Print

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

[Orangebottle]

No.

You'll find that when people vote lurkers for lurking there will be lots of people with unoriginal positions.

Yes, but in this post, you condemned Zombie Urist for parroting Ironyowl's attack on Basesix. You then voted for Basesix for the exact same reasons Zombie and IronyOwl were going after him. Why would you contradict yourself like that?

[Jim Groovester]

That wasn't a condemnation, that was a piece of advice.

And in any case, had backtobasesix done more than make three posts, I can guarantee that my case on backtobasesix would have differed from IronyOwl's and zombie urist's, maybe not in the most substantial part (lurking) but in other areas that I would likely have questions about. But, because he has only made three posts, and completely disappeared since that point, he's not giving me or anybody else who's after him a lot of material to work with, so the cases will look exactly the same.

Is this a problem? It depends. Do you think I'm trying to blend in by borrowing somebody else's case, or do you think I'm after backtobasesix because I'm concerned about his lurking? The former is scummy, the latter is fine.

I can tell you that it's the latter.

Jim Groovester
Is it just me, or is he awfully passive for an IC?

I've been busy lately and haven't been able to give all of my games the attention they need.

[Orangebottle]

Orangebottle
Can't read this guy very well. Most posts in the thread, and none of them seem to be obviously useless... probably town.

Look here if you need more content to look at, though  it was from earlier this year and I was much worse then.

TL;DR: I called out the scum in my third post, for the wrong reasons, and ended up not lynching the final one at LYLO. Whoops.

That wasn't a condemnation, that was a piece of advice.

And in any case, had backtobasesix done more than make three posts, I can guarantee that my case on backtobasesix would have differed from IronyOwl's and zombie urist's, maybe not in the most substantial part (lurking) but in other areas that I would likely have questions about. But, because he has only made three posts, and completely disappeared since that point, he's not giving me or anybody else who's after him a lot of material to work with, so the cases will look exactly the same.

Is this a problem? It depends. Do you think I'm trying to blend in by borrowing somebody else's case, or do you think I'm after backtobasesix because I'm concerned about his lurking? The former is scummy, the latter is fine.

I'd say the former, as you haven't been doing much in terms of scumhunting. In fact, as far as the balance goes between player and IC, you're way too far on the IC side, almost the point of active lurking as a player.

In your first few posts, you ask Zombie a typical RVS question and apply a vote press. Fine. That's alright. However, your next posts end up being a series of posts encouraging others to hunt scum while not hunting them yourself, or just defending yourself. Either that, or they're almost entirely unrelated to teaching or hunting. You've made a lot of defensive or teaching posts, and maybe two scumhunting posts. A textbook case of Active Lurking. Only now do you come up with the excuse that you've been busy. A very vague excuse. So, Jim? Start hunting.

[Jim Groovester]

Only now do you come up with the excuse that you've been busy. A very vague excuse. So, Jim? Start hunting.

Kindly go fuck yourself if you think I'm making it up.

In your first few posts, you ask Zombie a typical RVS question and apply a vote press. Fine. That's alright. However, your next posts end up being a series of posts encouraging others to hunt scum while not hunting them yourself, or just defending yourself. Either that, or they're almost entirely unrelated to teaching or hunting. You've made a lot of defensive or teaching posts, and maybe two scumhunting posts. A textbook case of Active Lurking. Only now do you come up with the excuse that you've been busy. A very vague excuse. So, Jim? Start hunting.

I love how you summarize my posts in the least flattering way possible. They're not nearly as bad as you make them out to be.

I'm not active lurking. I'd love to be more active, of course, but as I've said, I've been busy. I'm still throwing out questions to people and trying to track down leads. Maybe not in any amount of volume that satisfies you, but if I cared what you thought I wouldn't be living up to my reputation as a player or as an IC.

I'll point out that using every single post as evidence dilutes your case and will make it hard to convince other players with it. People have a hard time believing that large portions of a player's contributions are scummy. Focus your case on the most convincing arguments, stick to specific, demonstrative evidence, make sure you have it ready, but you don't necessarily need to quote or link it if it's apparent what you're talking. (billybobfred, take note, this applies to your most recent post as well.) If you can focus your attacks like that you'll be several times more effective at playing town.

Unvote backtobasesix. He needs a replacement, not a lynch.

Urist_McAtharos, your vote on ed boy seems entirely contrived. I'd like answers on how he's being too defensive and passive. Primarily, I don't like how you suspect him here without elaborating why, and then you vote him here for reasons I don't see the merit in.

[Max White]

Votecount

Flandre[0]:
Urist_McArathos[1]: Jim Groovester
billybobfred[0]:
ed boy[3]: IronyOwl, zombie urist, Urist_McArathos
backtobasesix[0]:
zombie urist[1]: billybobfred
Orangebottle[0]:
Jim Groovester[1]: Orangebottle
IronyOwl[0]:

Not voting: backtobasesix, ed boy, Flandre,

The day will end Wednesday, the 24th, 4:00 pm forum time. You need 3 votes to extend and 5 to shorten.

[Orangebottle]

I love how you summarize my posts in the least flattering way possible. They're not nearly as bad as you make them out to be.

I'm not active lurking. I'd love to be more active, of course, but as I've said, I've been busy. I'm still throwing out questions to people and trying to track down leads. Maybe not in any amount of volume that satisfies you, but if I cared what you thought I wouldn't be living up to my reputation as a player or as an IC.

I'll point out that using every single post as evidence dilutes your case and will make it hard to convince other players with it. People have a hard time believing that large portions of a player's contributions are scummy. Focus your case on the most convincing arguments, stick to specific, demonstrative evidence, make sure you have it ready, but you don't necessarily need to quote or link it if it's apparent what you're talking. (billybobfred, take note, this applies to your most recent post as well.) If you can focus your attacks like that you'll be several times more effective at playing town.

You make it sound like I did that on purpose. It's just the way I saw it. Thanks for the advice, I got what I came for. Unvote.

Gonna reread the thread and post more soon.

[Urist_McArathos]

Only now do you come up with the excuse that you've been busy. A very vague excuse. So, Jim? Start hunting.

Kindly go fuck yourself if you think I'm making it up.

Oof, you weren't kidding about being ready for a fight if someone went after you, were you Jim?  I'm glad for the moment I think you're town.

Urist_McAtharos, your vote on ed boy seems entirely contrived. I'd like answers on how he's being too defensive and passive. Primarily, I don't like how you suspect him here without elaborating why, and then you vote him here for reasons I don't see the merit in.

Contrived?  Not at all.  What's contrived about suspecting someone who hasn't done shit besides throw out ridiculous questions ("Would you put the town in LYLO to catch one scum?"  Fuck no, I only answered that because I figured he was too new to have thought it through), a lot of mathematics BS which he's been told repeatedly won't help, and has spent most of his time answering other people's questions without placing his own theories out there.

I put the FoS on him because I didn't like the fact his questions seemed useless, he didn't seem interested in following them up, and he hadn't answered the questions asked of him yet, including mine, and I wanted to pressure him into talking.  I didn't have much of a case on him then, hence why I didn't vote.  Frankly, I don't see how his behavior wouldn't come across as at least a little suspicious, newbie or no.  I didn't need to elaborate, in my opinion; he wasn't answering questions, I wanted them answered, the FoS was meant to tell him "answer me, or I'm going to get a lot more aggressive".

Alright, I'll try to show you why I feel my case has merit.  Let's see, how did I find him overly defensive...

Here, he gives Billybob a snarky, strawman response to the question "How did you come to that number?".  He also spends an inordinate (to me, at least, since that's a subjective term and you're not yet in agreement with me) amount of time preemptively explaining his rationale and decisions, as though he's expecting to be on the defensive from the outset.

I will also point out, in the defensive department, pretty much EVERY response of his has been walls of text explaining himself/defending his choices, including (as pointed out by Irony here) contradictory attitudes, i.e. "It's suspicious when he does it, but I'm going to do it to".  He seems determined to explain his choices, reasoning, and logic behind every move as though he wants more than anything for us to believe he's town, rather than by just dealing with the fact that Mafia is a game where even the more determined Townie can expect to eventually be voted or even lynched.  Such is the atmosphere of mystery and paranoia fostered by it.

As for not thinking he's overly passive...you cannot be serious, Jim.  NONE of his questions, in ANY of his posts, are more than RVS softballs.  He never presses for more information, hasn't outlined any sort of case against anyone, and doesn't seem to have any suspects at all.  He's not even trying to find scum, and has drifted through till now defending himself and lobbing softball questions or convoluted questions.  Then right after I demand some answers, he puts out a wall of text answering questions and defending himself, asks for clarification on an acronym, and leaves.  No questions of his own, no suspicions, nothing.  He's here and then gone.  What more proof do you want of passive play before you feel it crosses the line?  How many days does he have to pretend he's still in RVS before you decide he's TOO passive?  Those are rhetorical questions, by the way.  I have my answer, and I suspect if this response isn't enough to sway you, then nothing will.  It's my entire case on ed boy, and it's MORE than enough for me.  If it's not enough for you, then I got nothing until he comes back and does something else scummy than you can decide crosses your more forgiving line.

[zombie urist]

Not gonna just sit on the vote, though.

You said this after withdrawing your vote for ed boy. It seems that everytime you don't get a response, you give up and simply move on to someone else.

Well, you seemed to be irritated by my previous analysis, so I offered you some more arbitrary reasons for choosing those two. How is that strawmanning?

That's how. You're giving a blatantly shitty alternative and treating it as an actual argument against my point.

I don't want arbitrary reasons. I don't actually think your reasons were bad. It just looked like you were trying to avoid betraying any kind of personal preference. It's overly cautious, and that's a scum trait.

When ed boy didn't respond, you didn't bother to press for actual reasons. Instead you withdrew your vote and started on backtobasesix. It seems that you don't actually want to go too deep and are just voting for pressure.

Zombie urist. You say that all I'm doing is complaining about basesix lurking. Reread, and then tell me...

where did you get this completely false idea? I mentioned the lurking only when others brought it up. The entirety of my focus on basesix at this time is from wanting a question answered. Lurking doesn't even enter into it!

Well then please tell me what else you have contributed in scumhunting. I don't really care if you didn't mention lurking, since that's not the point. I do care that you haven't done much more while waiting for your question to get answered. All you did was answer other people's questions.

You know what, I changed my mind. I'm not most suspicious of basesix anymore.

This seems rather arbitrary. All the information was there before. Why didn't you look into it earlier?

You make it sound like I did that on purpose. It's just the way I saw it.

So you phrased his posts like that on accident? Looks like a strawman.

Ed boy? Flandre? Scum aren't going to lynch themselves.

[Jim Groovester]

Oof, you weren't kidding about being ready for a fight if someone went after you, were you Jim?  I'm glad for the moment I think you're town.

That was tame.

Really, really tame.

Stuff

You prompted a reread of the thread, and I looked back at ed boy and you, and it turns out you had a substantial lead up in terms of your position about ed boy before you made your FoS or vote. So you're fine on that account, and my mistake. Unvote.

What makes you think ed boy is scum over somebody who just hasn't figured out how to play the game yet?

Some other stuff that turned up in the readthrough:

I dropped the ed boy thing because I didn't really know what I was doing with it. He was overly numbery, I told him why that was bad... That's all I had. To be frank, he's doing exactly what I would do if I didn't already know why it was wrong, so I can't really see it as that scummy.

And how did you come to that conclusion? Did Toaster tell you?

Furthermore, you've made seven posts since game start, and I don't like any of them. Here, let me spell out why.

1. Captain Obvious and false statements.
2. Captain Obvious, a shitty defense of 1, and... well, I'll admit your question to IronyOwl wasn't bad.
3. Parroting the IC.
4. Captain Obvious and asking pointless questions.
5. Probably the fluffiest fluffpost that ever fluffed a fluff.
6. Stupid questions and crappy attempts to defend previous examples of such.
7. Captain Obvious, Captain Obvious... I'll admit that calling me out for focusing on the guy who isn't here wasn't bad in itself, but the IC had just done the very same thing -- without blatant falsehoods, I might add.

You know what, I changed my mind. I'm not most suspicious of basesix anymore.

See what I said to Orangebottle about using every post of a player as evidence.

How, precisely, are these scummy? There's no crime against being Captain Obvious. Similarly, while you say a lot of his questions are useless, he (and I) might disagree. What's the best piece of evidence you have against him?

zombie urist already pointed out your lack of commitment concerning your vote, so I'd like to see those issues answered as well.

[Urist_McArathos]

Tame, maybe, but it's hostile enough to make me realize you weren't exaggerating.

What makes you think ed boy is scum over somebody who just hasn't figured out how to play the game yet?

That's a very good question.  I took a long time to vote on him, and even FoS him, because I gave him the benefit of the doubt.  I found his defensive behavior and strange posts early on to be suspicious, but excusable as newbie behavior.  As it continued and more suspicious things piled up, my vote switched to "probably scum, but I want to hear more first", so I FoS'ed him.  His reply sealed it to "gotta be scum".

Besides which, he's my best suspect at this time.  I'm pretty sure he's scum, I have no better ideas, and my vote is going to him until he can clear his name or a better suspect comes along.

[IronyOwl]

Urgh. Been busier than expected, so sorry for the absence.

You don't need reasoning to do so, but it helps. It was not the vote by itself that was suspicious, it was the fact that it was one of three of a kind.

What do you mean by "three of a kind?" The third vote on you, or something else similar about them? What was it about its kind that made it suspicious?

The problem is, you can apply that same logic to any situation to get paradoxes. If you have that "the best thing for scum to do is X", then doing X becomes a scummy action, and so if they do X they will attract attention, so doing X is not the best thing. Similarly, if you have "It is bad for scum to do Y", then Y becomes an unscummy action, and so scum will want to do it to avoid suspicion. No matter what conclusion you come to about the behaviour of scum players, you can use that same reasoning to conclude that they will do the opposite.

As I pointed out earlier, this seems to be the same reasoning you were using when Flandre called you out on it. What was it about your own reasoning that made WIFOM not apply?

As for the roles, it means that the townies involved have different information available. The logic "I voted for X for the same reason as Y" requires all of the townies to definitely have access to the same information to work, which is not the case.

What's your point, that you're cophunting? That people who mimic votes can't be power roles? That the doctor should definitely not vote the same person as everyone else?

It isn't such a horrible idea. In the first round, there are seven townies and two scum. If the town mislynches on the first day, which given the number of people involved would be likely, then they would start the next day with five townies and two scum, which is a worse ratio that the option I described would result in (three to one).

This is interesting. Why are you talking about this hypothetical, and are you getting good mileage out of it with McArathos?

billybobfred, how do you feel about lynching lurkers?

Lurking is just another scumsign. If they've lurked hard enough to get to the top of the scumlist, they get lynched same as if they had gotten there some other way.

Hm. I like this response for some reason, even though it doesn't really answer the implied question of "how scummy is lurking in your eyes?" Which you ended up answering later anyway.

[Max White]

The day will end in a little over 11 hours, you need 3 votes to extend and 5 to shorten.
backtobasesix still has not responded, and unless he responds some time very soon, he will be up for a replace.

[ed boy]

Only now do you come up with the excuse that you've been busy. A very vague excuse. So, Jim? Start hunting.

Kindly go fuck yourself if you think I'm making it up.

Oof, you weren't kidding about being ready for a fight if someone went after you, were you Jim?  I'm glad for the moment I think you're town.

Urist_McAtharos, your vote on ed boy seems entirely contrived. I'd like answers on how he's being too defensive and passive. Primarily, I don't like how you suspect him here without elaborating why, and then you vote him here for reasons I don't see the merit in.

Contrived?  Not at all.  What's contrived about suspecting someone who hasn't done shit besides throw out ridiculous questions ("Would you put the town in LYLO to catch one scum?"  Fuck no, I only answered that because I figured he was too new to have thought it through), a lot of mathematics BS which he's been told repeatedly won't help, and has spent most of his time answering other people's questions without placing his own theories out there.

I put the FoS on him because I didn't like the fact his questions seemed useless, he didn't seem interested in following them up, and he hadn't answered the questions asked of him yet, including mine, and I wanted to pressure him into talking.  I didn't have much of a case on him then, hence why I didn't vote.  Frankly, I don't see how his behavior wouldn't come across as at least a little suspicious, newbie or no.  I didn't need to elaborate, in my opinion; he wasn't answering questions, I wanted them answered, the FoS was meant to tell him "answer me, or I'm going to get a lot more aggressive".

Alright, I'll try to show you why I feel my case has merit.  Let's see, how did I find him overly defensive...

Here, he gives Billybob a snarky, strawman response to the question "How did you come to that number?".  He also spends an inordinate (to me, at least, since that's a subjective term and you're not yet in agreement with me) amount of time preemptively explaining his rationale and decisions, as though he's expecting to be on the defensive from the outset.

I will also point out, in the defensive department, pretty much EVERY response of his has been walls of text explaining himself/defending his choices, including (as pointed out by Irony here) contradictory attitudes, i.e. "It's suspicious when he does it, but I'm going to do it to".  He seems determined to explain his choices, reasoning, and logic behind every move as though he wants more than anything for us to believe he's town, rather than by just dealing with the fact that Mafia is a game where even the more determined Townie can expect to eventually be voted or even lynched.  Such is the atmosphere of mystery and paranoia fostered by it.

As for not thinking he's overly passive...you cannot be serious, Jim.  NONE of his questions, in ANY of his posts, are more than RVS softballs.  He never presses for more information, hasn't outlined any sort of case against anyone, and doesn't seem to have any suspects at all.  He's not even trying to find scum, and has drifted through till now defending himself and lobbing softball questions or convoluted questions.  Then right after I demand some answers, he puts out a wall of text answering questions and defending himself, asks for clarification on an acronym, and leaves.  No questions of his own, no suspicions, nothing.  He's here and then gone.  What more proof do you want of passive play before you feel it crosses the line?  How many days does he have to pretend he's still in RVS before you decide he's TOO passive?  Those are rhetorical questions, by the way.  I have my answer, and I suspect if this response isn't enough to sway you, then nothing will.  It's my entire case on ed boy, and it's MORE than enough for me.  If it's not enough for you, then I got nothing until he comes back and does something else scummy than you can decide crosses your more forgiving line.

He also spends an inordinate (to me, at least, since that's a subjective term and you're not yet in agreement with me) amount of time preemptively explaining his rationale and decisions, as though he's expecting to be on the defensive from the outset.

Well, that's because I realize that I haven't been in any mafia games before, so I'm likely going to be making a lot of mistakes in my reasoning. Presenting it more clearly means that others can better point out where I'm going wrong.

I will also point out, in the defensive department, pretty much EVERY response of his has been walls of text explaining himself/defending his choices

When you're given a wall of questions, you don't have any choice other than to respond with a wall of text defending yourself.

He seems determined to explain his choices, reasoning, and logic behind every move as though he wants more than anything for us to believe he's town, rather than by just dealing with the fact that Mafia is a game where even the more determined Townie can expect to eventually be voted or even lynched.

Of course I want to everbody to believe I'm town - this is a trait common to both town and scum. I realise that Mafia is a game where townies can quite easily expect to by lynched, but I'd be pretty thick if I didn't try to avoid it if possible.

[ed boy]

Sorry about the two posts, I had multiple tabs open and I clicked 'post' on the wrong one.

ed boy: I am fairly certain that scum would not openly express like opinions, with only WIFOM as a scum-tell deterrent. Wouldn't it be easier for scum to avoid any associations with his/her scum-buddy than to be under constant scrutiny where relationships are concerned?

[/quote]
To be honest, I'm just guessing. This is my first game of mafia, so I have no idea what it's like to be scum, so I'm just trying to make predictions. As I haven't played before, these predictions are very bad.

You still didn't answer my question: why are you suspicious of backtobasesix?  I asked if you had any other suspects and why, yet you only threw out the one lurking player without even bothering to mention lurking as a factor.  You could definitely add something to the discussion by posting your own feelings and questions on the matter, as I did.  Nobody had mentioned the poor quality of his posts before, I'd like to think I added a new dimension to the case on him.  Who's to say your suspicions won't shed a similar new light?  You also STILL haven't told me your suspicions of IronyOwl, which I wanted to hear.  Do you have anything to work on?  Do you have a case against Irony?  Or are you just trying to appear Town?

My feeling about backtobasesix are because, of the list of scumtells, the only one that I am observing is lurking. It's more the absence of much else to go on. Besides, even if backtobasesix is a townie, it would be better to lynch an inactive townie than an active one.

As for why I was suspicious of IronyOwl, I explained that in both the post where I fos'd him and the one preceding that.

He also spends an inordinate (to me, at least, since that's a subjective term and you're not yet in agreement with me) amount of time preemptively explaining his rationale and decisions, as though he's expecting to be on the defensive from the outset.

Well, that's because I realize that I haven't been in any mafia games before, so I'm likely going to be making a lot of mistakes in my reasoning. Presenting it more clearly means that others can better point out where I'm going wrong.

I will also point out, in the defensive department, pretty much EVERY response of his has been walls of text explaining himself/defending his choices

When you're given a wall of questions, you don't have any choice other than to respond with a wall of text defending yourself.

He seems determined to explain his choices, reasoning, and logic behind every move as though he wants more than anything for us to believe he's town, rather than by just dealing with the fact that Mafia is a game where even the more determined Townie can expect to eventually be voted or even lynched.

Of course I want to everbody to believe I'm town - this is a trait common to both town and scum. I realise that Mafia is a game where townies can quite easily expect to by lynched, but I'd be pretty thick if I didn't try to avoid it if possible.

[Urist_McArathos]

ed boy:

The problem is, you can apply that same logic to any situation to get paradoxes. If you have that "the best thing for scum to do is X", then doing X becomes a scummy action, and so if they do X they will attract attention, so doing X is not the best thing. Similarly, if you have "It is bad for scum to do Y", then Y becomes an unscummy action, and so scum will want to do it to avoid suspicion. No matter what conclusion you come to about the behaviour of scum players, you can use that same reasoning to conclude that they will do the opposite.

I don't have time for anything proper, but I'd like to point out that this applies to your original reasoning as well. You claimed three votes on you was suspicious because scum would want to do X.

You have mentioned one thing, ONE which led to your suspicions of me and to a greater extent IronyOwl.  Here is IronyOwl responding to a statement you made which contradicts your own rationale for being suspicious in the first place.  You have never clarified why your stance is different, nor given any additional reasons.  So if you want me to buy that what you've already given is your suspicions, then you have absolutely nothing on IronyOwl (by your own reasoning as demonstrated in this quote).

I get everyone wants to be written off as town; the problem is you seem more concerned with convincing us you're town than hunting scum.  That's a major, major scumtell.  Scum REALLY want to be seen town, while not getting scum lynched.  The Art of Scumplay: You're doing it wrong.

I'll point out you STILL haven't contributed anything new, asked any questions, or expounded upon your suspicions of IronyOwl.  Seriously, that's the best lead you have (given how you haven't voted or FoS'ed anyone else), and you have NOTHING to say or ask?

No, ed boy, this isn't a case of "I'm just so new, I don't know what to say".  I made it clear in my previous post addressed to you, and expounded on it further in my reply to Jim, that you haven't done a thing to hunt scum.  Even if you weren't sure what to do before, that much alone could have woken you up to at least TRYING to ask a few questions.  You're deliberately not participating in the scum hunt, ed boy.  I won't stand for it, and given the votes currently against you, it looks like I won't have to either.  Go hang.