Mini 962 - Mafia In Murrieta - Over!

[JackALope2323]

JackALope: Why do you feel the need to re-random vote?

BECAUSE IT'S NOT CLINT EASTWOOD. D=

Also, I feel that (At this point) we're still in the random voting stage. We're slowly climbing out of it, but in the mean time I may as well enjoy it while I can.

P.S. You can just call me Jack.

[charter]

Ice, was 39 a joke or serious? I'm just looking for either "Joke" or "Serious".

Jackalope, how can you need more evidence to vote Ice, but someone's avatar looking like Clint Eastwood is enough reason to switch your vote on to them?

[JackALope2323]

Charter, it was a random vote. In case you couldn't tell from my reasoning.

I'll put a serious vote on someone once they hit above 50% on my Scumometer.

Ice has gotten close, but he hasn't hit it yet.

[ICEninja]

Ice, was 39 a joke or serious? I'm just looking for either "Joke" or "Serious".

It was a joke, but with a (very slight) purpose behind it. I guess it wasn't perfectly clear, but when I said that other people were playing more relaxed and I was following suit, is that other people were joking so I joined in to some extent.

chater, you definitely seem to be really caught up on that post, though, which is interesting. I understand that there isn't so much to go off of at this point, but is there a reason you asked for a black or white answer?

You're right Jack, I tend to take mafia very seriously, so joking more and playing with a light heart is not coming particularly naturally to me. I've been overly serious and intense in past games and I'm trying to moderate a bit, i suppose. Maybe I'll just stick closer to what I'm more comfortable with.

[JackALope2323]

Man, people being serious about a game. What's next, people being serious about life?

Also, Ice, I don't see why you're so reluctant to give a black and white answer. Anything but would be ambiguous, and potentially confusing, which is highly anti-town.

[Espeonage]

Pulling us out of RvS early much.

Unvote, Vote: Jack

^Vote is as serious as the Joker. so very serious.

[thegeckoj]

/confirm

vote: cruelty

no need to be cruel.

[thegeckoj]

/confirm

vote: cruelty

no need to be cruel.

[thegeckoj]

ohman, i didnt even see that there was three pages already, my comp was only showing one. give me a few to cat[

unvote

[thegeckoj]

Ice, was 39 a joke or serious? I'm just looking for either "Joke" or "Serious".

It was a joke, but with a (very slight) purpose behind it. I guess it wasn't perfectly clear, but when I said that other people were playing more relaxed and I was following suit, is that other people were joking so I joined in to some extent.

chater, you definitely seem to be really caught up on that post, though, which is interesting. I understand that there isn't so much to go off of at this point, but is there a reason you asked for a black or white answer?

You're right Jack, I tend to take mafia very seriously, so joking more and playing with a light heart is not coming particularly naturally to me. I've been overly serious and intense in past games and I'm trying to moderate a bit, i suppose. Maybe I'll just stick closer to what I'm more comfortable with.

you sure are chatty when all he wanted was a simple answer. and pointing out that you take mafia very seriously shows me that you are going to possibly become over-aggressive. maybe a way to prepare people for your scummy-like bullying?

i like chattiness when it is warranted and ill give you that opportunity by putting a little pressure on you with a vote. id like to see why you are so whipped up so early in the game, strategy or possibly anger that you are already getting ferretted out?

vote: ICEninja

[wolframnhart]

Vote Count #2

Iceninja - Havingfitz, thegekoj
AGM - Cruelty, Charter
JackALope2323 - SaintKerrigan, SAMP, Scott Brosius, Espeonage (L-3)
Cruelty - AGM, JackALope2323
Havingfitz - Iceninja

Not Voting: MagnaofIllusion

Deadline is May 12th at 12 pm PDT
With 12 alive, it takes 7 to lynch.

[Scott Brosius]

Ice tends to have long posts, at least he did in the last game I played with him.

[SaintKerrigan]

Unvote: JackALope2323.

He definitely doesn't warrant an L-3 in my opinion. That being said, his remark to ICEninja about black-and-white statements is interesting. I don't think Ice's first response to Charter was ambiguous at all.

I also find it interesting that Charter jumped on a statement by ICEninja that I thought was clearly a joke (as indicated by my response to it). As stated earlier, I thought Ice's first response to Charter's question was clear enough, and not what I would define as ambiguous. I would be more wary of Charter for this, but I've seen him act similarly as town before.

I don't like Gecko's first "content" post. Suggesting Ice's chattiness will lead to over-aggression, and then equating that with scum-bullying, is just flat-out baseless speculation. It may be grounds for suspicion, but it should never be used to justify a vote. Also, the cheap shot near the end ("id like to see why you are so whipped up so early in the game, strategy or possibly anger that you are already getting ferretted out?") doesn't sit right with me.

Vote: Thegeckoj.

[Scott Brosius]

Seems like a bit of a stretch to unvote someone just because they are at L-3 on D1.

[ICEninja]

It seems as if Kerrigan just said 2 of the things I was going to say in my next post. I'll still point them out, though, as I feel they're pertinent.

Also, Ice, I don't see why you're so reluctant to give a black and white answer. Anything but would be ambiguous, and potentially confusing, which is highly anti-town.

As I said in post 53, when I admitted that it wasn't perfectly clear, I thought it was straightforward enough for people to understand. It definitely wasn't ambiguous. I just gave a little bit more detail than charter asked for, and it seemed to confuse him. Saying that people were relaxed and I was doing the same doesn't seem terribly confusing, but if anyone doesn't understand what I'm saying I'm always more than happy to clarify in simple terms. You'll find, though, that I don't tend to think in black and white polar means, and focus more on the thought behind everything.

you sure are chatty when all he wanted was a simple answer. and pointing out that you take mafia very seriously shows me that you are going to possibly become over-aggressive. maybe a way to prepare people for your scummy-like bullying?

I'm a chatty player. I'm sure several people in this game can confirm that. I also am a fairly aggressive player, though I'm not sure how you can assume that so early. However, going from chatty to OVER aggressive to scummy like bullying? That kind of reach is quite interesting. You seem to be taking a slight correlation between seriousness and aggressiveness (though I'm not sure where the over-aggressiveness comes from), and then a link between over aggressive players and bullying. You then assume that the bullying is going to be scummy.

I just see a lot of jumping to conclusions with almost no evidence to back any of this up, unless you're trying to get a meta read of me or something.

[SaintKerrigan]

Seems like a bit of a stretch to unvote someone just because they are at L-3 on D1.

I didn't see evidence fit to warrant a vote on Jack, much less a vote that keeps him at L-3. By contrast, there was sufficient evidence to warrant a vote on Gecko.

Besides, you can never be too careful about votes.

[charter]

chater, you definitely seem to be really caught up on that post, though, which is interesting. I understand that there isn't so much to go off of at this point, but is there a reason you asked for a black or white answer?

Yes, I wanted to know if that was serious, because if it was, I'd have some questions for you. After I asked the first time, you gave this long response, but I still didn't know since you basically said 'it's a little of this, but some of that'. I wasn't sure after 39, and I wasn't sure after you clarified, so I asked for a black and white answer.

Gecko's reasoning for voting Ice is particularly bad, which Kerrigan already said.

I'm going to go ahead and

unvote, vote Scott

. Two posts now where he's subtly undermined someone's vote. First it was after Gecko voted Ice for making long posts. Then it was to Kerrigan when he unvoted Jack to vote Gecko.

Kerrigan, what do you think of Scott?

[Super Awesome Mega Zord!]

Gecko's reasoning for voting Ice is particularly bad, which Kerrigan already said.

I'm going to go ahead and

unvote, vote Scott

. Two posts now where he's subtly undermined someone's vote. First it was after Gecko voted Ice for making long posts. Then it was to Kerrigan when he unvoted Jack to vote Gecko.

Unvote, Vote: charter

for undermining gecko's vote and then calling out Scott for the same thing.

[havingfitz]

Things are starting to feel less random now.

Unvote

[charter]

Gecko's reasoning for voting Ice is particularly bad, which Kerrigan already said.

I'm going to go ahead and

unvote, vote Scott

. Two posts now where he's subtly undermined someone's vote. First it was after Gecko voted Ice for making long posts. Then it was to Kerrigan when he unvoted Jack to vote Gecko.

Unvote, Vote: charter

for undermining gecko's vote and then calling out Scott for the same thing.

So you think that Gecko's reasoning is good and that Ice is scummy because he's trying to bully the town in to submission? What I did and what Scott did are very different.

Havingfitz, why just an unvote? What isn't random? Are you suspicious of anyone?

[Super Awesome Mega Zord!]

So you think that Gecko's reasoning is good and that Ice is scummy because he's trying to bully the town in to submission? What I did and what Scott did are very different.

I didn't say I agreed with gecko.

How are they different?

[SaintKerrigan]

@ Charter: Eh, his one comment about my unvote being a stretch may be a little iffy, but I'm not sure it's actually scummy. His statement regarding Gecko's vote on Ice was perfectly fine. On a whole, he hasn't stood out as scummy to me.

[cruelty]

whilst i acknowledge the need for weak early-game arguments this is one that i'm really not feeling at all. i'll think about it a bit and see if anything falls out, but not i'm hugely compelled by anything that's currently being said.

[JackALope2323]

Ice, is post 39 serious or just a joke?

Usually I tend to jump in to a game and try to cut to the point as quickly as possible, but people in this game seem inclined to relax a bit, and I followed suit. That being said, it seems as if Jack is doing that for me.

Ice, no offense, but this seems VERY ambiguous to me. I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to say here. Especially the last sentence. It seems as if I'm doing WHAT for you?

Your explanation does seem innocent enough, though, so

Unfinger @ Ice

. You're off my chopping block for now.

Let me just put this out there that I really don't like Scott's low content posts.

I have to agree with Kerrigan that Gecko's reasoning for voting Ice is very shaky. While I don't think that Mafia should be taken (too) seriously, I don't like Gecko saying that, since Ice takes Mafia seriously, he

might

become over-aggressive later in the game. Until I see Ice become aggressive, I don't see why we should automatically presume he WILL become aggressive.

I also don't like the "already getting ferreted out" line. Too accusatory for my liking, especially considering how Ice doesn't seem to even be that angry.

And SAMP, they are very different. Charter deliberately came out and called B.S. on Gecko's vote. Scott is lurking, and coming up to slyly suggest the idea of B.S. on Kerrigan's unvote and Gecko's vote, without coming straight out and saying it. He's not being straightforward. Being anything but straightforward is ambiguous, possibly confusing, and therefore scummy.

As it is, though:

Unvote, vote Gecko

for his shoddy reasoning and his over aggressiveness on someone who has very little (solid) evidence against them.

Finger @ Scott

for being a sly little weasel and having little content posts.

I WOULD finger SAMP, but I believe he's simply misunderstanding logic here, and not necessarily outright disagreeing with Charter.

[Espeonage]

Unvote: JackALope2323.

He definitely doesn't warrant an L-3 in my opinion. That being said, his remark to ICEninja about black-and-white statements is interesting. I don't think Ice's first response to Charter was ambiguous at all.

I also find it interesting that Charter jumped on a statement by ICEninja that I thought was clearly a joke (as indicated by my response to it). As stated earlier, I thought Ice's first response to Charter's question was clear enough, and not what I would define as ambiguous. I would be more wary of Charter for this, but I've seen him act similarly as town before.

I don't like Gecko's first "content" post. Suggesting Ice's chattiness will lead to over-aggression, and then equating that with scum-bullying, is just flat-out baseless speculation. It may be grounds for suspicion, but it should never be used to justify a vote. Also, the cheap shot near the end ("id like to see why you are so whipped up so early in the game, strategy or possibly anger that you are already getting ferretted out?") doesn't sit right with me.

Vote: Thegeckoj.

Ok now this is sus. L-3 being too close. WTH.
How do we get any really good discussion if we just let pressure disappear. I would have kept the vote there. If they handle the pressure well then you back off a bit but you at least allow enough time to get a reaction.

FoS: SaintKerrigan