Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[SwitchedFromStarcraft]

Damn, I hate forgetting:

UNVOTE
VOTE: ROBZ

[SwitchedFromStarcraft]

Damn, I hate forgetting:

UNVOTE
VOTE: ROBZ

And quoting here to re-apply the notion that I would be happy to see a bandwagon develop, to see where it leads us.

[jotheonah]

THIS POST

@CF

If we all explain every bit of our thought process, we're basically giving the mafia a tutorial on how not to arouse our suspicions. This is a lesson from MII, I think. Some aloofness actually IS pro-town. You're exactly right that I'm prodding. This is how I scumhunt. When I'm good and ready to put my "This is my vote for the day" vote down, it will be accompanied with a fairly detailed case and a plea for other votes to join mine. I am not there yet, and I may not get there today. Plenty of time.

THIS ONE bothers me. You've already put your vote down a million times.

I have put down my vote once (on SFS) and I've expressed suspicions of exactly 2 people. (2 1/2 if you count *cough*Axxle*cough*). So this is untrue even in spirit. I have a hard time believing that anyone reading my posts at all, let alone closely enough to be confident making a post against me, could make this drastic a mistake. Insomniac, I'd appreciate an explanation.

[jotheonah]

I meant to write at the beginning of that post:

Insomniac has now posted a blatant falsehood, something that usually warrants investigation in the game of mafia.

[Grujah]

Damn, I hate forgetting:

UNVOTE
VOTE: ROBZ

And quoting here to re-apply the notion that I would be happy to see a bandwagon develop, to see where it leads us.

Is this you trying to get into townie role by copying Galziria's reasoning? 

[Insomniac]

THIS POST

@CF

If we all explain every bit of our thought process, we're basically giving the mafia a tutorial on how not to arouse our suspicions. This is a lesson from MII, I think. Some aloofness actually IS pro-town. You're exactly right that I'm prodding. This is how I scumhunt. When I'm good and ready to put my "This is my vote for the day" vote down, it will be accompanied with a fairly detailed case and a plea for other votes to join mine. I am not there yet, and I may not get there today. Plenty of time.

THIS ONE bothers me. You've already put your vote down a million times.

I have put down my vote once (on SFS) and I've expressed suspicions of exactly 2 people. (2 1/2 if you count *cough*Axxle*cough*). So this is untrue even in spirit. I have a hard time believing that anyone reading my posts at all, let alone closely enough to be confident making a post against me, could make this drastic a mistake. Insomniac, I'd appreciate an explanation.

This is true, I swore I remember seeing you vote twice, but its probably just all the people that voted for you. Mistakes happen, not gonna be able to defend myself if you try and rally people onto me for that specific fact.

BUT to address a pressing question your now causing me to have. Why are you SO DEFENSIVE about people suspecting you, you're often posting multiple times when ever someone suspects you, I got what THREE? You weren't this defensive in M2 when people suspected you, what gives?

[Voltgloss]

Fifteen people set out ostensibly to search the Estate on their own.

Fifteen minutes later, they sheepishly found each other all gathered back in the main Throne Room.  Apparently none actually wanted to be exploring on their own, and each hoped the others would do so instead.

After an awkward silence, Grujah sighed and suggested that the group split up into five small groups of three.  SFS nodded, adding that one Mafioso wouldn't dare act alone with two Townies present - and theorel reasoned that two Mafiosi wouldn't risk killing their Townie for fear of outing themselves.  Relieved to come to a consensus on something, the fifteen asked O to devise a random grouping method.  The method chosen:  drawing lots.

Galzria considered his short straw.  He looked up to see someone approaching him with the same-length straw. 

It was popsofctown.  Who had choice words:

http://www.hark.com/clips/ckkslysnfx-its-you-and-me-honeybunch

Vote Count 1-6

Insomniac (1) - popsofctown
Robz888 (1) - SwitchedFromStarcraft
popsofctown (4) - Insomniac, O, Grujah, Axxle
Grujah (1) - theorel
jotheonah (3) - Green Opal, Galzria, Tables
Dsell (1) - Captain_Frisk

Not Voting {4} - Robz888, Glooble, Dsell, jotheonah

With 15 alive, it takes 8 to lynch

[jotheonah]

I was MORE defensive in MIII, but we're not supposed to be talking about that.

I guess I am slightly obsessive about this game. It's important to me to address any accusation made against me. It's my intent to address them each once, briefly, and then move on to more productive ventures. However, your comment, based as it was not even a little on fact, crossed the realm, for me, from requiring self defense to requiring me to point out a potential scum tell to the group.

That whole post of yours is suspicious: adding fuel to the anti-J fire while actually putting your vote elsewhere, chiming in right as a bandwagon got started. But the fact that your case was totally bogus, while, it seemed worth pointing out.

[jotheonah]

Oh, in MII I was exactly this defensive. Do you remember the book I wrote against Volt when he was after me?

[theorel]

Galz: That's fine I don't expect the pops voters to comment on themselves.  But, as I noted before, if you were town voting for Pops, and if it was a mafia-involved bandwagon (which I can't imagine there wasn't at least one scum among them) means that you have a better chance of picking a mafia by choosing one out of those 4 then choosing one out of the remaining 10.  Now, of course, you're pursuing Jotheonah, but I'm interested in hearing especially from the pops-voters about their fellow pops-voters.

I'm pretty intuitive-minded, so I'm not very good at the specific unless challenged.  I'll work harder at it though.

Now for jotheonah:
I reread his posts, he doesn't strike me as mafia at all.  One of the items brought against him is his whole "we, townies" schtick, so I looked into it.  (Note: this is a good example of where I felt challenged about the specifics...I saw that argument made, but didn't notice it personally while reading his posts.  So, I checked the details to see why)

Here's what I found as relevant to the "we, townies" claim:
#103: first post: let's kill mafia today, we can do it!
#163: My aren't we a jumpy town.  (this is an expression...in fact it puts him as separate from town, which makes sense as he's pointing out that people like to vote for him)
#304: we need town all along the spectrum...
#337: talking about scumhunting.  "We can't be looking for obvious tells, etc"
#343: asking galz how to hunt scum "how ought we hunt scum"
#351: "We, on the other hand, have the option of being authentic"

-and then we hit 357 where he responds to Grujah's comment

#386 he refers to the town showing a general inclination toward appreciating humor.
#424 he refers to us looking for a pseudo-lurker for Mafia.


So, there you go, 6 whole posts where he uses some form of "we, townies".  1 of which is after Grujah's comment.  Note also, that he posted significant amounts about mafia theory between 163 and 304, where he talks about town in the third person.  He's posted what like 60 times in this thread?  I'm not buying it.  As already mentioned by Galzria, we should be motivated by actions, not words.  We have 2 big sources of action at the moment: 5 voters for pops.  And now we've had a total of 5 (real) votes for jotheonah: Captain_Frisk, pops, Green Opal, Galzria, and Tables.  With suspicion thrown around by Insomniac.

I'm not saying that neither should be suspected, in particular jotheonah's bandwagon is split over time (he's not yet topped 3 votes at once).

So, I've got more people to reread...which I should stop doing until after work (darn letting myself get distracted by game)

[Robz888]

Robz: I find the degree to which you took a scumtell from SFS's first response following a break quite interesting. You mention the fluffiness of his post, which I can't really disagree with. Thing is, there have been loads of really quite fluffy posts made, especially by some of the newer players (myself and glooble's opening posts from yesterday come to mind, around #248), what made this one stand out? Granted, you're looking in a similar way at Theorel, but that didn't seem to garner as much attention as the SFS debate so I'll look more at that later.

Actually, Theorel stood out to me way more than SFS. Your fluff, and Glooble's, I may have simply overlooked. I don't know if that's true anymore. SFS has increased his rate of posting, and none of it what I was hoping for from a true townie.

(Emphasis mine)
Yet you pressed me much more than Theo, so this feels like deflection.
And your advice to me at one point was to not vote for people who irked me, but instead to vote for mafia.  Which could be deflection, under the guise of "there there now newbie, stay focused".  Then you told me that if I mentioned my newbie-ness again, you would vote for me, yet I've done so again (earlier this morning) and have done so again in this post, yet no follow-through on your "threat".  I read that as deflection/retreat, and also a good mafia tactic to slow down the post rate of an erratic townie learning the ropes.  (There I go again).  You are welcome to vote for me at any time.

I'll go on record now, I am beginning to suspect you.  My analysis is admittedly incomplete, and probably lacking, but it always will be in this game because of the amount of information.  I played poker professionally as well, and I trust my reads.

UNVOTE
VOTE: ROBZ888 (for the above reasons)  I would be happy to see a bandwagon develop here, to see where it leads us.

Sigh. Your posts read too newbie-ish to me to be purposefully naive (purposeful naivety is the default strategy I assume the mafia, especially new mafia will take). So I didn't suspect you as much. I pressed you harder because you were available, asked for questions, and responded. And anyway, if you think THAT was pressing, you are in for a rough ride. I just asked you a couple questions, man.

Well, I must have missed you mentioning your newness again. If you or others take this is a sign that I don't keep my word, fine. Really, I was just trying to urge you not to de-emphasize your abilities because it makes me suspicious. I'm not the type of player who votes early or frequently--I have never changed my vote to someone else in any round of mafia--so no, I wasn't actually going to vote for you. Although I admit it's getting more and more tempting--not because I'm annoyed by you (though I am), but because your posts have rapidly been gaining focus. Now you are a professional poker player? But oh, you don't know what you're doing, or what a rickroll is, or how the game is played. Seems more and more like intentionally naive play, actually.

[Insomniac]

I was MORE defensive in MIII, but we're not supposed to be talking about that.

I guess I am slightly obsessive about this game. It's important to me to address any accusation made against me. It's my intent to address them each once, briefly, and then move on to more productive ventures. However, your comment, based as it was not even a little on fact, crossed the realm, for me, from requiring self defense to requiring me to point out a potential scum tell to the group.

That whole post of yours is suspicious: adding fuel to the anti-J fire while actually putting your vote elsewhere, chiming in right as a bandwagon got started. But the fact that your case was totally bogus, while, it seemed worth pointing out.

Adding fuel to the anti-J fire? I pointed out that I don't find you as suspicious as others. My vote is on pops and will stay there unless given a very good reason to move it.

Chiming in as a bandwagon started? Well that incorrect look who is posting blatant falsehoods now. This is the SECOND time people have voted for you I didn't comment the first time. AND GALZRIA asked me to comment so I did. Anyways, I got another 2 responses from my question so you still seem defensive as all high heck to me. Yes I remember the book on Volt, but everyone was suspicious of Volt at the time. Nobody else that suspected you at all got books in M2. You never wrote a Robz book or a Galzria book. Perhaps because I wrote a Robz book every post of every day that I made.

Anyways still don't find you that suspicious. In case theres any confusion

Jotheonah: you are not one I see myself voting for unless something drastic changes. If I had to rank you you'd be near the top but there's at least 3 other people I'm more suspicious of.

[jotheonah]

geez, who's defensive now?

...

This is stupid. You don't really suspect me and I don't really suspect you and yet we're yelling at each other. Not good. Just please be more careful about posting verifiably untrue things in the future.

[Axxle]

geez, who's defensive now?

...

This is stupid. You don't really suspect me and I don't really suspect you and yet we're yelling at each other. Not good. Just please be more careful about posting verifiably untrue things in the future.

Come on, J.  People remember things differently, like I did when I didn't remember how random O had been in Mafia I.

J is doing things that I find odd and suspicious even just today.  I only got a gist of it this morning but I'll come back during lunch break with more concrete things, but the first thing that comes to mind is that threat he made to Galz about getting lynched.  What was that about?

[Axxle]

Also should say that I'm enjoying seeing SFS breaking out of his noob shell and taking stances on things, especially since it really does seem to be significantly different and not sheepish at all.

[Captain_Frisk]

Also should say that I'm enjoying seeing SFS breaking out of his noob shell and taking stances on things, especially since it really does seem to be significantly different and not sheepish at all.

Yes!  I also loved reading SFS's calling out of RobZ.

@RobZ -  is it really true that you've never unvoted?  That's some serious boldness.  If everyone played that way - you would never lynch.

[SwitchedFromStarcraft]

Robz: I find the degree to which you took a scumtell from SFS's first response following a break quite interesting. You mention the fluffiness of his post, which I can't really disagree with. Thing is, there have been loads of really quite fluffy posts made, especially by some of the newer players (myself and glooble's opening posts from yesterday come to mind, around #248), what made this one stand out? Granted, you're looking in a similar way at Theorel, but that didn't seem to garner as much attention as the SFS debate so I'll look more at that later.

Actually, Theorel stood out to me way more than SFS. Your fluff, and Glooble's, I may have simply overlooked. I don't know if that's true anymore. SFS has increased his rate of posting, and none of it what I was hoping for from a true townie.

(Emphasis mine)
Yet you pressed me much more than Theo, so this feels like deflection.
And your advice to me at one point was to not vote for people who irked me, but instead to vote for mafia.  Which could be deflection, under the guise of "there there now newbie, stay focused".  Then you told me that if I mentioned my newbie-ness again, you would vote for me, yet I've done so again (earlier this morning) and have done so again in this post, yet no follow-through on your "threat".  I read that as deflection/retreat, and also a good mafia tactic to slow down the post rate of an erratic townie learning the ropes.  (There I go again).  You are welcome to vote for me at any time.

I'll go on record now, I am beginning to suspect you.  My analysis is admittedly incomplete, and probably lacking, but it always will be in this game because of the amount of information.  I played poker professionally as well, and I trust my reads.

UNVOTE
VOTE: ROBZ888 (for the above reasons)  I would be happy to see a bandwagon develop here, to see where it leads us.

Sigh. Your posts read too newbie-ish to me to be purposefully naive (purposeful naivety is the default strategy I assume the mafia, especially new mafia will take). So I didn't suspect you as much. I pressed you harder because you were available, asked for questions, and responded. And anyway, if you think THAT was pressing, you are in for a rough ride. I just asked you a couple questions, man.

Well, I must have missed you mentioning your newness again. If you or others take this is a sign that I don't keep my word, fine. Really, I was just trying to urge you not to de-emphasize your abilities because it makes me suspicious. I'm not the type of player who votes early or frequently--I have never changed my vote to someone else in any round of mafia--so no, I wasn't actually going to vote for you. Although I admit it's getting more and more tempting--not because I'm annoyed by you (though I am), but because your posts have rapidly been gaining focus. Now you are a professional poker player? But oh, you don't know what you're doing, or what a rickroll is, or how the game is played. Seems more and more like intentionally naive play, actually.

New emphasis mine
So in your Mafia-the-Game belief system, what's the difference between "not keeping your word" and the notion of a blatant falsehood, which you seem to have made in #544 (p22) if indeed, as you say now, you never intended to vote for me, even if the condition were fulfilled?

[SwitchedFromStarcraft]

Will be gone for several hours, back on tonight, likely after 18:00 EDT.  Logging off so no one thinks I'm lurking.

[jotheonah]

geez, who's defensive now?

...

This is stupid. You don't really suspect me and I don't really suspect you and yet we're yelling at each other. Not good. Just please be more careful about posting verifiably untrue things in the future.

Come on, J.  People remember things differently, like I did when I didn't remember how random O had been in Mafia I.

J is doing things that I find odd and suspicious even just today.  I only got a gist of it this morning but I'll come back during lunch break with more concrete things, but the first thing that comes to mind is that threat he made to Galz about getting lynched.  What was that about?

People remember things differently. But before you post something inflammatory (and easily checkable), you have a bare minimum responsibility to check your memory against the record before making a post.

I'm looking forward to your more concrete things. Just try to remember the line between "odd" and "suspicious" is an important one, and it's much better for us to lynch someone who's behavior is consistent with an intentionally crafted mafia narrative then someone who's behavior is merely weird.

I vaguely regret the post about Galz. I was just feeling an odd sense of deja vu about his persecution of me based on what I consider to be a town playstyle. But I shouldn't even have brought up that game, since it's in progress, and I did NOT mean it to be read as a threat. So, mia culpa on that one I guess. In my book, it's just the sort of careless remark a scum player WOULDN'T make.

[Robz888]

Also should say that I'm enjoying seeing SFS breaking out of his noob shell and taking stances on things, especially since it really does seem to be significantly different and not sheepish at all.

Yes!  I also loved reading SFS's calling out of RobZ.

@RobZ -  is it really true that you've never unvoted?  That's some serious boldness.  If everyone played that way - you would never lynch.

I have unvoted in order to allow a person time to give a response to the accusations, and then I have re-voted that person. But I have never (I'm 99% sure) voted for two different people in a single round. I believe I have voted for someone in every round, though I can't remember if in MI Round 2 I actually voted for TINAS. I remember believing Ozle more than TINAS (and was wrong there), but I would have to look to be sure I actually did vote for TINAS rather than no one.

I tend not to vote until my mind is largely made up. Other people can do as they see fit, but that's my policy.

Given that, let's look at SFS:

Robz: I find the degree to which you took a scumtell from SFS's first response following a break quite interesting. You mention the fluffiness of his post, which I can't really disagree with. Thing is, there have been loads of really quite fluffy posts made, especially by some of the newer players (myself and glooble's opening posts from yesterday come to mind, around #248), what made this one stand out? Granted, you're looking in a similar way at Theorel, but that didn't seem to garner as much attention as the SFS debate so I'll look more at that later.

Actually, Theorel stood out to me way more than SFS. Your fluff, and Glooble's, I may have simply overlooked. I don't know if that's true anymore. SFS has increased his rate of posting, and none of it what I was hoping for from a true townie.

(Emphasis mine)
Yet you pressed me much more than Theo, so this feels like deflection.
And your advice to me at one point was to not vote for people who irked me, but instead to vote for mafia.  Which could be deflection, under the guise of "there there now newbie, stay focused".  Then you told me that if I mentioned my newbie-ness again, you would vote for me, yet I've done so again (earlier this morning) and have done so again in this post, yet no follow-through on your "threat".  I read that as deflection/retreat, and also a good mafia tactic to slow down the post rate of an erratic townie learning the ropes.  (There I go again).  You are welcome to vote for me at any time.

I'll go on record now, I am beginning to suspect you.  My analysis is admittedly incomplete, and probably lacking, but it always will be in this game because of the amount of information.  I played poker professionally as well, and I trust my reads.

UNVOTE
VOTE: ROBZ888 (for the above reasons)  I would be happy to see a bandwagon develop here, to see where it leads us.

Sigh. Your posts read too newbie-ish to me to be purposefully naive (purposeful naivety is the default strategy I assume the mafia, especially new mafia will take). So I didn't suspect you as much. I pressed you harder because you were available, asked for questions, and responded. And anyway, if you think THAT was pressing, you are in for a rough ride. I just asked you a couple questions, man.

Well, I must have missed you mentioning your newness again. If you or others take this is a sign that I don't keep my word, fine. Really, I was just trying to urge you not to de-emphasize your abilities because it makes me suspicious. I'm not the type of player who votes early or frequently--I have never changed my vote to someone else in any round of mafia--so no, I wasn't actually going to vote for you. Although I admit it's getting more and more tempting--not because I'm annoyed by you (though I am), but because your posts have rapidly been gaining focus. Now you are a professional poker player? But oh, you don't know what you're doing, or what a rickroll is, or how the game is played. Seems more and more like intentionally naive play, actually.

New emphasis mine
So in your Mafia-the-Game belief system, what's the difference between "not keeping your word" and the notion of a blatant falsehood, which you seem to have made in #544 (p22) if indeed, as you say now, you never intended to vote for me, even if the condition were fulfilled?

For reference, he is referring to this post:

If you downplay your own ability to play this game one more time, I am going to vote for you. And I don't vote lightly!

Read it whatever way you like: a prod, a threat, a joke, advice, a promise. If you think it was an important promise, then yes, I broke it by not voting for you. Oh well. I'm not yet convinced you are a member of the mafia, so I didn't vote for you. Sorry.

[Dsell]

I just caught up, but now I have to go for just a bit. I will again catch up and post at that time.

[Galzria]

He's sorry he said it now. I bet. For the record, my "persecution" of J as he sees it, is the THIRD person that I've gone after, each, in turn, to look for their own reaction as well as others individual thoughts. I have in NO way singled him out, and yet of the three people I've voted for, none have responded so defensively. Axxle was jumpy, sure, but not like THIS.

So no, J, you aren't special. I haven't set a crusade on you, or gone after you with single mindedness, or anything else. But it's enlightening (to me, at least) that you seem to think so.

[popsofctown]

SFS is a professional poker player. Since he is A) town and B) good at reading people we should all just copy him.

unvote, vote Robz

[jotheonah]

He's sorry he said it now. I bet. For the record, my "persecution" of J as he sees it, is the THIRD person that I've gone after, each, in turn, to look for their own reaction as well as others individual thoughts. I have in NO way singled him out, and yet of the three people I've voted for, none have responded so defensively. Axxle was jumpy, sure, but not like THIS.

So no, J, you aren't special. I haven't set a crusade on you, or gone after you with single mindedness, or anything else. But it's enlightening (to me, at least) that you seem to think so.

I'd be more suspicious of the guy who ignored your crusade and hoped it would go away, personally. But that seemed to have worked great for pops, so I'mma try the same thing. Be back in a few hours. Don't kill me.

[popsofctown]

Don't hate the player hate the game.