Adorable Game of Mafia (Everyone wins!)

[NekoNekoRex]

Yes but how is that scummy? It sounds like he made a mistake and is being stubborn about sticking to it. I'm trying to understand where the transition is between 'it's terrible' and 'it's scummy'. At least the advice is sound. Scumhunting instead of silly gambits and random.org would make people less likely to lynch him for being strange.

It's not all that scummy that he's trying to defend it, I just think he needs to drop it now that it was resolved/clarified/done with and he should focus on doing something more useful with his posts.

I'm not voting him right now so much that he did it or that he's defending it so much as he's not doing anything else.

As someone watching a newbie get accustomed to MotK Mafia I'd rather he be playing in the present rather than defending a dumb post that wasn't even part of when the game started. Helping him get in gear will also give better insight to if he's newbtown or newbscum.

Also wanted to adress this fine point but forgot

Yup. PX gave a solid reason for his vote

>Solid reason
>One Word Post
This is why people think PX is scum half the time.  Out of his three posts so far "Appeasement" is the only contributory word that he's put out. One post is a jokepost and the other is peanut gallery commentating.
Make some actually concise posts, please.

[Pesco]

##Vote IHNN

HW asked a good question. The way you explained yourself so far, it can be used as a throwaway reason to keep your vote on anyone that hasn't shown up. Specifically that you don't see a reason to unvote me, who is scummier between me, Affinity and Kilga?

To IHNN and NNR, what's the difference between putting a player at L-3 and L-2? If you are a player who only knows your own alignment, what reason is there to not press someone who is being suspicious?

I don't find anything wrong with PX's vote at this stage. The point is Raitaki made the vote because he was asked to. That's appeasement. No further words necessary.

[NekoNekoRex]

I don't find anything wrong with PX's vote at this stage. The point is Raitaki made the vote because he was asked to. That's appeasement. No further words necessary.

Why does it need to take another member justifying his post to make it okay?

To IHNN and NNR, what's the difference between putting a player at L-3 and L-2? If you are a player who only knows your own alignment, what reason is there to not press someone who is being suspicious?

L-2 means it takes one more person to vote before you can hammer yourself. I'd take it as a point in which you need to claim.
Although that would be kind of ridiculous this early in the day/game to need to clalim to get people off your back unless you did something incredibly scumtell.

I AM pressing Raikari for being suspicious but I don't see why I can't give him a shove in the right direction. It would be stupid to lynch a newb for stupid reasons.

[NekoNekoRex]

EBWOP
*Raitaki

I think I'm just going to call him Rai if he doesn't mind.

[Affinity]

Townies do scummy things on occasion.  What else to differentiate town and scum than by context?

##Vote: BT

For avoiding talking about Rai.  Says IHNN is scummy for dancing on Rai.  A link seems to be missing.

The idea that he can 'votepark' for the half a day before pesco posts is huh when he could simply not post at all.  Not sure why people can't take IHNN's explanations (e.g wagon size, function of random vote) at face value, and BT seems to be the most egregious of these people. 

[Shadoweh]

I am not sure I like the tone of your :words: there Affinity. IHNN was voted randomly by the newbie and to all appearances seemed quite unsettled by it, even used AtE to imply it was an offense to be voting him. The post is more then enough 'proof' of something possibly being off with the guy with no name. No one is taking his explanation at face value because it came out sounding like he was terrified. People who get scared tend to be scum or beloved doctor informed commuter princess-chans. What in specific is wrong with the points BT brings up against IHNN?

[Affinity]

Really?  That post seemed to me more inquisitive than anything.  No one shouldn't be playing mafia if you're terrified of a single vote as scum (why should you be regarding a random.org vote which could go anywhere later)?

Nothing is wrong with BT's case (how could it be when it's so simple?).  I'm just going by what isn't there, since his opinion on Nameless wasn't accompanied with one on Rai, and Nameless voted the latter.

[Shadoweh]

I'm just going by what isn't there, since his opinion on Nameless wasn't accompanied with one on Rai, and Nameless voted the latter.

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm no he didn't. That was part of BT's point.

[I have no name]

HW asked a good question. The way you explained yourself so far, it can be used as a throwaway reason to keep your vote on anyone that hasn't shown up. Specifically that you don't see a reason to unvote me, who is scummier between me, Affinity and Kilga?

To IHNN and NNR, what's the difference between putting a player at L-3 and L-2? If you are a player who only knows your own alignment, what reason is there to not press someone who is being suspicious?

The bolded part is technically true I guess, however it only takes effect D1 and with everyone posting within 24 hours the vote can only stay then.  Does D1 ever end within 24 hours?  Since for all intents and purposes it's a random vote, is it really that big of a deal?  Additionally, you and Affinity had done nothing in the game as of yet.

The difference between L-3 and L-2 is 1 vote.  It's also 33% of what else is needed to lynch, and right now 1 less scum player who needs to be on the wagon to hammer.  It's probably just paranoia, but it's better to be safe right?

Overall though I like this post, so I see no reason not to ##Unvote

IHNN, is Raitaki scum or not?

Raitaki is still at the point where any slips could be considered getting a feel for the game.

I will admit to overreacting to the vote, but only because there were serious votes at the time and openly random.org-ing seems like coasting.

##Vote: BT
I get a "skim thread that looks like a slip-up throw together quick case vote the easy target" vibe from #79.

Not only are FoSes weak, but you're electing to vote the dude you randomvoted over the dude you suspect. Right after stating that you don't like having early votes on people who haven't posted. What?

Also I never responded to this.  An FoS is weak?  That's what I intended, because though I suspected it wasn't at the point of "k you die NOW" it wass "would lynch in lieu of a better one".  Additionally I think I explained my stance on voting those who haven't posted-my first vote is the exception and, in my eyes, no one had done anything warranting a vote.  It's just a playstyle thing.

I counted the non-quoted words and it's ~285.


If the previous post is incoherent in any way, I apologize, as I wrote it over the course of a half hour.

[Omba]

Shadoweh, is your Pesco vote serious?
Serela eloquently stated his reason for doing nothing. Discarding his nice choice of words, he's saying "yeah I'll be in that corner over there doing nothing, don't mind me, it's what I always do". How is that :goodposting:? He'd make a great policy lynch for not doing anything (and saying as much) and the waffles yet to come I could feel from that post.

I agree with the assessment it was noob inexperience/hyperactive play-just wanting to do something big. The thing is scum aren't the ones who get excited in that way. I think, postulate even, that if he were scum he would have been too busy posting excitedly in his FIRST EVAR QT to reaction test in the pre-game, just after receiving his role pm.

This is not his first time playing mafia, and I'd wager a guess it wouldn't be his first time as scum, either. Does that change anything?

This is why we're having a problem with Mafia. "Context" reasoning is bullshit.[...]

Bullshit. Use your brain. If the reason is obvious I don't necessarily need to state it and if it isn't and you want to know, push me on it. That simple.
For PX - it didn't take someone else's explanation to make his post "okay", it was fine exactly because the explanation Pesco gave for it naturally comes from his one word reason + context.
Reasons for my switch here: Excuses, appeasement vote, tone of post (AtE feel), still did nothing.
There's a pretty awful amount of overjustification of your New guy vote in your posts.

The new guy still hasn't done anything. Vote stays on him.

Kilga, Serela. Get your asses in here.

[BT]

This is why we're having a problem with Mafia. "Context" reasoning is bullshit. If you're going to put a serious vote down, put down some actual reasons on why the player is scummy. The post looks bad, yes, but HOW does it look bad? What makes it scummy? What is the player doing wrong?

Read "worst case". Your post was plausibly scum-motivated so I noted as much. Throwing away two votes (Omba's and PX's) to the dump with a simple comment about content (when low-to-gut(no) content votes are nothing special during ed1) is pretty handy for scum.

Nothing is wrong with BT's case (how could it be when it's so simple?).  I'm just going by what isn't there, since his opinion on Nameless wasn't accompanied with one on Rai, and Nameless voted the latter.

If I didn't comment on something, either I missed it or it's not worth the comment. Obviously I couldn't miss it, which means I didn't draw anything conclusive from Rai's posting to point at.

Thanks for proving my point, though. Judging by his posts you'd think IHNN had already voted Rai, but he never did. Also, wagon size is a pretty bad point to justify lack of :vote: with. Not to mention one could just vote someone else meanwhile instead of sticking to the RVS vote.

...And his latest post is OMGUS. You could get similar "vibes" from any vote on Rai at this stage. Of course, the votes are reasonable, and so is mine. Too bad "vibes" lets you get away with that, though.

Rereading to see if there's something wrong with the other fellers.

[Raitaki]

##Unvote
##Vote: BT

After perusing the thread, I can only say that BT was the first to attempt to derail the bandwagon on me by pressing on IHNN. He also didn't appear to be paying much attention.

[Omba]

I can only say that BT was the first to attempt to derail the bandwagon on me by pressing on IHNN.

Derailing = scummy because?

[BT]

Having to wait for someone to post without being able to ask for someone to post is pretty annoying, just throwing that out there.

I am not sure I like the tone of your :words: there Affinity. IHNN was voted randomly by the newbie and to all appearances seemed quite unsettled by it, even used AtE to imply it was an offense to be voting him. The post is more then enough 'proof' of something possibly being off with the guy with no name. No one is taking his explanation at face value because it came out sounding like he was terrified. People who get scared tend to be scum or beloved doctor informed commuter princess-chans. What in specific is wrong with the points BT brings up against IHNN?

So why aren't you voting IHNN yet?

##Unvote
##Vote: BT

After perusing the thread, I can only say that BT was the first to attempt to derail the bandwagon on me by pressing on IHNN. He also didn't appear to be paying much attention.

Words. What makes it seem like I wasn't paying attention and why is it scummy? Also... you're accusing me of being scum for derailing your wagon?

[I have no name]

Having to wait for someone to post without being able to ask for someone to post is pretty annoying, just throwing that out there.

You could just ##takeiteasy (@mod: no, I'm not doing that right now)

What makes it seem like I wasn't paying attention

I also felt you weren't paying attention to the thread, as evidenced by not knowing I'd voted.

[BT]

I also felt you weren't paying attention to the thread, as evidenced by not knowing I'd voted.

Que? You never voted anyone outside of myself and Pesco. My posts mentioned both votes.

[PX]

##Unvote
Vote:IHNN

That last vote looks like Omgus mixed with a bullshit reason thrown after someone else voted the same person. His post contains more details to everyone else and slaps a one line "Gut! " to the person he's voting.

Also, Affinity seems to believe that not talking about Raitaki = scum. How does that make sense without a flip to go by? Also, calling you out since you haven't taken an opinion on Raitaki either.

And Raitaki's last vote is still blarhgjdg.

[Raitaki]

@BT and Omba: I think mafia scum would prefer to lynch good townie players over bad townie players.

[PX]

Mafia prefer to lynch any town player. If town manages to lynch a good player on top, the scum be dancing in their top hats and monocles.

[I have no name]

Que? You never voted anyone outside of myself and Pesco. My posts mentioned both votes.

I thought you said I wasn't voting [anyone] in your first post addressing me?

[Omba]

@BT and Omba: I think mafia scum would prefer to lynch good townie players over bad townie players.

Good players are generally harder to lynch and since there's no doc, scum are free to shoot whomever at night.
This doesn't cut it.

I also felt you weren't paying attention to the thread, as evidenced by not knowing I'd voted.

What made you feel the need to answer the question directed at Raitaki for him?

huh what, Affinity: Broaden your view please.
The same goes for more players than just these two.

[I have no name]

What made you feel the need to answer the question directed at Raitaki for him?

To show that someone else agreed.

Additionally, if I just said it, then I'd be sheeping or something, so I gave my reasoning as well.

That last vote looks like Omgus mixed with a bullshit reason thrown after someone else voted the same person. His post contains more details to everyone else and slaps a one line "Gut! " to the person he's voting.

Did you consider that I have more details for everyone else and gut for the person I'm voting?  I can't exactly point out what in the post gives me that, but I can point out the post does.

Additionally, Shadoweh voted before I did but that doesn't mean I wasn't going to voteswitch to BT anyway, and even though BT's voteswitch was to me the way it was went about is rather scummy to me, again I don't know exactly why.

[Edible]

Vote Count: Only One Number One edition

PX (1): Kilgamayan
Raitaki (3): huh what, NekoNekoRex, Omba
huh what (1): Serela
IHNN (3): BT, Pesco, PX
BT(3): Affinity, IHNN, Raitaki
Pesco (1): Shadoweh

Not voting: Nobody!

You have ~54.5 hours remaining.  With 12 in play, it takes 7 votes to launch.

Edit: General reminder to play nice.  Bunch of people are skirting the line; cool it.

[Shadoweh]

No, my Pesco vote is not serious. I agree with what little he's said so far.

Serela eloquently stated his reason for doing nothing. Discarding his nice choice of words, he's saying "yeah I'll be in that corner over there doing nothing, don't mind me, it's what I always do". How is that :goodposting:? He'd make a great policy lynch for not doing anything (and saying as much) and the waffles yet to come I could feel from that post.

As opposed to the people who are literally just not posting while they wait for 'something' to happen? I don't think there's anything wrong with saying you're not going to try and fake something out of nothing when it's true that we were still in RVS. I'm pretty sure he's here now though and there's about a day of srsbsns going on.

This is not his first time playing mafia, and I'd wager a guess it wouldn't be his first time as scum, either. Does that change anything?

Not really. Having spent some time on MS I have gotten used to all kinds of people who have played mafia before and need those 'don't catch chainsaw with your genitalia' warnings. He sounds pretty new.

##Unvote
##Vote: BT

After perusing the thread, I can only say that BT was the first to attempt to derail the bandwagon on me by pressing on IHNN. He also didn't appear to be paying much attention.

After the amount of attention you've already gotten this isn't sufficient. How is derailing a bandwagon (on town from your perspective) onto someone unknown scummy? Do you think IHNN is town? Why? Considering his post was factual and it's other people that have been misrepresenting him, why do you think he wasn't paying attention? It looks like you made a vote by sheeping Affinity without checking to see if he was right. :|
A question to you: So far, who seems like a Good Townie Player to you?

BT: I'm trying not to bias myself before interogations. I'm deciding between IHNN and Affinity.  It's possible that Affinity didn't notice he was incorrect because IHNN's posts are written so loosely. Borrowing free words:

That last vote looks like Omgus mixed with a bullshit reason thrown after someone else voted the same person. His post contains more details to everyone else and slaps a one line "Gut! " to the person he's voting.

Also.

The bolded part is technically true I guess, however it only takes effect D1 and with everyone posting within 24 hours the vote can only stay then.  Does D1 ever end within 24 hours?  Since for all intents and purposes it's a random vote, is it really that big of a deal?  Additionally, you and Affinity had done nothing in the game as of yet.

This is your response to Pesco saying your random vote is bad. After your reaction to Rai's random vote on you it's unsettling that you try to write off responsibility for your own. Then you decide that you're okay with Pesco after all for no discernable reason. Pesco is trying to lynch you for something you think isn't a big deal. Why is he good? BT also proved your reason for voting him is wrong. You're ignoring it to keep the new wagon going.

##Vote: I have no name

Having to wait for someone to post without being able to ask for someone to post is pretty annoying, just throwing that out there.

Edible is a genius. I wish I'd thought of it first.

[I have no name]

Additionally, Shadoweh voted before I did

EBWOP: Affinity

@mod: do your own posts count as breaking consecutive posts?

[Edible]Yes. :3[/edible]

This is your response to Pesco saying your random vote is bad. After your reaction to Rai's random vote on you it's unsettling that you try to write off responsibility for your own. Then you decide that you're okay with Pesco after all for no discernable reason. Pesco is trying to lynch you for something you think isn't a big deal. Why is he good? BT also proved your reason for voting him is wrong. You're ignoring it to keep the new wagon going.

Context, context, context.  My random vote was in my first post of the game, Raitaki's wasn't in his first post.  Pesco posted and though he came to the wrong conclusion, the way he went about it seemed fine so I saw no reason to keep my vote there.  Though I don't think it's a big deal, obviously other people do.  Reading BT's post again, he said:

Of course, the votes are reasonable, and so is mine.

So I'm not ignoring any proof that my reason for voting him is wrong because, as far as I can tell, said proof doesn't exist.

Leaving now, be back in roughly an hour.  I'll answer any questions and hopefully be able to ask some then.

[Pesco]

Why does it need to take another member justifying his post to make it okay?

L-2 means it takes one more person to vote before you can hammer yourself. I'd take it as a point in which you need to claim.
Although that would be kind of ridiculous this early in the day/game to need to clalim to get people off your back unless you did something incredibly scumtell.

I AM pressing Raikari for being suspicious but I don't see why I can't give him a shove in the right direction. It would be stupid to lynch a newb for stupid reasons.

I'm leaving a clear trail of my stances with regards to things that people have mentioned during the day. Transparency is a good thing for all.

Why would anyone want to hammer themselves if they got wagoned to L-2/L-1 before half the day is over? Panicked and inexperienced scum maybe, but then it's a good thing to have put them into that position. Myself as a townie in that position I'd just ignore it because I know there's enough people that will pull out before something stupid happens. You sound like you understand how such a scenario would play out, why worry that much?

I asked a very general version of events, not specific to Raitaki. Someone who is suspicious and is still suspicious after being pressed gets upgraded to likely scum. Town puts faith in their scumhunting and lynches the guy. If scum, yay. If not, reread and look harder. What are these stupid reasons to lynch him for since you call them as such?

b]##Vote: BT[/b]

For avoiding talking about Rai.  Says IHNN is scummy for dancing on Rai.  A link seems to be missing.

The idea that he can 'votepark' for the half a day before pesco posts is huh when he could simply not post at all.  Not sure why people can't take IHNN's explanations (e.g wagon size, function of random vote) at face value, and BT seems to be the most egregious of these people.

Nothing is wrong with BT's case (how could it be when it's so simple?).  I'm just going by what isn't there, since his opinion on Nameless wasn't accompanied with one on Rai, and Nameless voted the latter.

I can't make any sense of why you're voting BT for things that sound like they apply to IHNN.

##Unvote
##Vote: BT

After perusing the thread, I can only say that BT was the first to attempt to derail the bandwagon on me by pressing on IHNN. He also didn't appear to be paying much attention.

Needs more visible scumhunting from you. Maybe I'm splitting hairs here but there's two parts to this that I'd like to hear explanations for. How is derailing the wagon on you scummy? How is pressing on IHNN scummy? If it's a combination of both, how was that conclusion reached?

[Shadoweh]

Context, context, context.  My random vote was in my first post of the game, Raitaki's wasn't in his first post.  Pesco posted and though he came to the wrong conclusion, the way he went about it seemed fine so I saw no reason to keep my vote there.  Though I don't think it's a big deal, obviously other people do. 

"The way he went about it" doesn't tell me anything. What in particular did he do that stood out to you? As it stands I'm taking it to mean "I know he has a town role pm".

Reading BT's post again, he said:

Of course, the votes are reasonable, and so is mine.

So I'm not ignoring any proof that my reason for voting him is wrong because, as far as I can tell, said proof doesn't exist.

This is called cherry picking. This is what BT actually said in relation to voting you.

Thanks for proving my point, though. Judging by his posts you'd think IHNN had already voted Rai, but he never did. Also, wagon size is a pretty bad point to justify lack of :vote: with. Not to mention one could just vote someone else meanwhile instead of sticking to the RVS vote.

...And his latest post is OMGUS. You could get similar "vibes" from any vote on Rai at this stage. Of course, the votes are reasonable, and so is mine. Too bad "vibes" lets you get away with that, though.

His line is referencing the votes on Rai's wagon. By quoting it out of context you're making it sound like he's saying yours and Rai's random votes are the same. That's blatant misrepresentation.

As for the reason you voted for him, you didn't give a reason at first. It took a second post for you to say:

I also felt you weren't paying attention to the thread, as evidenced by not knowing I'd voted.

BT then says that he did in fact mention both your votes.

I thought you said I wasn't voting [anyone] in your first post addressing me?

In his first post addressing you, he said you weren't using your vote. In his very next post he clarifies to you that an RVS vote is not using your vote. (it's not). You're not going back and checking to see if you're voting your suspect for the right reasons. If you had you would realize you were wrong. As I am now bringing this to your attention I expect you to explain why you're voting based on word semantics.

[I have no name]

That's blatant misrepresentation.
...
You're not going back and checking to see if you're voting your suspect for the right reasons. If you had you would realize you were wrong. As I am now bringing this to your attention I expect you to explain why you're voting based on word semantics.

The problem here is it's operating under the assumption that I was misrepresenting.  I was actually misinterpreting-I know there's no proof either way, but I honestly misinterpreted BT's posts.
...
I did go back, several times, but off the misinterpretations.  As you have now pointed out, I was clearly mistaken, and so I will ##Unvote

I guess now I need to go back over everything and see if I want to put my vote back on BT and see if there's anyone I overlooked.

[Raitaki]

@Pesco: I placed my vote on BT because I reasoned that scum would prefer to get a good townie player lynched. There aren't many players here that openly expressed an opinion that I should not be lynched, so scum can still attempt to drive the bandwagon back into me if they so wanted, they still have the time to do so.
As for pressing on IHNN, I'd guess that (assuming BT is scum) was an attempt to use IHNN's reaction to my random vote to build up momentum for a bandwagon by having another scum player later join in. I'm not saying at least one of the players poking at IHNN must be scum though.

So anyways, that's my reasoning for the vote, although I'm not completely sure of it myself.

@Shadoweh: I'd say you're a fairly good player, and I can see that you try to keep being involved and...uh...analytic? I'm not a good judge of behavior though, so I can't say with certainty that you're a townie.

[Pesco]

Both your reasoning and explanation give me the vibe that you don't want to call IHNN scum.