FTL: Faster Then Light: Advanced Mafia (Sector 4, Scrapping Cycle)

[Dormio Ergo Sum]

##Target: Shadoweh

Were you honestly expecting anything else?

[Shalako]

Reporting in.

Everything still has to be approved by a moderator  :ohdear:

[Shalako]

 

##Vote: SB
You know who else's role PM would make them think they're scum? Scum, that's who.

What about Selery?

MurrIn

You misspelled your name

No, you ##Vote Serela because jargon is non indicative of alignment, he's therefore obviously trying to mislynch random people, obvious scum is obvious top kek

Serious or RVS?

It is my belief that Shadoweh and Serela are true loyalists to the Rebel Army.
I am keeping my sights on those who speak out against their loyalty.

Why?

[DNAbc]

I thought obvious RVS was obvious.


That actually reminds me, Dormio is in this game! Obligatory ##Target Dormio

[Dorian White]

@Shalako: I'm not sure how familiar you are with this game, so here is a small hint: you are supposed to vote someone by now.

[Conqueror]

Upon rereading (lol) I actually want to do this
##Unvote
##Vote: SB
Originally I thought SB said he thought he was "scum", but now I see he said "mafia".
So SB, what made you think you were mafia instead of third party, given orange is a pretty unusual color for mafia but a more common color for third party? I know I thought I'd finally gotten the SK role I'd always wanted.

[Bardiche]

  What about Selery?

Conq adequately clarified that: Scum is generally red, Town is green, ITP can be anything. Thinking you're Scum based on an Orange role PM is more suspicious than thinking you're ITP because of the same.

##Vote: Conqueror
I do think it's time we make an effort past jotevoking though, and Conqueror's vote has all the tone of a serious vote and yet its origins are as terrible as Greece's debt management. (Too soon?) Why would you grill SB over his statement, which would be stupid coming from Scum? I get that we want to move beyond RVS but that's a pretty terrible point to start it out with.

[Conqueror]

Nothing is too terrible for ending RVS.

Why would you grill SB over his statement, which would be stupid coming from Scum?

I disagree. I've seen this type of "confused about role pm" statement enough from scum (trying to gather townpoints) and town (also trying to gather townpoints, or just genuinely confused) that I don't think it's too farfetched to have come from any alignment. So I usually ignore statements like that because I see them as generally null.
The thing is that the situation is slightly different here such that it's a little strange for SB to have the reaction he claimed to have! It occurred to me that perhaps SB decided to make that post to get town cred without thinking too much about it, so I'd like to hear from the man himself.

[Raitaki]

What was the purpose of asking this question? It's RVS. So no. There's not enough information to doubt anyone's allegiance at this point.

> This ship mirrors captain Dorian White's sentiment in that it seemed dubious that you would take the effort to make a second post jabbing at captain Selery without doubting their allegiance to the Fleet. Assuming you hold no hostile intentions against captain Selery, your attempt to damage their reputation would have been unnecessary. Therefore, this ship postulates that you hold unexplained hostile intentions against captain Selery.

##Release target
##Target: Murrin

Conq adequately clarified that: Scum is generally red, Town is green, ITP can be anything. Thinking you're Scum based on an Orange role PM is more suspicious than thinking you're ITP because of the same.

##Vote: Conqueror
I do think it's time we make an effort past jotevoking though, and Conqueror's vote has all the tone of a serious vote and yet its origins are as terrible as Greece's debt management. (Too soon?) Why would you grill SB over his statement, which would be stupid coming from Scum? I get that we want to move beyond RVS but that's a pretty terrible point to start it out with.

> Query: Why would captain SB's statement be stupid coming from the Federation? You seemed to agree with captain Conqueror that captain SB's confusion in regards to his ship assignment was somewhat suspicious, and stated that it was time for us to get serious; then, what was bad about captain Conqueror's argument?

[DNAbc]

This is how much content actually present in Raitaki's post;

>I agree with Dorian, Murrin is scummy for attacking Serely again without getting a scumread from that. If you are town, you won't do that, therefore you are scummy.


>Why is SB statement scummy? Bard agreed with conq that SB may be confused over his PM, and has expressed intent to get out of RVS, Bard's scummy read for conq is odd.

##Unvote

##Vote: Raitaki


for crimes against the federation such as low effort empty content and unecessarily complicated roleplay fluff to fake effort.

[Serela]

##unvote ##Vote Darkninjaabc

I disagree! Whilst the fluff makes Raitaki's post bigger, I don't think it's actually to a scummy or obfuscating degree here, nor that his level of content is actually problematically low, especially for this point in the game. What is bad about Raitaki's content itself?

[Raitaki]

> This ship invites you to make a better attempt at true effort at this stage of the hunt.

[DNAbc]

##unvote ##Vote Darkninjaabc

I disagree! Whilst the fluff makes Raitaki's post bigger, I don't think it's actually to a scummy or obfuscating degree here, nor that his level of content is actually problematically low, especially for this point in the game.

I agree with the content being low at this point of the game, but I disagree with the fluff not being large enough that it's obfuscating. A one sentence argument should not warrant a 3 line response to cover up the important points. Raitaki's point is simple. He think Murrin should vote when placing an argument, and he agrees with Dorian on that, thats it. All those postulations and intent analysis are just big words thrown around over nothing that I personally wasn't able to get that single major point, so I believe that it was sufficiently confusing to warrant a vote. Which I again, in your words, will claim that seems pretty reasonable at this point. We just happen to have different degrees of tolerance towards this kind of thing, which I can understand.

What is bad about Raitaki's content itself?

This, this I have a much bigger bone to pick with.

Raitaki's entire second statement is basically a loaded question at Bard over a strawman Raitaki raised himself. Raitaki first implied that Bard agrees with conq's view over SB's confusion, which didn't happen as Bard hasn't posted since conq's response, and was actually doubting the legitimacy of conq's vote before that. Yet Raitaki decided to accuse Bard anyway, noting that Bard is clearly not doing an RVS vote, and using a rhetoric to point out Bard's supposed 'contradiction'.

The problem is obvious, Raitaki isn't really trying that hard to understand the intent behind a simple, 3 post comment involving only two players. And considering some of the messier things Raitaki had handled last game, and how I find some of his town insights to be actually very poignant, this sudden drop in the quality of his posts comes along as very out of the left field, hence, vote.

For reference, here's Raitaki's actual post.

> Query: Why would captain SB's statement be stupid coming from the Federation? You seemed to agree with captain Conqueror that captain SB's confusion in regards to his ship assignment was somewhat suspicious, and stated that it was time for us to get serious; then, what was bad about captain Conqueror's argument?

[Raitaki]

Raitaki's entire second statement is basically a loaded question at Bard over a strawman Raitaki raised himself. Raitaki first implied that Bard agrees with conq's view over SB's confusion, which didn't happen as Bard hasn't posted since conq's response, and was actually doubting the legitimacy of conq's vote before that. Yet Raitaki decided to accuse Bard anyway, noting that Bard is clearly not doing an RVS vote, and using a rhetoric to point out Bard's supposed 'contradiction'.

> This ship identified this statement as an agreement:

Conq adequately clarified that: Scum is generally red, Town is green, ITP can be anything. Thinking you're Scum based on an Orange role PM is more suspicious than thinking you're ITP because of the same.

> This ship was also not accusing captain Bardiche of any wrongdoing. In this post:

Conq adequately clarified that: Scum is generally red, Town is green, ITP can be anything. Thinking you're Scum based on an Orange role PM is more suspicious than thinking you're ITP because of the same.

##Vote: Conqueror
I do think it's time we make an effort past jotevoking though, and Conqueror's vote has all the tone of a serious vote and yet its origins are as terrible as Greece's debt management. (Too soon?) Why would you grill SB over his statement, which would be stupid coming from Scum? I get that we want to move beyond RVS but that's a pretty terrible point to start it out with.

> Four things happened: One, captain Bardiche agreed about captain SB being suspicious, or at least was thinking along the same lines. Two, captain Bardiche stated that it was time to get serious. Three, captain Conqueror's targeting of captain SB was a questionable move, considering that it appeared to be serious. Four, captain SB's statement was stupid coming from the Federation. Connecting the dots, this ship concluded that captain Bardiche was at worst indifferent to both the fact the captain SB said something suspicious and the fact that captain Conqueror made a serious move, and that captain Bardiche's only objection was over the fact what captain SB said would be stupid if it was coming from the Federation. This ship's intention was only for captain Bardiche to explain why said statement was stupid for Federation despite the fact it was suspicious. This ship was not accusing captain Bardiche of not being serious or any other wrongdoings.
> This ship notes with annoyance that such a minor query shouldn't have necessitated such high expectations and such a detailed explanation.

[NekoNekoRex]

Battlemap Update 1
Conq (4): SB, Zakerei, Shadoweh, Bardiche
Raitaki (2): DNA
Serela (1): Murrin
SB (1): Conq
Shadoweh (1): Dormio
Murrin (2): Dorian, Raitaki
Darkninja (1): Serela
Out Of Combat: Shalako

A ship can withstand the combined fire of 7 ships before it is destroyed.
Combat Cycle will end in 52.5 Hours

[DNAbc]

> This ship identified this statement as an agreement: Conq adequately clarified that: Scum is generally red, Town is green, ITP can be anything. Thinking you're Scum based on an Orange role PM is more suspicious than thinking you're ITP because of the same.

Then you misrepped Bard, I am quite certain that statement is evidence that Bard provided to proof the ridiculousness of Conq's vote, you know, in order to vote against him.

This ship was also not accusing captain Bardiche of any wrongdoing.

But you are throwing a rhetoric at Bard, and implicating him for a glaring intent contradiction behind his vote, before he even responded! Perhaps you should actually explain better?

Also, please, formatting;

Four things happened:
> captain Bardiche agreed about captain SB being suspicious, or at least was thinking along the same lines.
> captain Bardiche stated that it was time to get serious.
> captain Conqueror's targeting of captain SB was a questionable move, considering that it appeared to be serious.
> captain SB's statement was stupid coming from the Federation.

First one didn't happen. Bardiche was citing Conq's words, and attacking Conq with them. Your inferring that wrongly, hence, strawman.

The logic link behind the second and third one are too  just plain weird. Conq voted SB before Bard's statement, so if anything, Bard is the one concluding Conq's SB vote is trying to get us out of RVS, so the cause and effect here clearly don't add up.

SB is stupid, okay, whatever, sure, SB is stupid in your opinion. But that's, like, your own opinion, which wasn't even supposed to be a 'thing' that happened. So you are still wrong for treating it as an objective truth.

Okay, so at least now I know your view is completely messed up because you got your events totally scrambled. Next;

Connecting the dots, this ship concluded that;
> captain Bardiche was at worst indifferent to both the fact
1. the captain SB said something suspicious
2. captain Conqueror made a serious move

> and captain Bardiche's only objection was over the fact what captain SB said would be stupid if it was coming from the Federation.

This ship's intention was only for captain Bardiche to explain why said statement was stupid for Federation despite the fact it was suspicious.
This ship was not accusing captain Bardiche of not being serious or any other wrongdoings.

So by 'stupid for Federation', I suppose you mean scummy. Okay, so you want Bard to explain why his vote was scummy even if it was suspicious....whaaat? So you want him to prove himself guilty? There's probably something I am missing here, but far as how your wording is literally concerned, that seems to be a pretty loaded question imo from the get-go, hence my questioning.

> This ship notes with annoyance that such a minor query shouldn't have necessitated such high expectations and such a detailed explanation.

I expected coherence, which frankly shouldn't be that high of an expectation, even for RVS. For those who aren't using a jumble of codewords to express a simple idea.

[DNAbc]

p sure serela voted me nnr

It's not bolded, so I didn't see it.

[DNAbc]

Also curious as to Bard's inactivity, because usually he would've jumped to defend himself for this blatant misrep by now.

[Serela]

Also curious as to Bard's inactivity, because usually he would've jumped to defend himself for this blatant misrep by now.

perhaps
he's not here at the moment???

I mean seriously it's only been a few hours. (Meanwhile, I'm being lazy and planning on posting later, but I felt bringing this up was too time-sensitive)

[DNAbc]

Oh yeah, I scrolled and its been like 3 hrs, its late over here so I lost track of time.

Which reminds me to get some zzzs, later.

[Raitaki]

First one didn't happen. Bardiche was citing Conq's words, and attacking Conq with them. Your inferring that wrongly, hence, strawman.

> This ship wonders, then, why captain Bardiche cited those sentiments in response to captain Shalako's query on why captain SB was a Federation agent for reacting to their own ship assignment but captain Selery wasn't, and even worded his response as "Conq adequately[/i] clarified that". As a troubleshooting step, this ship requests you explain the meaning of the adverb "adequately" to it.

The logic link behind the second and third one are too  just plain weird. Conq voted SB before Bard's statement, so if anything, Bard is the one concluding Conq's SB vote is trying to get us out of RVS, so the cause and effect here clearly don't add up.

> This ship would like to append that the four things that this ship pointed out in the excerpt quoted was things that happened in the quoted excerpt. These are not this ship's opinions on the proceedings, these are this ship's interpretations of captain Bardiche's words. This ship merely accidentally omitted the preceding "captain Bardiche said that" due to unconsciously trying to avoid repeating the same thing four times. This ship thinks that it was still fairly obvious that the last two points were things that captain Bardiche stated in the post quoted.

SB is stupid, okay, whatever, sure, SB is stupid in your opinion. But that's, like, your own opinion, which wasn't even supposed to be a 'thing' that happened. So you are still wrong for treating it as an objective truth.

> If captain Darkninjaabc would read, he would be aware that this was something captain Bardiche said, which this ship is questioning captain Bardiche about. This ship cannot even start to comprehend why it would ask captain Bardiche to clarify that if that was this ship's opinion.

So by 'stupid for Federation', I suppose you mean scummy

> Captain Bardiche said that captain SB's statement was stupid for the Federation, or "stupid for scum". From your conclusion, does that mean captain Bardiche thought captain SB was 'scum' for his statement? No, it doesn't. This ship fails to comprehend why you applied this leap of logic to this ship's posts, but not to captain Bardiche's.
> In layman terms, this ship's query to captain Bardiche was "Why is what SB said a stupid thing to say, when Bardiche himself said that SB was indeed more suspicious than Serela for thinking orange = scum instead of ITP?" This ship fails to comprehend how an answer to this query requires captain Bardiche to incriminate himself.

I expected coherence, which frankly shouldn't be that high of an expectation, even for RVS. For those who aren't using a jumble of codewords to express a simple idea.

> This ship requests you to point out the codewords it used. Was it "this ship"? "The Federation"? "Captain"? "Ship assignment"? "Query"? This ship thinks that what these terms mean should be painfully obvious if you have been paying any attention to the political situation ("the game's flavor"). Additionally, this ship was perturbed by your attempts to compare its posts to its "town insights last game", which occurred at critical junctions when previous information was available, to a neutral, minor question, made to gather more information in a situation where there was little.

> This ship is most disturbed by captain Darkninjaabc's repeated attempts to discredit it, using buzzwords such as "rhetoric", "misrep" and "strawman", without even earnestly attempting to comprehend this ship's explanations. This ship hereby accuses captain Darkninjaabc of the same crimes he had accused this ship of.

##Release target
##Target: Darkninjaabc

[SB]

Upon rereading (lol) I actually want to do this
##Unvote
##Vote: SB
Originally I thought SB said he thought he was "scum", but now I see he said "mafia".
So SB, what made you think you were mafia instead of third party, given orange is a pretty unusual color for mafia but a more common color for third party? I know I thought I'd finally gotten the SK role I'd always wanted.

I assumed that the Rebels were the scumteam until I  didn't tl;dr the role pm and realised that there was something in there that made no sense if the Feds were town. The colour wasn't a part of it. I don't even think there'll be a neutral because both 8/3/1 and 9/2/1 are pretty lopsided.

##Unvote
##Vote: Serela

I don't like the way that he deflects DNA's Raitaki vote. I think DNA's vote is valid at this point in the game and the question Serela asked feels kind of like posturing to me, because there was no reason for Serela to ask that question when it wasn't related to DNA's vote. It just seems like he was trying to look like he was being helpful.

Was cut by 9 posts because I had to do other things, will look at those in a sec.

[SB]

Okay I actually read them (why do we have Page 2 wallposts?) but didn't really get much from them besides reinforcing an earlier townread I had on DNA. I kind of find the way Serela only bothered to acknowledge a small part of the post weird, but at the same time I have trouble blaming him. I'd like him to say what he thinks about DNA and Raitaki though.

[Bardiche]

I can defend myself quite fine. I agree that SB saying they were confused at first is a Little Bit Weird because he shouldn't have thought he'd be Scum based on an Orange PM. However, if he were actually Scum, that'd be a stupid thing to state: "Hey guys I mistook myself for being Scum without QT!"

Basically, a Scum!SB wouldn't claim he missed the QT link if he had one, and an ITP!SB still wouldn't broadcast it. That's just weird and goes against all conventions of Not Retarded Play. Conqueror making what looks and smells like a serious vote over that was the first worthy thing to vote someone for. It's not durable in the slightest.

##Unvote
##Vote: Serela

Worse than Conqueror's vote on SB is Serela's vote on Darkninja. Disagreeing re: Raitaki's fluff is fine and all, but after asking "what's bad about Raitaki's content itself?", it's rather disingenuous to then disregard Darkninja's response to explain how much time has passed. I'd have expected a bit more effort to rebut Darkninja or accept his reasons for suspecting Raitaki, but Serela does neither.


Also, if it's not too much trouble, I'd like to ask Raitaki to tone down the "I'm a high-tech ship" thing. I get your predilection for using big words, but I'm just a Lalafell, I don't understand anything.

[SB]

Like I said, the colour wasn't the cause of my confusion.

[Serela]

it's rather disingenuous to then disregard Darkninja's response to explain how much time has passed. I'd have expected a bit more effort to rebut Darkninja or accept his reasons for suspecting Raitaki, but Serela does neither.

I knew making that post was a bad idea z.z Even if I say I'm not ACTUALLY making a post until later, no one's going to care because I posted (in other news I've been asleep for the past 3 hours and just woke up so I'm going to continue being a terrible person for a little bit longer)

[Murrin]

Conq adequately clarified that: Scum is generally red, Town is green, ITP can be anything. Thinking you're Scum based on an Orange role PM is more suspicious than thinking you're ITP because of the same.

##Vote: Conqueror
I do think it's time we make an effort past jotevoking though, and Conqueror's vote has all the tone of a serious vote and yet its origins are as terrible as Greece's debt management. (Too soon?) Why would you grill SB over his statement, which would be stupid coming from Scum? I get that we want to move beyond RVS but that's a pretty terrible point to start it out with.

The argument between DNA and Raitaki resulted from this post. 

I disagree that SB's statement would be stupid if he were Scum.  Here's why: if SB is Scum, he could be pretending that he's a Townie who didn't receive a QT.  In other words, he could have just made up the story: "When I first received my (Town) role PM, I thought I was a Mafia member who didn't receive a QT!"

Doesn't look very stupid to me.  Potentially unlikely claim?  Maybe.  But not terribly unlikely. 

I disagree with your reason for voting Conqueror. 

But I can't read whether the stated motive for the vote is sincere or not.

Worse than Conqueror's vote on SB is Serela's vote on Darkninja. Disagreeing re: Raitaki's fluff is fine and all, but after asking "what's bad about Raitaki's content itself?", it's rather disingenuous to then disregard Darkninja's response to explain how much time has passed. I'd have expected a bit more effort to rebut Darkninja or accept his reasons for suspecting Raitaki, but Serela does neither.

To me, Selery's "I'm going to post later" post looks sincere.  I'm not sure I like Selery's vote for DNA though because it seems to imply that he thinks Raitaki's content was OK, which I disagree with because I really don't like this statement:

[Bard] seemed to agree with captain Conqueror that captain SB's confusion in regards to his ship assignment was somewhat suspicious

because this never happened.  Bard never said he agreed that SB's confusion about his role PM was suspicious.  I see where Raitaki could have just misunderstood, but I still don't like it.

I'm a little bit more suspicious of Raitaki than of Selery right now.  Raitaki said something happened that didn't happen (and in turn directed empty suspicion onto someone), and Selery implied that he at the time agreed with Raitaki's content in general.  To me, both of these actions are equally suspicious, but my gut is telling me that Raitaki is slightly more suspicious than Selery. 

##Unvote
##Target: Raitaki

-------------------

DNA/Raitaki's argument is mostly just miscommunicating.  So it gives me almost no information.  But I am (tentatively) reading DNA as Town.

-------------------

SB's posts look sincere and Town to me, even though this is wrong:

there was no reason for Serela to ask that question ["What is bad about Raitaki's content itself?"] when it wasn't related to DNA's vote.

The question was related to DNA's vote.  Why would DNA vote for Raitaki if he didn't have a problem with Raitaki's content? "I think Raitaki's content is good.  I'm going to vote him though."  I think asking about what DNA thinks of Raitaki's content is quite relevant to DNA's vote.  Also, DNA explicitly stated that Raitaki has "empty content."

[DNAbc]

> This ship requests you to point out the codewords it used. Was it "this ship"? "The Federation"? "Captain"? "Ship assignment"? "Query"? This ship thinks that what these terms mean should be painfully obvious if you have been paying any attention to the political situation ("the game's flavor"). Additionally, this ship was perturbed by your attempts to compare its posts to its "town insights last game", which occurred at critical junctions when previous information was available, to a neutral, minor question, made to gather more information in a situation where there was little.

> This ship is most disturbed by captain Darkninjaabc's repeated attempts to discredit it, using buzzwords such as "rhetoric", "misrep" and "strawman", without even earnestly attempting to comprehend this ship's explanations. This ship hereby accuses captain Darkninjaabc of the same crimes he had accused this ship of.

If I now start replacing scum, town and scummy in every post I make with Pizza, Foodstuff and Is Dastardly Delicious Against Our Agenda because I have a food flavored mafia, you should at least expect to get on someone's nerves because it just stops being funny after RVS and trying to keep using that can and will impede how fast we can understand your arguments,  that's trolling others.  Not everyone has enough free time nor patience to entertain your shenanigans. That's on a whole new level than me using generally agreed slangs within the maf community. Come on, this isn't your first day of playing, and if this proceeds longer its only going to get less and less acceptable.

Also, your 'four things happened' thing, I wasn't misrepping you

Do I even need to defend myself? No, so let's stop here and look at other things.
-----------------------------------------------------

 
To me, Selery's "I'm going to post later" post looks sincere.  I'm not sure I like Selery's vote for DNA though because it seems to imply that he thinks Raitaki's content was OK, which I disagree with because I really don't like this statement: because this never happened.  Bard never said he agreed that SB's confusion about his role PM was suspicious.  I see where Raitaki could have just misunderstood, but I still don't like it.

I'm a little bit more suspicious of Raitaki than of Selery right now.  Raitaki said something happened that didn't happen (and in turn directed empty suspicion onto someone), and Selery implied that he at the time agreed with Raitaki's content in general.  To me, both of these actions are equally suspicious, but my gut is telling me that Raitaki is slightly more suspicious than Selery. 

##Unvote
##Target: Raitaki

-------------------

DNA/Raitaki's argument is mostly just miscommunicating.  So it gives me almost no information.  But I am (tentatively) reading DNA as Town.

-----------------

Uh, Murrin, can you please better explain why you are voting Raitaki then? Because if you dismiss the Raitaki/DNA exchange, there's literally nothing left of Raitaki's posts, and yet, you are citing Raitaki explicitly and pointing out the false premises established by Raitaki, of which you found scummy. That's contradictory. The explanation right now is quite haphazard and disjoined, please clarify.


Although I believe its reasonable to not actively pursue RVS and F5 this early in the game, after the amount of downtime we had in the last. I too will be happy to see more content from anyone too. So consider me currently neutral as to the effort argument against Serela.

Also still waiting on Serela's 'later post'

[DNAbc]

EDIT:
Also,for your 'four things happened' thing, I wasn't misrepping you. I was separating those events by the numbers of which you provided yourself. That ain't no fault of mine if you are tripping over your own points and people can't 'understand' your 'true intentions'.

[NekoNekoRex]

My power is out at my home due to a storm, so I might have trouble posting another votecount for the near future, at least until tomorrow.