Author Topic: Umineko Mafia - Day 4 (Read 69034 times)

Dorian White · « **Reply #120 on:** July 16, 2009, 07:52:53 PM »

yes that was a hell to read!

first:
Nuclear Fusion is real focused on me and trys hard to justify his vote.
even too hard to be scum, at last I expect a bit more suptality.
It look like you are so sure about my guilt that you don?t care about to arouse suspicion
by pressing that hard. I understand your "wall = pro" towne point even when I?m not realy agree but to say "is better to lynch a-good-for-nothing towney than a helpfull-mafioso" goes way
too far.

hawever, pass for being waaaaaaaay too suspicious.(for now)

second:
I like to think of you all as nice and understanding and I don?t want to look
unthankful but whan one after another jumps in to defend me (the weak-newbe point aside)
it makes me look suspicious.

third:
The whole pesco-donat thing gif me a headache.
donat joke-vote pesco, pesco "serious"-vote donat for a weak reason.
After both set it aside as a jok/mistake they vote kiro for a reson I fail to see.

##Unvote,
##Vote: donat

Quote from: nintendonut888 on July 16, 2009, 07:30:59 AM

##Vote Nuclear Fusion

I'm a little light on other reasons, but this is something that really caught my attention. This whole thing you said just rings WTF to me. You're basically not going to pursue someone who puts any effort into their posts. What if they make a fatal slip-up, which is more likely in a long post? Wouldn't you rather lynch a suspicious person so that their information holds some hard value? I don't care what play style you have, this just screams anti-town to me.

For jumping on the "That" too motivated.

FinnKaenbyou · « **Reply #121 on:** July 16, 2009, 08:00:51 PM »

Quote

hawever, pass for being waaaaaaaay too suspicious.(for now)

T_T
The inverse Too Townie fallacy strikes again.

Dorian...really doesn't seem to know what's happening. I'll ask him this, though - you seem suspicious of both Pesco and Donut, but why are you more suspicious of Donut?

FinnKaenbyou · « **Reply #122 on:** July 16, 2009, 08:01:32 PM »

EBWOP: By which I mean I don't get the 'jumping on the THAT too motivated' point.

Pesco · « **Reply #123 on:** July 16, 2009, 08:13:48 PM »

I have aspirins and I'm not going to be sharing them. Aspirins are headache tablets if you're not sure what I'm talking about.

Quote from: Roukanken on July 16, 2009, 07:45:55 PM

Why is it my fault that you weren't being clear about what you meant and thus apparently got misinterpreted?

Of course. Because not explaining what you say is entirely pro-Town. >_>

Because, well...it isn't? Donut didn't respond to your accusation in any way, he just pointed out a flaw in your play. That isn't a reason to consider him any less scummy, and that's what I don't understand.

So what, you want him to come out and say to us 'hey guys, I was all jumpy earlier because I'm an idiot so don't vote me'?

REALLY want to see a Pesco lynch now. Deflecting the blame for his own imprecise wording onto the people reading it is insanely scummy IMO.

It's your fault that you ran with the misinterpretation and never thought to ask clearly first.

Explaining is subject to more misinterpretation and nitpicking, so I'm stopping it here.

You're talking yourself into circles. His response was idiotic, I concluded not likely to be scum. Figure out your synapses on your own.

His answer was fine by my book, what do I care if you don't like his answer.

"IMO" ... Rou, why do I have to fight with you even when I'm town. Prove to me that there hasn't been any tunnel bias in your opinions.

Quote from: Nietz

I don't know what you want by being a smug smartass, pesco. But if it's clearing yourself, you're certainly doing it wrong. In fact, you seem to be doing everything possible to look scummy.

I'm only a jerk to Rou and Donut, people I'm comfortable with being a jerk to.

nintendonut888 · « **Reply #124 on:** July 16, 2009, 08:17:11 PM »

I'm not trying to necessarily defend Pesco, but let me get this straight Roukanken: You want to lynch him on the basis that he took my being an idiot as good enough to back off? I said from the very first post I made on the subject that I wasn't really accusing Pesco of anything, and whatever I said apparently convinced him of otherwise. I don't see how this is making Pesco more suspicious than NF right now. Not to reopen old wounds, but the only thing I see this as is a lover's spat.

Quote

Because, well...it isn't? Donut didn't respond to your accusation in any way, he just pointed out a flaw in your play. That isn't a reason to consider him any less scummy, and that's what I don't understand.

I responded to it in my own way: A way that only makes sense to me and in hindsight, really didn't answer his questions. >_> My only defense to "drawing so much attention to myself" is that I thought it was still the RVS.

As for NF's claim, I don't really like it either. However, I'm not sure if I should keep my vote on him or not. He's still by far the scummiest player I can see, but from what I see if we leave him alive three things can happen:

1. Mafia NKs him. He's telling the truth and we lose a cop
2. Mafia leaves him alive for whatever reason and he starts talking. We have a live cop who can help us
3. He lives and starts feeding us false information, because he's Mafia

Two out of these three options are desirable. Of course we'd want a confirmed cop helping us, and if there's a doctor role we can keep him alive. But also if it is the third case, a Mafia fakeclaiming as a cop is doomed to get found out sooner or later.

So, I bet I'll regret doing this, but ##Unvote. If someone can point out a flaw in my logic I'll put my vote back on him, but ATM I see it as more valuable to keep him alive.

Cut by four people (EVERYBODY CUTS ME! /wrists), but Dorian's vote just confuses me.

Quote

For jumping on the "That" too motivated.

...What does that even mean? Please explain the meaning behind this sentence.

Quote

hawever, pass for being waaaaaaaay too suspicious.(for now)

* Donut cuts his wrists even harder from this remark

Suddenly I'm suspecting Dorian and I don't know why. I know better than to vote on a gut instinct though, so I'll just leave it as an unexplained suspicion.

Pesco · « **Reply #125 on:** July 16, 2009, 08:21:48 PM »

Which of those 3 options are the 2 desirable ones? I only see one.

[cracktheory]Dorian is Wrathie's alt :V[/cracktheory]

nintendonut888 · « **Reply #126 on:** July 16, 2009, 08:24:26 PM »

Leaving him alive and he's a genuine cop and leaving him alive and it's a fakeclaim. Of course the only way to tell them apart is if he inspects someone and they turn out to actually BE scum.

FinnKaenbyou · « **Reply #127 on:** July 16, 2009, 08:39:31 PM »

Quote from: Pesco on July 16, 2009, 08:13:48 PM

It's your fault that you ran with the misinterpretation and never thought to ask clearly first.

So you can be as muddy as you like and it's perfectly okay? I read your point as I interpreted it, and apparently got it wrong, but if you'd just be clearer it wouldn't have happened.

Quote

Explaining is subject to more misinterpretation and nitpicking, so I'm stopping it here.

This is insanely scummy. Not giving a solid explanation allows scum to produce an escape route if need be because their position is flexible. They can come up with all sorts of explanations for what they did because they can't be held to anything.

Quote

You're talking yourself into circles. His response was idiotic, I concluded not likely to be scum. Figure out your synapses on your own.

Where did you say this? 'Good enough for me' does NOT suggest this sort of response, which is the point I've been making all day.

Quote

His answer was fine by my book, what do I care if you don't like his answer.

This is not the religion thread. Opinions are not totally and utterly untouchable, because in the end there are concrete townies and mafiosi. Therefore I have every right to disapprove of your opinion, in the same way that other players disapproved of NF clearing Serp so easily.

Quote

"IMO" ... Rou, why do I have to fight with you even when I'm town. Prove to me that there hasn't been any tunnel bias in your opinions.

Besides the fact you've been deliberately antagonising me so that this argument looks like a petty quarrel, this is blatantly attacking the player rather than the argument.

Quote from: nintendonut888 on July 16, 2009, 08:17:11 PM

I'm not trying to necessarily defend Pesco, but let me get this straight Roukanken: You want to lynch him on the basis that he took my being an idiot as good enough to back off? I said from the very first post I made on the subject that I wasn't really accusing Pesco of anything, and whatever I said apparently convinced him of otherwise. I don't see how this is making Pesco more suspicious than NF right now. Not to reopen old wounds, but the only thing I see this as is a lover's spat.

Let me explain this AGAIN as a summary of my entire argument against Pesco, for the sake of clarity:
Pesco initially gave no explanation besides 'good enough for me' for unvoting you when you did nothing to defend yourself.
Pesco's reasoning for removing his vote on you magically changed somewhere down the line from 'his response was good enough for me' to 'he's being an idiot', and he's failing to explain why.
He's flaring up the conversation for the sake of using 'Rou is tunneling' as an alibi, and he's outright refusing to explain himself because apparently he doesn't want his reasoning to go under scrutiny.
He deflects the blame from this onto us for not accepting his opinion as untouchable.

Quote

Suddenly I'm suspecting Dorian and I don't know why. I know better than to vote on a gut instinct though, so I'll just leave it as an unexplained suspicion.

Major points lost for going for the easy target, especially on gut. Old memories of my Pesco/Donut scumpair theory are rising to the surface again.

I've made my points, I've made my argument. I intend to avoid feeding the troll from this point on unless absolutely necessary, since now he's simply resorting to personal attacks. If anyone else wants to say something on the matter, it'd certainly help.

Nuclear Fusion · « **Reply #128 on:** July 16, 2009, 08:40:00 PM »

Quote from: Kiro on July 16, 2009, 06:15:47 PM

Nuclear Fusion: To cut to the chase, if you were complaining about Nietz and others bandwagoning on Donut and not bothering to move your vote because it was a joke vote, you've clearly forgotten that you confirmed your vote for Donut in #25. Therefore, your continued defense of that is no good. Other points of suspicion include an immediate clear of Serpentarius after his post. Liking grand schemes and baseless accusations also is no good. I also don't like how you're mainly just defending yourself and not scumhunting much at all.

A) I'm defending myself because everybody is on my case. If I try to just say "oh hey look I think he is scum" then you would call the deflection. I can't win either way in this case, so I'd rather defend myself to prevent the town from lynching the cop.

B) The confirm vote on donut was still part of RVS.

?lice Bl?ckb?rn · « **Reply #129 on:** July 16, 2009, 08:40:37 PM »

Quote from: Nietz on July 16, 2009, 07:52:07 PM

Right now I'd still vote for either pesco or Fusion, but I want a new votecount before.

Ask and thou shalt recieve, the Witches of Rokkenjima are kind to those who believe in them.

Beatrice! Maga crudele!
Di bellezza senza pari
Beatrice! Oh Di dolcezza capricciosa
Mai potr? liberarmi dal tuo incantesimo
Se questa pena deve durare, almeno una volta abbi piet?

Day 1 Vote Count - 1 day and 8 hours remaining:
Nuclear Fusion (3): - Affinity, Carthrat, donut, Pesco
pesco (2): - Roukanken, Zakeri
donut (2): - Nuclear Fusion, Nietz, Serpentarius, Dorian
Dorian (1): - Nuclear Fusion
Nietz (0): - Serpentarius
Zakeri (0): - Carthrat
Affinity (0): - Dorian
Kiro (0): - donut, pesco
Carthrat (0): - Kiro
Roukanken (0): -

Not voting: Nietz, Kiro, donut

nintendonut888 · « **Reply #130 on:** July 16, 2009, 08:51:13 PM »

Roukanken, let me try and clear up what Pesco means:

Quote

Pesco's reasoning for removing his vote on you magically changed somewhere down the line from 'his response was good enough for me' to 'he's being an idiot', and he's failing to explain why.

If I have it right, my explanation was good enough for him because I'm being an idiot.

Quote

This is insanely scummy. Not giving a solid explanation allows scum to produce an escape route if need be because their position is flexible. They can come up with all sorts of explanations for what they did because they can't be held to anything.

Or he's stopping because if you put all his posts together his point makes sense and he's tired of trying to explain it to you. At least that's what I'd think if I were Pesco. *shudders*

Quote

Major points lost for going for the easy target, especially on gut. Old memories of my Pesco/Donut scumpair theory are rising to the surface again.

Uh...didn't I say I WASN'T going after him BECAUSE it's a bad idea to do it on gut? >_>

Just to get my thoughts out of the way, I'm not buying Roukanken's case on Pesco at all. In my eyes Pesco is currently one of the more townish people here for once. Roukanken seems to be misguided town, and NF is either scum hiding behind a fakeclaim or a cop playing in one of the worst ways possible. Everybody else I don't have much of an opinion on.

Nuclear Fusion · « **Reply #131 on:** July 16, 2009, 08:56:48 PM »

I'm guessing names in italics mean they unvoted?

At Dorian's post - I'm sensing deflection here. Saying I'm trying to hard to vote for you ignores the case I'm trying to present. So rather than address the points I've made, you've just dismissed the whole thing. Clever.

Furthermore, a lot of his post feels like rehashing again. If I'm missing something new here, people, please point it out to me.

My vote stands on Dorian. It seems a good night's sleep really didn't do much for his game play.

Other things to note -

For the potential of me getting doced tonight (if I make it through the day) - This is massive WIFOM territory. Massive.

Who I think is scum - right now? Mostly? Dorian. I'm not buying the idiot theory, and he's dodged my accusations at him twice now.
A follow up? Rouk or Carthrat are giving me negative vibes. And I can't really place why, so I need to look up their posts when I'm done celebrating.

FinnKaenbyou · « **Reply #132 on:** July 16, 2009, 08:57:43 PM »

Quote

If I have it right, my explanation was good enough for him because I'm being an idiot.

What exactly does this mean? You're an idiot, and therefore you posted an intelligent and logical response?

Quote

Or he's stopping because if you put all his posts together his point makes sense and he's tired of trying to explain it to you. At least that's what I'd think if I were Pesco. *shudders*

Why does he need to make me read between the lines to find his opinion rather than just say it outright?

Quote

Uh...didn't I say I WASN'T going after him BECAUSE it's a bad idea to do it on gut? >_>

Still, suddenly turning on him for doing what he's been doing all game feels bad to me.

So, as we can now see Donut is running to Pesco's aid. This sends my scumpair suspicions through the roof.

Pesco · « **Reply #133 on:** July 16, 2009, 09:00:14 PM »

Nope, you started it

Quote

So you can be as muddy as you like and it's perfectly okay? I read your point as I interpreted it, and apparently got it wrong, but if you'd just be clearer it wouldn't have happened.

I believe I made clarifications to what you were saying I said, usually right after your posts.

Quote

This is insanely scummy. Not giving a solid explanation allows scum to produce an escape route if need be because their position is flexible. They can come up with all sorts of explanations for what they did because they can't be held to anything.

Because giving an explanation now results in the converse. Scum can claim that I'm backtracking on what I meant with misrep. That is my answer, there is no middle ground to this point.

Quote

This is not the religion thread. Opinions are not totally and utterly untouchable, because in the end there are concrete townies and mafiosi. Therefore I have every right to disapprove of your opinion, in the same way that other players disapproved of NF clearing Serp so easily.

What I think of Donut's answer is separate from what you think of Donut's answer. You can dislike what I think all day, that too still remains a separate issue from what you think of Donut.

Nuclear Fusion · « **Reply #134 on:** July 16, 2009, 09:02:34 PM »

Quote from: rouk

Why does he need to make me read between the lines to find his opinion rather than just say it outright?

Because apparently it's scummy to reiterate your opinion when somebody thinks it's invalid.

FinnKaenbyou · « **Reply #135 on:** July 16, 2009, 09:10:17 PM »

Quote from: Pesco on July 16, 2009, 09:00:14 PM

Nope, you started it

If you are seriously attempting to use this as an argument, I'm done explaining myself. I've made my case perfectly clear, and continuing will produce nothing worthwhile.

NF: I assume then that you agree with Pesco's argument? And honestly, I'd like to see other people give opinions rather than sit back and watch.

Nuclear Fusion · « **Reply #136 on:** July 16, 2009, 09:18:27 PM »

I agree soley with Pesco's point here. It seems that if you try to explain yourself, no matter how much your repeat your reasoning, people are still inclined to hate you for it.

This is because people are arguing based on what they think is a rational explanation for what the town should do. Yet every townie will have a different reason for doing what they do and a different style of being townie. This is what makes "scum tells" such a difficult thing, and why they very rarely exist.

Backtracking is a classic scum tell. Repeating your point again and again is a scum tell. Deflection is a scum tell. Ignoring something is a scum tell. Giving up is a scum tell.

I've heard all of these at some point. This doesn't make any sense, though, since town do these things also. What makes one thing more scummy than the other? Each player will decide, and work on that.

Flailing, however, is a scum tell I think we can all agree on.

Pesco isn't flailing. And Rouk is seriously trying to get more information out of him, and that search feels genuine. I'm reading both of them as townies fighting with each other, with donut trying to buddy up a little by defending Pesco.

For the record, I consider the following a scum tell - Player A answers a question directed at Player B by Player C. Also, if Player A defends Player B from an accusation by Player C.

Yes, weighing in your opinion on something is good, and it should be done frequently and often in mafia. But to defend somebody before they have the chance to defend themselves provides cover for scum. This is a bad thing.

Pesco · « **Reply #137 on:** July 16, 2009, 09:20:11 PM »

[nongamerelated]I should be allowed to get fed up with you too. Neither of us want to play the game getting angry at each other all the time I would hope.[/nongamerelated]

Quote from: Roukanken on July 16, 2009, 08:57:43 PM

Why does he need to make me read between the lines to find his opinion rather than just say it outright?

Maybe you're just expecting to read beyond my words all the time and automatically do so. Get out of that habit.

Pesco · « **Reply #138 on:** July 16, 2009, 09:24:06 PM »

Quote from: Nuclear Fusion on July 16, 2009, 09:18:27 PM

For the record, I consider the following a scum tell - Player A answers a question directed at Player B by Player C. Also, if Player A defends Player B from an accusation by Player C.

Donut's done some and so have you now. Would I not be justified in confirming my vote?

FinnKaenbyou · « **Reply #139 on:** July 16, 2009, 09:24:23 PM »

Quote

[nongamerelated]I should be allowed to get fed up with you too. Neither of us want to play the game getting angry at each other all the time I would hope.[/nongamerelated]

Then why exactly do you keep deliberately goading me on? You're obviously enjoying this.

Quote

Maybe you're just expecting to read beyond my words all the time and automatically do so. Get out of that habit.

Before you told me I read your posts too literally. Now you're saying I'm trying too hard to find a hidden meaning?

Nuclear Fusion · « **Reply #140 on:** July 16, 2009, 09:28:23 PM »

Quote from: Pesco on July 16, 2009, 09:24:06 PM

Quote from: Nuclear Fusion on July 16, 2009, 09:18:27 PM
For the record, I consider the following a scum tell - Player A answers a question directed at Player B by Player C. Also, if Player A defends Player B from an accusation by Player C.

Donut's done some and so have you now. Would I not be justified in confirming my vote?

When did I do this yet this game? I'm actually curious if you could point it out to me. The now makes me think you think I just did it, which is funny, because I was addressing a question directed at me by Rouk, so I actually -wouldn't- have done it just now.

But ya, please, enlighten me on when I did it.

FinnKaenbyou · « **Reply #141 on:** July 16, 2009, 09:28:41 PM »

I'm done for the night, because the longer I stay here the less relevant the argument is going to become. I'd really appreciate some more people to comment on this argument besides Donut (who jumped in and defended Pesco in his place) and NF (who's dismissed the whole thing as a matter of opinion). >_>

Pesco · « **Reply #142 on:** July 16, 2009, 09:35:54 PM »

Quote from: Nuclear Fusion on July 16, 2009, 09:28:23 PM

But ya, please, enlighten me on when I did it.

Right that post, number 136.

Quote from: The part in question

Pesco isn't flailing. And Rouk is seriously trying to get more information out of him, and that search feels genuine. I'm reading both of them as townies fighting with each other, with donut trying to buddy up a little by defending Pesco.

This seems like buddying it up to me and Rou in the same go.

Quote from: Roukanken on July 16, 2009, 09:24:23 PM

Then why exactly do you keep deliberately goading me on? You're obviously enjoying this.

Before you told me I read your posts too literally. Now you're saying I'm trying too hard to find a hidden meaning?

Assume = ASS + U + ME, choice words of 'deliberately' and 'obviously'.

I don't get how you can misunderstand what I say if you were taking the words literally.

Nuclear Fusion · « **Reply #143 on:** July 16, 2009, 09:40:02 PM »

Quote from: Pesco

Quote from: The part in question
Pesco isn't flailing. And Rouk is seriously trying to get more information out of him, and that search feels genuine. I'm reading both of them as townies fighting with each other, with donut trying to buddy up a little by defending Pesco.

This seems like buddying it up to me and Rou in the same go.

And it's also me giving my opinion! How's that for doing two things at the same time? Crazy! Something could be interpreted in two ways! I don't think I've ever thought of that before while playing mafia and ... OH WAIT

?lice Bl?ckb?rn · « **Reply #144 on:** July 16, 2009, 09:42:07 PM »

Quote from: Nuclear Fusion on July 16, 2009, 08:56:48 PM

I'm guessing names in italics mean they unvoted?

Yes.

Pesco · « **Reply #145 on:** July 16, 2009, 09:45:31 PM »

We can moderate posts Alice. Abuse that power a little sometimes.

Affinity · « **Reply #146 on:** July 16, 2009, 10:46:06 PM »

Quote

I'm defending myself because everybody is on my case. If I try to just say "oh hey look I think he is scum" then you would call the deflection. I can't win either way in this case, so I'd rather defend myself to prevent the town from lynching the cop.

Offense is the best defence. Seriously, turning out a solid case on someone is far better than trying to explain yourself, because it shows that you have a solid stance, really.

And I laugh at your declaration that scumtells very rarely exist. By your definition, flialing shouldn't be counted either, because town can flail too. While, yes, town do make scumtells sometimes, the fact that it narrows down town's range of targets gives us something to work from. Lynching weak town is preferable to lynching more helpful ones. This kind of 'everything can be explained by opinion thing' is sickening at best, really, and reminds me of UK. Unpleasant AtE like the above is also undesirable; why is donut not scummy if he's buddying up with pesco?

Also, how is not answering accusations a scumtell by your definition? I'm not convinced by your claim, as it makes your way of playing all the more distrubing and unfruitful. But I will withold judgment for now and look at the night results.

##Unvote

---

@pesco:

I have to admit that, as Rou said, you said nothing of the explanations you gave later at the point where you posted that post, which kind of makes it slightly scummy at best.

---

@donut:

Dorian, aside from his seemingly incoherent post, makes a good point. What I understand from his voting reasons is that you seemed to jump onto the NF bandwagon for a single reason, which was that his 'effort always deserves to get by" was scummy. How was this different from the 'I overlook long posts because they show effort' thing he said earlier, which you questioned in a rather friendly way?

##Vote: donut

nintendonut888 · « **Reply #147 on:** July 16, 2009, 10:52:49 PM »

Quote from: Donut 98

EBWOP: I also read everything else he had to say BTW, but it's all flashing "suspicious" to me.

Basically, this was to keep me from having to repeat what people before me had said. I bought into the case and was too lazy to parrot what everybody before me said.

Nuclear Fusion · « **Reply #148 on:** July 16, 2009, 10:57:45 PM »

Quote from: Affinity on July 16, 2009, 10:46:06 PM

Offense is the best defence. Seriously, turning out a solid case on someone is far better than trying to explain yourself, because it shows that you have a solid stance, really.

I'll keep this in mind for the next time I play. However, I completely disagree with you on this. I also agree with you on the subject of flailing.

Dorian White · « **Reply #149 on:** July 16, 2009, 11:42:54 PM »

Quote from: Roukanken on July 16, 2009, 08:00:51 PM

Quote
hawever, pass for being waaaaaaaay too suspicious.(for now)
T_T
The inverse Too Townie fallacy strikes again.

Dorian...really doesn't seem to know what's happening. I'll ask him this, though - you seem suspicious of both Pesco and Donut, but why are you more suspicious of Donut?

Quote from: Roukanken on July 16, 2009, 08:01:32 PM

EBWOP: By which I mean I don't get the 'jumping on the THAT too motivated' point.

Quote from: nintendonut888 on July 16, 2009, 08:17:11 PM

...What does that even mean? Please explain the meaning behind this sentence.

Quote from: Affinity on July 16, 2009, 10:46:06 PM

Dorian, aside from his seemingly incoherent post, makes a good point. What I understand from his voting reasons is that you seemed to jump onto the NF bandwagon for a single reason, which was that his 'effort always deserves to get by" was scummy. How was this different from the 'I overlook long posts because they show effort' thing he said earlier, which you questioned in a rather friendly way?

I know it is a cheap way to answer but that was exactly me point.