Mafia v. Wolves Redux: Finally Over!

[Phoebus]

Vote Count:

1 ~N9V~ (Battle Mage)
3 bird1111 (Fuldu, Kison, Thok)

4 Battle Mage (~N9V~, Akbar, PBuG, theopor_COD)

1 PBuG (Raffles)
1 Thok (The Fonz)

3 not voting: bird1111, Lowell, The Greg

7 to lynch

Deadline 1: Friday the 6th of July, 1700 GMT

Because Thok is a star, he has volunteered to replace in for XReyoX. Please be nice to him.

[The Fonz]

unvote, vote XreyoX

Yes, I know it's a bit of a dick move to vote someone who's just requested replacement. But a re-read of MoS reveals a lot of posts which could be seen as coaching, and I want the replacement to arrive under a little pressure.

So to place "a little pressure"(with a lone vote) on an unknown replacement, your removing your vote off your perceived scum? That makes sense.

Who says I find Battle Mage basically being Battle Mage scummier than having a potential tie to the one confirmed scum? Besides, we're not under any particular time pressure that precludes us from investigating multiple angles?

[Thok]

Hi all, doing some reading. I will comment about Fonz's comments for now.

unvote, vote XreyoX

Yes, I know it's a bit of a dick move to vote someone who's just requested replacement. But a re-read of MoS reveals a lot of posts which could be seen as coaching, and I want the replacement to arrive under a little pressure.

A read of the posts shows that XreyoX was much more suspicious of MOS then MOS was of XreyoX. This is a scum tell, but for MOS rather than XreyoX. (The point is that MOS's buddying/coaching could either be scum trying to protect a partner or scum trying to build a connection to a somebody who's not a member of his scum team; .)

The Fonz, why are you so certain that ~N9V~ isn't the play? (I don't believe he's the play, but your posts strike me as being more defensive of him then possibly should be warranted.)

[The Fonz]

I just don't see the need. I think it's better to wait to get a couple more results, and see if the whole cop thing clears itself up, than to rush into lynching a claimed cop on the basis of a death where alignment wasn't revealed and the flavour strongly hinted miller.

[Thok]

OK, let me ask the same question a completely different way. If ~N9V~ wasn't a claimed cop, what would you think of him?

[The Fonz]

That he's playing pretty much as he always does, and there are no real tells I've noticed either way.

[Akbar]

Who says I find Battle Mage basically being Battle Mage scummier than having a potential tie to the one confirmed scum?

Ummm, you did. Ya know, that part where you voted him? Or was that just for show with no meaning behind it?

[The Fonz]

You're entirely right Akbar, I'd completely forgotten the relative scumminess of two players is set in stone and once I vote someone, nothing that happens should change my view.

[Akbar]

Not sure what the sarcasm is for. I'm just trying to find out your motivation. Because, it looks like you voted BM as retaliation for him going after N9V.

THat's it.

Unvote, vote Battle Mage

He has not been confirmed a liar. Repeating it doesn't make it true.

[The Fonz]

As shown in that bit you quoted, I voted BM because he continually insisted that it was the case that it had been proven N9V was a liar. This was clearly untrue, so I voted him.

Subsequent events such as BM's bizarre insistence that pointing out possible links is scummy, plus having read up on completed games of his, indicate that it might be entirely possible that he could be the kind of player who genuinely believed what he was saying, however illogical it seemed to me.

Meanwhile, a re-read of the one confirmed scum brought up what I felt was an interesting new angle, one worth pursuing.

The sarcasm was because you seemed to be making the ridiculous suggestion that I couldn't possibly change my mind on whether or not Battle Mage/Reyo were scummy, based on new evidence.

[Akbar]

I'm all for exploring new angles. That's why I voted Bird in the 1st place and look what happened. It took 4 votes just to get him to claim a reread was necessary before saying anything. So when you say your going to "pressure" XreyoX with 1 vote, I have to doubt it's effectiveness.

The fact that BM just reached lynch-2 when you switched votes could be of note as well. This brief conflict with you 2 could be distancing or you could be starting momentum on a townie wagon and jumping off as it crests the hill.

[The Fonz]

That's why I said 'a little' pressure. But come on, if no one ever placed the first pressure vote, there'd never be any. My re-read flagged something up that I thought was of interest: I used my vote to draw attention to it, if a couple of go back and look at it, agree with me, we've got pressure. If no-one does, that at least opens the angle of 'am I really reading too much into this; or is he being protected?'

You also seem to have this worrying habit, when you say something, I point out how it's wrong strange, or misleading, (see: your insistence that Al's death announcement was in red, when it wasn't, that bit there about BM being 'my perceived scum' as if I couldn't possibly have changed my mind) then you change the subject to another facet of what I've said.

[Thok]

The Fonz, what do you think about my response to your reasons for voting me?

[Akbar]

@Fonz
Would you prefer I stuck to one particular subject then? You just got finished saying you liked to explore more than 1 angle. Should that not apply to yourself?

As far as Alex red colored tag, I still say your wrong. But, I'm not going to continually post that trying to change your mind. Assuming that's your real position on the subject.

[Kison]

Bird

really

needs to answer my question. My vote is not going anywhere.

[The Fonz]

The Fonz, what do you think about my response to your reasons for voting me?

It was pretty good, but I wouldn't expect a vet player replacing in to drop a huge scumtell immediately, so it's not enough in itself to have me move my vote. If anything, I see your having seen the need to ask this question this quickly as more revealing than the first post itself.

@Fonz
Would you prefer I stuck to one particular subject then? You just got finished saying you liked to explore more than 1 angle. Should that not apply to yourself?

Applying that to myself is fine, I'm happy to answer questions about any aspect of my behaviour you like. The point, though, was that I find it suspect that you continually seek to change the subject from anything that might make

you

look scummy.

As far as Alex red colored tag, I still say your wrong. But, I'm not going to continually post that trying to change your mind. Assuming that's your real position on the subject.

Of course you're going to stick with that line, you've got to, admitting deliberately misleading the town is a surefire way to get lynched. However, I still feel that there was an obvious misrepresentation, and there's a decent chance it was deliberate:



This post, I think isn't far off smoking gun:

I find this comment to be ridiculous. IH came up with the same coloring as a Retired Cop and a Gardener. I don't know if the Mod got lazy on the other coloring or some event is preventing it, but if we're going to ignore the information from death scenes, we might as well be using random.org to finish out the game.
OTU was BLUE Retired Cop

Alex was RED ESE

Mr. Flay was BLUE Gardener
Mneme was uncolored Baker
IH was BLUE Mayor
DGB was uncolored Silversmith
Shanba was uncolored Strongman
MoS was uncolored Lycanthrope

Because as is obvious for anyone to see, that 533, not 532, the flavour post where the red text was actually found, is the equivalent post for Al as 530 was for OTU.

-IH is a reverse Godfather, otherwise known as Miller. Not likely, his death certificate made no mention of it. Unlike Alex and MoS that plainly identified their faction.

Again, this is pretty close to being a flat-out lie. We get role names, not alignments, and there is no reason to think a politician is particularly unlikely to be miller or traitor. Alex's deathscene did not reveal his alignment, it's as plain as day.

If IH was a Miller role, wouldn't that show up on his role tag?

Why would IH's death be any different to everyone else's in the game thus far?

The only chance that N9V is innocent is if he's an insane cop.

You're utterly writing off the miller explanation, and I can't think why a town player wouldn't want to consider every possible angle.

Also of note, neither scum group tried to kill N9V.

This, to me, is a 'we left N9V alive because we thought we could get him lynched, and are now using that to help ensure it comes true' kinda tell.

The fact that N9V is not voting Raffles instead of BM is suspect as well, considering the only chance N9V's innocent is being Insane Cop. This of course would mean Raffles is scum.

Again, using a non-sequitur (and arguing by repetition) to label someone else as scum.

In fact, this, combined with the attempt to strawman me with craplogic, makes me think you're a pretty good bet for scum.

FOS: Akbar

[Fuldu]

Again, this is pretty close to being a flat-out lie. We get role names, not alignments, and there is no reason to think a politician is particularly unlikely to be miller or traitor. Alex's deathscene did not reveal his alignment, it's as plain as day.

And this is where you lose me. Your argument relies heavily on the notion that IH, based on a fairly vague interpretation of his deathscene, is likely to be a miller. This ignores, for one thing, the basic statistical argument that millers are a much less common role than insane cops, but leave that aside for now. At the same time, you argue that, even though al4xz's death scene labels him as an ESE member in red, and provides a number of reasonably disturbing (even using the word "disturbing") images to go with it, you're unconvinced that he was scum.

Either you trust the circumstantial evidence of the death scenes or you don't, but you can't have it both ways. And more than that, the circumstantial evidence that al4xz was scum is a lot stronger than the circumstantial evidence that IH was a miller.

[The Fonz]

Again, this is pretty close to being a flat-out lie. We get role names, not alignments, and there is no reason to think a politician is particularly unlikely to be miller or traitor. Alex's deathscene did not reveal his alignment, it's as plain as day.

And this is where you lose me. Your argument relies heavily on the notion that IH, based on a fairly vague interpretation of his deathscene, is likely to be a miller.

My argument is that it is a possibility which it is not pro-town to ignore. By fixating on one possible reason for N9V to have reported a guilty on someone whose deathscene made him seem

likely town

, people are suggesting a course of action (lynch Raffles, then if he comes up town lynch N9V) which would be hugely detrimental to the town in the not-that-unlikely case that N9V is a sane cop and IH a miller. We can get a much better picture by waiting for a couple more results. Like I said, two more innocents and we can pretty much rule out insane cop. Then the correct play (depending on the number of crosskills) is likely to be an N9V lynch. Two guilties, and it seems highly likely. Raffles lynch. One of each, I think we're in a good situation either way.

At the same time, you argue that, even though al4xz's death scene labels him as an ESE member in red, and provides a number of reasonably disturbing (even using the word "disturbing") images to go with it, you're unconvinced that he was scum.

Right, so the fact that he was labelled an ESE member in red (flavour, rather than indication of alignment, since the writing was in blood, hence red) indicates to us that he was a member of a society called the ESE. There have been no nightkills of other people using any of 'ropes, whips, handcuffs, knives and rolls of linen' there might be a case to suggest that the ESE were a scum group. (Ignoring for a second the very obvious point that it is hugely unlikely a scumgroup would walk around with membership cards in their pockets).

So they're likely to be, at worst, a cult. And cults generally recruit. Given the fact that no more ESE have died, and so many different people have come out with the 'ESE are anti-town' assumption, or attacked other people on the grounds they might be ESE, I find it hard to see who might be the recruits, since the recruiter would presumably have been successful three times (having not died trying to recruit scum) on top of what members the cult might have begun with. So we'd be looking at

at least

four ESE right now.

Either you trust the circumstantial evidence of the death scenes or you don't, but you can't have it both ways.

And more than that, the circumstantial evidence that al4xz was scum is a lot stronger than the circumstantial evidence that IH was a miller.

This last part is basically the premise of your argument, and it's one I reject utterly. I don't believe the circumstantial evidence that Al was scum is stronger than the evidence that IH was a miller, at all.

[The Fonz]

Ed: closer inspection reveals that the words ESE member weren't even written in actual blood, just that the writing on the membership card was red in colour.

[Thok]

The Fonz, what do you think about my response to your reasons for voting me?

It was pretty good, but I wouldn't expect a vet player replacing in to drop a huge scumtell immediately, so it's not enough in itself to have me move my vote. If anything, I see your having seen the need to ask this question this quickly as more revealing than the first post itself.

The reason I asked you is that you appeared to me to be ignoring my comments about that issue. Since from what I can tell your claimed connection between MOS and my predecessor is the major reason for your vote on me, it seems strange that you basically ignored my arguments against that (especially when combined with you essentially going "Look, my reason is interesting! Really interesting! It justifies me placing a vote!" in the meantime.)

[Akbar]

Applying that to myself is fine, I'm happy to answer questions about any aspect of my behaviour you like. The point, though, was that I find it suspect that you continually seek to change the subject from anything that might make you look scummy.

Talk about changing the subject. That's what you just did. Claiming that I look scummy because I'm suspicious of you is no better than OMGUS voting.

However, I still feel that there was an obvious misrepresentation, and there's a decent chance it was deliberate:

Ok, so now accusing me of misrepresenting a dead guy. I hope we don't accidentally lynch him incorrectly.

In regards to the death scenes

Again, this is pretty close to being a flat-out lie. We get role names, not alignments, and there is no reason to think a politician is particularly unlikely to be miller or traitor. Alex's deathscene did not reveal his alignment, it's as plain as day.

Your version of a lie must be any opinion that doesn't agree with yours.
Fact: Alex came up ESE Member, Mos came up Wolf, and IH came up Mayor.
What's plain as day is you trying to act like your being productive but shooting down every lead we have by chanting your mantra of "we can't be sure."

Why would IH's death be any different to everyone else's in the game thus far?

That's the point. Miller is a ROLE not an alignment. What did we get from everyone's death scenes? Their ROLES.

Again, using a non-sequitur (and arguing by repetition) to label someone else as scum.

In fact, this, combined with the attempt to strawman me with craplogic, makes me think you're a pretty good bet for scum.

Again, no different than an OMGUS vote.

Btw, you just claimed I was changing the subject frequently. Now your saying I'm using repetition to label. If your going to fabricate suspicion, you should keep track of your contradictions.

Fos me all ya want. I'm still suspicious of You, BM and Fuldu.

[The Fonz]

Applying that to myself is fine, I'm happy to answer questions about any aspect of my behaviour you like. The point, though, was that I find it suspect that you continually seek to change the subject from anything that might make you look scummy.

Talk about changing the subject. That's what you just did. Claiming that I look scummy because I'm suspicious of you is no better than OMGUS voting.

Did you actually read what I wrote? I never said that you look scummy because you're suspicious of me. You're scummy a) because of your headlong charge to try to get a claimed cop lynched prematurely and b) the craplogic you employ, both against me and in relation to others. There is a world of difference between finding someone scummy because they attack you, and finding the

way

that they attack you scummy.

However, I still feel that there was an obvious misrepresentation, and there's a decent chance it was deliberate:

Ok, so now accusing me of misrepresenting a dead guy. I hope we don't accidentally lynch him incorrectly.

Dishonesty is scummy, however deployed. And yes, misrepresenting the

game situation

can lead to mislynches. Check the following scenario:

1. You lie about someone being 'confirmed scum.'
2. You are then able to use this to build an inaccurate case against someone, based on their tie to the 'confirmed scum' who actually is anything but.

In regards to the death scenes

Again, this is pretty close to being a flat-out lie. We get role names, not alignments, and there is no reason to think a politician is particularly unlikely to be miller or traitor. Alex's deathscene did not reveal his alignment, it's as plain as day.

Your version of a lie must be any opinion that doesn't agree with yours.
Fact: Alex came up ESE Member, Mos came up Wolf, and IH came up Mayor. [/quote]

Yes, that is the fact. It also doesn't support the position you are taking.
My version of a lie isn't anything that disagrees with me, but something said that is demonstrably untrue, with you knowing it to be untrue at the time you said it. Let me explain: you said Al came up red where OTU came up blue. This is UNTRUE. How many times do I have to explain this to you?

What's plain as day is you trying to act like your being productive but shooting down every lead we have by chanting your mantra of "we can't be sure."

BS. What leads do you think we have? N9V's wrong result? I've explained how I think we can resolve that in the town's best interest. Al? There's no lead there whatsoever.

Why would IH's death be any different to everyone else's in the game thus far?

That's the point. Miller is a ROLE not an alignment. What did we get from everyone's death scenes? Their ROLES.

OMG! HOW DUMB ARE YOU! WE GOT THEIR ROLE

NAMES

! Do you really believe 'Gardener at the estate' is a specific role? Shanba came back 'strongman' not 'vig.' And I'll bet you a pound to a penny, if N9V dies and is telling the truth, he will come up 'Magistrate of Lupieri' rather than 'cop.' Therefore, it is virtually CERTAIN that a miller will not come up 'miller.'

Again, using a non-sequitur (and arguing by repetition) to label someone else as scum.

In fact, this, combined with the attempt to strawman me with craplogic, makes me think you're a pretty good bet for scum.

Again, no different than an OMGUS vote.

Yeah, I forgot, I'm completely banned from pointing out anything scummy you do, if it's directed at me. Riiiiiight.

Btw, you just claimed I was changing the subject frequently. Now your saying I'm using repetition to label. If your going to fabricate suspicion, you should keep track of your contradictions.

You're the one who is fabricating. Repeatedly, in fact. When I said you were changing the subject, I was referring specifically to the conversation between the two of us. You used the argument from repetition against

N9V

.

Do you honestly deny that you repeatedly said 'The only way N9V is telling the truth is if he is insane?'

You seem to be acting as if you have some divine right to always be on the offensive in this argument, however scummy you act during it, and then dismiss any mention of your very scummy behaviour by declaring it OMGUS.

[Akbar]

You seem to be acting as if you have some divine right to always be on the offensive in this argument, however scummy you act during it, and then dismiss any mention of your very scummy behaviour by declaring it OMGUS.

Divine right!? Look who the f*** is talking. Telling people your speculation of the death scene is more accurate than anyone else. And you keep bringing up N9V repeatedly, (oh what was that you said about arguing through repetition to make a lie truth?), my god what a hypocrite.

Let's see, last time I was talking about N9V's cop claim is post 1481. So over 65 posts ago is your version of the "

HEADLONG CHARGE

", didn't want to miss the sensationalism you added, meanwhile my vote sits on Battle Mage.

You want to be offensive, go for it. Since apparently that's more important to you than the content of what's being argued.

[The Fonz]

You seem to be acting as if you have some divine right to always be on the offensive in this argument, however scummy you act during it, and then dismiss any mention of your very scummy behaviour by declaring it OMGUS.

Divine right!? Look who the f*** is talking. Telling people your speculation of the death scene is more accurate than anyone else. And you keep bringing up N9V repeatedly, (oh what was that you said about arguing through repetition to make a lie truth?), my god what a hypocrite.

Another lie. I never said my interpretation is more accurate than anyone else's. My problem is that you are either jumping to conclusions, or deliberately misrepresenting the situation, not considering the second that anything but your pre-ordained conclusion might be the case. As if you actually think you automatically know what the mod is thinking, and no-one else has any right to post a contrary opinion.

And, just in case you hadn't noticed, you still haven't addresssed the fact that you said something categorically untrue about the death scenes. You continually change the subject. Since you've not admitted that this was a mistake, you're either incredibly stubborn, or it was a deliberate attemp to mislead.

Let's see, last time I was talking about N9V's cop claim is post 1481. So over 65 posts ago is your version of the "

HEADLONG CHARGE

", didn't want to miss the sensationalism you added, meanwhile my vote sits on Battle Mage.

You want to be offensive, go for it. Since apparently that's more important to you than the content of what's being argued.

You claimed my suspicions of you were OMGUS. I explained the evolution of my suspicion. The fact that you are no longer on N9V is not irrelevant, but it does not mean you being on N9V in the first place was not scummy. Your repeated refusal to accept anything other than insanity was

even a possibility

was what caused me to characterise it as a headlong charge toward the lynching of innocents, accurately I believe.

Apologies for being offensive, I let my immense frustration at your conduct get the better of me.

[TBuG]

Either Fonz or Akbar is scum, I think.