Mafia: Not-so-simple-Simpletown

The Game Room
321

Day One Anti-Town Actions, IMHO of Pleonast

In lieu of actual pro-Scum behaviour, I will vote for whichever player has been most anti-Town (this is not a simple of counting exercise). Anti-Town actions do not necessarily indicate Scumminess, but if we do not punish anti-Town play, then Scum will have no reason to play pro-Town. Forcing Scum to play pro-Town greatly limits their options and increases the opportunities for slipping.

Oredigger77 161: He quickly voted for me after another player did, following the same reasoning. This falls somewhere between an OMGUS vote and a scum trying to put pressure on someone pressuring them.
pedescribe 173: Voted Seeker for my bad logic.
ok11 215: Votes Mental for poorly thought-out reasons. 1) Rules were explicitly changed to permit possibility of Scum Day-talk. 2) Newbies use “wolf” term is understandable considering the current newbie game.*
pedescribe 223: Follows ok’s poorly thought-out vote.*
Almost Human 229: Strong reaction to reasonable assumption that Scum can Day-talk seems to display extra information about Scum.
BillMC 232: Voting someone for suggesting an idea. I agree straggler’s idea is anti-Town, but suggesting ideas is not. We do not want to discourage ideas, and we can not expect everyone to always be able to determine how useful every idea they think of is.
[Undecided] Adrian 259: Linking self with another player.
straggler 301: Accusing player of Scumminess without articulating a reason.
Oredigger77 316: Seems like he confirms his vote for me really was an OMGUS vote.

*And to fend off those who will accuse me of defending MentalGuy–I’m not. I’m attacking poor justifications of votes. The kind that Scum often use. (For all I know, they’re bussing him.)

Since voting people for their ideas is a pet peeve of mine, I’m going to
vote BillMC
for now. I’ll switch to anyone I listed above by the end of the Day if tactically useful. (I dislike players who avoid attention by hiding with a singleton vote instead of committing to one of the larger controversies. It’s our responsibility to lynch Scum, and Townies playing lone wolf make it easier for Scum to control the lynch.)

322

‘and if I don’t see’ is equivalent too ‘unless I see’, so lets look at your leads.

Only scum can misinterpret rules which the mod intends to be ambiguous.

Only scum makes ridiculous suggestions early in the game.

Only scum is bad at math.

I don’t know, I think we have more work to do.

323

OK, I think I need to clarify my “closely aligned” remark again, several people have heard something that I didn’t mean.

I meant that we made the same argument about that scum-day-talk topic, which led to us both making the same points and backing each other up in that specific discussion, and that we’re now linked in public perception, especially since MG really seemed to trust me after I defended him. About the first thing I noted “that was to be expected”.

I did not mean that I trust him now unconditionally, only that I did not see a reason for mistrust where others saw one (a point where you seem to agree with me, Pleonast).

So in all, I wanted to explain why we’re in my perception not as close as many people think, and now several players I said just the opposite. Grml.

324

… several players think I said just the opposite.

325

Let me see if I’ve got you straight. You screw up the count of our number of mislynches and I vote for you and it’s an OMGUS? I could understand busting my chops for a me too but calling my vote an OMGUS is stretching it quite a bit.

Let’s review. You voted for me out of the gate for confirming my PM too quickly :dubious:. The you screw up the count of our mislynches. I think about it for a bit and agree that you’re too experience to make such a simple mistake so I vote for you. The game goes on and I finally decide to unvote you with;

How does that come anywhere near an omission of an OMGUS? I thought that even if you were intentionally misleading the town you didn’t do a very good job of it and there were probably more interesting cases then you. But I was wrong. You seriously misrepresented me and my ‘case’ against you into little more then a random vote. I think there is something very wrong going on in your corner of our world so I’m going to go back to voting for you.

Vote Pleonast

326

When you voted for Almost Human, you did so because she and pedescribe ‘piled on’ MentalGuy, not on ok11 who placed the first vote. But now your first vote is starting a pile on? At the end of the Day someone needs to have to most votes and get lynched.

You mention this ‘it is MentalGuy who is so trusting, I only agreed with him’ in another post as well. And since it was pointed out that town should not blinding trust people, I do see that as a bit of a smudge. Definitely compared to what people are calling smudges by straggler, which seem to be out right taunts to me. The finger of suspicious (FoS) was clear there, even if it wasn’t explicitly in orange.

I can see it being a case ‘wrong if you do, wrong if you don’t’ saying you aligned with MentalGuy or not, but now you seem to push blame to him.
It splits out the vote more, but I’ll ‘pile on’ you for now:
vote [Undecided] Adrian

327

:shrugs: Because I didn’t notice your post, it was sandwiched between the ‘confirming’ posts.

[quote=“Pleonast, post:320, topic:488592”]

Either you’re suggesting we have a Gastard Mod…QUOTE]

…honestly, I’m starting to think this is a good possibility, given the new tie rules. Don’t be so quick to rule it out.

328

Some other comments:

I think Almost Human more meant the whole discussion to those thing, not just limiting the choices to the initial poster like imply here.

I think I saw a game where could be voted for the governor (who could post pone the lynch for more discussion), but it is highly unlikely sachertorte will give someone a tie-breaking power because we vote for it.
And without mod enforcement I don’t see it practical to implement it ourselves (too many voters and no one confirmed).
Note that in Evil Dead there was an actual tie breaking power (masons if alive, otherwise scum), which avoid the mod-must-flip-a-(game-deciding)-coin when there is a tie. But the rules clearly state that we get a random lynch in case of a tie, though they’re a bit vague between who.

329

Oredigger, look at your voting pattern objectively.

  1. I vote for you with a weak reason, trying to start off discussion.
  2. You express some complaints about me after I vote for you. No problem so far.
  3. You vote for me immediately after someone else votes for me. Now it’s looking like you either giving an OMGUS vote and waited to avoid an obvious first vote on me. Or, you simply want to apply some pressure on me.
  4. I unvote you because game discussion has gone into hyperdrive.
  5. You then unvote me soon after I unvote you. This makes your initial vote really look like it was (maybe subconsciously) motivated by OMGUS. Your vote/unvote directly paralleled my vote/unvote!

I complained that your vote (and then unvote) for me was OMGUS. That’s very different from a random vote (and you claiming that I said that it is is mischaracterizing me). Even if you disagree with my characterization of OMGUS, you should be able to see that your vote pattern sure looks like it.

330

I’ve done a reread, and don’t see anyone except UA mischaracterizing your post. What people are you talking about?

I’m considering switching my vote to SoTB. In addition to his me-too-ish vote, which others have already mentioned, I’ve also spotted the following (addressed to peekercpa).

This post is misleading. Even though right now peekercpa is back to his old ways, up until that point he was actually (uncharacteristically) posting in a relatively tame/straightforward fashion.

SoTB, between the start of the Day (post 118) up to the point when you made your accusation (post 252) peekercpa did not have the highest post count. Nor was his fluff to content ratio as bad as yours. For comparison purposes, here’s how the two of you matched up:

__________________PeekervsSeeker ________Post Numbers
Total # of posts_______8_______________10 __________P (145, 156, 184, 195, 244, 245, 246, 247) S (123, 129, 135, 141, 147, 152, 166, 182, 211, 251)

of fluff posts________4_______________8 ___________P (145, 195, 245, 246) S (123, 129, 135, 141, 147, 182, 211, 251)

When you claimed that peeker had the highest post count, did you count the pre-game chatter (e.g. top of page 2) as part of your analysis? If so, then you shouldn’t have used those posts to support your hypothesis that peeker was intentionally being distracting, because it happened before the roles were sent out. So overall, your assessment might be more accurate right now, but it wasn’t justified at the time you made it.

I’m not switching my vote yet, because I’d like to see SoTB’s response, but this looks scummy to me. Peeker is an easy target for scum because his play style rubs a lot of people the wrong way. Perhaps SoTB wanted to see whether he can start a bandwagon rolling with that post. Adding that to how little content he actually posted (despite making a lot of posts) puts him close to the top of my suspecion list.

I think my post 174 clearly shows that rather than skimming, I’ve actually read the rules very carefully and given them a lot of thought. I agree that scum being able to talk during the Day is a likely explanation of the rules change. However, I specifically made that post to ensure that the town doesn’t assume that by default, and that people don’t overlook other possibilities.

331

Natlaw, the comment about Ed was a joke, I thought that was clear with the “just a dream”. He accidentally placed and then revoked a vote on Almost Human (the ominous third one and creating a tie).

And about MentalGuy trusting me… It was fairly obvious that he did, didn’t you read that out of his post?

Only I know if it’s justified (it is, in case you’re wondering), but wouldn’t smudging a player I just defended be a fairly strange strategy?

I wanted to distance myself from him a bit, yes, since we were perceived as being chummier than I feel about him, but it’s not like I want to throw him to the lynchmob.

332

This is a minor point, but I didn’t mischaracterize Hero’s post. I talked about the rules he posted and referred to his post instead of posting them again.

333

Ok, I get where you are coming from on the timing of things. I hadn’t noticed how few posts were between ours. My unvote of you was triggered by me coming back to the thread after the weekend and seeing all of the action and figuring it would be more productive then your initial slip. I even said as much.

As far as my initial timing you voted for me in #124. I didn’t vote for you, #161 until after I commented on your miscount in #138. I don’t think you could call that first vote an OMGUS by any stretch of the imagination. I don’t disagree that it looks like a me too but it was simply the combination of it bugging me and seeing Hero think it was weird. I said in my voting post that I didn’t think it was much but enough for the time. So I still think that you’re mischaracterizing my votes as OMGUSs which are one of the lowest reasons for a vote.

Speaking of mischaracterization I did not say that an OMGUS was the same as a random, I said

. There is more to an OMGUS but not much. In fact I would put it as the second lowest reason for a vote with random being the worst reason. If you think there is a big difference between the two I would love to hear about it.

334

1 - [Undecided] Adrian (Natlaw)
2 - Almost Human ([Undecided] Adrian, MentalGuy)
1 - BillMC (Pleonast)
3 - MentalGuy (ok11, pedescribe, Almost Human)
1 - Oredigger77 (Seeker of Truth and Beauty)
1 - Pleonast (Oredigger77)
1 - Seeker of Truth and Beauty (Hero From Sector 7G)
1 - peekercpa (Sitnam)
2 - straggler (BillMC, paulwhoisaghost)

335

I went back to check, and you’re right. I’m sorry, I thought in post 231 you were citing Hero’s post 221 as evidence that he agreed with you (hence my question in post 241). Thanks for pointing out my mistake. And here I thought you were dodging my question :smack:

336

Just because I agree with someone doesn’t mean I trust them or am aligned with them

**Paul **and I, along with a few others (peeker, almost human, bill) saw and commented on straggler’s bad idea.

I commented on straggler’s defense to paul, since seeker was still wrong, and was defending a very anti-town strategy.

That’s about all that happened. If you find it scummy, sat least you’ve outlined why.

337

You.

338

still not enough data(or dataprocessingpower), so of all the random votes I could make, only three have some merit, not a lot of it, but its all Igot,

special ed and paulwhoisaghost for teaming up and admitting it, but if they were scum that would be pushing it, and mentalguy for the alleged information slip

and seeing that mentalguy already has 3 votes, I’m adding the 4th
vote Mentalguy

other then that I got nothing else to base my vote on…

339

That was sooo unexpected, like the sun rising in the morning.

340

again, I’ll state, just because I agree with someone does not mean I’m teaming up with them. As I said, there were 5 of us (at least) calling straggler on his bad strategy (and pleonast makes at least 6) Does that make all 6 of us a team? and if so, we’re pretty unbalanced for a mason team and pretty stupid for a Scum team.

oh, lucky you, you’ve avoided the dreaded 3rd vote :wink: