in pointing out the scum tell (requiring me to be self-aware enough to know that I do this generally, but not self-aware enough to recognize it

while specifically talking about it

), practically anything can be described as 'leaving a paper trail'. My whole point was that the wagons were particularly weak and that LML is not the type of player to just go with the crowd.

I think in addition to what GC covered about you, your defense here isn't that great of a defense. In fact, you're basically saying that you were lying to begin with and now that you've been caught it doesn't matter at all. Because what I think you're using to your advantage is the definition of a scumtell. Let's clarify that for you. Taken from the first sentence of the wiki entry, Scumtell:

A scumtell, strictly speaking, is an action that reveals a player to be scum.

It is entirely easy to think that an action would have to be purposeful, but most people wouldn't actually purposefully act as scum. Which is what you're saying. So then why would you say a scumtell when "practically anything" can actually be defined as it? Oh yeah. So you can escape it.
Or the tell is completely false and you were just making up shit at the time, because you do it as both town and mafia.

I think this is further evidence against you and I think GC's point holds true against you.

[VitaminR]

I don't understand you at all. I haven't lied about a thing and I haven't made anything up.

[Albert B. Rampage]

VitaminR's defense of the two leading wagons is legit, his suspicion of LML is warranted, and he's on the right track. Yosarian's assertion that the only reason why VitaminR would come to the defense of mafiaSSK and Tigras is because he knows their alignments, is misleading. The fact that Green Crayons references Yosarian's post confounds the issue. I believe in the LML wagon. VitaminR has my support.

[chamber]

VitR, you should come over to Seol.

[chamber]

Who here has/remembers experience with Green Crayons? He's doing this thing where hes active and rereading but only reading things at a superficial level and that just seems contradictory to me.

[MrBuddyLee]

I'm vla for about another 12 hrs in the Utah desert.. Should be able to read and post Sunday afternoon.

[Untrod Tripod]

Who here has/remembers experience with Green Crayons? He's doing this thing where hes active and rereading but only reading things at a superficial level and that just seems contradictory to me.

I just finished a game with him and this is in keeping with what i experienced there