Oh yeah, FOS Loran
IGMOY Loran
Not because he's done anything suspicious, but because FoSes are meaningless
Anyone see the irony here? Anyone? ANyone? Just me? Oh well :-P.
Oh and IGMEOY is meaningless as well, in fact, its just another way of saying FOS really.
That said, I'm going to go and do a pbpa of ikerr. So far everyone's using his latest post as evidence, and while it is fairly scummy, id love to go over his earlier posts as well before i vote him (Vote is probably forthcoming however).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Mafia MVP Harry Potter Mafia!
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
Quote from Seppel »
I love Joboman, Poggy, Niv, and Vezok, because, while they may not be the best players, they still try to win. Having fun is the most important thing to a game, but I've learned that if you don't try to win, then you're ruining everyone else's fun.
It's fine for you to say that, but perhaps you would share that logic with the rest of us? Why is it scummy for a player to attack what they see as poor logic?
What's the problem?
The two statements are contradictory. You've said both that the player who leads a lynch against a townie is most likely to be investigated, and that the player who leads an attack on scum is. You've then extended that logic to say that scum wouldn't do either.
True, I wasn't trying to say it WAS true. Rather, that more people believed it was the better case.
I'll concede this point
That's a good question... I think that I was thinking that one of MJM's posts (about the p9) was actually ZDS (because I argued with him about what was on the table), then they argue slightly in posts 110,111. Then in 113, CC attacks ZDS. Cyan defends ZDS, but using logic - which keeps him distanced, and I find that scummy and start my attack.
Which MJM post did you misattribute? This makes multiple times that you've said (oh, a while back, or around X so and so said...) the fact that you're this vague leads me to think that you're fabricating evidence.
I was trying to draw out the difference between defending someone yourself, and having "logic" do it for you (whether or not it's sound logic)
How do you propose defending someone that you don't think is scum? Oh that's right, you DON'T. (Ad Hom.)
Vote Definetly Stands
I think he's just trying to off whoever's convenient.
An undisputable possibility.
Anyone see the irony here? Anyone? Anyone? Just me? Oh well :-P.
My first impressions were that Skeletal Scrying was the cop investigation and Giant Growth was the doc. It does seem add that more spells aren't in the graveyard. If the Growth really is the doc, I would think it more likely that Incinerate was the mafia and Terror the SK, because it makes more sense mechanically for us to be able to protect from mafia kills and not SK than vice-versa. (obv ignore that if there isn't an SK)
Oh yes, and OMGUS VOTE: ABBEYGARGOYLE.
Setup speculation and a OMGUS random vote.
Quote from ikerr"s second post »
Hmm, so that does say Giant Strength. My bad, I guess that kind of invalidates my speculation last post.
Umm, yah. The Strength is a puzzler. As CC said, it doesn't make much sense to use what appears to be a lasting beneficial effect on a random. It could still be the doc protect, depending on how closely LJustus follows the cards, but it seems much less likely now.
At least its good to know we don't have a town full of vanillas.
Seemingly Fishing post.
Quote from ikerr »
Sure isn't!
@SorryGuy: I just don't see either of our dead casting Giant Strength. As for whether or not the rules hold, I don't think we have enough information to speculate. We've seen a P/T modifier, a spell that kill sbased on toughness, and Terror kill a black creature. It could go either way.
Responds to Fayul's , is that a claim, post and does more useless setup speculation.
Votes ZDS 4th. His only explanation is a quote of ZDS saying that voting active posters is more important than voting lurkers. Bandwagoning much?
Quote from ikerr »
Unvote: ZDS, Vote: Sutherlands. My vot on ZDS was just to try and provoke discussion and see how he, specifically, reacted under a little pressure. He hasn't done anything overly sketchy, so I'm happy hopping off the wagon. Sutherlands minor contradictions and sometimes strange arguements are enough to push me onto his.
FoS: Loran16, because he seems to like them so much. That last fos-filled post was a little scummy, as it almost seems like he has some extra knowledge of ZDS's alignment. (yes, intuition bad, I know)
@Fayul: Could you give us more reasoning as to why you are confidant about CC, even if only somewhat, or is it just for the reason you stated?
This is the most scummy post of Ikerr, as numerous posters have pointed out. He gives a bad reason for voting ZDS, and jumps to another bandwagon. Nuff said.
Quote from ikerr »
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyan
It's easy for you to say 'yeah I just voted him to see how he would react and to provoke discussion' after the fact, especially after other people have used that reasoning. However, if this is truly the case, why didn't you take the 5 seconds necessary to tell us that you were voting to promote discussion when you voted?
Well, I kind of did with the quote in that post. Also, when you make every attempt to say that a vote is nothing but pressure against someone, it really doesn't force them to respond in the same way that a wagon would.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyan
Your vote was a blatant bandwagon vote. Interestingly, your vote on this wagon is exactly the same thing.
Isn't it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyan Also, ZDS latest behavior in regards to Suther-whatever *definetely* qualifies as sketchy at best, and completely and utterly erratic and illogical at worst. It seems like you're just trying to let yourself off of his wagon so you can hop onto what seems like the most promising one for right now.
I think its sketchy, but not to the point where I want to continue voting for him. I would also have considered ZDS's wagon far from dead at the time of that post (and still alive now, but not as hot), and don't see why I, as a mafia member, would want to switch from one live wagon to another, just for the sake of switching.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyan Essentially, while Sutherlands's behavior seems scummy, part of it just seems based on misunderstanding of mafia as a whole(such as his statement that a mafioso wouldn't go out of their way to lynch another mafioso..not only is this not true, it is completely opposite of true, mafioso do this on a constant basis, and are more likely to busroll each other than defend each other)
Its possible, but unless he gets his stories straight and starts making a bit more sense, he still seems like our best lead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyan
On the other hand, your behavior just seems downright scummy period.
I can see how it could be seen that way, but I'm obligated to disagree.
@Passdog: I also don't agree that Whytepanther's post did anything scummy, and certainly nothing worth a vote over.
Ikerr's response to everyone after his scummy post. Really bad excuse for voting habits, and tries to explaining pure bandwagoning. Once again, seems rather scummy.
Conclusion:
Ikerr has done nothing but setup speculation, fishing and bandwagoning the two biggest scummy players with little explanations. He certainly merits a vote.
Unvote (wasnt voting anyone tho), Vote Ikerr.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Mafia MVP Harry Potter Mafia!
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
Quote from Seppel »
I love Joboman, Poggy, Niv, and Vezok, because, while they may not be the best players, they still try to win. Having fun is the most important thing to a game, but I've learned that if you don't try to win, then you're ruining everyone else's fun.
It's fine for you to say that, but perhaps you would share that logic with the rest of us? Why is it scummy for a player to attack what they see as poor logic?
Maybe I'm the only one who sees it this way, but it brings a way to defend someone without really defending them. Basically, there's nothing to defend, since no one knows who is good and who is bad. Everyone should be attacking.
The two statements are contradictory. You've said both that the player who leads a lynch against a townie is most likely to be investigated, and that the player who leads an attack on scum is. You've then extended that logic to say that scum wouldn't do either.
They're not contradictory. Basically, with all the commotion I've made, whether ZDS is scummy or not, whether he gets lynched or not, it is likely that I will be investigated. Mafia generally don't bring as much attention upon themselves this early in the game.
Which MJM post did you misattribute? This makes multiple times that you've said (oh, a while back, or around X so and so said...) the fact that you're this vague leads me to think that you're fabricating evidence.
Post about the p9. When people ask for clarification, I give it. Also, I think saying page 2 for a conversation is perfectly reasonable.
How do you propose defending someone that you don't think is scum? Oh that's right, you DON'T. (Ad Hom.)
Interesting... that didn't seem like much of an attack to me. Also, I guess you're right. I won't defend someone as early as Cyan did, because I don't know who is mafia and who isn't.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
I have asked to be replaced in all my current games. This is for two main reasons: I need to concentrate on school, and I want to concentrate more on my own Mafia site. Best of luck to everyone.
Recieved a mod prod - sorry for not responding earlier.
I am in fact reading through the thread, but there's nothing really jumping out at me right now. Picking out scum on the first day rarely happens, and any theories that we the players might have with respect to the theme of the game are idle speculation at this point.
No creature in magic can 'cast' Terror (Well, unless you're Notorius Assassin or Giant Growth / Giant Strength, so I'm going to just attribute the card names to game flavour and not try to read too much into it.
I believe that it's a mistake for a town to identify patterns (colour, expansion, etc.) since there are literally hundreds of patterns that a mod can come up with (and I should know - the last World Domination Mafia game's Mafia members were the countries which produced the Vengaboys. Let that sink in for a while. Yes.).
The only thing I will add is that it's curious that the Mafia have recently been amazingly lucky at nailing cops on Night 0 (see Ro3K Mafia), which leads me to believe that it's POSSIBLE that roles were not distributed at random. I 'fudged' up some of the role assignments in previous games, like giving Puzzle a role with night-time untargetability, since games were devolving into 'kill the high-profile players'.
Hmmm, catching up on this thread, the two people under the most suspicion at the moment seem to be ikerr and Sutherlands. It drew my attention to ikerr that he OMGUS'd me, but I chaulked that up to early game joking around.
The other points that loran16 brought up in his PBPA here are what really got my attention. The frequent bandwagon jumping for very little reason most of all, but the others (i.e. scummy defense in response to accusations, minor fishing) lead me to Vote: Ikerr to at least get some more pressure on him and generate some discussion.
Just got my PM. I thought I'd check in. I've read through the thread but probably need to reread to find anything. Analysis to come within the next 24 hours.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Mafia Stats (10-22 Overall) Random Mafia 2 Town MVP '08 MTGS Fantasy Football Overall Champion Best Non-SK Neutral Performance (Individual)
Today things haven't moves as much in this game - I'll currently hold my position with my vote on sutherlands as he still hasn't commented on the points that I made previously (i.e. his overzealousness to vote and his willingness to jump on the Ikerr bandwagon, even though he blatantly claimed that he was not his number one suspect).
Basically, there's nothing to defend, since no one knows who is good and who is bad. Everyone should be attacking.
At one point in this game, you've already defended someone else's point. (Mine about giant strength.) Why?
They're not contradictory. Basically, with all the commotion I've made, whether ZDS is scummy or not, whether he gets lynched or not, it is likely that I will be investigated.
I doubt anyone would dispute this. (Though if he turns up scum you may look a bit better.) The point is you claimed that the person who leads these sucessful lynches will be investiagted because of it. You're going to be investigated (if you are) for back tracking, poor arguments, and anti town sentiment.
Mafia generally don't bring as much attention upon themselves this early in the game.
Look at my play in drawn together or God mafia day 1. (In both of them I was anti-town and would not wnat to be investigated.) No one wants to be investigated (except GF), as scum will be revealed, and townies will waste a town's resource. That you're a center of attention most likely means either that you were trying too hard, or that you're not good at avoiding it.
Post about the p9. When people ask for clarification, I give it.
Please, which post? Link, or post number, or quote please. If it was significant to your case, you should be able to find it much more easily than I.
Also, I think saying page 2 for a conversation is perfectly reasonable.
The problem being that page 2 contains anywhere from posts 11-20, and 41-80, of these, only a portion of these are likely to relevant to what ever we're thinking about. When it's not clear to anyone else, it's very convient to know the posts that you find relevant.
I still would like to know what about posts 110 and 111 sent off your alarm bells as opposed to any other disagrement, misunderstanding, or dispute in the thread.
Interesting... that didn't seem like much of an attack to me. Also, I guess you're right. I won't defend someone as early as Cyan did, because I don't know who is mafia and who isn't.
Okay. Everyone vote Axelrod for having an X in his name. Obvious scum!
Not exactly. It is an insult, but it is not an Ad Hominem. It would have been an ad hom if I said "you're a moron, therefore what you are saying is still wrong". Instead, I said "what you are saying is still wrong, therefore you're a moron", which is not very polite (I've never really understood the utility of politeness anyway), but is not an Ad Hominem.
True. I suppose I meant stop both the ad homs and Insults.
Because I said the library was probably not on the table, I was wrong a,d misleading ? If that is so, then you can certainly prove that the library is indeed on the table ?
Can I prove it? No, but I think it's very likely given the evidence. Also, I don't think that someone is actually wishing, rather it's just a flavor thing that didn't quite get in the mechanics.
Not exactly. It is an insult, but it is not an Ad Hominem. It would have been an ad hom if I said "you're a moron, therefore what you are saying is still wrong". Instead, I said "what you are saying is still wrong, therefore you're a moron", which is not very polite (I've never really understood the utility of politeness anyway), but is not an Ad Hominem.Point taken, but see Treigit's last post.
Especially not when you go from "what happened is a common mafia tactic" to "so you admit you've been using a mafia tactic ?", or from "obviously other people think Cyan and ZDS are scum" to "obviously other people think ZDS is scum", etc.I really don't think those are as contradictory as you think they are. At least one other person can see my side of things.
That's up to you then, or more exactly up to how you enjoy yourself. I don't care that much about being sacrificed and can still enjoy myself by simply reading (although I admit it's more enjoyable to play). Don't consider what is true for you to be true for everyone.I didn't say it was true for everyone, but that doesn't mean that it's not true for anyone.
I doubt anyone would dispute this. (Though if he turns up scum you may look a bit better.) The point is you claimed that the person who leads these sucessful lynches will be investiagted because of it. You're going to be investigated (if you are) for back tracking, poor arguments, and anti town sentiment. Look at my play in drawn together or God mafia day 1. (In both of them I was anti-town and would not wnat to be investigated.) No one wants to be investigated (except GF), as scum will be revealed, and townies will waste a town's resource. That you're a center of attention most likely means either that you were trying too hard, or that you're not good at avoiding it.
I disagree that knowing someone is townie will waste a town's resource. It may not be as good as learning someone is mafia, but it certainly helps. I would rather someone other than me be investigated, but that is because I already know that I am a hero, not the card mafia, and if someone investigates me, I learn nothing. (Of course, I don't necessarily learn anything anyway, since cops usually don't out themselves)
The problem being that page 2 contains anywhere from posts 11-20, and 41-80, of these, only a portion of these are likely to relevant to what ever we're thinking about. When it's not clear to anyone else, it's very convient to know the posts that you find relevant.
True, but simply reading page 2 (on default posts per page I believe) will show you quite a bit what I was talking about. If I had 40 PPP, I would have specified.
I still would like to know what about posts 110 and 111 sent off your alarm bells as opposed to any other disagrement, misunderstanding, or dispute in the thread.
I don't know, it would make a lot more sense if MJM's post was ZDS's. Maybe ZDS isn't scum, I'm willing to give that up for now, but it has generated valuable discussion. This is why I'm currently voting for Ikerr.
I disagree that knowing someone is townie will waste a town's resource. It may not be as good as learning someone is mafia, but it certainly helps. I would rather someone other than me be investigated, but that is because I already know that I am a hero, not the card mafia, and if someone investigates me, I learn nothing.
So, we've got heroes in the game? Is that your PMed role Sutherlands?
So, we've got heroes in the game? Is that your PMed role Sutherlands?
Well, we already know from Szadek's death that Legendary Creatures can easily be in the game, but I think he's simply saying investigating him will prove he's town. It's still confusing.
Which part? The part where I said it was Giant Strength in the graveyard, not Giant Growth?
Yeah, that part. Why did you validate what someone else said?
I disagree that knowing someone is townie will waste a town's resource. It may not be as good as learning someone is mafia, but it certainly helps. I would rather someone other than me be investigated, but that is because I already know that I am a hero, not the card mafia, and if someone investigates me, I learn nothing. (Of course, I don't necessarily learn anything anyway, since cops usually don't out themselves)
The cop's job is to find scum. The fact that they confirm a few townies is a consalation prize. You just admitted you don't want to be investigated. By your own logic, obviously you would not have drawn the attetion you have.
Not that hard to find a post with "p9" in it.
Except that p9 may have been refering to page 9, and that you're supposed to be showing me which post of MJM you'd misattributed to someone else.[/quote]
True, but simply reading page 2 (on default posts per page I believe) will show you quite a bit what I was talking about. If I had 40 PPP, I would have specified.
(First, people have already specified that they've got different than default settings, so it would be nice to clarify in the future, but I'll drop this.)
Now, here are all of ZDS's posts between 31-45:
32-I can't help it. I must spam :-/.
34-Or one of those cards have been discarded for whatever reason. It could be anything.
38-Unvote : Crippled_Fist, Vote : Sutherlands for not being able to read correctly.
It's really wasn't apparent to me which was "saying mistruths about the game," propably because I didn't think you would take early game jokes as solid evidence. (BTW, often in Magic, the term "The Table" is used to refer to the "in play zone" Hands, graveyards, RFG zone may all be on the physical table, but you wouldn't say "I've got 30 creatures on the table.")
I don't know, it would make a lot more sense if MJM's post was ZDS's. Maybe ZDS isn't scum, I'm willing to give that up for now, but it has generated valuable discussion. This is why I'm currently voting for Ikerr.
Okay, for the sake of discussion, assume that MJM's post was made by anyone you like. How does it make Cyan and ZDS look like they're scum?
See, I agree, but I think having "igit" in your name is much more likely, thus we should vote for you
But you do agree that Axel is obviously scum for that and should be lynched for that? Hey Xyre too, I'm on fire!
This is what I really don't like about people just throwing out "Fishing +scum"s everywhere. Sutherlands said that he was a hero, and hero is an alternate name for a super saint. Are we just going to ignore this for fear of being called out for fishing? That doesn't make sense to me.
I would like a clarification on whether Sutherlands actually meant something by that statement.
I mean seriously, if he says "no it just meant I was town" then so what? Is there any substantial information the mafia has gained? If he says "yes I was claiming (...)". Then he was the one who stated it in the first place, and any info the mafia may gain was not the fault of the person asking the question, but of the person who made the statement in the first place.
MJM, I've never heard of the use of "Hero" as supersaint. You sure about that?
That said, there are a large amount of MTG cards that would be good supersaints (Kokusho the Evening Star, anyone?).
But enough useless speculation.
ReFOS MJM. You forget things like these are often SUBLIMINALesque claims, slips into posts that arent necessarily obvious. Your post on the other hand, if Sutherlands was a supersaint, alerts the mafia to this claim. If you had not, there was a chance the mafia wouldve missed it (though supersaint is a TERRIBLE thing to subliminal claim).
Even so, i don't feel we need Sutherlands to claim just yet, so you really are fishing for a claim way too early here man.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Mafia MVP Harry Potter Mafia!
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
Quote from Seppel »
I love Joboman, Poggy, Niv, and Vezok, because, while they may not be the best players, they still try to win. Having fun is the most important thing to a game, but I've learned that if you don't try to win, then you're ruining everyone else's fun.
As could be said about most of the posts around that time.
Quote from loran16 »
Responds to Fayul's , is that a claim, post and does more useless setup speculation.
Okay.
Quote from loran16 »
Votes ZDS 4th. His only explanation is a quote of ZDS saying that voting active posters is more important than voting lurkers. Bandwagoning much?
I believe I have admitted that this was blatent bandwagoning. ZDS's posts 101 and 103 seemed to be shutting down almost every point brought up. I wasn't sure what that meant and wanted to see how he would react. While some of what he did was strange, it led me to believe that he is most likely town.
Quote from loran16 »
This is the most scummy post of Ikerr, as numerous posters have pointed out. He gives a bad reason for voting ZDS, and jumps to another bandwagon. Nuff said.
I'm not sure it is enough said. I obviously don't think it was a bad reason and I no longer felt a vote on ZDS was warrented. Sutherlands, however, has seemed scummy enough to pull me onto his wagon. I could present a case against him, but its all already been said.
Quote from loran16 »
Ikerr's response to everyone after his scummy post. Really bad excuse for voting habits, and tries to explaining pure bandwagoning. Once again, seems rather scummy.
I'm sorry you feel that way.
Quote from loran16 »
Ikerr has done nothing but setup speculation, fishing and bandwagoning the two biggest scummy players with little explanations.
I don't see what's so bad about speulating about the setup in the early game, I don't see where I was fishing, and I'm not sure why I need lengthy explanations when you just agreed that they were the scummiest players.
To be honest, I feel that between your FoS everyone under suspicion post and ignoring of my scummy post until there was an actual wagon is more telling than anything I've done.
@AbbeyGargoyle: So, a blatent joke raises your eyebrow, then turns into a reason to vote? I would hardly call two bandwagons 'frequent'. I also don't see how the reason you stated voting for me is any different than mine for voting for ZDS.
This is what I really don't like about people just throwing out "Fishing +scum"s everywhere. Sutherlands said that he was a hero, and hero is an alternate name for a super saint. Are we just going to ignore this for fear of being called out for fishing? That doesn't make sense to me.
I would like a clarification on whether Sutherlands actually meant something by that statement.
I mean seriously, if he says "no it just meant I was town" then so what? Is there any substantial information the mafia has gained? If he says "yes I was claiming (...)". Then he was the one who stated it in the first place, and any info the mafia may gain was not the fault of the person asking the question, but of the person who made the statement in the first place.
To be precise - this is only really a valid question if you've got legitimate suspicions of the person already.
If you're just asking because you saw something and were curious, then it doesn't really help the town more for him to explain it.
I do note that both of you were already voting him.
@Passdog: bad vote! Bad!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Bateleur »
Ambush Krotiq makes me laugh so much. I keep rereading the card and it keeps not having Flash. In what sense is this an ambush again? I just have visions of this huge Krotiq poorly concealed in some bushes, feeling slightly sad that his carefully planned ambushes never seem to work.
I believe I have admitted that this was blatent bandwagoning. ZDS's posts 101 and 103 seemed to be shutting down almost every point brought up.
No see, here's the problem, admitting its blatant bandwagoning doesnt make it less blatant bandwagoning. And the fact that you're all of a sudden giving reasoning for your action now, when you're accused stands really fishy to me.
Here, lets rewrite your reassoning.
*What shouldve been posted by ikerr*
I voted for ZDS to get a bandwagon and strike down a weak townie. When i saw the bandwagon falling a little, i jumped to the next growing bandwagon, and for good matter FOSed another possible bandwagonee.
-------
Hmm, sounds about right to me. Vote ikerr people!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Mafia MVP Harry Potter Mafia!
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
Quote from Seppel »
I love Joboman, Poggy, Niv, and Vezok, because, while they may not be the best players, they still try to win. Having fun is the most important thing to a game, but I've learned that if you don't try to win, then you're ruining everyone else's fun.
Well, we already know from Szadek's death that Legendary Creatures can easily be in the game, but I think he's simply saying investigating him will prove he's town. It's still confusing.
I'm not a Legend, I just get along well with other people.
The correct answer to the question "did you contradict yourself" is, perhaps, that your thoughts are not contradictory, but in the way you wrote them, they are.
The cop's job is to find scum. The fact that they confirm a few townies is a consalation prize. You just admitted you don't want to be investigated. By your own logic, obviously you would not have drawn the attetion you have.
(First, people have already specified that they've got different than default settings, so it would be nice to clarify in the future, but I'll drop this.)
Now, here are all of ZDS's posts between 31-45:
[quote=Treigit;/comments/10508925] 31-45 would be page 3 if anything. [quote=Treigit;/comments/10508925]It's really wasn't apparent to me which was "saying mistruths about the game," propably because I didn't think you would take early game jokes as solid evidence. (BTW, often in Magic, the term "The Table" is used to refer to the "in play zone" Hands, graveyards, RFG zone may all be on the physical table, but you wouldn't say "I've got 30 creatures on the table.")
I never claimed to have solid evidence. And I wouldn't expect the deck to be anywhere BUT the table. People usually don't play on the floor or a couch.
But you do agree that Axel is obviously scum for that and should be lynched for that? Hey Xyre too, I'm on fire!
Oh most definitely! But first we have to lynch you, since you still have "igit". Although, ikerr is still more suspicious than anyone because of his constant bandwagoning and, as loran put it, jumping on the next wagon when the first one starts to fall.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
ikerr, you're not making yourself look any better here at all. First off, you called two bandwagons 'hardly frequent', however they have been the only two major bandwagons thus far and you got onto both of them scummily, even admitting that you were blatantly bandwagon jumping. As loran kidn of said (but I want to put my own spin on), just because you admit to doing something bad, doesn't make it any less bad.
Quote from ikerr »
@AbbeyGargoyle: So, a blatent joke raises your eyebrow, then turns into a reason to vote? I would hardly call two bandwagons 'frequent'. I also don't see how the reason you stated voting for me is any different than mine for voting for ZDS.
Blatant misrep there. I said that the OMGUS (even joking) got my attention because I made it pretty blatant that my vote was a joke. The reaction you made struck me as somewhat jumpy, but at the time, as I stated before I took it as a joke vote-in-kind. My reasons for voting you I listed in post 215 (to refresh you, bandwagon jumping, scummy defense, and minor fishing). The scummy responses have kept up in your most recent posting responding to the PBPA done on you can just be added to the list of reasons making me happy where my vote currently is.
Ikerr's post that everybody is citing as the basis of his case was definitly scummy, I don't think he's more likely to be scum than Sutherlands. While Cyan, loran, and AG presented good reasons for voting, Arimnae's and Suther's seem like an attempt to jump on the easiest wagon around. FOS Arimnaes and I'm already voting Suther.
No see, here's the problem, admitting its blatant bandwagoning doesnt make it less blatant bandwagoning. And the fact that you're all of a sudden giving reasoning for your action now, when you're accused stands really fishy to me.
A) Me saying that I previously admitted bandwagoning was about the equivolent of saying 'I already responded to this point, please refer to that response' not 'I admitted to it, therefor this point is meaningless'. Sorry for the confusion.
B) Do you think that a better reponse to the accusations is to not disclose my reasoning? Cause somehow, I don't think that would go over any better.
Quote from AbbeyGargoyle »
First off, you called two bandwagons 'hardly frequent', however they have been the only two major bandwagons thus far and you got onto both
Cyan and Fayul could have easily had wagons put on them without much trouble, and I believe there were a couple other almost wagons that could have formed with a little more support. I stayed off of all of those.
Quote from AbbeyGargoyle »
Blatant misrep there.
Just because there are other reasons does not mean that you didn't just use a joke as a reason.
You also stated that the final reason for voting was to 'get more pressure on him and generate some discussion', which is joining a wagon to put on pressure and get responses. How is that different from my vote on ZDS?
Honestly, I'm not sure what else I can do here. I've explained my reasoning, and I've explaining the reasoning for my reasoning. Until you can give me something to respond to other than 'he sounds scummy' I don't think there's much else I can say.
Ikerr's post that everybody is citing as the basis of his case was definitly scummy, I don't think he's more likely to be scum than Sutherlands. While Cyan, loran, and AG presented good reasons for voting, Arimnae's and Suther's seem like an attempt to jump on the easiest wagon around. FOS Arimnaes and I'm already voting Suther.
I didn't think my reason for voting ikerr was any secret: he's scum.
Hey everyone. First thing's first: Unvote: ZDS I'm going to be going over the thread for the next few hours, and after that, I'll be making a post with my thoughts on players in this game. Quite possibly also add my own vote into this thing.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're town and I'm mafia, you've already lost. You just don't know it yet.
I remembered something that, as a replacement, I was yelling at my computer screen hoping one of you in-gamers would think of.
Those of you who remember 8-bit mafia will remember that whenever a different mafia member killed, a different type of kill happened. I think this explains why we see the cards we do. Most likely tommorow, we will see different "kill cards" in the g'yard. [/speculation]
IIRC, there have been no claims to date. I would like to see Sutherlands claim. Vote: Sutherlands. As surprising as this may seem, ZDS' (though I don't like everything I've seen from either) last post was once enough to draw a wagonning post.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Mafia Stats (10-22 Overall) Random Mafia 2 Town MVP '08 MTGS Fantasy Football Overall Champion Best Non-SK Neutral Performance (Individual)
"Suthie — I think the library is on the table.
ZDS — I think the library is not on the table.
Suthie — Do you ? Then you are misleading the town.
ZDS — Do you have any proof that the library is on the table ?
Suthie — No, I just suppose it.
Etc — Blablabla"
What I would like to know, is how you supposing the library is on the table and me supposing the opposite means that I'm misleading the town, when neither of us know if what he is supposing is true or false ?
For my money, the most telling part of that exchange was:
Cyan and Fayul could have easily had wagons put on them without much trouble, and I believe there were a couple other almost wagons that could have formed with a little more support. I stayed off of all of those.
The problem with ikerr's play is that he hasn't been providing any evidence to support his votes, right? Now he's admitting that he saw two other possible targets that didn't have a wagon yet and passed on them. Sounds more like "I could have started a wagon, but I wanted someone else to provide the evidence for me".
Ikerr has mentioned that his votes were to spark discussion. I would like to see him join the discussion. I, and many others have stated why we beleive Sutherlands to be scum. I'd like to see ikerr tell us either why he thinks Sutherlands is scum, or what he's learned from the discussion on Sutherlands, if he does not beleive Sutherlands is scum.
IIRC, there have been no claims to date. I would like to see Sutherlands claim. Vote: Sutherlands. As surprising as this may seem, ZDS' (though I don't like everything I've seen from either) last post was once enough to draw a wagonning post.
No, I don't think that's a good idea, and it seems like you're fishing. If most other people decide that I should claim, then I will, but I don't really feel like giving mafia information.
Ikerr has mentioned that his votes were to spark discussion. I would like to see him join the discussion. I, and many others have stated why we beleive Sutherlands to be scum. I'd like to see ikerr tell us either why he thinks Sutherlands is scum, or what he's learned from the discussion on Sutherlands, if he does not beleive Sutherlands is scum.
All I seem to remember is that I made a couple contradictions in my word choices and that I've been trying to get ZDS lynched on what some other people don't believe is a valid reason. The first one does not show that I am scum. Please realize this. The second one I can understand, but I don't believe that mafia would try to get someone lynched this early in the game (although there are different play styles). And even if you still believe I am scum, do you really believe that it is more likely that I am than Ikerr? He has made 7 posts, been on the 2 "big" bandwagons for no reason (which he later went back and said was for "pressure") and "minor contradictions and sometimes strange arguements". Also, the vote for "pressure" on ZDS was within a post of ZDS's 2nd and 3rd votes.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
EBWODP: Also, I would like to say that although the deck was never stated to be on the table, the fact that the cards (us) are on the table, the cards (us) make up the deck, and the graveyard is also on the table is a PRETTY GOOD REASON to say that the library is in fact, on the table.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
All I seem to remember is that I made a couple contradictions in my word choices and that I've been trying to get ZDS lynched on what some other people don't believe is a valid reason. The first one does not show that I am scum. Please realize this. The second one I can understand, but I don't believe that mafia would try to get someone lynched this early in the game (although there are different play styles). And even if you still believe I am scum, do you really believe that it is more likely that I am than Ikerr? He has made 7 posts, been on the 2 "big" bandwagons for no reason (which he later went back and said was for "pressure") and "minor contradictions and sometimes strange arguements". Also, the vote for "pressure" on ZDS was within a post of ZDS's 2nd and 3rd votes.
Ok, but I was asking ikerr a question. I'll comment on this after we hear from him again.
It seems like people are fairly divided between voting for Ikerr and voting for Sutherlands. They both look fairly scummy. The difference, I think, is that alot of Sutherland's scumminess seems to come from overzealousness and plain misunderstanding of how mafia works(like his 'case' against ZDS and myself was based off of a large amount of logical fallacies), whereas Ikerr's posts just seem to have scummy/mafia-esque intentions. That's the difference, for me..I tihnk there's a possibility that Sutherlands is a misguided townie, but, there's no doubt in my mind that Ikerr is scum.
Okay, let me tackle the different things that have come up in this game so far:
- Concerning Giant Strength and Skeletal Scrying in the graveyard: I agree that we probably need to wait until “at least” Day 2 to try to figure out what they mean. Right now, we just don’t have enough information.
- Intuition has seemed to be a big topic here (at least between ZDS and Sutherlands). My view is that intuition without an ounce of other explanation isn’t that great of a tool. This is nothing more than a ‘gut’ feeling, and with gut feelings - especially at this point in the game - you are more likely going to be wrong than right.
Okay, now for where my top three suspicions lie (accompanied with explanations):
3) Fayul: I originally suspected Fayul after the 6th vote jump onto the ZDS bandwagon. Then, there is this post:
I'd be most wary of the people with few posts where they attemopt to influence the town: Cropcircles is the first one that comes to mind. (and, umm, after this post, me too, but I'm not scum, so that doesn't count.)
This just reeks of a hypocritical argument (it’s even openly admitted). However, I’m waiting to reserve judgement here until I hear how Fayul feels about both ikerr and Sutherlands. FOS: Fayul
Speaking of which, this brings me to where I’m torn between who to vote for. They both have a lot going against them. Shall we begin?
So... first off, your eye isn't on everyone? I don't know what I've done to deserve such a watchful eye, but whatever. Second, there is a point that random voting becomes not useful? Wouldn't that be the beginning of the game? It's never useful, people just do it because it's fun.
Sutherlands has been giving the impression that he’s played plenty of Mafia games. This just seems to clash with that last sentence. As Matjoeman, ZDS, and Good&Evil pointed out shortly thereafter, so-called “random” voting can in fact be quite helpful later on in the game.
… I believe that you and Cyan are most likely to be scum, and obviously other people do too. The tactics used, especially that of pulling a bandwagon off of a fellow mafia (if neither of you were mafia, you would probably want the other person to be lynched, because that means you get to survive the night) is something I have seen the mafia do many a time. I am not using flawed logic to link you, but rather my own intuition. What else is there to go on this early in the game?
(My emphasis on the bolding) To see why I see this as important, please see my views on intuition above.
I think the number of votes on me and the number of votes on you shows that you are the better choice. Especially considering that all but one of the votes on me are people who I specifically said i was suspicious of.
Now, I really didn’t like this (even though the first sentence was in jest). At this point, Sutherlands, are you suspicious of all 8 of the people currently voting for you?
Then, there are the contradictions that WhytePanther brought up in post 165. However much I disagree with how Sutherlands views being a townie in this game (which, from what I’ve gathered, is pretty much akin to stay alive at almost all costs), I’m not going to go touching that point with a 10-foot pole.
And even if you still believe I am scum, do you really believe that it is more likely that I am than Ikerr? He has made 7 posts, been on the 2 "big" bandwagons for no reason (which he later went back and said was for "pressure") and "minor contradictions and sometimes strange arguements". Also, the vote for "pressure" on ZDS was within a post of ZDS's 2nd and 3rd votes.
This seems like a desperation attempt at “Look! ikerr is acting suspiciously too, why not vote for him? He just so happens to also have a bandwagon, but that has nothing to do with this assessment.”
Don’t think you’re off the hook either ikerr:
I only have two things against you (opposed to many against Sutherlands, however that may just be because Sutherlands has been a much more active poster than you have)
1) You jumped onto the Sutherlands and ZDS bandwagons without much of an explanation other than it being “for pressure” or simply agreeing with other players.
2) Then, when you were asked to explain your actions, you didn’t do a very good job of it. The best you could seemingly muster was:
I don't see what's so bad about speulating about the setup in the early game, I don't see where I was fishing, and I'm not sure why I need lengthy explanations when you just agreed that they were the scummiest players.
I don’t like that you were basically saying to loran16, “I agreed with you, so why’d does it matter that I jumped in with no explanation of my own?” All it does is add your vote to a bandwagon without giving any of your own though into the decision. This leaves a minimal amount of information that can be traced back to you later (something that I see as a nice mafia tactic).
Now, for my vote: At this time, I believe the evidence leads me to go Vote: Sutherlands and FOS: ikerr. However, they are very, very close to being on the same level here. Sutherlands said that he would claim. This is something that I’d like to hear out of either ikerr or Sutherlands at this point because they are both my top suspects. Cyan almost convinced me not to vote for Sutherlands, but I just can’t bring myself to believe that everything Sutherlands has done has just been a series of misunderstandings.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're town and I'm mafia, you've already lost. You just don't know it yet.
Just to clarify, I don't want to convince anyone to do(or not to do) anything. It's very possible that both Sutherlands and Ikerr are scum, though it could also be wishful thinking that two mafioso have made themselves so obvious, so early in the game. I digress. What I was trying to say was that I think that it is more likely that Ikerr is mafia than I do Sutherlands, so that's why I am voting for him, at least. It's very possible that they're both Mafia, I just feel more sure of that in regards to Ikerr than I do Sutherlands.
EBWODP: Man I'm stupid. I misread my own post yet again... sigh. You guys should just kill me now, since you take that as evidence. I've decided I'm not going to claim, since I really think that takes a lot out of mafia games, but I'm townie anyway.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
But I don't want to claim, because:
1) It wont' actually prove anything.
2) Gives mafia hints on what to claim
3) I've already given 2 large hints on my role.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
Ikker seems like he's exhibiting a lot of the classic tells, sadly, most of the classic tells are also things taht can be exhibited by new players. I honestly don't think he's a prime target at the moment, but he's elevated himself above the pack.
Sutherlands looks even better off than Ikker, up until that last post. Please, sir, come up with a much sounder reason as to why you're not claiming, or just come out with it right now. I still like my Cropcircles vote, but, if he doesn't have a decent explanation for this, I think sutherlands is an extremely viable lynch.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Lord, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, the wisdom to know the difference, and a ****ing chainsaw.
Just to clarify, I don't want to convince anyone to do(or not to do) anything. It's very possible that both Sutherlands and Ikerr are scum, though it could also be wishful thinking that two mafioso have made themselves so obvious, so early in the game. I digress. What I was trying to say was that I think that it is more likely that Ikerr is mafia than I do Sutherlands, so that's why I am voting for him, at least. It's very possible that they're both Mafia, I just feel more sure of that in regards to Ikerr than I do Sutherlands.
My appologies Cyan, I misunderstood what you were saying. Although, I am also in the belief that both Sutherlands and ikerr are scum, however unlikely that is. If only I had two votes
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're town and I'm mafia, you've already lost. You just don't know it yet.
I've had a few people tell me to claim, though. If both Cyan and CC tell me to, I will.
Tis isn't makng you look any better or worse, at the moment, but why in the bloody blue hell those two, and only those two?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Lord, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, the wisdom to know the difference, and a ****ing chainsaw.
Lord, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, the wisdom to know the difference, and a ****ing chainsaw.
You don't need to give hints to claim that you're a vanilla townie. Everyone can claim that way.
I'll add up on the pressure to hear your claim. The info that you provide will serve town as well, giving us important info to build up a picture of what's going on.
Anyone see the irony here? Anyone? ANyone? Just me? Oh well :-P.
Oh and IGMEOY is meaningless as well, in fact, its just another way of saying FOS really.
That said, I'm going to go and do a pbpa of ikerr. So far everyone's using his latest post as evidence, and while it is fairly scummy, id love to go over his earlier posts as well before i vote him (Vote is probably forthcoming however).
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
The two statements are contradictory. You've said both that the player who leads a lynch against a townie is most likely to be investigated, and that the player who leads an attack on scum is. You've then extended that logic to say that scum wouldn't do either. I'll concede this point Which MJM post did you misattribute? This makes multiple times that you've said (oh, a while back, or around X so and so said...) the fact that you're this vague leads me to think that you're fabricating evidence.
How do you propose defending someone that you don't think is scum? Oh that's right, you DON'T. (Ad Hom.)
Vote Definetly Stands
An undisputable possibility.
* Treigit waves hand, squirms in seat
Oh! Oh! I do! I do!
Setup speculation and a OMGUS random vote.
Seemingly Fishing post.
Responds to Fayul's , is that a claim, post and does more useless setup speculation.
Votes ZDS 4th. His only explanation is a quote of ZDS saying that voting active posters is more important than voting lurkers. Bandwagoning much?
This is the most scummy post of Ikerr, as numerous posters have pointed out. He gives a bad reason for voting ZDS, and jumps to another bandwagon. Nuff said.
Ikerr's response to everyone after his scummy post. Really bad excuse for voting habits, and tries to explaining pure bandwagoning. Once again, seems rather scummy.
Conclusion:
Ikerr has done nothing but setup speculation, fishing and bandwagoning the two biggest scummy players with little explanations. He certainly merits a vote.
Unvote (wasnt voting anyone tho), Vote Ikerr.
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
They're not contradictory. Basically, with all the commotion I've made, whether ZDS is scummy or not, whether he gets lynched or not, it is likely that I will be investigated. Mafia generally don't bring as much attention upon themselves this early in the game.
Post about the p9. When people ask for clarification, I give it. Also, I think saying page 2 for a conversation is perfectly reasonable.
Interesting... that didn't seem like much of an attack to me. Also, I guess you're right. I won't defend someone as early as Cyan did, because I don't know who is mafia and who isn't.
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
Battle Royale Mafia
(Come see who won!)
Anyone else? Please let me know now.
I am in fact reading through the thread, but there's nothing really jumping out at me right now. Picking out scum on the first day rarely happens, and any theories that we the players might have with respect to the theme of the game are idle speculation at this point.
No creature in magic can 'cast' Terror (Well, unless you're Notorius Assassin or Giant Growth / Giant Strength, so I'm going to just attribute the card names to game flavour and not try to read too much into it.
I believe that it's a mistake for a town to identify patterns (colour, expansion, etc.) since there are literally hundreds of patterns that a mod can come up with (and I should know - the last World Domination Mafia game's Mafia members were the countries which produced the Vengaboys. Let that sink in for a while. Yes.).
The only thing I will add is that it's curious that the Mafia have recently been amazingly lucky at nailing cops on Night 0 (see Ro3K Mafia), which leads me to believe that it's POSSIBLE that roles were not distributed at random. I 'fudged' up some of the role assignments in previous games, like giving Puzzle a role with night-time untargetability, since games were devolving into 'kill the high-profile players'.
That's it for now.
The other points that loran16 brought up in his PBPA here are what really got my attention. The frequent bandwagon jumping for very little reason most of all, but the others (i.e. scummy defense in response to accusations, minor fishing) lead me to Vote: Ikerr to at least get some more pressure on him and generate some discussion.
Random Mafia 2 Town MVP
'08 MTGS Fantasy Football Overall Champion
Best Non-SK Neutral Performance (Individual)
Today things haven't moves as much in this game - I'll currently hold my position with my vote on sutherlands as he still hasn't commented on the points that I made previously (i.e. his overzealousness to vote and his willingness to jump on the Ikerr bandwagon, even though he blatantly claimed that he was not his number one suspect).
I doubt anyone would dispute this. (Though if he turns up scum you may look a bit better.) The point is you claimed that the person who leads these sucessful lynches will be investiagted because of it. You're going to be investigated (if you are) for back tracking, poor arguments, and anti town sentiment. Look at my play in drawn together or God mafia day 1. (In both of them I was anti-town and would not wnat to be investigated.) No one wants to be investigated (except GF), as scum will be revealed, and townies will waste a town's resource. That you're a center of attention most likely means either that you were trying too hard, or that you're not good at avoiding it.
Please, which post? Link, or post number, or quote please. If it was significant to your case, you should be able to find it much more easily than I.
The problem being that page 2 contains anywhere from posts 11-20, and 41-80, of these, only a portion of these are likely to relevant to what ever we're thinking about. When it's not clear to anyone else, it's very convient to know the posts that you find relevant.
I still would like to know what about posts 110 and 111 sent off your alarm bells as opposed to any other disagrement, misunderstanding, or dispute in the thread.
Okay. Everyone vote Axelrod for having an X in his name. Obvious scum!
True. I suppose I meant stop both the ad homs and Insults.
Not exactly. It is an insult, but it is not an Ad Hominem. It would have been an ad hom if I said "you're a moron, therefore what you are saying is still wrong". Instead, I said "what you are saying is still wrong, therefore you're a moron", which is not very polite (I've never really understood the utility of politeness anyway), but is not an Ad Hominem.Point taken, but see Treigit's last post.
Especially not when you go from "what happened is a common mafia tactic" to "so you admit you've been using a mafia tactic ?", or from "obviously other people think Cyan and ZDS are scum" to "obviously other people think ZDS is scum", etc.I really don't think those are as contradictory as you think they are. At least one other person can see my side of things.
That's up to you then, or more exactly up to how you enjoy yourself. I don't care that much about being sacrificed and can still enjoy myself by simply reading (although I admit it's more enjoyable to play).
Don't consider what is true for you to be true for everyone.I didn't say it was true for everyone, but that doesn't mean that it's not true for anyone.
Which part? The part where I said it was Giant Strength in the graveyard, not Giant Growth?
I disagree that knowing someone is townie will waste a town's resource. It may not be as good as learning someone is mafia, but it certainly helps. I would rather someone other than me be investigated, but that is because I already know that I am a hero, not the card mafia, and if someone investigates me, I learn nothing. (Of course, I don't necessarily learn anything anyway, since cops usually don't out themselves)
Not that hard to find a post with "p9" in it.
True, but simply reading page 2 (on default posts per page I believe) will show you quite a bit what I was talking about. If I had 40 PPP, I would have specified.
I don't know, it would make a lot more sense if MJM's post was ZDS's. Maybe ZDS isn't scum, I'm willing to give that up for now, but it has generated valuable discussion. This is why I'm currently voting for Ikerr.
See, I agree, but I think having "igit" in your name is much more likely, thus we should vote for you
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
So, we've got heroes in the game? Is that your PMed role Sutherlands?
Well, we already know from Szadek's death that Legendary Creatures can easily be in the game, but I think he's simply saying investigating him will prove he's town. It's still confusing.
Experiments Series: #5 (Courtly Intrigue Mafia) | #4 (Drunken Tracker) | #3 (Big Red Button) - coming soon | #2 (Pope Mafia) | #1 (Iso's Inflammable Mafia)
Mini Games: MTGS Mafia Redux II (Invitational, Evil Mirror Universe) | Unreal City
Old Games (bad): The Greenwood Affair | Blood Moon Mafia
The cop's job is to find scum. The fact that they confirm a few townies is a consalation prize. You just admitted you don't want to be investigated. By your own logic, obviously you would not have drawn the attetion you have.
Except that p9 may have been refering to page 9, and that you're supposed to be showing me which post of MJM you'd misattributed to someone else.[/quote]
(First, people have already specified that they've got different than default settings, so it would be nice to clarify in the future, but I'll drop this.)
Now, here are all of ZDS's posts between 31-45:
34-Or one of those cards have been discarded for whatever reason. It could be anything.
38-Unvote : Crippled_Fist, Vote : Sutherlands for not being able to read correctly.
42- Or someone entered the dungeon. // 'Kay :-).
It's really wasn't apparent to me which was "saying mistruths about the game," propably because I didn't think you would take early game jokes as solid evidence. (BTW, often in Magic, the term "The Table" is used to refer to the "in play zone" Hands, graveyards, RFG zone may all be on the physical table, but you wouldn't say "I've got 30 creatures on the table.")
Okay, for the sake of discussion, assume that MJM's post was made by anyone you like. How does it make Cyan and ZDS look like they're scum?
But you do agree that Axel is obviously scum for that and should be lynched for that? Hey Xyre too, I'm on fire!
This is what I really don't like about people just throwing out "Fishing +scum"s everywhere. Sutherlands said that he was a hero, and hero is an alternate name for a super saint. Are we just going to ignore this for fear of being called out for fishing? That doesn't make sense to me.
I would like a clarification on whether Sutherlands actually meant something by that statement.
I mean seriously, if he says "no it just meant I was town" then so what? Is there any substantial information the mafia has gained? If he says "yes I was claiming (...)". Then he was the one who stated it in the first place, and any info the mafia may gain was not the fault of the person asking the question, but of the person who made the statement in the first place.
<XylBot> ||| MAFIABOT || sk: LookingforReality (Copycat) |||
<XylBot> ||| MAFIABOT || survivor: matjoeman (Anarchist) |||
<XylBot> ||| MAFIABOT || town: kops (Anarchist) |||
Mafia stats
That said, there are a large amount of MTG cards that would be good supersaints (Kokusho the Evening Star, anyone?).
But enough useless speculation.
ReFOS MJM. You forget things like these are often SUBLIMINALesque claims, slips into posts that arent necessarily obvious. Your post on the other hand, if Sutherlands was a supersaint, alerts the mafia to this claim. If you had not, there was a chance the mafia wouldve missed it (though supersaint is a TERRIBLE thing to subliminal claim).
Even so, i don't feel we need Sutherlands to claim just yet, so you really are fishing for a claim way too early here man.
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
Okay.
As could be said about most of the posts around that time.
Okay.
I believe I have admitted that this was blatent bandwagoning. ZDS's posts 101 and 103 seemed to be shutting down almost every point brought up. I wasn't sure what that meant and wanted to see how he would react. While some of what he did was strange, it led me to believe that he is most likely town.
I'm not sure it is enough said. I obviously don't think it was a bad reason and I no longer felt a vote on ZDS was warrented. Sutherlands, however, has seemed scummy enough to pull me onto his wagon. I could present a case against him, but its all already been said.
I'm sorry you feel that way.
I don't see what's so bad about speulating about the setup in the early game, I don't see where I was fishing, and I'm not sure why I need lengthy explanations when you just agreed that they were the scummiest players.
To be honest, I feel that between your FoS everyone under suspicion post and ignoring of my scummy post until there was an actual wagon is more telling than anything I've done.
@AbbeyGargoyle: So, a blatent joke raises your eyebrow, then turns into a reason to vote? I would hardly call two bandwagons 'frequent'. I also don't see how the reason you stated voting for me is any different than mine for voting for ZDS.
To be precise - this is only really a valid question if you've got legitimate suspicions of the person already.
If you're just asking because you saw something and were curious, then it doesn't really help the town more for him to explain it.
I do note that both of you were already voting him.
@Passdog: bad vote! Bad!
No see, here's the problem, admitting its blatant bandwagoning doesnt make it less blatant bandwagoning. And the fact that you're all of a sudden giving reasoning for your action now, when you're accused stands really fishy to me.
Here, lets rewrite your reassoning.
*What shouldve been posted by ikerr*
I voted for ZDS to get a bandwagon and strike down a weak townie. When i saw the bandwagon falling a little, i jumped to the next growing bandwagon, and for good matter FOSed another possible bandwagonee.
-------
Hmm, sounds about right to me. Vote ikerr people!
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
I'm not a Legend, I just get along well with other people.
Well, because if you ARE misleading the town, you're probably mafia.
Ok, sure.
Um.. because what was said about it being a growth is 100% false, and those are numbers I can defend.
Um... ok?
Well, now you know.
I never claimed to have solid evidence. And I wouldn't expect the deck to be anywhere BUT the table. People usually don't play on the floor or a couch.
How the whole thing started about how I believe they were trying to distance themselves from each other.
Oh most definitely! But first we have to lynch you, since you still have "igit". Although, ikerr is still more suspicious than anyone because of his constant bandwagoning and, as loran put it, jumping on the next wagon when the first one starts to fall.
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
Blatant misrep there. I said that the OMGUS (even joking) got my attention because I made it pretty blatant that my vote was a joke. The reaction you made struck me as somewhat jumpy, but at the time, as I stated before I took it as a joke vote-in-kind. My reasons for voting you I listed in post 215 (to refresh you, bandwagon jumping, scummy defense, and minor fishing). The scummy responses have kept up in your most recent posting responding to the PBPA done on you can just be added to the list of reasons making me happy where my vote currently is.
<XylBot> ||| MAFIABOT || sk: LookingforReality (Copycat) |||
<XylBot> ||| MAFIABOT || survivor: matjoeman (Anarchist) |||
<XylBot> ||| MAFIABOT || town: kops (Anarchist) |||
Mafia stats
A) Me saying that I previously admitted bandwagoning was about the equivolent of saying 'I already responded to this point, please refer to that response' not 'I admitted to it, therefor this point is meaningless'. Sorry for the confusion.
B) Do you think that a better reponse to the accusations is to not disclose my reasoning? Cause somehow, I don't think that would go over any better.
Cyan and Fayul could have easily had wagons put on them without much trouble, and I believe there were a couple other almost wagons that could have formed with a little more support. I stayed off of all of those.
Just because there are other reasons does not mean that you didn't just use a joke as a reason.
You also stated that the final reason for voting was to 'get more pressure on him and generate some discussion', which is joining a wagon to put on pressure and get responses. How is that different from my vote on ZDS?
Honestly, I'm not sure what else I can do here. I've explained my reasoning, and I've explaining the reasoning for my reasoning. Until you can give me something to respond to other than 'he sounds scummy' I don't think there's much else I can say.
Near the end of page 16 vote count
(With 24 alive, it takes 13 to lynch)
Sutherlands (7) - silicon, Matjoeman, ZeDorkSlipeur, WhytePanther, Treigit, ikerr, Good&Evil
ZeDorkSlipeur (3) - Pod, CropCircles, SorryGuy
CropCircles (1) - Fayul
ikerr (5) - Cyan, Sutherlands, arimnaes, loran16, AbbeyGargoyle
WhytePanther (1) - Passdog
Fayul (1) - Crippled_Fist
I didn't think my reason for voting ikerr was any secret: he's scum.
Those of you who remember 8-bit mafia will remember that whenever a different mafia member killed, a different type of kill happened. I think this explains why we see the cards we do. Most likely tommorow, we will see different "kill cards" in the g'yard. [/speculation]
IIRC, there have been no claims to date. I would like to see Sutherlands claim. Vote: Sutherlands. As surprising as this may seem, ZDS' (though I don't like everything I've seen from either) last post was once enough to draw a wagonning post.
Random Mafia 2 Town MVP
'08 MTGS Fantasy Football Overall Champion
Best Non-SK Neutral Performance (Individual)
For my money, the most telling part of that exchange was:
But that was fairly early in the game, so it's hard to gauge how serious that was. On the other hand, what ikerr is saying now bothers me.
The problem with ikerr's play is that he hasn't been providing any evidence to support his votes, right? Now he's admitting that he saw two other possible targets that didn't have a wagon yet and passed on them. Sounds more like "I could have started a wagon, but I wanted someone else to provide the evidence for me".
Ikerr has mentioned that his votes were to spark discussion. I would like to see him join the discussion. I, and many others have stated why we beleive Sutherlands to be scum. I'd like to see ikerr tell us either why he thinks Sutherlands is scum, or what he's learned from the discussion on Sutherlands, if he does not beleive Sutherlands is scum.
All I seem to remember is that I made a couple contradictions in my word choices and that I've been trying to get ZDS lynched on what some other people don't believe is a valid reason. The first one does not show that I am scum. Please realize this. The second one I can understand, but I don't believe that mafia would try to get someone lynched this early in the game (although there are different play styles). And even if you still believe I am scum, do you really believe that it is more likely that I am than Ikerr? He has made 7 posts, been on the 2 "big" bandwagons for no reason (which he later went back and said was for "pressure") and "minor contradictions and sometimes strange arguements". Also, the vote for "pressure" on ZDS was within a post of ZDS's 2nd and 3rd votes.
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
Ok, but I was asking ikerr a question. I'll comment on this after we hear from him again.
- Concerning Giant Strength and Skeletal Scrying in the graveyard: I agree that we probably need to wait until “at least” Day 2 to try to figure out what they mean. Right now, we just don’t have enough information.
- Intuition has seemed to be a big topic here (at least between ZDS and Sutherlands). My view is that intuition without an ounce of other explanation isn’t that great of a tool. This is nothing more than a ‘gut’ feeling, and with gut feelings - especially at this point in the game - you are more likely going to be wrong than right.
Okay, now for where my top three suspicions lie (accompanied with explanations):
3) Fayul: I originally suspected Fayul after the 6th vote jump onto the ZDS bandwagon. Then, there is this post:
This just reeks of a hypocritical argument (it’s even openly admitted). However, I’m waiting to reserve judgement here until I hear how Fayul feels about both ikerr and Sutherlands. FOS: Fayul
Speaking of which, this brings me to where I’m torn between who to vote for. They both have a lot going against them. Shall we begin?
Sutherlands:
My suspicions started with:
Sutherlands has been giving the impression that he’s played plenty of Mafia games. This just seems to clash with that last sentence. As Matjoeman, ZDS, and Good&Evil pointed out shortly thereafter, so-called “random” voting can in fact be quite helpful later on in the game.
Then there’s the whole ZDS/Cyan-Mafia conspiracy:
(My emphasis on the bolding) To see why I see this as important, please see my views on intuition above.
Sutherlands, I hate to use this against you, but:
Now, I really didn’t like this (even though the first sentence was in jest). At this point, Sutherlands, are you suspicious of all 8 of the people currently voting for you?
Then, there are the contradictions that WhytePanther brought up in post 165. However much I disagree with how Sutherlands views being a townie in this game (which, from what I’ve gathered, is pretty much akin to stay alive at almost all costs), I’m not going to go touching that point with a 10-foot pole.
One final thing before I move onto ikerr:
This seems like a desperation attempt at “Look! ikerr is acting suspiciously too, why not vote for him? He just so happens to also have a bandwagon, but that has nothing to do with this assessment.”
Don’t think you’re off the hook either ikerr:
I only have two things against you (opposed to many against Sutherlands, however that may just be because Sutherlands has been a much more active poster than you have)
1) You jumped onto the Sutherlands and ZDS bandwagons without much of an explanation other than it being “for pressure” or simply agreeing with other players.
2) Then, when you were asked to explain your actions, you didn’t do a very good job of it. The best you could seemingly muster was:
I don’t like that you were basically saying to loran16, “I agreed with you, so why’d does it matter that I jumped in with no explanation of my own?” All it does is add your vote to a bandwagon without giving any of your own though into the decision. This leaves a minimal amount of information that can be traced back to you later (something that I see as a nice mafia tactic).
Now, for my vote: At this time, I believe the evidence leads me to go Vote: Sutherlands and FOS: ikerr. However, they are very, very close to being on the same level here. Sutherlands said that he would claim. This is something that I’d like to hear out of either ikerr or Sutherlands at this point because they are both my top suspects. Cyan almost convinced me not to vote for Sutherlands, but I just can’t bring myself to believe that everything Sutherlands has done has just been a series of misunderstandings.
Did I ever mention anything about a deck?
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
I know.
But I don't want to claim, because:
1) It wont' actually prove anything.
2) Gives mafia hints on what to claim
3) I've already given 2 large hints on my role.
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
Sutherlands looks even better off than Ikker, up until that last post. Please, sir, come up with a much sounder reason as to why you're not claiming, or just come out with it right now. I still like my Cropcircles vote, but, if he doesn't have a decent explanation for this, I think sutherlands is an extremely viable lynch.
2) The townies can have a theme too, which they may not know
3) I'm not a power role, just a townie.
I've had a few people tell me to claim, though. If both Cyan and CC tell me to, I will.
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
My appologies Cyan, I misunderstood what you were saying. Although, I am also in the belief that both Sutherlands and ikerr are scum, however unlikely that is. If only I had two votes
Tis isn't makng you look any better or worse, at the moment, but why in the bloody blue hell those two, and only those two?
@Fayul. its ikerr not ikker
<XylBot> ||| MAFIABOT || sk: LookingforReality (Copycat) |||
<XylBot> ||| MAFIABOT || survivor: matjoeman (Anarchist) |||
<XylBot> ||| MAFIABOT || town: kops (Anarchist) |||
Mafia stats
(disclaimer: not a claim of any sort.)
I don't care if it makes me look worse, at this point. Those two because they have shown to exhibit thinking, and that's very important in this game.
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
You don't need to give hints to claim that you're a vanilla townie. Everyone can claim that way.
I'll add up on the pressure to hear your claim. The info that you provide will serve town as well, giving us important info to build up a picture of what's going on.