Newbie 1561: Puppies! (Game Over)

[mallowgeno]

I need to catch up, I'm sick so I'll try to post something later today

[toolenduso]

Vote Count 1.11

Epic Warrior (2): copper223, JasonWazza
Hostile Intent (0):
Drixx (1): Cabd
++-- (1): mallowgeno
copper223 (0):
singersigner (1): Drixx
mallowgeno (1): singersigner
JasonWazza (1): Epic Warrior
Cabd (0):

Not voting (2): ++--, Hostile Intent

With 9 alive, it takes 5 to lynch

Deadline: December 24, 7:40 a.m. Pacific Time.

Countdown: (expired on 2014-12-24 07:40:00)

[++--]

I was busy IRL, so I'll catch up on the most recent developments soon. I'll probably react to them later today.

[Hostile Intent]

VOTE: Drixx

I don't like that he tested the waters for a SS lynch, then immediately backed off when copper and I showed the smallest amount of resistance to it.

[Drixx]

VOTE: Drixx

I don't like that he tested the waters for a SS lynch, then immediately backed off when copper and I showed the smallest amount of resistance to it.

Now you're the one who's full of shit. I've kept my vote on SS. Agreeing with Copper that the origin of the WIFOM SS put into the game was the original 'slip' isn't backing off. I even said that I viewed the "explanation" post as worse because it compounded it and drew so much attention. I also don't like that SS played dumb about the whole thing. And my vote is still there.

So if this, by you, is backing off ... then you are full of shit and just looking for a response or trying to protect a scum buddy.

[Drixx]

I must say I disagree with you on one point, Mr. Wazza. It is your job to convince the town that your vote is in the right place. Good town players find scum; great town players convince the town to lynch scum. There's more merit in your opinion than you're giving it. I'm not sure whether this is because its a weak read or whether you actually believe that all you have to do is vote scum and hope that people just fall in line.

Something's just not adding up for me.

UNVOTE: ++--

My job isn't to convince the town to lynch my reads, I can lead them that way by showing how i think someone is scum, that doesn't mean it's a thing i have to do.

I'd rather all the townies do their own reading, because that means we have more people actually trying to find scum, and if we all line up that means we are more likely to be right.

This post reads town to me, as it shows an apathy toward the scum agenda: obtaining mislynches at all costs. It also ensures that he's very conscious of other people agreeing with the same conclusion, not blindly sheeping with no responsibility. It keeps town accountable for their actions/reads.

I disagree with your read on his apathy post being a town read. I dislike the last part of that first statement. "That doesn't mean it's a thing i have to do." ... That sort of apathy towards the idea of building a case and convincing townies doesn't sit right with me.

When you've found scum, you need to convince others, especially because in a majority of cases, there will be a team of scum, and they can work to discredit your observations. (See: Hostile Intent calling me full of shit and making things up to discredit my argument against you.)

[Drixx]

Bleh. I'm used to submit being the right button and preview being the left.

I see a potential scum team in SS and HI, at the moment. SS played dumb about the WIFOM and then HI came in with a sarcastic post suggesting maybe SS really didn't realize there was WIFOM introduced, despite a rather thorough discussion of it, and then went borderline personal attack on me. Now, HI is pushing a case on me because I agreed with Copper that the origin of the WIFOM was the original slip, even if it was the convoluted explanation that caught my attention when I was reading the thread after being subbed in. HI claims I've backed off despite the fact that I've defended my original case that the big explanation post is the thing that makes it feel scummy, which is exactly the opposite of backing off.

Making things up and toeing the line between attack of play and attack of person to try and intimidate a new person, all to defend a third party. If HI had made a pro-town case for SS, I might understand the defense. What I see instead is an offense aimed at putting me on my heels, simultaneously defending someone that HI hasn't given a pro-town read on.

I'd vote for HI, but that would result in an OMGUS accusation, and the blind defense paired with the strong attack reinforce my gut instinct on my read. I'll stick with it.

[Hostile Intent]

Attack of person? Solid misrepresentation you got there. I've not attacked you.

[Drixx]

I can see how that sentence doesn't read very clearly. I'll clarify, but then I'll say no more because personal conflict is not useful nor fun.

Making things up - saying that I backed off when in fact I did just the opposite. I re-asserted my contention that the big post is what caught my attention and felt scummy, while acknowledging that Copper is right that the core WIFOM issue is the earlier "slip". I also evaluated SS's follow up posts and concluded that they didn't make a lot of sense when I read them assuming 100% that SS is town. I don't see what the scum play is, but I can't think of any possible town play that makes sense. It's day 1 and I'm reading someone I've not played with before, so of course I'm going to consider that it could simply be an innocent mistake and nothing more. If we weren't in the dark, we wouldn't have to carefully read and evaluate posts with different assumptions to see how post and reactions fit.

The next thing was "toeing the line between attack of play and attack of person" and all I mean by that is that calling someone "full of shit" is right on the line. That epitaph only has meaning in the context of someone's posts, but it seems to me that it's right at the line, since saying "that case/reasoning/etc... is full of shit" would clearly be talking about the content in question. Saying "You are full of shit" on the other hand is a commentary on the person, and while it makes zero sense unless its talking about said person's arguments, it's still at the line, which was what I said. In any case I read your aggressive posts as particularly effective ways to get a response, and I hope you got what you wanted from mine.

So I don't think I misrepresented you at all. You made something up out of whole cloth (the idea that I changed my tune or dropped my case against SS), you aggressively attacked my play in a statement that was aimed at me (toeing that line between play and person), and you did so to defend a 3rd party, whom I still haven't seen you make a case for. You seem quite sure that SS is town, but I don't see anything from you to indicate why. Thus what I said in 281 ... kind of looks like a scum move. Could be defending a partner or going hard on the offensive to defend someone you know for sure is town because you know who isn't.

In fact, now I have to wonder. If I read you as scum, the latter play seems much more likely than closely tying yourself to a scum partner. You remind me of someone I know ... your aggressive play pushing people to respond puts you in a position to throw OMGUS accusations if someone votes you, and leaves little to evaluate independent of the people you're interacting with. A read on you depends on other reads.

[Hostile Intent]

You're saying that you didn't back off.. then you agree that, after copper pointed something out, you agreed that it could've been a mistake on your part. Which is backing off, right? Sure, you didn't unvote, but you absolutely haven't even attempted to find anything else scummy about SS, nor have you continued scum-hunting her or anyone else for that matter (until I started defending "my partner," of course). Is there anything else scummy about SS?

If you don't see the town play in something, but you also don't see the scum play... doesn't that make it null? Which is essentially what you're lambasting your SS "case" with. A null play. But here's the awesome topper: because I not only disagree with your opinion but find you scummy because of it, that makes me scum.

That's rich.

[singersigner]

I think it really boils down to this: you either believe me, or you don't. You either trust that I'm a pretty transparent player and honest about my play, or you don't. THAT is where I can see the wifom but it sure as fuck isn't because I made it that way. YOU have been the one harping on about how it could either be scheming scum or oblivious town. Like, the only way you could blame me for it being wifom is if you think I did it on purpose, which you are doing. I really don't know what else to tell you.

[singersigner]

It just seems weird that you automatically jump to "scum buddies" when someone disagrees with that assessment.

[singersigner]

I must say I disagree with you on one point, Mr. Wazza. It is your job to convince the town that your vote is in the right place. Good town players find scum; great town players convince the town to lynch scum. There's more merit in your opinion than you're giving it. I'm not sure whether this is because its a weak read or whether you actually believe that all you have to do is vote scum and hope that people just fall in line.

Something's just not adding up for me.

UNVOTE: ++--

My job isn't to convince the town to lynch my reads, I can lead them that way by showing how i think someone is scum, that doesn't mean it's a thing i have to do.

I'd rather all the townies do their own reading, because that means we have more people actually trying to find scum, and if we all line up that means we are more likely to be right.

This post reads town to me, as it shows an apathy toward the scum agenda: obtaining mislynches at all costs. It also ensures that he's very conscious of other people agreeing with the same conclusion, not blindly sheeping with no responsibility. It keeps town accountable for their actions/reads.

I disagree with your read on his apathy post being a town read. I dislike the last part of that first statement. "That doesn't mean it's a thing i have to do." ... That sort of apathy towards the idea of building a case and convincing townies doesn't sit right with me.

When you've found scum, you need to convince others,

especially because in a majority of cases, there will be a team of scum, and they can work to discredit your observations. (See: Hostile Intent calling me full of shit and making things up to discredit my argument against you.)

That's one way of doing it, sure. You seem to disagree with the approach more than anything. What exactly doesn't "sit right"?

[copper223]

VOTE: Drixx
I agree with you two, Singer and HI, I also think that EW defence from Drixx where he called Jason scummy for going on him makes EW a likely partner.

L-2

[Hostile Intent]

Why didn't you vote Drixx before I did?

[Drixx]

I feel like I've wandered into the Twilight Zone. Is this how mafia is played on this site? People just make assertions that aren't true and everyone blithely accepts them? I said Copper's post was well reasoned and acknowledged that the introduction of confusion was with the original slip. Complimenting someone's reasoning isn't backing off from what I've said, nor is it an "admission of mistake", as HI put it. I went on, after complimenting Copper, to point out that the post that drew my attention was the lengthy explanation of the original slip post with the strange contradictory ending statement about whether it should or should not clear SS. At no point did I ever say that post stopped being the post that got my attention.

@SS RE: 286 - Another false assertion. Hostile Intent came after me aggressively while simultaneously declaring you townie. I gave more than one possibility for that. Scum partners is a possibility (but that would be a fairly bold day 1 play). It's also possible that HI is scum and knows you're town and can thus aggressively defend you and gain town cred should we see you flip town. So far as I can recall, HI hasn't given any reasoning for why you are town, so the defense doesn't seem to be sourced.

My original intent in pointing out what I saw in my original read through was to get responses. SS's responses reinforced the scum read. SS at this point is essentially only speaking when someone else has made a defense for her. If I understand "sheeping" as a concept, isn't that what it is?

@copper - HI has just made shit up and passed it off as if it were gospel. SS twisted the heck out of what I said in 286, since I pointed out several possible reasons why Hostile Intent would make things up and aggressively defend SS without any reasoning for doing so. In turn, I've called them on making things up and manipulating things, and stuck to my read, and this, by you, is scummy? I should think making things up out of nothing and manipulating things to paint me scummy would be scummy actions.

You basically just said "I agree with Hostile Intent's lies and SS's manipulation of his words, so I'm going to sheep and vote for him" and then threw some dirt on a third party. My earlier read on you was that you gave everything a pretty good evaluation ... and yet you seem fine with Hostile Intent making things up and SS twisting what I said in order to make me look as bad as possible. Where did that earlier analysis you were doing go?

[copper223]

@HI
I checked the thread after you two posted, do you find my vote scummy?

@Drixx
You have a point about not unvoting and your reasoning looks reasonable at first glance, but I agree with HI that you are making a scumtell out of a nulltell, your SS and HI scumteam approach also seems pretty forced and Singer's point about you going on Jason because you don't think his play is correct rather than scummy is well taken.

At the end of the day it boils down to this with you, I think we are not too different in the way we play mafia and more than once I thought, if I were mafia Drixx this is what I'd reply with, and you did the same.As an example, HI calls you tame for backing down, you slam him down, that's classic reverse psichology, you are trying to feed him the emotion he demanded at the start and the lack of which made him call you scum.

[Hostile Intent]

Your vote does seem opportunistic, but I've made the same kind of vote many times as town.

[singersigner]

@SS RE: 286 - Another false assertion. Hostile Intent came after me aggressively while simultaneously declaring you townie. I gave more than one possibility for that. Scum partners is a possibility (but that would be a fairly bold day 1 play). It's also possible that HI is scum and knows you're town and can thus aggressively defend you and gain town cred should we see you flip town. So far as I can recall, HI hasn't given any reasoning for why you are town, so the defense doesn't seem to be sourced.

My original intent in pointing out what I saw in my original read through was to get responses. SS's responses reinforced the scum read. SS at this point is essentially only speaking when someone else has made a defense for her. If I understand "sheeping" as a concept, isn't that what it is?

I mean, you did just respond to my assertation that Jason is town, so that plus the fact that mostly everyone is talking about me seems pretty reasonable that "most" of my responses are about me are for selfish reasons. You say that you think he's defending his scum buddies but could also be defending me as scum who knows I am town (both scenarios imply HI is scum, none of which imply you think he's town). Is it not unreasonable that I would then conclude that your continued pressure/vote on me assumes you're claiming we're scum buddies?

[Hostile Intent]

[Drixx]

My experience would rate that as a fairly unlikely possibility, SS. Your initial responses didn't clarify the situation (although more recent ones do to an extent. I personally don't like the appeal to personal honesty in mafia, because every single role has at least occasional if not frequent incentive to lie; however, I understand why you made that appeal).

As for what I said concerning HI; I gave several possibilities, and have now prompted HI at least three times to explain why (he?) thinks you are town. That was an aggressive push against me that included outright fabrication, tied to a declaration that you are town ... but so far as I can tell, HI has never given any reasoning (or motivation ... I like that word for it) for why we should view you as town, despite being prompted several times.

At this point, I'm inclined to view HI as more scummy than you based upon two things: needing to make things up to make a case against me, and completely ignoring the repeated request to explain why you are town. Exaggeration and hyperbole and manipulation and bending the truth and outright lying are all part of the game, and I've employed it all and then some in the past to get reactions and reads, so I hesitate to read too much into that.

Also, the core point you are making is that I characterized HI as scum. That's partially true, but it's a side-effect of me trying to figure out what reasons HI would have to declare you town without giving any rationale at all. IF HI is scum, then it could be scum buddies (bold play, but not unheard of), it could be scum setting up some town points for later (scum, by default, know who town is). I try and read everything assuming a player is scum and also assuming he's town, and a surprising amount of the time that is super helpful. The default scum assumption on HI, at this point, is simply because of the defense of you without any reasoning. If HI has a solid pro-town read on you, it would be helpful to share it, but (he?) continues to decline to do so. We could have long since moved on to other discussion if HI saw something I missed and it convincingly moves the read on you. I should stress that I've kept my vote on you because your initial reactions to my poke about the WIFOM read scummy.

As a player who gave off a lot of false scum positive reads when I first started playing forum mafia, I tend to be open to seriously evaluation contrary points of view and argument.

[Drixx]

Not gonna lie. I laughed.

[singersigner]

I'll point out that I'm very conscientious of my vote remaining on mallowgeno. I find his contributions to this game to be quite lacking, and feel as though his excuses are wearing thin. I'm not ok with letting that slid through the day.

My point was that you seemed perturbed by the fact that I noticed you continue to imply both of us being scum, originally scum buddies, and now saying that we're independently scummy but I'm scummier and he's obly scummy because of interactions with me... I'm still not getting your thoughts process.

Though, Cabd, didn't you comment on the amished tell? If that no longer applies, what do you continue to find scummy about Drixx/Paul's slot?

[Hostile Intent]

I'd feel bad if you could quote where you actually asked me why I see singer_town. Instead you've said "I don't see where HI says why singer is town" like three times.

But I'll oblige.

Gut. Genuine posting. Town motivation.

[singersigner]

Where is the town motivation exactly? You could be a little more specific.