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

[Dorian White]

...
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. 
...

That's interesting. You see what Raitaki mistook as agreement? And therefore you should be able to see that this misunderstanding would make Bards point seem contradictory to Raitaki, right?
Cause if you see that, then why did you see Raitaki ?directed empty suspicion onto someone? when I just saw a request for clarification?
And am I now as suspicious as Serela for also failing to see the problem with Raitakis content? :C

[WHMZakeri]

Why?

Because of reasons.

[Murrin]

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.

Simple. 

DNA/Raitaki's argument is mostly just miscommunicating.  So it gives me almost no information.

There is one very important word in there. 

"Almost." 

You absolutely cannot say that I said or implied that I completely dismissed the DNA/Raitaki argument.

Sure, you can say I dismissed most of the argument, and I did dismiss most of the argument, because most of the argument is just you and Raitaki miscommunicating with each other.

Also, even if you WERE to take my comment as dismissing the DNA/Raitaki argument, your argument would be complete bullshit anyway, because the only reference I actually made to Raitaki was from a post that was addressed to Bardiche, which Raitaki made before the argument between you and Raitaki actually started.

Here's the progression of events:

1) Raitaki makes a post in which he votes for me and poses a question to Bard.
2) You respond to Raitaki's post.  <-----THE ARGUMENT STARTED HERE. Raitaki wasn't talking to you before this point, and you weren't talking to Raitaki before this point.

[Murrin]

Cause if you see that, then why did you see Raitaki ?directed empty suspicion onto someone? when I just saw a request for clarification?

Could you clarify the part I emboldened?  I don't understand what you are asking here. (A request from whom to whom for clarification about what?)

[Dorian White]

...
> 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?

It's here where Raitaki asked Bard to clarify the supposed contradiction. The very point that you quoted and presented as empty suspicion.

[DNAbc]

Simple.  There is one very important word in there. 

"Almost." 

You absolutely cannot say that I said or implied that I completely dismissed the DNA/Raitaki argument.

Sure, you can say I dismissed most of the argument, and I did dismiss most of the argument, because most of the argument is just you and Raitaki miscommunicating with each other.

Also, even if you WERE to take my comment as dismissing the DNA/Raitaki argument, your argument would be complete bullshit anyway, because the only reference I actually made to Raitaki was from a post that was addressed to Bardiche, which Raitaki made before the argument between you and Raitaki actually started.

Here's the progression of events:

1) Raitaki makes a post in which he votes for me and poses a question to Bard.
2) You respond to Raitaki's post.  <-----THE ARGUMENT STARTED HERE. Raitaki wasn't talking to you before this point, and you weren't talking to Raitaki before this point.

That whole 'gotcha' semantic thing, strong language and the tactical bolds and caps are kinda annoying. And I didn't even launch an argument at you in the first place. I just asked for clarification because of the wording. You are getting worked up over nothing.

Even with that aside, 'gut' is a poor and lazy excuse to vote someone, especially when you are using anecdotal evidence between two players such as 'suspiciousness'. If  instead you elaborated properly your view on what's you consider to be 'normal', then you could've easily quantified said doubt towards the player behavior and actually give us something meaningful which we could analyze.

What I wanted to hear was how exactly is Raitaki more scummy than Serela in your opinion. Because you just tossed out  a bunch of unbacked claims out there and I was trying to make the most out of it. Thus me asking for clarification and  with the intent of prompting you to go beyond cherry picking arguments.

Like, geez, I know you are new to the game, but chill.

cut by 1

[Murrin]

That whole 'gotcha' semantic thing, strong language and the tactical bolds and caps are kinda annoying. And I didn't even launch an argument at you in the first place. I just asked for clarification because of the wording. You are getting worked up over nothing.

Even with that aside, 'gut' is a poor and lazy excuse to vote someone, especially when you are using anecdotal evidence between two players such as 'suspiciousness'. If  instead you elaborated properly your view on what's you consider to be 'normal', then you could've easily quantified said doubt towards the player behavior and actually give us something meaningful which we could analyze.

What I wanted to hear was how exactly is Raitaki more scummy than Serela in your opinion. Because you just tossed out  a bunch of unbacked claims out there and I was trying to make the most out of it. Thus me asking for clarification and  with the intent of prompting you to go beyond cherry picking arguments.

Like, geez, I know you are new to the game, but chill.

cut by 1

Part of the reason I responded the way I did is because your post to me looked like you were basically saying I was voting for Raitaki based on nothing. And to me, voting based on nothing is suspicious. And for my own standards for myself, doing something suspicious or allowing someone to convince others I did something suspicious is not good play, because it can cause a mislynch. And I take mafia games (too) seriously most of the time, so I want to play really really well. So since I perceived your post as implying that I'm suspicious, I attacked it pretty much as hard as possible.

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

Because you just tossed out  a bunch of unbacked claims out there and I was trying to make the most out of it.

Could you clarify this?

[DNAbc]

actually read my post please

 

Even with that aside, 'gut' is a poor and lazy excuse to vote someone, especially when you are using anecdotal evidence between two players such as 'suspiciousness'. If  instead you elaborated properly your view on what's you consider to be 'normal', then you could've easily quantified said doubt towards the player behavior and actually give us something meaningful which we could analyze.

[Shalako]

Wtb Avatar

@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.

When I was a young child my parents were murdered in front of me in a dark ally by a RVS Band Wagon. Since then I've sworn revenge on all RVS. Like Uncle Benihana used to say before he was cut down in the prime of his life in a totally avoidable Wagon
"With Great Votes comes some Respectability."
(I'm familiar with the game of Mafia)

I know I thought I'd finally gotten the SK role I'd always wanted.

SK is hands down my fave role, it's all the fun of being Town with all the Murder of being Mafia!
I find the whole "I thought I was non-town because of Oranges" rather ridiculous what with the Sample Role being Orange.
So Mafia know Town are Orange so why argue that someone is more town for leaking Role info everybody  knows?
The argument about Mafia doing it to seem town also falls apart for the same reasons. Why would Mafia expect to get Townie points for saying things people who aren't color-blind know?

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.

ITP?

Nothing is too terrible for ending RVS.

Agreed as someone who hates VS

Even with that aside, 'gut' is a poor and lazy excuse to vote someone

Disagree. Even more so with it being day one and the...rather poor interactions so far.

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.

:wat:
So why do you vote Murren instead of Selery?
Aren't you just attempting to damage their reputation by your own logic?
Do you need your Ships A.I. recalibrated?

unecessarily complicated roleplay fluff to fake effort.

I'd love to hear why his enjoyable roleplay is overly complicated.

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

Why do you think he lied about events that happened to attack a strawman argument instead of simply being wrong with his interpretation of events that happened?

> 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.

Agreed.

> 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.

Disagree.
Some Mafia players always assume the worst, the Other mafia players die.

And for my own standards for myself, doing something suspicious or allowing someone to convince others I did something suspicious is not good play, because it can cause a mislynch. And I take mafia games (too) seriously most of the time, so I want to play really really well. So since I perceived your post as implying that I'm suspicious, I attacked it pretty much as hard as possible.

Oh, I'm the only one here with a Meta on you Murren? Maybe I shouldn't feed you signals about what your townie tells are, it'll come bite me in the long run  :V

Because of reasons.

I know your reasons,  But I thought Selery and Serela  were different people so consider it a moot point.

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.

Even with that aside, 'gut' is a poor and lazy excuse to vote someone

Red Flag.

[Shalako]

:wat:
So why do you vote Murren instead of Selery?
Aren't you just attempting to damage their reputation by your own logic?
Do you need your Ships A.I. recalibrated?
Disregard

[Murrin]

That's interesting. You see what Raitaki mistook as agreement? And therefore you should be able to see that this misunderstanding would make Bards point seem contradictory to Raitaki, right?
Cause if you see that, then why did you see Raitaki ?directed empty suspicion onto someone? when I just saw a request for clarification?

I see Raitaki "directing empty suspicion" because he implied that he didn't see anything wrong with Conqueror's argument, and thus implied that he didn't see the reasoning behind Bardiche's vote for Conqueror. And (in my opinion) voting for someone based on poor reasoning is suspicious. Thus, I saw Raitaki directing (slight) suspicion toward Bardiche.

And am I now as suspicious as Serela for also failing to see the problem with Raitakis content? :C

I'll think about this one, but probably not because you explained yourself well and I think I can see your reasoning.

[Murrin]

And (in my opinion) voting for someone based on poor reasoning is suspicious.

It would have made more sense probably for me to say "insufficient reasoning" instead of "poor reasoning."

[Murrin]

Edit:

I see Raitaki "directing empty suspicion" because he implied that he didn't see anything wrong with Conqueror's argument, and thus implied that he didn't see the reasoning behind Bardiche's vote for Conqueror. And (in my opinion) voting for someone based on poor reasoning is suspicious. Thus, I saw Raitaki directing (slight) suspicion toward Bardiche.

It probably would have made more sense in the context of my argument for me to say "insufficient reasoning" instead of "poor reasoning" here.

Sorry for the triple post.

[Conqueror]

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.

SK is hands down my fave role, it's all the fun of being Town with all the Murder of being Mafia!
I find the whole "I thought I was non-town because of Oranges" rather ridiculous what with the Sample Role being Orange.
So Mafia know Town are Orange so why argue that someone is more town for leaking Role info everybody  knows?
The argument about Mafia doing it to seem town also falls apart for the same reasons. Why would Mafia expect to get Townie points for saying things people who aren't color-blind know?

Y'all don't get it. This isn't a question of "scum wouldn't do this" because, like I said, I have seen scum do just what I said in order to get this "town cred".  This isn't a question of "too retarded for scum to do" or not. It's something that scum has, verifiably in the past, done. So I'm not sure why you're claiming something that scum has done before is impossible for scum to do. I'm sure other people can back me up on this.

Anyway, catching up on the rest of the thread in due time. For what it's worth, I can buy SB's explanation since that's what I figured would be the only way for town!SB to reach that conclusion. I don't have any flavour knowledge so I suspected it could have been that. Plus I still remember that game where Mitsuki thought her green role pm was scum. Vote change will come in next post.

[DNAbc]

christ what is this mess

[DNAbc]

cut by conq

[Conqueror]

Actually, before that, Shalako, how much mafia experience do you have? Also, who do you think is scum? RVS is pretty much over so you should have a vote down somewhere even if you're not completely sure, and I'm not sure what to conclude from your walls.

[Serela]

Anyway first off, DNA explained his vote quite satisfactorily (esp. in the "what is wrong with his content itself" part) so I don't think that was scummy anymore

##unvote (whoops I -did- totally forget to bold these last time)

I kind of find the way Serela only bothered to acknowledge a small part of the post weird

But the post was only two sentences long :S In any case if I disagree that the content is too sparse or otherwise disqualified for a "low content" vote then yes, I think it's entirely fair to ask why DNA thinks the content is problematic; even if he's voting it just for being small he'd at least be able to clarify why it's not enough, since the amount he had quoted was a pretty decent bit for this early in the game. (I'm only justifying my vote at the time since I no longer actually think DNA is scummy, at least not for that) And re:Bard (even though I already talked about this earlier) I wasn't really ignoring DNA to continue voting on him, rather I was saying I wasn't actually really making a mafia post at the time and was going to get around to that later, which is why there was no response to his response, but anyway moving onto things that actually matter because that's old news already

actually

after reading all these silly walls I don't actually care about anything that's going on right now. >:T Insert standard Serela complaint about d1 here etc, I could list minor town reads but the best reasons I could come up with to vote anyone right now would still be barely-over-rvs tier. Well, I should at least get one of those. Hmm.

##Vote Zakeri
Saying you have townreads and saying it's "because of reasons" being the limit of your involvement is even more underwhelming than my own game activity at present.

[Serela]

man if I had taken out some of the self-depreciation that post would look notably less actively bad. ;_;

[DNAbc]

No, I too don't really want to read the recent wall posted by Shalako, his claims arent even elaborated and are intertwined messily with his own personal thoughts. Also, the quotes Shalako cited aren't even in any relevant chronological order or grouping.  There's really painfully little content I could salvage even on a skim.

Also, Shalako still hasn't cast a vote when we already are one-third into the day despite acknowledging Dorian's statement, and apparently having a scumread on me. Really tempted to switch wagons.

Also, is it just my screwed up time sense again or is Shadoweh powerlurking again?

[Murrin]

Even with that aside, 'gut' is a poor and lazy excuse to vote someone, especially when you are using anecdotal evidence between two players such as 'suspiciousness'. If  instead you elaborated properly your view on what's you consider to be 'normal', then you could've easily quantified said doubt towards the player behavior and actually give us something meaningful which we could analyze.

The thing is, it was just gut.  I didn't have a reason other than that to choose Raitaki over Selery.  And since I didn't think terribly deeply about what Selery's vote and Raitaki's query toward Bardiche could imply, now would be a good time to re-evaluate. 

Which I would do if I hadn't already spent hours playing today.  Way way way too much time.  I'll re-evaluate later, and probably re-vote - right now I still don't see a stronger case than my just-above-RVS vote on Raitaki--and even if I do re-evaluate, it probably still won't be any higher than just-above-RVS--but hopefully there will be a stronger case soon.

[Raitaki]

Alright, fine. I thought I was being clear enough and that DNA was nitpicking or being the only one who didn't understand for some reason, but guess not. Might have overreacted a little.

##Untarget

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.

Being suspicious of me is fine, but why is Serela implying to agree with my content as suspicious as me posting that content to begin with? Shalako just said that he agreed with part of what I posted too, what do you think about that?

Being a bit leery of Shalako atm. His latest post was nothing but brief responses and commentary to things people said, with little effort to find scum or point out if anything was scummy (and having no vote to show for the small attempt he did make).

##Target: Shalako

[Conqueror]

Okay, (mostly) read page 2 and it was a wash since a lot of it reads like overanalysis of RVS reasoning, which I don't find too telling. Also, I'd personally prefer it if Raitaki posted in plain English (especially if he's going to post quotewalls) but I don't think what he's doing is inherently scummy.

Several things:
DNA and Raitaki were both misinterpreting Bard's votepost on me imo. Seems pretty clear the first part was an agreement on why SB would be potentially scummier than Serela, and the corresponding vote explained why he didn't think it was a worthwhile vote based on intent. I disagree but I can see where Bard would be coming from. I realize Raitaki hasn't posted since Bard's clarification so I'd like to see how he responds after this.

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

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. 

I see Raitaki "directing empty suspicion" because he implied that he didn't see anything wrong with Conqueror's argument, and thus implied that he didn't see the reasoning behind Bardiche's vote for Conqueror. And (in my opinion) voting for someone based on poor reasoning is suspicious. Thus, I saw Raitaki directing (slight) suspicion toward Bardiche.I'll think about this one, but probably not because you explained yourself well and I think I can see your reasoning.

So if I'm reading this right, you find Raitaki suspicious for directing suspicion on Bard based on an event which never happened? The thing is, as far as I can tell Raitaki's been directing suspicion at mainly you and darkninja. I don't think he's actually advanced a suspicion on Bard, and given that the part you posted was a query, it reads more like he was intending to clear that up with Bard than intending to slam him over it. So this reasoning reads a little disingenuous.
##Unvote
##Vote: Murrin

Also, Murrin, just wondering, but is there a reason for the difference in your playstyle between this game and the last? You seem much more aggressive.

There are a lot of people who haven't posted much, but the game only just picked up, so I'd rather give them a chance to post first. Mildly suspicious of Zak sniping with a one-liner in the middle of Game of Walls but I'd like to see more before going full ham on lurkers. We can always powerwagon lurkers at the end of the day anyways if all the other choices suck

[Conqueror]

Cut by the man himself, reads like he just completely dropped the issue. Sure I guess.

[Shalako]

Y'all don't get it. This isn't a question of "scum wouldn't do this" because, like I said, I have seen scum do just what I said in order to get this "town cred".  This isn't a question of "too retarded for scum to do" or not. It's something that scum has, verifiably in the past, done. So I'm not sure why you're claiming something that scum has done before is impossible for scum to do. I'm sure other people can back me up on this.

I'm not disagreeing with you, just stating other reasons that People saying "My role color that is normally non-Town confused me"
Same answer of it being a non-tell (because Town or Mafia could do it) just approached from different angles.

Actually, before that, Shalako, how much mafia experience do you have?

Hrm I started playing Mafia in...2008? I at one point was playing...6 games at a time for an extended duration and then I didn't have time for it anymore. From...~2012 Until...2015?
So...pretty experienced (Not that i'm great or anything  :X )

Also, who do you think is scum?

My mafia philosophy is that everyone is scum until I have enough reads/interactions/proof to either condemn or clear people.
We have 2 people that haven't even posted yet (in after RVS) and I want more info before I cast my vote.
If I'm going off the rather poor things to go off of so far I find Zakeri(dependent on certain circumstances), Possibly Bardiche depending on if he is a RVS hater or not and Dark saying that Gut reads are poor then throwing out a Meta read based on someone playing differently in Endgame compared to Just past RVS (If I have my facts right ), his most recent post refusing to answer simple questions and explain how he can say gut reads are bad yet through out a poor meta vote also aren't showing favorable. He's also suspicious of me for not voting him without giving him the time to answer my questions for some reason.

I get reading posts slightly out of order that aren't related to each other is slightly harder then fitting pegs but between his recent tantrum and his taxation over Mr.SpaceShip's posts i'm trying to figure out if it's just...an Attitude problem.

RVS is pretty much over so you should have a vote down somewhere even if you're not completely sure,

Why is everyone so eager to bully lil ole me into throwing down a vote?
Just because RVS ended I have to throw out a vote?
3 people now have mentioned I haven't voted yet, do you guys really just throw out votes simply because of RVS ending?
Have you considered i'm likely waiting for replies to my catch up post before voting?

and I'm not sure what to conclude from your walls.

I'm simply catching up and trying to figure out what makes  the 10 people I don't know tick.
I'm getting a feel for the meta here and figuring out all the particularities before I throw fists.
(This is where I say Cut because I can see others have posted while i've written this that I haven't read? Like Cut Darks post below the post im responding to?)

[Shalako]

Being a bit leery of Shalako atm. His latest post was nothing but brief responses and commentary to things people said, with little effort to find scum or point out if anything was scummy (and having no vote to show for the small attempt he did make).

##Target: Shalako

Come on I put red flag and everything.

[Conqueror]

I actually just realized that there were queries in that wall which I missed reading the first time. Would you mind reposting them in a format that's easier for people to see, because some of those questions could easily be seen as rhetorical?

Also, I (and most people here) usually like people to place a vote down even if they're not sure because it advances the game state and it's too easy to just skate by if you're scum and not voting.

[Raitaki]

That red flag is also unfortunately the only sign whatsoever that you find the quotes questionable. No explanation, little context (unless "I disagree with other things DNA said" is context somehow), and no follow-up. And yes, we do want them votes on the table in this forum. Especially since it's D1, when there's basically zero chance that an early, honest vote can hurt town or lead directly into a quick mislynch.

Cut by Conq: Is it my questions that you want reworded?

[Shalako]

None of them are rhetorical.
The only one I could see people thinking is rhetorical is myself asking Murren if anyone has a meta with him but considering this is my 1st game I don't understand why it wouldn't be taken at face value.

So far 3 people have complained about my "Wall" without even bothering to read it  :wat:

[Conqueror]

Cut by Conq: Is it my questions that you want reworded?

Nah, Shalako's.

I read it, but I'm actually not a fan of catch-up post style walls in general since it's hard for me to get anything out of them.

If DNA is your biggest suspect just vote him. Or restate your questions since he said he's not going to read your wall.