[ansible]

Silencer, on 23 February 2011 - 08:36 AM, said:

ansible, on 22 February 2011 - 07:18 PM, said:

drinksinbars, on 22 February 2011 - 07:06 PM, said:

Ahh the old scaremongery trick, that never works dude. In fact it just makes you look bad, if you cant get a lynch by providing evidence you use meta fear to convince people to swap over before they are labelled scum even if you suceed and the lynch cf is inno. I applaud you. Maybe reason will out and you will see sense. If silencer comes back inno will you push tat's lynch tomorrow or go for tapper, shin or me and say we didnt vote for the symp. Of course you will have no proof he was the symp, same as how you dont have any now and you are removing him before he has really interacted with anyone so if he is the symp (which is possible) his death will tell us nothing about the scum team. seriously, the evidence of his symping is his post count, and players like ment and grief used to dwarf that on day 1 in old altless games.

Sadly it doesnt mean i wont change if necessary as we should lynch everyday. Just dont preach that your now able to spot scum as they havent voted for silencer cause we both know thats a bullshit argument.

This has convinced me.

Vote Tattersail

Wait a second...what has convinced you? This was...slippery. Dibs makes a good point about fearmongering, but the logic behind it is grounded in train info. Is that what you mean? Quoting someone else's post and essentially saying "I agree" is not good - scummy, in many ways.

I thought it was pretty obvious... dibs wasn't the first to make that point (in fact, the third), by which time I found the idea of voting based on info gained from CF extremely logical, since it had come down to two people and one was largely suspected to be a symp (that was you, by the way...).

Anyway, I agree that the few low-posters are slightly suspicious. Honestly, it makes a lot of sense for the killers to get their kills in early in the day, to avoid losing them inadvertently. The odds of a kill almost determining the lynch like last night are probably low, in terms of how long we had to get another vote in before the day ended.

Gah, have to leave, back later.

[Hugin & Munin]

It is Day 2. 13 hours and 05 minutes remaining

14 Players still alive: Ace Hunter, ansible, dibs, Grief, HiddenOne, Lizra, Mentalist, MTS, PB, Shinrei, Silencer, Tapper, The Dude, Trull's son,

7 votes to lynch, 7 votes to go to night.

2 votes for Trulls son -Shinrei, Dibs
1 vote for Ace Hunter - Grief


Players not voted: Ace Hunter, ansible, dibs, Grief, HiddenOne, Lizra, Mentalist, MTS, PB, Silencer, Tapper, The Dude, Trull's son

Roldom

[Hugin & Munin]

also Dreks busy right now and I'm going to get some sleep so your going to be modless for a few hours, i know its futile asking but try to behave yourselves

nighty night

Roldom

[Trull's son]

Holy water-stealing frogmonster! am I ever behind.

Silencer, on 23 February 2011 - 08:48 AM, said:

Trull, on 22 February 2011 - 08:39 PM, said:

alright I'll admit it, Silencer confuses me with the posts, their content -- joking but could be semi-serious. Damn they're too smooth! The sheer amount by of posts by him alone has added pages of reading for me that went nowhere! I'm convinced that this is symp play. Yeah, there isn't much to go after Silencer with, but since it's already between Silencer and Tatt, and i've explained that I cannot in good conscious vote Tatt for making the same mistake as I had, I feel I mustvote Silencer

I must have missed where you explained the reasons you can't vote for Tattersail...was it something about noobs jumping? Anyway, you're voting for someone on the basis they're giving symp vibes, I'm sure it was thoroughly advertised on thread that you want to USE potential symps, not lynch someone highly likely to CF innocent. And you seriously said 'smooth'. That had better have been a fucking joke...

Mentalist, on 22 February 2011 - 08:53 PM, said:

ansible, on 22 February 2011 - 08:45 PM, said:

Trull, on 22 February 2011 - 08:39 PM, said:

alright I'll admit it, Silencer confuses me with the posts, their content -- joking but could be semi-serious. Damn they're too smooth! The sheer amount by of posts by him alone has added pages of reading for me that went nowhere! I'm convinced that this is symp play. Yeah, there isn't much to go after Silencer with, but since it's already between Silencer and Tatt, and i've explained that I cannot in good conscious vote Tatt for making the same mistake as I had, I feel I mustvote Silencer

If you think Silencer is a symp, shouldn't you NOT vote for him on Day 1? Just according to others' logic...

sighmafia 101if you find someone yo think is a symp, look for who he's symping, then vote THAT person. you ONLY vote the symp if you have absolutely nothing better--because, 9 times out of 10, the person you think is a symp will be RI. and since they CF the same, you'll never know. also, TS, don't be surprised if you end up temp banned. just e-mail one of the other admins to get that sorted our,

Ah, I see Mentalist already gave you the 101 speech, and warned you of possible consequences of your post. *grumble*fuckingsmoothwtfiswrongwithyoupeople*/grumble*

drinksinbars, on 22 February 2011 - 09:00 PM, said:

that looks like a lynch or am i miscounting?

*suspicious*

Where to begin. I voted Silencer because I thought he was a symp. Yes, I know we should always go for whoever he's symping, but up to that point there was no clear partner. I figured with silencer out of play, it would not only remove a good symp but also clear the waters when searching for the killers. My logic went something like "better a symp than someone most likely inno" which Tattersail was. So yes, I understand why my defense of Tattersail and vote for Silencer would have made me somewhat suspicious, but I have already explained why I defended Tatt, and why my vote for Silencer was my only course at that time (in either case we had a pathetic amount to go on, but that was more than we had on any other at the time.

Oh and the "smooth" comment was a joke, Silencer.

I haven't posted as much as I would have liked, but that's because of things that keep cropping up in RL, rather than avoiding and being dodgy (I don't care so much about mafia as to lurk around and wait). I can't really understand the votes against me, aside from my slight lack of participation. I guess it's not enough to say that you're wasting your votes on an inno?

[Trull's son]

MTS, on 23 February 2011 - 12:22 PM, said:

Tapper, on 23 February 2011 - 11:58 AM, said:

MTS, on 23 February 2011 - 11:55 AM, said:

Tapper, on 23 February 2011 - 11:50 AM, said:

MTS, on 23 February 2011 - 11:43 AM, said:

Shinrei, on 23 February 2011 - 09:48 AM, said:

The second is Trull's reason for voting for Silencer. It's a bit of wifom, but if Trull's son were scum, he's subtly PIing himself with this comment:

Trull, on 22 February 2011 - 08:39 PM, said:

alright I'll admit it, Silencer confuses me with the posts, their content -- joking but could be semi-serious. Damn they're too smooth! The sheer amount by of posts by him alone has added pages of reading for me that went nowhere! I'm convinced that this is symp play. Yeah, there isn't much to go after Silencer with, but since it's already between Silencer and Tatt, and i've explained that I cannot in good conscious vote Tatt for making the same mistake as I had, I feel I mustvote Silencer

If he were scum, he'd know Tattersail was innocent, and is cautioning us against making the same mistake of confusing noob play with scummy play in regards to him. Especially since we (I) already called him out for being defensive.

I noticed this too, and upon reading his earlier mention of it I was on the lookout for whether or not he would vote Tattersail, as to do so would've made him a hypocrite. He's definitely waving the noob flag here, and that makes me very suspicious, as I noticed he did it right after Tapper and I raised the point of new players being very jumpy. If dk were here he'd be screaming for TS's blood.

And if I were to say who of the new people is in general the least jumpy, the order would probably be:1. Lizra 2. Trull's Son.....

Meta! Oh noes!

If this is meta, than The Dude's honey & syrup massage post should have seen him dead, dead, dead and excluded from the final Rot3K game. It didn't happen, so it's allowed.

Chill Tap chill, it was a joke, since you guys were getting so fired up about it. It's meta by definition because it's evidence from outside this game, but it's not time-meta. But anyway, I'm not factoring that into my thoughts on the matter because I haven't got a sense of how he normally plays. Tattersail's exits are generally spectacular and memorable, and more often than not based on noobish play. The reason that it looks suspicious on TS is that he didn't need to bring himself into it. If he wasn't going to vote for Tattersail, all he needed to do was say 'I agree with MTS, it seems more of a mistake than scum lashing out.' Done. No need for clarification, perfectly justifiable. But TS's argument is slightly different, in that his justification is at the same time a proclamation of innocence. It's more 'I can't vote for Tattersail because I did the exact same thing, so if I'm innocent he can't be scum.' Eh, it's all steeped in WIFOM, which is why I haven't voted him for it, but it's definitely something.EDIT - added 'something'

I should really say that there is no purposeful subtext that pushes for my innocence in my defense of Tatt. Sure we could read it as such, but understand that this was not my intention. I was hoping that adding my situation would emphasize the reason for why I refused to vote Tattersail at the time. Based on the common reaction of some of the newer players in the last couple games, I didn't think this was something to go batshit over. The sad part of this is that even when Tattersail turned out up innocent, those defending him still get the heat. I'm convinced the case against me is just derailing us from the important suspects.

[Mentalist]

And who would these important suspects be?

I must add that i like grief's case the most atm. My second choice would probably be Silencer, at least until i can get back to my 19" screen and do a proper reread.

[Trull's son]

Grief, on 23 February 2011 - 12:47 PM, said:

I'm not hugely fond of anyone playing the noob card, however, iirc Trull was speaking past tense:"I cannot in good conscious vote Tatt for making the same mistake as I had"So I don't see it as him definetely trying to make himself seem more innocent. Unless this is actually his first game, which I don't think it is.Tapper(I think, this is just off the top of my head), mentioned over-reacting a lot the first time he played. To me, it kind of seems like Trull is making the same point-the key difference being that he is still relatively new so it applies to him more than it does tapper. However, I don't think it's particularly damning on it's own.Vote AcehunterHe's got a high post count, but very little in the way of content, which I dislike. His interaction with ment in particular seems really dodgy to me. He vaguely accuses him, and then, after going back and reading the thread, decides there's nothing scummy about him. This seems scummy to me, because it looks like he was just putting some vague suspicions on thread to give impression of contributing, while remaining low-key, and coasting through day one.

This isn't necessarily a scum move. It is very possibly that he discovered his suspicion of ment were unfounded. His motivations for posting his suspicions could rying to give the impression of contributing, but also to apply pressure or encourage discussion as Ace has been trying to do throughout day 1. Though that in itself would draw attention to why his comments so often deal with trivial things, never really any speculation or case bulding. I don't have the quote, but it seems Ace has posted a couple times that he doesn't have anything to add, or he doesn't feel like saying anything (something along these lines, correct me if I am wrong). I'm not sure what to think about Ace. Sure he was coasting along on little contribution, but I remember him actively looking for participation on day one for discussion (the time at which, if memory serves, Silencer would begin his nostalgia posting marathon).

[Mentalist]

Since i cant edit: the reread is to figure out who he was symping

[Grief]

I disagree about providing pressure. He accused ment on gut basis, which doesn't produce much pressure. It also isn't a productive way to produce a reaction because it gives ment very little to react against. There's no case for him to argue, so it is a weak accusation. While it could provoke an over-reaction, it is extremely unlikely to, particularly in someone who's played for a while. It provides very little pressure because it is not backed up, and so is unlikely to lead to more votes.

I think if Acehunter was deliberately trying to put pressure or provoke a reaction from someone, to draw out scum, he would've posted something more substantial than what he did.

[MTS]

Trull, on 23 February 2011 - 04:16 PM, said:

I should really say that there is no purposeful subtext that pushes for my innocence in my defense of Tatt. Sure we could read it as such, but understand that this was not my intention. I was hoping that adding my situation would emphasize the reason for why I refused to vote Tattersail at the time. Based on the common reaction of some of the newer players in the last couple games, I didn't think this was something to go batshit over. The sad part of this is that even when Tattersail turned out up innocent, those defending him still get the heat.

The reason you're getting some heat is not because you defended Tattersail - hell, I used the exact same reasoning mostly - but because in doing so you played the noob card for both of you, which is in itself an expression of innocence. And when people express innocence, people take note.

Quote

I'm convinced the case against me is just derailing us from the important suspects.

You're doing it again.

As for the whole 'derailing' aspect of it, I think you're being overly dramatic. Cases are useful to gauge people's reactions, their accuracy doesn't make them any less useful in that regard. Tattersail's case ultimately turned out to be wrong, but we gained info from it (this, for instance). That's half the reason some people voted for him. Does that make Tapper scum for pushing it? Not in itself, no, just that he was wrong. Mafia is never a game of certainty, so we can't fault him for that unless we can see hints of a more sinister motive.

And it's not like we're focusing on this to the detriment of all else anyway. Grief has his case on Ace Hunter, which I'm looking into at the moment. Who are these 'important suspects' that we seem to be missing by the way? If you have any suspicions on the killers, by all means air them, in fact that will make it more likely that you aren't lynched, providing they're concrete suspicions, of course. It does you little good to throw vague suspicions of scumminess around, as Ace Hunter will see when he gets back. Playing the victim as you have done rather undermines your defense too, but anyway.

[MTS]

I must say I kinda like Grief's case too.

Grief, on 23 February 2011 - 04:52 PM, said:

I disagree about providing pressure. He accused ment on gut basis, which doesn't produce much pressure. It also isn't a productive way to produce a reaction because it gives ment very little to react against. There's no case for him to argue, so it is a weak accusation. While it could provoke an over-reaction, it is extremely unlikely to, particularly in someone who's played for a while. It provides very little pressure because it is not backed up, and so is unlikely to lead to more votes.

I think if Acehunter was deliberately trying to put pressure or provoke a reaction from someone, to draw out scum, he would've posted something more substantial than what he did.

Definitely, it did not seem at all like he was providing pressure, and when he was asked to, he simply shrugged it off and said 'I've never been good at making cases, they always suck'. I can't see him anywhere trying to jumpstart discussion either, he even participated in the spam with Silencer.

Speaking of, I found this post about Silencer's vote on Ment funny in the light of this:

Ace Hunter, on 21 February 2011 - 09:06 PM, said:

Silencer, on 21 February 2011 - 09:02 PM, said:

Or maybe he's suggesting he's a symp indirectly!!!1!!1!!!

Also, nice avoidance of my vote for you, Ment. Trying to shrug it off, are we?

lol, what were you looking for, an overreaction?

Edit: I can't spell

[Trull's son]

MTS, on 23 February 2011 - 04:54 PM, said:

Trull, on 23 February 2011 - 04:16 PM, said:

I should really say that there is no purposeful subtext that pushes for my innocence in my defense of Tatt. Sure we could read it as such, but understand that this was not my intention. I was hoping that adding my situation would emphasize the reason for why I refused to vote Tattersail at the time. Based on the common reaction of some of the newer players in the last couple games, I didn't think this was something to go batshit over. The sad part of this is that even when Tattersail turned out up innocent, those defending him still get the heat.

The reason you're getting some heat is not because you defended Tattersail - hell, I used the exact same reasoning mostly - but because in doing so you played the noob card for both of you, which is in itself an expression of innocence. And when people express innocence, people take note.

Quote

I'm convinced the case against me is just derailing us from the important suspects.

You're doing it again. ;)As for the whole 'derailing' aspect of it, I think you're being overly dramatic. Cases are useful to gauge people's reactions, their accuracy doesn't make them any less useful in that regard. Tattersail's case ultimately turned out to be wrong, but we gained info from it (this, for instance). That's half the reason some people voted for him. Does that make Tapper scum for pushing it? Not in itself, no, just that he was wrong. Mafia is never a game of certainty, so we can't fault him for that unless we can see hints of a more sinister motive. And it's not like we're focusing on this to the detriment of all else anyway. Grief has his case on Ace Hunter, which I'm looking into at the moment. Who are these 'important suspects' that we seem to be missing by the way? If you have any suspicions on the killers, by all means air them, in fact that will make it more likely that you aren't lynched, providing they're concrete suspicions, of course. It does you little good to throw vague suspicions of scumminess around, as Ace Hunter will see when he gets back. Playing the victim as you have done rather undermines your defense too, but anyway.

Oh i think I understand now. So I'm a suspect for playing the noob card. I imagine there is a reason this is suspicious, maybe something happened in a older game where someone did this and turned out scum? I could see how that would suck, I'll make sure to avoid doing so in later games.
I had thought the case against Ace was more substantial (more important), but as I've mentioned it isn't as concrete as I would like.
I'll admit that all the talk about meta, and meta-cases, is really confusing me.

[HiddenOne]

Did anybody ever come up with a likely reason Vengeance was killed?

[The Dude]

oh my.. like a game of old. 5 pages to catch up on. brb

[MTS]

HiddenOne, on 23 February 2011 - 05:11 PM, said:

Did anybody ever come up with a likely reason Vengeance was killed?

I believe Tapper thought that since Vengeance was remarkably calm and unopinionated compared to his previous games he might be power-roled. DiBs came up with a suicide-vig theory but I think he abandoned it.

[MTS]

Well, that'll be me for the time being guys, I'm too tired and staying up this late isn't doing me any favours. I'll be back before deadline though.

[Grief]

Trull, on 23 February 2011 - 05:09 PM, said:

Oh i think I understand now. So I'm a suspect for playing the noob card. I imagine there is a reason this is suspicious, maybe something happened in a older game where someone did this and turned out scum? I could see how that would suck, I'll make sure to avoid doing so in later games.
I had thought the case against Ace was more substantial (more important), but as I've mentioned it isn't as concrete as I would like.
I'll admit that all the talk about meta, and meta-cases, is really confusing me.

Noob card in itself is suspicious because it has in the past allowed people to be given a pass.

However, the case on you is that your defence of Tattersail indirectly made yourself look more innocent, and people dislike that.

[Grief]

MTS, on 23 February 2011 - 05:22 PM, said:

Well, that'll be me for the time being guys, I'm too tired and staying up this late isn't doing me any favours. I'll be back before deadline though.

Night

[Grief]

I've got to go make some dinner, and then go out. Back in a couple of hours.

[Hugin & Munin]

It is Day 2. 10 hours and 26 minutes remaining


15 Players still alive: Ace Hunter, ansible, dibs, Grief, HiddenOne, Lizra, Mentalist, MTS, PB, Shinrei, Silencer, Tapper, The Dude, Trull's son, Vengeance

8 votes to lynch, 8 votes to go to night.

1 Vote for Ace Hunter ( Grief )
2 Votes for Trull's son ( Shinrei, dibs )

Players not voted: Ace Hunter, ansible, HiddenOne, Lizra, Mentalist, MTS, PB, Silencer, Tapper, The Dude, Trull's son, Vengeance

Tatts