You are viewing the MafiaScum.net Wiki. To play the game, visit the forum.
Mature Mafia
Mature Mafia mafiascum.net -> Theme Park #1: EmpTyger, PostSun May 04, 2008 11:38 pm
----
Mature Mafia
Mod: EmpTyger
Players:
The Living:
1) DrippingGoofball 2) Coron 3) Talitha 4) rajrhcpfreak 5) mathcam 6) logicticus 7) PookyTheMagicalBear 9) Glork 10) Phoebus 11) Macros 12) Adel 13) elvis_knits 14) Axelrod
The Deceased:
8) zu_Faul
Rules: You all know how this works. #2: zu_Faul, PostWed May 07, 2008 12:35 pm
----
I have been brutally murdered, I dont know who did it but I may do at some stage. #3: elvis_knits, PostWed May 07, 2008 1:45 pm
----
vote rajrhcpfreak
Welcome back to playing games! #4: Coron, PostWed May 07, 2008 2:19 pm
----
Vote: DGB
Vote count:
Raj(Elvis_knits) -1 DGB(Coron) -1
You guys probably won't get another votecount for a while, unfortunately I'm out of town for a while(I'm not really certain how long, 2 or 3 days probably). #5: Axelrod, PostWed May 07, 2008 3:06 pm
----
Vote: Coron One post and lurking already! #6: mathcam, PostWed May 07, 2008 3:12 pm
----
Interesting post from zu. I have nothing in my role PM that says I have to self-reveal when deceased. Either this was told to him by emp once it was known he was going to die, or part of his role is that he can fake his own death. Or something -- sounds like a bit of a stretch when I write it down. Hm.
Cam #7: rajrhcpfreak, PostWed May 07, 2008 3:15 pm
----
vote: elvis knits
you know better than to vote for me....
on another note... I AM SO EXCITED ABOUT THIS GAME!!!
oh and hi coron.
zu's post is interesting, but i think its useless to analyze before we see other deaths. #8: Glork, PostWed May 07, 2008 3:32 pm
----
Vote: Phoebus for the usual obvious reasons. #9: elvis_knits, PostWed May 07, 2008 4:33 pm
----
Judging from the fact that zu self-revealed and coron is in charge of vote counts, it seems that various game-related chores (mod duties) have been parceled out to players.
I think this is because we are so mature.
- whoopie cushion: #10: Macros, PostWed May 07, 2008 5:09 pm
----
hmm, I'm here. vote mathcam why? because I can and I've missed doing that Smile
What the hells with zu_faul, was he a suicide townie? a joker? #11: logicticus, PostWed May 07, 2008 6:02 pm
----
zu_Faul wrote: I have been brutally murdered, I dont know who did it but I may do at some stage.
This was something different earlier was it not? When I did my first read through a bit back it was more straight forward, something like "I have been killed and I am a vanilla townie."
Does this mean that a dead man edited his post or somebody else did? #12: Macros, PostWed May 07, 2008 6:14 pm
----
holy crap, what in the hell is ging on, it said something like "I am vanilla townie I quit" Emptyger, what is going on? #13: elvis_knits, PostWed May 07, 2008 6:21 pm
----
I am pretty sure the first line zu wrote was "I am out of the game." Then something like "I was vanilla townsperson."
I don't know if zu edited his post or someone else, but I would bet it is a non-native English speaker by the grammar. "May do" is not normal phrasing. #14: Phoebus, PostWed May 07, 2008 6:28 pm
----
^^ agrees with elvis unfortunately that sort of leaves only faul as a suspect.
unless it's pooky or glork being funny.
usual obvious reasons being rubbish, i suppose?
oh...non native...could be macros...but decent spelling shoots down that theory Wink
vote: mathcam #15: Axelrod, PostWed May 07, 2008 6:53 pm
----
He said either "I'm out of the game" or "I have been eliminated from the game." "My alignment is townsperson," "My role is vanilla." So yeah, someone edited that. #16: DrippingGoofball, PostWed May 07, 2008 7:21 pm
----
vote: logicticus for actively trying to avoid scrutiny. #17: Axelrod, PostWed May 07, 2008 7:32 pm
----
Also, the player's list has been edited, going from listing zu_Faul as "townsperson" in Blue, to just "Deceased." #18: Macros, PostWed May 07, 2008 8:26 pm
----
i think copy and pasting is order of the day? #19: logicticus, PostWed May 07, 2008 8:40 pm
----
DrippingGoofball wrote: vote: logicticus for actively trying to avoid scrutiny.
so who has invited scrutiny at this point that disqualified them from this vote? #20: DrippingGoofball, PostWed May 07, 2008 8:59 pm
----
logicticus wrote: DrippingGoofball wrote: vote: logicticus for actively trying to avoid scrutiny. so who has invited scrutiny at this point that disqualified them from this vote? Everyone but you Wink #21: Adel, PostWed May 07, 2008 9:33 pm
----
vote:DGB for editing other people's posts. #22: rajrhcpfreak, PostWed May 07, 2008 10:14 pm
----
oh zu's post was edited...
unvote vote: DBG
gut/crap logic on vote/bandwagon time
mainly its my gut. #23: PookyTheMagicalBear, PostWed May 07, 2008 11:06 pm
----
I believe the first person Talitha votes today is scum.
As a result, I am waiting for Talitha to vote. #24: Glork, PostWed May 07, 2008 11:56 pm
----
Unvote, Vote: Axelrod
Hunch. #25: rajrhcpfreak, PostThu May 08, 2008 12:10 am
----
but i didn't think that enough for me to jump another bandwagon.
but i see the hunch. #26: Macros, PostThu May 08, 2008 1:25 am
----
what, im sorry but i may have missed something along the way. how hav e we discovered dgb editing? (if we have i'll vote him for it the scumbag) I'm waiting talithas first post, let aloone vote #27: rajrhcpfreak, PostThu May 08, 2008 1:38 am
----
gut,
flow of her responses along with her interaction with others.
well thats why i am voting her. #28: Macros, PostThu May 08, 2008 1:45 am
----
dgb is a her? hyoly shit, news to me #29: rajrhcpfreak, PostThu May 08, 2008 2:33 am
----
yah there is a gender icon under avatars... #30: mathcam, PostThu May 08, 2008 2:40 am
----
For some reason, I feel like we're in the middle of the movie Clue/. There's going to be a lot of running around between the kitchen and the attic.
I'd like to hear something stronger against DGB, and/or a response from her.
Cam #31: DrippingGoofball, PostThu May 08, 2008 2:49 am
----
I didn't edit anyone's post. Look elsewhere. #32: Glork, PostThu May 08, 2008 2:59 am
----
mathcam wrote: For some reason, I feel like we're in the middle of the movie Clue/. There's going to be a lot of running around between the kitchen and the attic.
I'd like to hear something stronger against DGB, and/or a response from her.
Cam One plus two plus two plus one... #33: Talitha, PostThu May 08, 2008 7:54 am
----
PookyTheMagicalBear wrote: I believe the first person Talitha votes today is scum.
As a result, I am waiting for Talitha to vote. vote: mathcam
BTW, who got the job of randomising the roles and sending the role PMs? Oh bah... Emp sent the PMs. You'd think he'd be able to trust one of us with that job seeing as we're SO mature. #34: Talitha, PostThu May 08, 2008 7:56 am
----
And whoever murdered zu_Faul and/or desecrated his death post, that behaviour is not in keeping with the theme of the game. Please desist from such actions. #35: PookyTheMagicalBear, PostThu May 08, 2008 5:12 pm
----
vote Mathcam
Talitha has spoken.
Now let it be done! #36: Adel, PostThu May 08, 2008 5:49 pm
----
Talitha wrote: And whoever murdered zu_Faul and/or desecrated his death post, that behaviour is not in keeping with the theme of the game. Please desist from such actions.
unvote, vote: Talitha #37: Axelrod, PostThu May 08, 2008 7:15 pm
----
One thing that is nice about playing here, even with the inconsistent pace, is that you don't have to wade through 200+ posts of spam before people actually start getting serious.
rajrhcpfreak wrote: but i didn't think that enough for me to jump another bandwagon.
but i see the hunch.
I call BS. What, praytell, do you think you see? #38: mathcam, PostThu May 08, 2008 8:39 pm
----
I second that question. #39: PookyTheMagicalBear, PostThu May 08, 2008 8:57 pm
----
Cam, what do you think of the fact that Talitha has found you guilty scum scum. #40: Macros, PostThu May 08, 2008 8:57 pm
----
I shall third it and third it well #41: rajrhcpfreak, PostThu May 08, 2008 10:06 pm
----
post one: Axelrod wrote: Vote: Coron One post and lurking already!
attempt at humor, is there is no helpful content here.
post two:
Axelrod wrote:
He said either "I'm out of the game" or "I have been eliminated from the game." "My alignment is townsperson," "My role is vanilla." So yeah, someone edited that.
helpful because he confirmed what we all were talking about. someone changed the first post.
but no analysis of current voting trends.
so my gut tells me that hes avoiding any real content but give us something to see so it looks like hes helping.
post three: Axelrod wrote: Also, the player's list has been edited, going from listing zu_Faul as "townsperson" in Blue, to just "Deceased."
same as above.
thats when i said i agree with Glork's hunch. but i thought my previous hunch was stronger.
fourth post is focusing solely on me who kinda supported a second vote for him. tunnel vision and avoiding other conversations.
ok thats my train of thought since it was questioned. #42: logicticus, PostThu May 08, 2008 10:31 pm
----
Adel wrote: vote:DGB for editing other people's posts.
was this a joke post by you, or do you really think dgb was editing peoples posts? #43: Adel, PostFri May 09, 2008 12:13 am
----
logicticus wrote: Adel wrote: vote:DGB for editing other people's posts.
was this a joke post by you, or do you really think dgb was editing peoples posts?
I think she is more likely than average to have done it.
EDIT: this is a test edit to see what happens if I edit my post before another person posts.
SECOND EDIT: apparently nothing. #44: Adel, PostFri May 09, 2008 12:16 am
----
this is a post that I will edit once another persojn posts to see if the forum software will note that I edited the post.
Edit: this is a test to see what happens.
Last edited by Adel on Fri May 09, 2008 1:29 am; edited 1 time in total #45: Axelrod, PostFri May 09, 2008 1:07 am
----
Wow, Raj. I think that is possibly the worst "analysis" I have ever seen. The game is under 35 posts old, and you are criticizing for a 1st post vote, being "helpful" but failing to analyze "voting trends," for not providing "real content," using "tunnel vision" and "avoiding other conversations." Absolutely the most horrid, slanted, 1-sided, hack job based on nothing I've ever read.
Apparently I've displayed a veritable cornacopia of scumminess and uselessness. My goodness, if that was how you really felt, why on earth wouldn't you be voting me until I was dead. What could DGB have done that was worse than this?
Could it even be an overreaction to several people asking you to explain what you meant? You had to come up with something, but you didn't have anything to say, so you decided to throw in everything but the kitchen sink and hope that at least some part of it would sound believable?
Now I have to decide if this is scummy on your part or just completely idiotic. I'm leaning scummy. And since I don't have a better place to put my vote at the moment:
Unvote;
Vote: rajrhcpfreak
@Adel: I'm curious. Are you under the impression that because players have been given editing powers in this game, that it's okay to edit your posts at will? That strikes me as a very, very bad thing. #46: Adel, PostFri May 09, 2008 1:39 am
----
ok, I edited my post 43 and it noted that I edited it. That should mean that zu_faul did not edit his own post.
Quote: @Adel: I'm curious. Are you under the impression that because players have been given editing powers in this game, that it's okay to edit your posts at will? That strikes me as a very, very bad thing.
I am editing my posts in a very transparent and mature manner. I'll let you know if I get a warning from the moderator to stop it, and all of you will know if I get modkilled for doing it.
By mature mafia, does that mean that we are effectivly playing a mod-less game where we have to come together like adults and agree upon what rules we will follow? Can we realisiticly expect the scum to agree in good faith?
Or is there a hidden set of rules, and one player (presumably scum) is allowed to edit posts? That would be an important thing to know.
Coron sauid something about posting a votecount later, which led me to suspect that we are alone here without a moderator. If this is the case then the basic parameters of this game are the functions of the forum software and whatever we agree to. #47: Axelrod, PostFri May 09, 2008 2:05 am
----
The game won't work without some level of Moderation, or at least, it won't play fairly.
Frankly, I'm rather well put off by the edit was was done to zu_Faul's death post, because (1) it does not appear that he was the one who edited it (no "last edited by..." line) and (2) it was a major change from what was there before. It went from saying he was a vanilla townsperson to "I'm dead" with nothing about alignment or role.
I will continue to assume he was a vanilla townsperson, but if future deaths and reveals can be edited like this then it just makes the game exponentially harder, not even considering the possibility that someone might lie in a death post, or have their post edited to say something not truthful. #48: Adel, PostFri May 09, 2008 2:11 am
----
vote: explicit set of rules in the first post #49: Adel, PostFri May 09, 2008 2:12 am
----
EmpTyger wrote:
Rules: You all know how this works.
perhaps we can write the rules ourselves?
We all have moderated games beofre, we do know how this works. #50: logicticus, PostFri May 09, 2008 2:19 am
----
Adel wrote: EmpTyger wrote:
Rules: You all know how this works.
perhaps we can write the rules ourselves?
We all have moderated games beofre, we do know how this works.
Adel, I feel like you are trying to lead us astray. Even if we took valuable time and posts to write out the rules, whos there to enforce them? The mod is an omnipotent being in the thread who has more knowledge and is thus able to enforce everything, we all have limited knowledge and nobody could enforce any ruleset that we made. #51: Adel, PostFri May 09, 2008 2:40 am
----
I'm waiting for a Pm back from our mod.
I sent a PM saying: Quote: I'm sure you are getting many PMs from other players.
My I edit the first post of the game to include Quote:
No player (living or dead) is allowed to edit any post without the consensus of more than 50% of living players or the explicit permission of EmpTyger.
- 52: Adel, PostFri May 09, 2008 2:41 am
----
I got a response. It wasn't clear.
Does anyone mind if I quote it? #53: logicticus, PostFri May 09, 2008 2:53 am
----
Adel wrote: I'm waiting for a Pm back from our mod.
I sent a PM saying: Quote: I'm sure you are getting many PMs from other players.
My I edit the first post of the game to include Quote:
No player (living or dead) is allowed to edit any post without the consensus of more than 50% of living players or the explicit permission of EmpTyger.
this is so worthless, i dont understand one instance in which it would be acceptable for anyone to edit anyones posts.
THIS IS A TEST EDIT BY GLORK #54: Glork, PostFri May 09, 2008 2:57 am
----
Holy crap.
I just now realized that we can edit one anothers' posts.
I was operating under the assumption that one specific player had this abilty.
Unvote #55: logicticus, PostFri May 09, 2008 2:58 am
----
and its not enforceable to make that rule because i am pretty sure you can edit other peoples posts and not leave a trail.
someone edit this post and we shall find out.... #56: Glork, PostFri May 09, 2008 3:01 am
----
Yep. Trailless. See 52, logic.
This may go without saying, but I think we all need to agree that no protown player should edit any posts from here on out. That way, any reported/confirmed edits are known to come from scum. #57: Coron, PostFri May 09, 2008 3:15 am
----
No one should edit other people's posts, and any edits of one's own posts would be for things like if I miscounted votes. Major content revisions are anti-town. #58: Glork, PostFri May 09, 2008 3:16 am
----
Exactly. #59: mathcam, PostFri May 09, 2008 3:16 am
----
I agree with Adel, at least as far as how unclear the rules are. If we're in the "It's up to us to follow the rules" mode, then editing a post is modkillable. I suspect that this isn't quite our position, and that our mod will of a more laissez-faire stance. On the other hand, if there are no rules whatsoever, what's to stop us all from quoting our role PMs and ending the game right now? I'm not sure what to make of this, other than the fact that it seems like we're in the middle of a gigantic social experiment.
For the time-being, I agree with Glork that the pro-town among us should vow not to make any edits (unless clearly marked, as in Adel's case earlier).
Cam #60: Adel, PostFri May 09, 2008 3:34 am
----
Proposed rule #1Rules posted within the first post (post#0) are official and binding to all players. These rules shall be self-enforced since we are all mature enough to handle the responsibility.
Proposed rule #2No player (living or dead) is allowed to edit any post (including post#0) without the consensus of more than 50% of living players or the explicit permission of EmpTyger.
- 61: rajrhcpfreak, PostFri May 09, 2008 4:41 am
----
Axelrod wrote: Wow, Raj. I think that is possibly the worst "analysis" I have ever seen. The game is under 35 posts old, and you are criticizing for a 1st post vote, being "helpful" but failing to analyze "voting trends," for not providing "real content," using "tunnel vision" and "avoiding other conversations." Absolutely the most horrid, slanted, 1-sided, hack job based on nothing I've ever read.
ok, those few posts made me question you.
i made a statement saying that i think i have the same hunch.
i was questioned about it by multiple people, so i explained.
and i think this is the worst omgus in the world. i didn't even vote for you. i just agreed with a guy saying that he has a hunch to vote for you. now you are voting me for explaining my statement.
and usually i wouldn't defend my gut, but since two of your scum buddies openly questioned it too, i decided to explain.
i wont vote now, because my gut is telling me to vote for the scumbag continuously attacking me for trying to read people's posts. i guess if i took your approach and wait for someone else's lead then i wouldn't have to worry about people calling me out.
oh btw, im VLA until sunday night, prolly after survivor.
EBWOP: i agree with all the talk on editing. i dont edit posts, i doubt i will ever do it. i also dont see why a protown player would do it. its like lying when you are protown, it automaticly discredits anything you say when you are outted. #62: Axelrod, PostFri May 09, 2008 12:25 pm
----
@Adel: I am with logicticus here, proposing "rules" that we all agree to follow is completely worthless. If the scum if this game are being allowed to make significant edits to other player's posts, including death reveal posts (which destroys the integrity of the game in my opinion), then why would they stop because you proposed a rule?
The game doesn't work unless everyone plays fair. Perhaps this is the experiment - to see whether or not the scum would actually do so when not forced by Mod. If so, based just on what I've seen so far, this game is crashing and burning. Hopefully, that's not what's actually going on. #63: Glork, PostFri May 09, 2008 1:32 pm
----
FYI, I'm really interested to see where this RAJ/Axel thing goes. My hunch was not what RAJ saw.
I would absolutely be interested in a binding agreement as forum members (as opposed to players/roles in this game) that would tie us to the same rules one typically sees in a conventional mafia game.
Also, Fun Fact: Forum Rules and Guidelines wrote: Mafia Specific Rules
* Do not talk outside the game thread about an ongoing game except where allowed to do so by your role. Likewise, do not use bbcode to hide secret messages - this equates to discussion outside the thread. * Do not edit/delete posts. * Do not quote communications with the moderator (in particular, your role PM). Paraphrasing is usually ok. * Do not talk after you are dead or replaced. Some moderators do allow contentless "Bah!" posts, but you should never reveal information once you are dead.
Note especially "Do not edit/delete posts."
We may bend (or waive altogether) the last rule, if it is up to a dead individual to reveal one's own role. If this is the case, I would strongly suggest we create a binding rule that players must reveal their alignments and roles truthfully. Failure to adhere to this rule really invalidates the game as a whole, and it creates a very empty victory for the eventual "winners." #64: Glork, PostFri May 09, 2008 1:33 pm
----
EBWOP: In fact, as somebody has already violated that rule, I strongly suggest that they fess up and allow us to modkill them. That was seriously not cool. At all. #65: elvis_knits, PostFri May 09, 2008 1:34 pm
----
Adel wrote:
By mature mafia, does that mean that we are effectivly playing a mod-less game where we have to come together like adults and agree upon what rules we will follow? Can we realisiticly expect the scum to agree in good faith?
Or is there a hidden set of rules, and one player (presumably scum) is allowed to edit posts? That would be an important thing to know.
Coron sauid something about posting a votecount later, which led me to suspect that we are alone here without a moderator. If this is the case then the basic parameters of this game are the functions of the forum software and whatever we agree to.
I believe we are playing a modless game.
The mod has given us roles to police the game ourselves, and chosen us as the sort of people to play fairly without supervision.
Some reasons I think we are modless: before the game started I pm'ed the mod a question and the answer was essentially "you are a big girl, figure it out for yourself."
Also, part of my role includes a mod duty. I can reveal what that is now or at some later point, but I don't think it matters too much at the moment. So I won't say unless the majority wants to know what it is. The point is, after seeing Coron is in charge of the VC, and knowing my role duty, I think the game could conceivably run without mod intervention.
I think agreeing on some rules would be helpful. If everyone in this game can't agree to refrain from editing posts or deleting posts, then they should excuse themselves from the game. There are other things to agree upon also.
If there is anyone in this game who cannot or will not proceed with a modless game, YOU NEED TO RESIGN FROM THE GAME. #66: Axelrod, PostFri May 09, 2008 2:06 pm
----
You know, almost this same topic came up just recently with respect to another game on site which DG is well familiar with:
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8232
The Mod. went AWOL, but because it was a "nightless" game, technically the players could continue, they just had to agree amongst themselves that they would honestly reveal their alignments after they were lynched. Vollkan, as scum, felt like he was not obligated to go along with this, even that it was his duty as scum trying to win to lie. Most people disagreed, and I think even Vollkan himself came round to realizing that his position was wrong, and he should not have continued to play if that was going to be his attitude.
As a game with Nights, things are even more complex here. I'm not prepared to say it can't work out. But I'm concerned.
A "pledge" that everyone is going to be honest is pointless though. Either you agree that the game just can't work at all without a certain amount of honesty, in which case no "pledge" is needed, or you don't, in which case your pledge would be worthless. #67: Glork, PostFri May 09, 2008 2:14 pm
----
DISCLAIMER: The upcoming post does not necessarily reflect what my own role may or may not be/include. I am merely using it as the simplest example I can think of off the top of my head, so as to make a point to Axel.
Consider the case of a mountainous game (aside from "mod powers" such as VCing). At night, the Mafia could simply PM their target saying something along the lines of "We are killing you. Please open the thread and reveal your role to the other players" -- perhaps even from an alt/anonymous account. The deceased player (n this case, Zu_Faul) complies, and the rest of us move on with our lives.
In the absence of a "killer" alt for PMing purposes, a situation such as the above example would create an interesting scenario in which the scums would have to rely on victims' honesty to not reveal their identities while the town relies on the scums to reveal themselves truthfully and to adhere to conventional game rules. #68: Glork, PostFri May 09, 2008 2:16 pm
----
EBWOP: Axel wrote: A "pledge" that everyone is going to be honest is pointless though. Either you agree that the game just can't work at all without a certain amount of honesty, in which case no "pledge" is needed, or you don't, in which case your pledge would be worthless. Rolling Eyes
Rather than a pledge, simply have each player acknowledge that they need to be honest. That's what the point of the suggested "pledge" is, anyway. I think you're making a big deal out of nothing here. #69: Axelrod, PostFri May 09, 2008 2:22 pm
----
Glork wrote: DISCLAIMER: The upcoming post does not necessarily reflect what my own role may or may not be/include. I am merely using it as the simplest example I can think of off the top of my head, so as to make a point to Axel.
Consider the case of a mountainous game (aside from "mod powers" such as VCing). At night, the Mafia could simply PM their target saying something along the lines of "We are killing you. Please open the thread and reveal your role to the other players" -- perhaps even from an alt/anonymous account. The deceased player (n this case, Zu_Faul) complies, and the rest of us move on with our lives.
In the absence of a "killer" alt for PMing purposes, a situation such as the above example would create an interesting scenario in which the scums would have to rely on victims' honesty to not reveal their identities while the town relies on the scums to reveal themselves truthfully and to adhere to conventional game rules.
I'm not sure what the point you are making here is? #70: Axelrod, PostFri May 09, 2008 2:26 pm
----
Glork wrote: Rolling Eyes
Rather than a pledge, simply have each player acknowledge that they need to be honest. That's what the point of the suggested "pledge" is, anyway. I think you're making a big deal out of nothing here.
I'm not making a "deal" out of anything. I just don't understand why you think this would make any difference at all. Do you actually think the scum (if they don't already agree with this position) are going to have any compunctions saying that they agree with it? #71: elvis_knits, PostFri May 09, 2008 2:28 pm
----
Axel, I am aware of the game with vollkan lying about his revealed role.
If you read the thread, vollkan agrees that he was wrong to lie, because he was not acting as his role at that moment. He was acting as mod.
SO... when I said before this is a modless game, I think that is the wrong way to look at it.
We have to play like we are all mods. A mod would not lie about the alignment of a player, even if that player were themselves. Because they are acting as mod.
So we all must agree to be mods of this game.
Along the lines of what Glork is saying...
I might as well reveal what exactly I know about game mechanics here. I think it will help clear some things up and prepare everyone for today's lynch. My role includes, but may or may not be limited to:
Executioner. When one player reaches majority for lynch, I PM them and they must immediately self-reveal in thread.
If I die, I don't know if the executioner duty will be given to someone else. So we have to all agree to self-reveal if we are voted to a lynch. Even while I am alive, someone could refuse to reveal even after I PM them. So, we all have to agree.
And remember, when you self-reveal you are acting as mod, and not as your player role. So you must be honest. #72: logicticus, PostFri May 09, 2008 4:43 pm
----
Alright, I think we are now just repeating ourselves and I would like to get us on track so I will summarize what seems to be the gist of this:
It appears that we are all the mods in some respect in this game meaning there is no central authority figure. Even though the ability to edit posts is available for anyone to use, it would destroy the integrity of the the game to do so (Winning by cheating isnt really winning after all...). Finally, upon death, it would also be immoral to lie about your role.
I hope this ends that.
I want to go back to the raj/axel interaction because thats the most pertinent part of this game thus far. I dont like rajs post 60 because he throws in more hyperbole in my opinion. He calls axels post an OMGUS and then tosses in the fact that the two people who agreed on an explanation must be scumbuddies. Combine this with his explanation post that also threw the "kitchen sink" around and I dont like it. #73: Glork, PostFri May 09, 2008 4:53 pm
----
Axelrod wrote: Glork wrote: Rolling Eyes
Rather than a pledge, simply have each player acknowledge that they need to be honest. That's what the point of the suggested "pledge" is, anyway. I think you're making a big deal out of nothing here.
I'm not making a "deal" out of anything. I just don't understand why you think this would make any difference at all. Do you actually think the scum (if they don't already agree with this position) are going to have any compunctions saying that they agree with it? I want to completely, 100% avoid any possible scenario such as what happened witih Vollkan in the nightless, mod-abandoned game. So yes, I do think that it would have a difference. It's important to make impress upon everyone that we are speaking not as our roles, but outside of the game. Feh. Maybe I'm the one making a big deal out of nothing. #74: Adel, PostSat May 10, 2008 3:59 am
----
Code: Vote Tally
rajrhcpfreak (1): elvis_knits logicticus (1): DrippingGoofball coron (1): Axelrod elvis (1): rajrhcpfreak explicit (1): Adel count (1): Coron mathcam (4): Macros, Phoebus, Talitha, PookyTheMagicalBear
FoS Tally
Log Summary
elvis_knits casts first vote for rajrhcpfreak. Coron casts first vote for dgb. Coron unvotes for dgb leaving 0 vote(s). Coron casts first vote for count. Axelrod casts first vote for coron. rajrhcpfreak casts first vote for elvis. Glork casts first vote for phoebus. Macros casts first vote for mathcam. Phoebus casts vote 2 for mathcam. DrippingGoofball casts first vote for logicticus. Adel casts vote 1 for dgb. Glork unvotes for phoebus leaving 0 vote(s). Glork casts first vote for axelrod. Talitha casts vote 3 for mathcam. PookyTheMagicalBear casts vote 4 for mathcam. Adel unvotes for dgb leaving 0 vote(s). Adel casts first vote for talitha. Adel unvotes for talitha leaving 0 vote(s). Adel casts first vote for explicit. Glork unvotes for axelrod leaving 0 vote(s).
Player Summary for Adel
25.0% of total activity (5/20)
Votes
(0) Cast vote 1 for dgb (0) Cast vote 1 for talitha (0) Cast vote 1 for explicit
Unvotes
(0) Removed vote for dgb leaving 0 (0) Removed vote for talitha leaving 0
Fingers
Adel has not pointed any fingers
Player Summary for rajrhcpfreak
5.0% of total activity (1/20)
Votes
(0) Cast vote 1 for elvis
Unvotes
rajrhcpfreak has not unvoted
Fingers
rajrhcpfreak has not pointed any fingers
Player Summary for PookyTheMagicalBear
5.0% of total activity (1/20)
Votes
(0) Cast vote 4 for mathcam
Unvotes
PookyTheMagicalBear has not unvoted
Fingers
PookyTheMagicalBear has not pointed any fingers
Player Summary for Coron
15.0% of total activity (3/20)
Votes
(0) Cast vote 1 for dgb (0) Cast vote 1 for count
Unvotes
(0) Removed vote for dgb leaving 0
Fingers
Coron has not pointed any fingers
Player Summary for elvis_knits
5.0% of total activity (1/20)
Votes
(0) Cast vote 1 for rajrhcpfreak
Unvotes
elvis_knits has not unvoted
Fingers
elvis_knits has not pointed any fingers
Player Summary for DrippingGoofball
5.0% of total activity (1/20)
Votes
(0) Cast vote 1 for logicticus
Unvotes
DrippingGoofball has not unvoted
Fingers
DrippingGoofball has not pointed any fingers
Player Summary for Macros
5.0% of total activity (1/20)
Votes
(0) Cast vote 1 for mathcam
Unvotes
Macros has not unvoted
Fingers
Macros has not pointed any fingers
Player Summary for Talitha
5.0% of total activity (1/20)
Votes
(0) Cast vote 3 for mathcam
Unvotes
Talitha has not unvoted
Fingers
Talitha has not pointed any fingers
Player Summary for Glork
20.0% of total activity (4/20)
Votes
(0) Cast vote 1 for phoebus (0) Cast vote 1 for axelrod
Unvotes
(0) Removed vote for phoebus leaving 0 (0) Removed vote for axelrod leaving 0
Fingers
Glork has not pointed any fingers
Player Summary for Axelrod
5.0% of total activity (1/20)
Votes
(0) Cast vote 1 for coron
Unvotes
Axelrod has not unvoted
Fingers
Axelrod has not pointed any fingers
Player Summary for Phoebus
5.0% of total activity (1/20)
Votes
(0) Cast vote 2 for mathcam
Unvotes
Phoebus has not unvoted
Fingers
Phoebus has not pointed any fingers
thanks to weilawei and the script he posted at http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8316 #75: Talitha, PostSat May 10, 2008 9:21 am
----
So your vote for "explicit" and Coron's vote for "count" count?
Vote: ditch the lame script unvote: ditch vote: mathcam #76: Talitha, PostSat May 10, 2008 9:51 am
----
I can't imagine that anyone in this game would lie about their role after they've been lynched. I think we're good to go ahead and just play mafia. #77: mathcam, PostSat May 10, 2008 4:48 pm
----
Yeah, forget the pledge. I think it is clear enough now that a player better have a damn good reason for doing some editing, and if not, they're likely to be lynched.
As to my previous objections about the lack of mod guidance, I conjecture (maybe everyone figured this out already) that every aspect of the mod's role in a game has been delegated to one of the players. I have one, but I don't see many pros or cons in revealing it at the time.
Some natural questions arise: Is there someone in charge of modkilling? If we're to be expected to be mature here, then my guess is that we're supposed to follow established rules for the game of mafia despite the fact that we have mod powers. In short, our mod powers are to be used only for the explicit functions we were given in our role PM. To this end, it's not unreasonable to insist that if someone has this power and we find out who edited zu's post, that they be modkilled by whoever has that power.
Another question: What happens if a mod-power is in the hands of scum? Is there responsibility to use it in a role-neutral way? I can certainly see instances in which my mod-power could be advantageous in the hands of scum, but I could also see this for most modpowers.
Similarly, what happens if a mod-power gets killed? Will we lose votecounts when Coron dies? Votecounts we could do ourselves, but for some other mod-powers, it's a little less clear.
Okay, now on to some mafia:
Vote: Pooky. Nothing like being able to completely disavow responsibility for your vote.
Cam #78: Phoebus, PostSat May 10, 2008 7:22 pm
----
I'm here. Reading. Connections problems alert. #79: rajrhcpfreak, PostSun May 11, 2008 6:45 am
----
logicticus wrote:
I don't like rajs post 60 because he throws in more hyperbole in my opinion. He calls axels post an OMGUS and then tosses in the fact that the two people who agreed on an explanation must be scumbuddies. Combine this with his explanation post that also threw the "kitchen sink" around and I don't like it.
people wanted to know why i said it, multiple people. which i find odd because it was just a little comment.
so yes guts don't follow perfect mafia strategy, i cant keep my gut from wifom, etc. so i can see why it seams a little exaggerated. i wasn't using that to convince people. just to show where I'm coming from. i didnt know that every statement you make must have cold hard facts before you say it.
i would like for you to look at the of posts for your self. from my comment to the string of posts asking me to explain. i felt a strong defense from just a little comment by me, and then a reaction from other players defending that player. #80: PookyTheMagicalBear, PostSun May 11, 2008 10:58 am
----
Disavowment of Responsbility is a tradition at Mafiascum.
Why you getting worked up over it now Cam?
Cuz vote's on you? #81: mathcam, PostMon May 12, 2008 2:08 am
----
Funny, I don't remember getting worked up about it. Maybe you could direct me to that post?
Cam #82: Macros, PostMon May 12, 2008 7:36 am
----
all this propositioning for rules and the like is pointless, if someones of a mind to cheat they're going to do it, all these "50%" agreement rules simply arent feasable. AS I was informed by our mod, we're all big people now, figure it out. We all know the rules of mafia by now, abide by them as much as common sense allows you too. Its called mature mafia, lets act mature and tell the truth when dead. If you want to cheat go ahead you shall be ridiculed and headhunted post game. I had a laptop meltdown hence my absence over the weekend. I'll be back to post properly at lunch time (work blocks scum.net Sad) #83: PookyTheMagicalBear, PostMon May 12, 2008 7:53 am
----
Where is the Sky? #84: elvis_knits, PostMon May 12, 2008 2:05 pm
----
raj, are you scum? #85: Axelrod, PostMon May 12, 2008 2:27 pm
----
The bad lurkers:
Coron - said he would be gone 2-3 days 5 days ago.
Phoebus - said he was here and "reading" 2 days ago. But wait! He has possible internet problems, so see he's not really lurking.
DrippingGoofball - and she's active in other games....
People who seem as okay as you can seem considering it's only 83 posts into the game:
logicticus elvis_knits Talitha
I don't know about raj. His posts are strange, emotional and not well reasoned. But I also get the feeling he might just be that way in general. I may flip over to someone who's not participating soon unless they, you know, start participating. #86: Glork, PostMon May 12, 2008 2:34 pm
----
p sure that list needs some more Glork on it.
fyi #87: Axelrod, PostMon May 12, 2008 2:43 pm
----
Glork appears to be less on the ball this game then I would normally expect. But it's early, so, yo. #88: Glork, PostMon May 12, 2008 2:45 pm
----
Dude, I'm so protown right now it isn't even funny.
FYI, I am definitely feeing a rajwagon right now. #89: Glork, PostMon May 12, 2008 2:46 pm
----
EBWOP: Vote: raj #90: elvis_knits, PostMon May 12, 2008 2:47 pm
----
Glork is cute when he tries to bold. #91: Glork, PostMon May 12, 2008 3:14 pm
----
- makes note to bold more often*
Vote: Raj #92: Glork, PostMon May 12, 2008 4:56 pm
----
Hm.
Vote: Glork #93: elvis_knits, PostMon May 12, 2008 5:12 pm
----
Very cute, but you forgot to unvote. #94: Glork, PostMon May 12, 2008 5:13 pm
----
That's the whole point, EK. #95: Glork, PostMon May 12, 2008 5:14 pm
----
EBWOP: Some mods require that one unvotes before re-voting. Others do not. I'm curious to see what the next VC looks like, so that there will be no confusion going forward. (Incidentally, I am also curious to see how Adel's script reads a re-vote without an unvote.) #96: rajrhcpfreak, PostMon May 12, 2008 7:24 pm
----
elvis_knits wrote: raj, are you scum?
no
Axelrod wrote: I don't know about raj. His posts are strange, emotional and not well reasoned. But I also get the feeling he might just be that way in general. I may flip over to someone who's not participating soon unless they, you know, start participating.
good posting, thats why I am glad I didnt omgus vote you and stuck with my original gut. #97: Adel, PostMon May 12, 2008 7:31 pm
----
Glork wrote: EBWOP: Some mods require that one unvotes before re-voting. Others do not. I'm curious to see what the next VC looks like, so that there will be no confusion going forward. (Incidentally, I am also curious to see how Adel's script reads a re-vote without an unvote.)
I'm not the author of the script. The guys who are writing it have their thread here and could use some feedback.
I see two paths, either of which could work. The first would be to formulate rules and codify the parameters of this game, the other would be to
Quote:
all this propositioning for rules and the like is pointless, if someones of a mind to cheat they're going to do it, all these "50%" agreement rules simply arent feasable. AS I was informed by our mod, we're all big people now, figure it out. We all know the rules of mafia by now, abide by them as much as common sense allows you too.
Its called mature mafia, lets act mature and tell the truth when dead. If you want to cheat go ahead you shall be ridiculed and headhunted post game.
if we are all mature enough to go along with marcos's plan, then it would work. The possible downside is the possibility of huge drama if one player does soemthing, thinking that it is within the bounds of mature action common sense, which other people disagree with. [/mech] #98: mathcam, PostMon May 12, 2008 9:52 pm
----
Macros wrote: if someones of a mind to cheat they're going to do it, all these "50%" agreement rules simply arent feasable. AS I was informed by our mod, we're all big people now, figure it out. We all know the rules of mafia by now, abide by them as much as common sense allows you too. Its called mature mafia, lets act mature and tell the truth when dead. If you want to cheat go ahead you shall be ridiculed and headhunted post game.
We have already had an instance of people editing in-games posts. This is typically considered against the rules. Are you saying that you think this person acted against the rules of the game? Do you think they should be modkilled? Given a site warning?
Cam #99: Macros, PostTue May 13, 2008 8:18 am
----
meh If they're editing posts pell mell then they're cheating, if its somekind of role requirement then its not, common sense think is the key feature here. Emptyger expects us to possess a measure of it hence the "mature" mafia. How do we envoke a modkill exactly if we are the mods? a majourity agreement? thats just a lynch surely. #100: Glork, PostTue May 13, 2008 12:16 pm
----
FoS: Macros
The whole "well we can't enforce it aside from lynching, so what's the point in harping on about it" thing reads, to me, that he's trying to egg the scums on into breaking rules that appear to be unenforcable. #101: Coron, PostTue May 13, 2008 1:26 pm
----
Vote count:
mathcam(macros, phoebus, Talitha, pooky)-4 Raj(Elvis_knits, axelrod, glork) -3 DGB(Coron, raj) -2 logicticus(DGB)-1 Talitha(adel)-1 Pooky(mathcam)-1 Coron() elvis_knits() Phoebus() Axelrod()
Ah, this reminds me of why I don't mod many games.
just so you know I don't really have any special insight into how voting works, I'm just running it the way I want pretty much because I'm that awesome.
Glork, I don't really think prodding the mechanics is the way to go here, I don't think we'll get too much out of it, instead I suggest scum hunting, unfortunately I spent some ungodly amount of class time on that vote count already, so I guess I might get there around lunchtime. #102: Glork, PostTue May 13, 2008 1:45 pm
----
Fair 'nuff.
I'm pretty pleased with my rajvote, bee tee dubs. #103: mathcam, PostTue May 13, 2008 2:09 pm
----
Wow, didn't realize I had 4 votes.
Macros' vote makes sense (he can), but I'm confused by the other 3. Phoebus votes me in a post where he describes how he thinks the scum likely to be responsible for editing zu's post is a non-native speaker -- I like to think of myself as rather proficient in the language.
Tally's vote is completely unexplained, and Pooky's vote was just an echo of Tally's -- to re-iterate, the fact that Pooky is contributing to a bandwagon without taking any of the responsibility for having to justify his vote is why I am currently voting for him.
Macros wrote: If they're editing posts pell mell then they're cheating, if its somekind of role requirement then its not, common sense think is the key feature here. Emptyger expects us to possess a measure of it hence the "mature" mafia.
But I think it's a little naive to be like "Here's a game where all the rules are different! But you're expected to know the rules and follow them." For example, we all have mod powers and at least some of us have them worked in to our role. It's unclear the extent to which it's "legal" to edit posts, since typically one does not have useable mod powers in the middle of the game -- there's just no ethical frame of reference. My personal feeling is that whoever edited the post thought "Hey, I have mod powers, and since I'm scum, it behooves me to keep information hidden. I'll take away zu's role information," and not "Hey, I have mod powers, and no one will be able to catch me, so I'll deliberately break the rules of the game and edit someone else's post." I dislike the property of this game that I do not have a ruleset to use to distinguish between scummy actions and against-the-rules actions like this. Games need rules.
Cam #104: elvis_knits, PostTue May 13, 2008 2:27 pm
----
I am unsure whether the people railing against our self-policing are likely to be scum or town. I think it is not productive though. I would consider anyone who cheats to have lost themselves the game. I'm not really scared that people are going to abuse the freedom we have been given. Perhaps I am too much of an optimistic, trusting person.
But basically, you have to accept that there is the possibility that people will cheat, and play or not play on those terms. There is nothing we can do about it other than decide not to play.
Also, I think mathcam needs another vote at the moment. What are you afraid will happen without a normal mod? Just by playing on this forum we agree to play by the normal rules. What are you so scared of? Or are you just trying to act like a townie who thinks the scum won't follow the rules?
unvote; vote mathcam #105: logicticus, PostTue May 13, 2008 4:39 pm
----
elvis_knits wrote: I am unsure whether the people railing against our self-policing are likely to be scum or town. I think it is not productive though. I would consider anyone who cheats to have lost themselves the game. I'm not really scared that people are going to abuse the freedom we have been given. Perhaps I am too much of an optimistic, trusting person.
But basically, you have to accept that there is the possibility that people will cheat, and play or not play on those terms. There is nothing we can do about it other than decide not to play.
Also, I think mathcam needs another vote at the moment. What are you afraid will happen without a normal mod? Just by playing on this forum we agree to play by the normal rules. What are you so scared of? Or are you just trying to act like a townie who thinks the scum won't follow the rules?
unvote; vote mathcam
Thats 5 on Cam....2 more and he will be lynched.
I just dont see the case against him, I think he is a townie who is worried about what the scum could do with the editing of posts while a good majority of us realize there is nothing we can do about it and choose to go on scum hunting. So I would say his priorities are a bit out of whack at the moment, but that hardly makes him scum. #106: Glork, PostTue May 13, 2008 5:27 pm
----
I more or less agree with Logic. I don't see anything malicious out of Cam's posts, and I'm not particularly fond of the backing of votes behind him.
Over/Under for number of scum on Cam's wagon right now is 1.5... Let's place some bets. #107: Macros, PostTue May 13, 2008 5:45 pm
----
Glork wrote: FoS: Macros
The whole "well we can't enforce it aside from lynching, so what's the point in harping on about it" thing reads, to me, that he's trying to egg the scums on into breaking rules that appear to be unenforcable.
sorry, but I'm being practical here, how can we get a modkill when it would appear theat emptyger has left us to our own devices? We need to assume people have enough integrity not to blatantly cheat, I'm sorry if you disagree but we have to get over this and carry on.
My vote on Cam was a joke on page one, where have the rest come from? I will have to do a re-read after I get my grub on. #108: rajrhcpfreak, PostTue May 13, 2008 5:50 pm
----
logicticus wrote: a good majority of us realize there is nothing we can do about it and choose to go on scum hunting.
FOS: Adel see post 96
all this talk about rules sounds useless. we all know the rules of mafia. we don't know the setup so we don't know who is supposed to use their modpowers. not to mention, we have no way of enforcing the rules. i only see writing rules as a way for scum to sculpt them around rules that benefit them. as an uninformed townsperson i have no clue what rules to have in this game but the normal rules for mafia. i also see writing rules is a way to slow the game down and keep the town from scum hunting. the longer the scum can keep the town away from scum hunting the longer they can wait for a townsperson to say something stupid and cause a miss lynch.
so his last sentence convinces me to vote for him. unvote but that would put him at lynch -1. ill hold off on voting for him till tonight. so we don't rush the lynch. #109: Glork, PostTue May 13, 2008 5:52 pm
----
Macros: Over or Under on # of scums on Camwagon?
RAJ: Over or Under on # of scums on Camwagon? #110: rajrhcpfreak, PostTue May 13, 2008 6:00 pm
----
well i have a feeling macros is going to unvote after he reads the thread. then i am pretty confident that it will be under.
if he stays on it then i dont know. it might be over when we lynch him.
its hard because i want to beleive that pooky tally and ek are town. but i know i shouldnt trust them. #111: mathcam, PostTue May 13, 2008 7:53 pm
----
elvis wrote: Also, I think mathcam needs another vote at the moment. What are you afraid will happen without a normal mod? Just by playing on this forum we agree to play by the normal rules.
Do the normal rules include editing posts? Do you think that whoever chose to edit the first post is deliberately breaking our perceived rules of the game?
logitcitucs wrote: I think he is a townie who is worried about what the scum could do with the editing of posts while a good majority of us realize there is nothing we can do about it and choose to go on scum hunting. So I would say his priorities are a bit out of whack at the moment, but that hardly makes him scum.
I've suggested why I think Pooky is scummy and defended myself against attacks -- it's not like I'm ignoring the mafia aspect of it while I pursue the meta stuff. I just happen to be capable of doing two things at once.
Does no one else agree with my argument against Pooky?
Cam #112: Axelrod, PostTue May 13, 2008 8:00 pm
----
Frankly, I'd be interested to hear if Talitha still likes her vote or not moreso than Pooky. Pooky is silly and inscrutable. #113: Glork, PostTue May 13, 2008 8:05 pm
----
Cam and Axel need more Over/Under. #114: logicticus, PostTue May 13, 2008 8:06 pm
----
mathcam wrote: elvis wrote:
Also, I think mathcam needs another vote at the moment. What are you afraid will happen without a normal mod? Just by playing on this forum we agree to play by the normal rules.
Do the normal rules include editing posts? Do you think that whoever chose to edit the first post is deliberately breaking our perceived rules of the game?
logitcitucs wrote:
I think he is a townie who is worried about what the scum could do with the editing of posts while a good majority of us realize there is nothing we can do about it and choose to go on scum hunting. So I would say his priorities are a bit out of whack at the moment, but that hardly makes him scum.
I've suggested why I think Pooky is scummy and defended myself against attacks -- it's not like I'm ignoring the mafia aspect of it while I pursue the meta stuff. I just happen to be capable of doing two things at once.
Does no one else agree with my argument against Pooky?
Cam
Looking at Pookys 5 posts is pretty damning. There is nothing of substance and as cam put it, his vote is simply an echo of Tallys vote (which lacked justification as it was).
So I have no problem voting Pooky right now in an effort to get real contribution from him.
vote pooky #115: elvis_knits, PostTue May 13, 2008 8:14 pm
----
mathcam wrote: elvis wrote:
Also, I think mathcam needs another vote at the moment. What are you afraid will happen without a normal mod? Just by playing on this forum we agree to play by the normal rules.
Do the normal rules include editing posts? Do you think that whoever chose to edit the first post is deliberately breaking our perceived rules of the game?
Is it possible that zu faul editted his own post and therefor nobody in here has even broken rules? Is it possible that whoever editted the post did so as part of their role and therefor didn't break the rules?
Do you really think the editting of the first post has injured the town in any way?
I know in theory that editting a post is bad, and we don't want to lose info or anything like that. But we did see the original post. We know zu is town and that he is dead. How have we been harmed? #116: Axelrod, PostTue May 13, 2008 8:21 pm
----
Who is in charge of Mod Prods? You need to go prod DG.... #117: Macros, PostTue May 13, 2008 8:43 pm
----
Glork, bear in mind I havent played here in a long time so I'm going to say what te fuck to your over/under. unvote it was a joke If it is what I think it is, its fucking retarding, there could be all the scum or none on the "train" its day one, my vote was a joke, i'm sure at least one is from someone who really have nothing to go and an easy lynch seems like an idea to get some info tonight. Pooky's being pooky, last time I played with him he acted the same and turned out to be the most important pro town player, I hate playing with him because hes impossible to read. I dont have a vote to cast yet, I need to look over it all again. #118: Macros, PostTue May 13, 2008 8:55 pm
----
I'm sorry, do we actually have a case from pooky and tal or just voting? I mean really, mature people, come on! I'm suspicious of glork hes too eager to point the finger and paint suggestions on peoples behaviour fos glork what about them apples? #119: mathcam, PostWed May 14, 2008 2:30 pm
----
Macros wrote: I hate playing with him because hes impossible to read.
This is exactly my point. He's impossible to read not because he's played fantastically, but rather because he's deliberately taken a voting stance in this game in which he does not have to explain his vote (or at least he thinks he doesn't).
Cam #120: Glork, PostWed May 14, 2008 2:38 pm
----
The point of the over/under is to get people to weigh in on the five people voting for Mathcam and make a gut-call on whether they think 2 or more of the people on that bandwagon are scum.
Anybody who does not provide an answer is either unwilling to try to analyze the first bandwagon of the game, or they are simply unwilling to provide an answer to my question.
Of course there could be zero or all scum on Cam right now, Macros. I'm not asking what you think is possible. I am asking what you think is the case. Out of {Macros, phoebus, talitha, pooky, elvis_knits}, do you think there are more or less than 1.5 scums? #121: Glork, PostWed May 14, 2008 2:39 pm
----
EBWOP: FoS: Logic, Axel, EK, Macros, Cam for obvious reasons. #122: elvis_knits, PostWed May 14, 2008 2:49 pm
----
Glork, why are you squashing this wagon? #123: Glork, PostWed May 14, 2008 2:51 pm
----
I'm not squashing the wagon. I'm trying to get an understanding of what people think of the wagoners.
Why are you avoiding placing an Over/Under bet? #124: elvis_knits, PostWed May 14, 2008 2:52 pm
----
Glork wrote: Anybody who does not provide an answer is either unwilling to try to analyze the first bandwagon of the game, or they are simply unwilling to provide an answer to my question.
It's the first bandwagon... it's useful later, but who knows what it means now? I haven't answered your question because 1)I am on the wagon and didn't know you wanted wagoners to answer 2)I have no idea yet.
You analysis is premature, and is stopping the normal course of the wagon. Attention is now off cam. #125: Glork, PostWed May 14, 2008 2:55 pm
----
The wagon has crested and is already beginning to fall. Why do you want attention back on Cam? #126: elvis_knits, PostWed May 14, 2008 2:59 pm
----
I am suspicious of him for resistance to the self-modding setup. #127: mathcam, PostWed May 14, 2008 3:58 pm
----
I'm confused. Maybe you could explain how that has anything to do with me being scum or not.
Cam #128: elvis_knits, PostWed May 14, 2008 4:02 pm
----
My point is why are you resisting? There is nothing you can do about it other than to not play if you don't trust the players. It's like you're trying to act like townie scared the scum will abuse the setup. Abuse isn't very likely, and also impossible to stop. #129: Coron, PostWed May 14, 2008 4:09 pm
----
I'm gonna go with under. #130: rajrhcpfreak, PostWed May 14, 2008 5:18 pm
----
im confident with under now.
with macros gone i can only see 1 scum possibly on the list. #131: PookyTheMagicalBear, PostWed May 14, 2008 5:24 pm
----
Cam's cries of fustration reek of Scumbag who can't believe he might be lynched for no good reason.(Well no good reason from his point of view)
I likey. #132: PookyTheMagicalBear, PostWed May 14, 2008 5:28 pm
----
and in my defense Macros, in that game I acted like a complete noncontributive sheep, it was only because a significant portion of the town was acting in the same noncontributive manner and the scum CLEARLY were shooting every contributing player at night.
Considering the importance of my role to the town, I do think it was rather good play that I decided to play "stupid sheep" in order to survive. #133: PookyTheMagicalBear, PostWed May 14, 2008 5:30 pm
----
Cam, would you disagree with me when I say all random voting on Day one is equivalent to the Divestment of Responsbility i performed when I echoed Talitha's vote?
In fact I would argue that I take MORE responsbility for my vote than a player who has divested through random voting due to the fact that I actively picked the player whom I was going to follow, whereas a random voter does not actively pick anything.
Considering how much random voting is practiced across the forum, how can you say my vote is more of a scummy nature? #134: DrippingGoofball, PostWed May 14, 2008 5:31 pm
----
FREE FIRING SQUAD checking in:
vote: mathcam #135: elvis_knits, PostWed May 14, 2008 5:45 pm
----
Oh no, mathcam.
Claim or die. #136: Glork, PostWed May 14, 2008 5:53 pm
----
Unvote, Vote: DGB
Putting faith in a lynch is one thing. Pushing wagons blindly or with no reasoning whatsoever, for its own sake, is another. DGB should perish immediately. #137: Phoebus, PostWed May 14, 2008 5:58 pm
----
I am back. Shall post shortly. #138: DrippingGoofball, PostWed May 14, 2008 6:02 pm
----
Glork wrote: Unvote, Vote: DGB
Putting faith in a lynch is one thing. Pushing wagons blindly or with no reasoning whatsoever, for its own sake, is another. DGB should perish immediately. Well put, I appreciate your decisive leadership. However, the mathcam matter needs settling first. Mathcam must claim or die. Elvis took the leadership before you, she gets priority. #139: logicticus, PostWed May 14, 2008 6:03 pm
----
Pretty terrible DG....even though this just brings him back to 4, you are just blindly pushing as Glork mentioned.
EK, were you aware that there were only 3 on him prior to that vote because you seem eager to get a claim out of him and then possibly hammer.
Right now, I dont like either one of you,but since i only have 1 vote...
unvote, vote DGB #140: Glork, PostWed May 14, 2008 6:06 pm
----
DGB, give me five reasons, based on Mathcam's posts alone, that contribute to him being scum. #141: Glork, PostWed May 14, 2008 6:08 pm
----
Alternatively, give me five strategic reasons why shamelessly pushing wagons in which you don't believe makes for good protown play. #142: elvis_knits, PostWed May 14, 2008 6:14 pm
----
logicticus wrote: EK, were you aware that there were only 3 on him prior to that vote because you seem eager to get a claim out of him and then possibly hammer.
Was I aware there were three votes on mathcam when I voted him? Yes.
We were getting sidetracked by bitching and moaning about self-modding setup and such and we needed to get back to playing mafia. Since mathcam was one of the ones bitching and moaning, I thought he was good place to vote. First of all, because the bitching and moaning was taking attention off of him, second because the bitching and moaning seems like an attempt to look townish. I say it's an attempt because I am not convinced it actually has any pro-town effects, but looks pro-town if you don't think about it.
Eager for claim and hammer? What good is a bandwagon if you don't seem like you want the person dead?
And see how everyone is posting and voting? This is good. The game is getting exciting. It's going places. #143: DrippingGoofball, PostWed May 14, 2008 6:20 pm
----
Yo elvis, HIGH FIVE!!! #144: Glork, PostWed May 14, 2008 6:27 pm
----
DGB, answer one of my questions. Now. #145: DrippingGoofball, PostWed May 14, 2008 6:32 pm
----
REASON #1: Early game esoteric, crack-smoking speculation "part of his role is that he can fake his own death." mathcam wrote: Interesting post from zu. I have nothing in my role PM that says I have to self-reveal when deceased. Either this was told to him by emp once it was known he was going to die, or part of his role is that he can fake his own death.
REASON #2: Sneakily trying to get other players to make cases against townies for him, since there was no case at all against me, only false accusation of editing a post. mathcam wrote: I'd like to hear something stronger against DGB, and/or a response from her.
REASON #3: Agrees with Adel. I kid you not. That's called sucking up. mathcam wrote: I agree with Adel.
REASON #4: Votes Pooky for being oh-so-predictably Pooky-like. mathcam wrote: Okay, now on to some mafia: Vote: Pooky. Nothing like being able to completely disavow responsibility for your vote.
REASON #5: Like any regular scumbag, gets knickers in a twist because he's being wagoned "for nothing." See Post
REASON #6: Still hung up on post editing, transparently tries to deflect his wagon onto Pooky. See Post.
REASON #7: Like a cat that has taken a fall, acts all innocent and starts licking his paws.mathcam wrote:
I'm confused. Maybe you could explain how that has anything to do with me being scum or not. Meow. #146: DrippingGoofball, PostWed May 14, 2008 6:34 pm
----
I believe in the mathcam wagon, Glork. Your second question does not apply. #147: Glork, PostWed May 14, 2008 6:40 pm
----
Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaach.
Happy with DGB-vote. #148: DrippingGoofball, PostWed May 14, 2008 6:47 pm
----
Glork wrote: Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaach. If you're going to say that, better justify it.
I'm looking forward to your explanation. It's an essay question, worth 35 points. #149: Glork, PostWed May 14, 2008 6:54 pm
----
To elaborate:
1) Is a stretch because Cam downplayed the possibilty of faking one's own death. DGB failed to quote Cam's full post, and doing so mitigates even Cam's own belief in his theory.
2) Isn't too much of a stretch; it is one of two points I consider legitimate.
3) Is a stretch. Players agree with one another ALL THE FUCKING TIME. That does not inherently make it buddying. You failed to include ANY of the context of Cam's post (another example of selective reading/quoting):Cam wrote:
I agree with Adel, at least as far as how unclear the rules are. If we're in the "It's up to us to follow the rules" mode, then editing a post is modkillable. Are honestly you saying it's scummy to agree that: A) the rules are unclear (given that the rules post says "You know the rules" or something along those lines); or that B) sabotaging gameposts in the thread is modkillable
I'd like to know your own personal thoughts on A and B. Do you agree with them?
4) Is a stretch. No player, Pooky or otherwise, should be excused for their behavior. I see no reason not to probe Pooky on why he's following Tally so unquestioningly.
5) Is mostly legit. Both town and scum complain about being run up for stupid reasons, but that kind of reaction is something I'd expect more from scum than from town.
6) Is a stretch. If Cam is indeed scum, then he is deflecting which makes him scummy. HOWEVER, if he is protown, then it is safe to assume that he genuinely suspects Pooky. Thus, his attempts to get people to vote for Pooky are nothing more than attempts to try to get a lynch on someone he believes is scummy. DGB's point here does not follow logically -- she just makes a flat assertion with no backup whatsoever.
7) Is a stretch, possibly moreso than any of the others. I asked EK why she suspected Cam, she made a statement, and Cam asked her to elaborate on why "resistance to self-modding" implied "scum." Asking somebody to elaborate on their thought process is perfectly reasonable.
I am 95% sure that you wagoned Cam first and then sought reasons to suspect him once I asked you if your "suspicion" was legitimate. This is almost always indicative of scum seeking a mislynch. #150: Macros, PostWed May 14, 2008 7:07 pm
----
whats wrong with you people, since when did this become a numbers game? I need 5 reasons, 1.5 over under? WHAT? just play the fucking game dont start throwing this crap out, we've enough to contend with without this bullshit. I think the Cam wagon is a load of turd, I want to vote pooky but theres no point, he coudl be as eassily good as bad, i suppose it works for him. I'm going to vote dgb for blatant wagoning and no more. #151: DrippingGoofball, PostWed May 14, 2008 7:09 pm
----
Nah, mathcam's been rising the hair in the back of my neck. Do you really think that scum would aggressively pursue a mislynch on page 4? First wagons never lead to a lynch, why would I compromise myself if I were scum?
This being said I generally accept your assessment of what is a stretch and what isn't.
As for: A) the rules are unclear (given that the rules post says "You know the rules" or something along those lines); Not sure what you mean because I never read the rules but I do play the game and don't intend anything different here.
And for: B) sabotaging gameposts in the thread is modkillable - that makes sense. If we start doing that, it's not mafia anymore. #152: DrippingGoofball, PostWed May 14, 2008 7:11 pm
----
Macros wrote: I'm going to vote dgb for blatant wagoning and no more. Yes it's blatant day 1 page 4 wagoning. I do believe I see more scumtells than average for mathcam. That's my opinion. #153: Glork, PostWed May 14, 2008 7:28 pm
----
I like that you call it Page 4.
I find it interesting that after making seven points, you agree with me that five of them are stretches.
I find it annoying that you actually use "do you think I would out myself as scum by going for a mislynch on the first real wagon" as a defense. I think that scum are just as likely to jump the first wagon of the game as town, so that does not play a factor into my read of you at all. You will not WIFOM me here, missy. #154: Phoebus, PostWed May 14, 2008 7:48 pm
----
As I see it, post 70 makes a lot of sense to me.
I had a little odd feeling about the whole can we/can we not edit posts discussion...and whether it would show up.
No, it does not show up when person B edits person A's posts even if others have posted later... And no...I don't think this game would be a complete goodie two shoes affair.
Sure, we can agree to pledge to morality and fairness and all that...but then even in a modless game: A] I would believe that this would've been accounted for B] Would not be followed.
Sure, I can see the argument against B being what Mac suggested - you cheated and so we will hunt you.
Now here's the thing...
Perhaps the mafia role allows them to cheat Perhaps it requires them What if one role is the Mod - who can make up whatever rules etc.
Then again, this could also be a paranoia test a la LOST
Having said all of that...
Cam mentioned my vote post.
Whoever said I was voting you for being a non native speaker?
I'm quite aware of your background.
See...Pooky is hard to read. Glork can be abrasive. Mac is... all over the place.
Cam...is supposed to be helpful, if not observant.
I see the first three. Don't see the last one.
Personally, I would not beat at my voters unless they explained their reasons. Cam seems to have gotten defensive over nothing. Any information is information, as I see it.
As of now, we have none.
If Cam's death gives it to us. Great.
My gut also says Cam and like RAJ mentioned - guts aren't exactly at giving solid reasons.
I also see some weird Cam + logic (heh) faction forming.
hmm...I wonder how long it will be before I get attacked for: A] playing by gut B] casting aspersions on Cam (of all people) "without a reason" #155: rajrhcpfreak, PostWed May 14, 2008 9:46 pm
----
vote: mathcam
gut, over meta gaming, i already mentioned it before. just waited for people to respond before a quick lynch. #156: Glork, PostWed May 14, 2008 11:01 pm
----
Lynch-1? I guess Cam should claim. #157: PookyTheMagicalBear, PostThu May 15, 2008 12:05 am
----
Glork is so scum.
Seriously a player gets wagoned on Day ONE.
and you want FIVE REASONS FOR THE WAGON?
The demand on DGB is absurd to begin with, you're almost setting her up to fail.
The idea of needing to produce five solid concrete reasons for THE FIRST DAY ONE BANDWAGON IS ABSOLUTELY ABSURD.
I REPEAT.
ABSOLUTELY ABSURD.
Do you honestly expect a scumbag to commit not just one slip but FIVE SLIPS this early into day one for her to call him out on?
You are just setting her up to fail so you can pounce on her.
It's mindbogglingly stupid play. If we needed FIVE GOOD REASONS to wagon someone on day @#$%ING one we would GET NOWHERE.
And then when she does produce reasons(That aren't an amazing ironclad case, I wonder why. Maybe its cuz she doesnt have much to work with on DAY ONE?)
You hit her with REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEACH.
Which totally pisses me off to no end.
You asked somebody who jumped on the first day one bandwagon for FIVE good reasons when we're only SIX PAGES into the game and you're surprised some of her reasons are a REACH?
Seriously this absolutely reeks of Glork setting up a DGB hit just because
A)She's not that good at defending herself B)She's got enough of a rep on this site to be easily bandwagonable C)She's an easy day one target D)He knew he could get her to post 5 reasons, being its day one he knew they wouldn't be that good.
I'd be absolutely horrified if this was how you play as town.
So here's what I'm going to ask you Glork.
I'll hold you to the same ridiculously stupid standard you've held DGB up to.
Glork, give me five reasons, based on DGB's posts alone, that contribute to her being scum.
unvote vote Glork #158: PookyTheMagicalBear, PostThu May 15, 2008 12:10 am
----
Btw I find it cute that Macros is voting DGB for "blatant bandwagoning"
when he is doing the same thing. #159: ShadowLurker, PostThu May 15, 2008 12:11 am
----
Vote mathcam #160: PookyTheMagicalBear, PostThu May 15, 2008 12:12 am
----
Jathan u bum
get on the glork wagon
its going places. #161: Glork, PostThu May 15, 2008 12:27 am
----
Silly Pooky.
I wanted to see what out DGB would take... i.e., whether she'd actually make up reasons to "suspect" Cam or not. That was the whole point of my interrogation. So I guess that fits into "D" if you want to think of it as maliciously as possible. I see DGB being at least as likely to say that she doesn't have five actual reasons to suspect Cam. If she's town, I see this being more likely the case; if scum, less likely.
To "answer" your request, I'm going to respond probably exactly as you expect me to: I don't have five made up reasons to suspect DGB. I have two good, solid, legitimate ones. 1) She wagoned Cam for the sake of trying to achieve a quick lynch based on her recent "FIRING SQUAD" notion, when I think this that her behavior in this instance is seriously detrimental to the town 2) As I explained earlier, she fired first and then went looking for reasons. If she'd named her two good reasons up front and settled on a Camwagon, I would have been absolutely fine with that. If she'd thrown down the two good reasons and one or two of the bad ones, I may or may not have given her leeway. She didn't do either of them.
Pooky, if I were the "so scum" that you claim, I imagine that I'd've crapped all over her admittance that most of her points weren't very strong. In reality, I'm just not sure what to make of it. It could be DGB actually playing off this Firing Squad shindig with little regard to the immediate consequences of her behavior; it could be her backing off to avoid getting torn to shreds.
Either way, I am reasonably content with my vote right now.
By the way, B) is utter crap. Having "a rep on the site" doesn't mean shit in this game, because none of the players here are players whom I would expect to wagon DGB for being DGB. If this game had MoS, JD, Quag, and Jath... yeah, you'd probably have a point. In this game, with this playerlist, B is moot.
C) is debatable. I'm not sure I have a firm opinion on it.
A) is more or less true, but I do think there's value to be gained from putting pressure on DGB. I feel that I can accurately read her based on interactions (including self-defense) at least 80% of the time. I like having 80% certainty on a player's alignment ASAP (which also explains C well enough).
As far as D goes, see above. Yes, I wanted to see if she'd put out five reasons or not. I will admit that I did not expect her to be able to put out five good reasons. The answer I would expect would be exactly what I said above: "I don't have five reasons, but here is what I do have." The answer she gave indicates something I generally expect scum to do.
Also, Pooky, Jathan isn't in this game. He's not nearly mature enough. Rolling Eyes #162: Glork, PostThu May 15, 2008 12:28 am
----
PookyTheMagicalBear wrote: Btw I find it cute that Macros is voting DGB for "blatant bandwagoning"
when he is doing the same thing. I noticed this, too. Macros is def on my bad list. #163: mathcam, PostThu May 15, 2008 12:51 am
----
elvis_knits wrote: My point is why are you resisting? There is nothing you can do about it other than to not play if you don't trust the players. It's like you're trying to act like townie scared the scum will abuse the setup. Abuse isn't very likely, and also impossible to stop.
I originally resisted because I was (and still am) a confused player of the game, regardless of my alignment. I suppose I had hoped that EmpTyger would come in with more information, though based on what people have said in his responses, I have since realized the futility of this wish. I have continued to discuss these topics because I have had to clarify and/or defend some of my points.
Pooky wrote: Cam's cries of fustration reek of Scumbag who can't believe he might be lynched for no good reason.(Well no good reason from his point of view)
You must have me mentally reading my posts in a much higher and more strained voice than I am writing them. I see no cries of frustration in anything I've written, nor do I see where I got all "worked up," as you mentioned before. Why do you insist on imposing emotional reactions that aren't actually there?
Pooky wrote: Cam, would you disagree with me when I say all random voting on Day one is equivalent to the Divestment of Responsbility i performed when I echoed Talitha's vote?
No. For one, there is no guarantee that a random vote is actually random, and I don't mean in the nitpicky sense that it's likely "arbitrary" or "pseudo-random." There is the possibility that the vote contains a hint from a cop with information, or an inadvertent scum-tell from a mafia. On the other hand, your approach is completely divest of any information.
Pooky wrote: In fact I would argue that I take MORE responsbility for my vote than a player who has divested through random voting due to the fact that I actively picked the player whom I was going to follow, whereas a random voter does not actively pick anything.
Your playful infatuation with Tally is well-known, so it's hardly like you made an in-game decision to "pick" her to follow -- if you had chosen to follow any other player in the game, this argument might possible carry some weight, but as it is, it does not.
I agree that Glork was just setting up DGB to fail, but since she obliged and gave reasons, I feel like I should probably respond to them. In brief:
DGB: Reason 1 - I think it was early enough in a game with no posted rules for some rampant speculation. Even if not, why is this scummy?
Reason 2 - I can see how you can read that as scummy. My intent in that quote was more like "I'm going to have to hear a stronger argument against DGB before I'm convinced, but it would also be nice to hear what she has to say." Parsing it as "It would be great if someone else could really nail DGB" certainly comes off scummy, and since you can't know for sure that's not what I meant, I'll concede you this reason.
Reason 3 - This is not a reason. I agreed with Adel.
Reason 4 - Pooky-like or not, it does not make his actions non-scummy.
Reason 5 - Again, I disagree that my emotional state was any more elevated than in any other post, but I still maintain that at that time, there was extremely little behind any of my votes. Tally's was uncommented, Pooky's was an echo of Tally's, Macros' was a joke, and Phoebus' directly contradicted what he wrote in that post. The whole "for nothing" argument is for people who don't believe the arguments against them have any merit, not against people who literally have no argument against them.
Reason 6 - I'm still hung up on it because people keep talking to me about it, and my questions are still unanswered (not that other people likely have the answers, but because no one else seems interested in what to me is a fairly important question).
Reason 7 - Acts all innocent, or is all innocent? #164: Adel, PostThu May 15, 2008 1:09 am
----
Macros wrote: whats wrong with you people, since when did this become a numbers game? I need 5 reasons, 1.5 over under? WHAT? just play the fucking game dont start throwing this crap out, we've enough to contend with without this bullshit. I think the Cam wagon is a load of turd, I want to vote pooky but theres no point, he coudl be as eassily good as bad, i suppose it works for him. I'm going to vote dgb for blatant wagoning and no more.
This is a great post.
unvote, vote:Marcos #165: Glork, PostThu May 15, 2008 5:13 am
----
Adel is prolly protown.
fyi. #166: PookyTheMagicalBear, PostThu May 15, 2008 6:16 am
----
Everyone is prolly protown
shape up and stop sucking up
it doesnt suit you. #167: Macros, PostThu May 15, 2008 7:57 am
----
I find myself (disgustedly so) agree with pooky, I'm off to work but I'll get a lunchtime post in #168: PookyTheMagicalBear, PostThu May 15, 2008 9:59 am
----
@Glork
The tone of your post was not a questioning one,
"DGB, give me five reasons, based on Mathcam's posts alone, that contribute to him being scum. "
that's a command tone, considering your persona on this website is very much forceful, I don't find it surprising that you issued a command and she buckled under.
You also told her in the follow up upon her initially ignoring you
"DGB, answer one of my questions. Now."
I emphasize the Now part of that as being particularly forceful.
It wasn't so much of a "Do you have 5 reasons to suspect cam and if so what are they?" as much of a "Give me 5 reasons.. NOW"
I'm not quite sure why you imagine she would've been just as likely to deflect with fewer reasons. Also, how do you know she "made up" her reasons post=vote? #169: Phoebus, PostThu May 15, 2008 11:40 am
----
mathcam wrote: I originally resisted because I was (and still am) a confused player of the game, regardless of my alignment.
Emphasis mine.
Yet.... uh.... ??? #170: PookyTheMagicalBear, PostThu May 15, 2008 12:22 pm
----
Basically he's saying that he would be confused about the game and this would be indepedent of his alignment.
Meaning he is saying even if he were a townie, he would be confused about this game.
OR
He is saying that if he were scum or if he were town he would be confused about this game. Which he couldn't know unless he knew there was nothing in the scum PMs to give some idea of the nature of the game we would be playing to the scum thus making them not as confused as the townies.
Which also hints strongly towards his scumitude. #171: Glork, PostThu May 15, 2008 12:29 pm
----
PookyTheMagicalBear wrote: @Glork
The tone of your post was not a questioning one,
"DGB, give me five reasons, based on Mathcam's posts alone, that contribute to him being scum. "
that's a command tone, considering your persona on this website is very much forceful, I don't find it surprising that you issued a command and she buckled under.
You also told her in the follow up upon her initially ignoring you
"DGB, answer one of my questions. Now."
I emphasize the Now part of that as being particularly forceful.
It wasn't so much of a "Do you have 5 reasons to suspect cam and if so what are they?" as much of a "Give me 5 reasons.. NOW"
I'm not quite sure why you imagine she would've been just as likely to deflect with fewer reasons. Also, how do you know she "made up" her reasons post=vote? I was trying to make a point. Here's how I expected the conversation to go:
"5 good reasons now." "I can't do that." "Then how are you being condusive to helping the town or finding scum if you're just shamelessly wagoning?" --response by DGB--
The point I was trying to make is that, even with this "Firing Squad" mentality that DGB has apparently adopted in the last day or two, she should still be using that mentality and her behavior to out scum. Since I did not expect that she really believed mathcam to be scum, I wanted to point out that her wagoning in this instance was :nothelpful:, or I wanted her to convince me that her behavior *was* helpful. When she actually made up reasons to 'suspect' Cam, I was surprised and suspicious. When she backed off and agreed that most of her own points were overblown, I was floored.
Furthermore, I'm surprised that you seem to think that being forceful ("abrasive," even, as Phoebus put it) is a big deal. Remember KM2, when I was browbeating PJ D1 because I wanted him under pressure, and he started cracking and appealing to emotion, then you (his scumbuddy) bailed him out by launching an extremely focused attack against me and my behavior towards PJ? I am very much reminded of that here and now. I would expect you to know that I throw my weight around, because that is very often how I like to operate. You yourself even noted that I have a rep for being forceful. What exactly makes this instance different from the dozens upon dozens of other times when I start throwing the book entire library at someone?
Cam, you still need to claim, as you are still at Lynch-1. #172: DrippingGoofball, PostThu May 15, 2008 12:34 pm
----
Yep, cam isn't claiming, and any player that is at -1 or -2 that delays claiming is a MEGA-scumtell in my book.
Hey Glork I think that would make it flimflam reason that cam is scum #8.
So we have a Glork-mathcam-Macros scumgroup, wow, you guys must have thought "Dream Team, woo!" when you got your PMs. #173: Glork, PostThu May 15, 2008 12:39 pm
----
DGB wrote: Hey Glork I think that would make it flimflam reason that cam is scum #8. You mean valid reason #3, right?
DGB wrote: So we have a Glork-mathcam-Macros scumgroup, wow, you guys must have thought "Dream Team, woo!" when you got your PMs. So Glork, Cam, and Macros have gotten the most suspicion in general so far and now you believe we are a scumgroup. How unbelievably original and insightful. Rolling Eyes #174: DrippingGoofball, PostThu May 15, 2008 12:46 pm
----
Fab!
Three valid reasons should be good enough for anyone.
You're defending mathscum, and Macros rushed to bandwagon any player that's not mathscum, which happened to be me.
It is unbelievably original and insightful, I believe you put the wrong emoticon at the end of the sentence. Wink #175: Glork, PostThu May 15, 2008 12:53 pm
----
DGB, aren't you the same person who, not more than 24 hours ago, said "I wouldn't out myself so obviously this early in the game"? #176: DrippingGoofball, PostThu May 15, 2008 12:56 pm
----
I wouldn't, but you did, haha. #177: Glork, PostThu May 15, 2008 1:02 pm
----
DrippingGoofball wrote: I wouldn't, but you did, haha. ....uh-huh.
I can't honestly tell if you're A) A complete idiot B) Scum C) Just getting wrapped up in this whole Firing Squad thing D) A and C E) A and B F) A, B, and C #178: Phoebus, PostThu May 15, 2008 1:04 pm
----
I'm not sure you should read too much into the Macros thing right now. It's more cam + logic faction that i mentioned earlier.
at least as far as i'm concerned. #179: elvis_knits, PostThu May 15, 2008 1:37 pm
----
Glork, there have been some times I thought you were pretty pro-town this game, but I have questions about why you are doing some of the things you're doing. I'm not really saying they're scummy. I just think there are some inconsistencies:
1) Glork bandwagons DGB without letting cam answer her vote/case.
Even if you don't really like DGB's reasons, usually you would want to hear what cam has to say before you dilute their power. I mean, I think cam can speak for himself. And you should want to hear what cam has to say so you can get a better read on him, right?
2) Glork focuses on DGB over any of the other bandwagoners...
Raj and macros voted cam after DGB, and their reasoning is at least as bad. You mentioned macros is on your bad list, but you are not questioning raj or macros and their actions. Why?
3) DBG always plays like this.
Why are you getting so worked up if you are familiar with her meta? Is there something that you think doesn't fit in her meta? #180: Glork, PostThu May 15, 2008 1:50 pm
----
1) I have a habit of attacking really bad reasoning. I wasn't going to sit around and let DGB's crap reasons seep, whether Cam was around or not.
2) Raj I've sortof skipped over. His vote on Axel intrigued me, because I was pretty certain he didn't see what I thought I had seen. But yes, he has wagon-hopped, and I've just missed him, probably because he's been less active/vocal overall.
3) As I stated, I believe that I can get an accurate read on DGB's alignment most of the time, once I see her get involved in an extensive debate. DGB and I butt heads in-game at least 50% of the time, often over something tangential or seemingly insignificant, but if it helps me read someone, I'm all for it. (Of course, this game happens to be one of the instances where I'm just baffled, rather than having a firm, strong read on her. I'm still working on it.) #181: Macros, PostThu May 15, 2008 5:00 pm
----
Quote: So we have a Glork-mathcam-Macros scumgroup, wow, you guys must have thought "Dream Team, woo!" when you got your PMs.
holy shit you're good dgb, you caught us all in one fell swoop. I've never claimed to be a good player, but I'd like to think I'm not stupid enough to climb into cams bed in public if I was his partner (though I'd say he'd enjoy it) I'm not going to change my vote, DGb is being to pushy and I dont like it, i dont like this whole 'numbers and tells" game its crap, everyone has a different agenda and playing style so everyone performance (pooky aside) is different every game. the only obvious scumtell are "hey look at me I'm mafia!" or " dont vote barney, hes my killing partner" Quote: Yes it's blatant day 1 page 4 wagoning. I do believe I see more scumtells than average for mathcam. That's my opinion. Pardon me if I don't value your opinion #182: PookyTheMagicalBear, PostThu May 15, 2008 9:04 pm
----
You going on a hitjob on PJ made sense from a protown perspective cuz he could handle it. It makes sense because it looked like you were trying to get a grip on PJ's alignment.
None of that browbeating contained the type of loaded crap you've tossed at DGB.(well at least not in a serious tone as I can remember)
When you go on a hitjob on DGB it looks a helluva more like you are going for blood.(I mean why didnt you do the same to the people who jumped on prior to DGB?, looked like you were just waiting for an easy target to blast)
When you did that hitjob on PJ on day one, you weren't seriously out for his blood(considering he was the King, I don't see how you could've expected to get him lynched)
this hitjob on DGB however does have the potential of lynching DGB, and you look far more like a player going for the throat than any reactions. #183: rajrhcpfreak, PostThu May 15, 2008 9:20 pm
----
i buy the cam-glork-macros scum team.
this constant badgering people about how they voted and then letting cam avoid a claim is pretty scummy in my book.
the glork addition is weaker because of his abrasive style. so those two could be following the lead of a crazy person.
note: macros and cam were two out of the three people asking me to defend a hunch. the third of course was the person my hunch was against #184: elvis_knits, PostThu May 15, 2008 9:32 pm
----
Although I don't really like some of Glork's behavior, I don't really think he's scum. Mostly because of this post:
Glork wrote: DISCLAIMER: The upcoming post does not necessarily reflect what my own role may or may not be/include. I am merely using it as the simplest example I can think of off the top of my head, so as to make a point to Axel.
Consider the case of a mountainous game (aside from "mod powers" such as VCing). At night, the Mafia could simply PM their target saying something along the lines of "We are killing you. Please open the thread and reveal your role to the other players" -- perhaps even from an alt/anonymous account. The deceased player (n this case, Zu_Faul) complies, and the rest of us move on with our lives.
In the absence of a "killer" alt for PMing purposes, a situation such as the above example would create an interesting scenario in which the scums would have to rely on victims' honesty to not reveal their identities while the town relies on the scums to reveal themselves truthfully and to adhere to conventional game rules.
This mechanism of mafia submitting kills seems very likely. It immediately made sense to me, and I can't actually think of a better way for it to go down. And I guess this is WIFOM, but I can't see any real mafioso posting this. I know a mafioso could do it for that exact reason, etc. BUT. I think it's pretty unlikely. If it were me, I would avoid commenting on mafia killing mechanisms at all. The potential for getting myself in trouble is just too great.
Thoughts? #185: rajrhcpfreak, PostThu May 15, 2008 9:37 pm
----
yes it's WIFOM.
scum could be helpful by telling us. but the town knowing that info is useless in the big picture of the game. #186: elvis_knits, PostThu May 15, 2008 9:39 pm
----
Yeah but revealing it has so much potential for slipping or people being like "how do you know that" that I don't think mafia would reveal it.
I would just stay away if I was mafia.
Would you think about revealing it? #187: rajrhcpfreak, PostThu May 15, 2008 9:44 pm
----
we are all good mafia players, especially glork.
his statement makes sense. talking about this is a huge wifom.
and for the record, i would reveal it. helping the town is always good. you will never be questioned for helping the town. because the only way to turn it back onto you is a wifom. #188: Adel, PostFri May 16, 2008 1:51 am
----
elvis_knits wrote: Although I don't really like some of Glork's behavior, I don't really think he's scum. Mostly because of this post:
Glork wrote:
DISCLAIMER: The upcoming post does not necessarily reflect what my own role may or may not be/include. I am merely using it as the simplest example I can think of off the top of my head, so as to make a point to Axel.
Consider the case of a mountainous game (aside from "mod powers" such as VCing). At night, the Mafia could simply PM their target saying something along the lines of "We are killing you. Please open the thread and reveal your role to the other players" -- perhaps even from an alt/anonymous account. The deceased player (n this case, Zu_Faul) complies, and the rest of us move on with our lives.
In the absence of a "killer" alt for PMing purposes, a situation such as the above example would create an interesting scenario in which the scums would have to rely on victims' honesty to not reveal their identities while the town relies on the scums to reveal themselves truthfully and to adhere to conventional game rules.
This mechanism of mafia submitting kills seems very likely. It immediately made sense to me, and I can't actually think of a better way for it to go down. And I guess this is WIFOM, but I can't see any real mafioso posting this. I know a mafioso could do it for that exact reason, etc. BUT. I think it's pretty unlikely. If it were me, I would avoid commenting on mafia killing mechanisms at all. The potential for getting myself in trouble is just too great.
Thoughts?
ah, this makes sense to me now. If the scum are cheating (editing posts, or whatever) then they effectivly lose their NK. #189: Glork, PostFri May 16, 2008 1:54 am
----
rajrhcpfreak wrote: i buy the cam-glork-macros scum team. I know this is going to be called OMGUS by at least one or two people, but this is ridiculous.
Unvote, Vote: RAJ #190: Glork, PostFri May 16, 2008 1:54 am
----
EBWOP: Yes, Adel. That's exactly why I think there's some kind of self-balancing "honor system" both ways. #191: Macros, PostFri May 16, 2008 7:22 am
----
Why are you denying our super team glork? embrace it, we're good ftw with sucha team! quick, climb into bed with me and cam!! I'm not even going to defend against this accusation because Its so ridicukously lame, if i was in cam and glorks team I wouldn't be associating with them in anyway, please, I know I'm not the best of players but give me some fucking credit #192: PookyTheMagicalBear, PostFri May 16, 2008 7:54 am
----
WIFOM much? #193: Glork, PostFri May 16, 2008 4:16 pm
----
PookyTheMagicalBear wrote: WIFOM much? I don't think you honestly believe that the three of us are scum together either. #194: elvis_knits, PostFri May 16, 2008 5:21 pm
----
cam is lurking.
Otherwise I could vote raj. #195: mathcam, PostFri May 16, 2008 7:18 pm
----
I am not lurking. I missed a single day of posting, and am one of the most active posters in this game. FOS: Elvis for that.
Pooky, it has happened several times this game that you have questioned or attacked me, I've submitted a response, and you've completely dropped that line of attack. Is that because you concede that the argument wasn't as strong as you thought? If so, why does that never seem to weigh against your conviction that I'm scum? If not, why do you drop them?
In any case, here's the most recent one:
PookyTheMagicalBear wrote:
OR...He is saying that if he were scum or if he were town he would be confused about this game. Which he couldn't know unless he knew there was nothing in the scum PMs to give some idea of the nature of the game we would be playing to the scum thus making them not as confused as the townies.
Which also hints strongly towards his scumitude.
No matter which side I'm on, I couldn't possibly know what the role PMs of the other side look like, and/or what information they've been given. Thus regardless of my alignment, I would have had to make a presumption on the other side's role PM. My claim was based on the (IMO) reasonable speculation that no side has been given more information on the rules of the game than the other.
On a related note, I'm very suspicious of Glork, raj, and DGB for pushing for a claim. In my role PM, there is a very clearly delineated difference between my alignment and my role. There's no doubt that I will claim pro-town as my alignment, and given that my role is presumably independent of my alignment, I'm not sure what there is to gain from that either. Not only is it therefore bad play to claim (unnecessarily giving away information), it's also scummy to push for a claim. It's also possible that the scum role/alignment structure is set up differently, and thus that scum didn't know how worthless it would be to push for a claim. Raj is the scummiest of those three, so he gets my vote.
Unvote: Pooky, vote: Raj.
If raj turns up scum, DGB and Glork are quite clearly going to become my next targets.
Cam #196: rajrhcpfreak, PostFri May 16, 2008 7:32 pm
----
pretty confident, since cam is refusing to claim fully.
i like that all the people i said that could be a scum group, voted for me... omgus much? #197: mathcam, PostFri May 16, 2008 7:35 pm
----
You have just completely ignored my argument that it would be demonstrably foolish for me to claim. I would also refuse to self-lynch, not because I'm being obstinate, but because it's patently bad play.
If you can provide an even mildly reasonable counter-argument, I would be happy to claim.
Cam #198: mathcam, PostFri May 16, 2008 7:40 pm
----
Adel wrote: ah, this makes sense to me now. If the scum are cheating (editing posts, or whatever) then they effectivly lose their NK.
I'm confused. How so? #199: logicticus, PostFri May 16, 2008 8:05 pm
----
mathcam wrote: Adel wrote:
ah, this makes sense to me now. If the scum are cheating (editing posts, or whatever) then they effectivly lose their NK.
I'm confused. How so?
I was confused too, but I think I figured it out.
Assuming that the nightkill is PMed from the scum (as was hypothesized), then the nightkill knows the identity of at least one scum and could post that in their final post if the scum is cheating in some way.
Although, this logic is a bit flawed because what would stop the scum from editing that post?
In the end it all comes down to a code of honor that we all have from being members on this site for a while which is why its mature mafia. #200: ShadowLurker, PostFri May 16, 2008 9:42 pm
----
but someone has already broken that honor multiple times as the first two posts have been edited multiple times #201: elvis_knits, PostFri May 16, 2008 9:55 pm
----
mathcam wrote: I am not lurking. I missed a single day of posting, and am one of the most active posters in this game. FOS: Elvis for that.
Sort of funny how you posted a few hours after I called you a lurker.
mathcam wrote: On a related note, I'm very suspicious of Glork, raj, and DGB for pushing for a claim. In my role PM, there is a very clearly delineated difference between my alignment and my role. There's no doubt that I will claim pro-town as my alignment, and given that my role is presumably independent of my alignment, I'm not sure what there is to gain from that either. Not only is it therefore bad play to claim (unnecessarily giving away information), it's also scummy to push for a claim. It's also possible that the scum role/alignment structure is set up differently, and thus that scum didn't know how worthless it would be to push for a claim. Raj is the scummiest of those three, so he gets my vote.
Unvote: Pooky, vote: Raj.
If raj turns up scum, DGB and Glork are quite clearly going to become my next targets.
Cam
The way you are alluding to the way your role/allignment is set up satisfies me.
unvote cam; vote raj
Although, I am not seeing the raj/DGB/Glork connection. #202: rajrhcpfreak, PostFri May 16, 2008 11:02 pm
----
so we shouldn't ever claim? or your just special enough not to?
you gave us nothing. we can all say that we are protown. i doubt there will be someone with the balls to claim neutral or scum at this point. so the only thing that can help us is your role. and you avoiding telling us is scummier than someone wanting the person with the most votes to claim.
mafia is uninformed vs informed. your holding info back from the town. and calling an uninformed player scummy.
on the topic, i don't see how i am connected to glork either.
and ek, you claim your mafia skills have been slow since coming back to the site. but is this a case of bad play or scum wagon? you've played with me before, the only thing i am guilty of is accusing too many people which isn't too different from my usual style, much like glork's abrasiveness. and asking for someone at -1 or -2 to claim, which in 99% of the games on this site is perfectly acceptable. #203: Adel, PostFri May 16, 2008 11:07 pm
----
ShadowLurker wrote: but someone has already broken that honor multiple times as the first two posts have been edited multiple times
whose alt is Shadow Lurker? rajrhcpfreak? #204: rajrhcpfreak, PostFri May 16, 2008 11:17 pm
----
shdowlurker is a 10 year old, i type like a 10 year old. thats the difference. #205: elvis_knits, PostFri May 16, 2008 11:23 pm
----
raj... when I first came back I was stupider about mafia than before. However, now I think I am back to my old form. Confused
I'm not voting you for asking cam to claim. I did that too, which he seems not to notice...
I actually thought it was pretty weird you accepting the cam-glork-Macros scum group so easily. #206: elvis_knits, PostFri May 16, 2008 11:23 pm
----
Adel wrote: ShadowLurker wrote:
but someone has already broken that honor multiple times as the first two posts have been edited multiple times
whose alt is Shadow Lurker? rajrhcpfreak?
As far as I know, he is not an alt, but an uninvited guest. #207: Adel, PostFri May 16, 2008 11:34 pm
----
I still have a nagging suspicion that something weird is going on.
unvote, vote:ShadowLurker #208: rajrhcpfreak, PostFri May 16, 2008 11:34 pm
----
as you see in my original post:
rajrhcpfreak wrote: the glork addition is weaker because of his abrasive style. so those two could be following the lead of a crazy person.
glork's is so abrasive than its easy for people to follow the lead. but they are all protecting the cam claim. thats why i finally decided that its plausible for him to be scum with them. #209: mathcam, PostSat May 17, 2008 1:40 am
----
elvis_knits wrote: mathcam wrote:FOS: Elvis for that.
I am not lurking. I missed a single day of posting, and am one of the most active posters in this game.
Sort of funny how you posted a few hours after I called you a lurker.
If you accuse an active player of lurking, it's not surprising that their next post is relatively soon after that accusation.
elvis_knits wrote: I'm not voting you for asking cam to claim. I did that too, which he seems not to notice...
True enough. I only searched pages 7 and 8 for the word "claim."
I guess my theory that people asking me to claim are scum is pretty moot, based on the number of people who fall in that category. Let me ask you, elvis -- given that you seem to buy my argument about claiming, why would you ask me to claim in the first place?
elvis wrote: As far as I know, he is not an alt, but an uninvited guest.
Personally, I suspect that there is more to it than that. Either he's a by-product of someone's role, or it's something like emp_tyger has asked him to post in the thread to test us. It's tough to know what to do here -- a "mature" player in the sense we've been interpreting it would PM mith and ask for SL to be given a warning or a banning for so blatantly breaking the rules of the forum. I'm reluctant to take this social experiment to a site-wide level, though.
raj wrote: so we shouldn't ever claim? or your just special enough not to?
I've made an argument as to why I should not claim in this situation, and don't presume to have made any sort of global generalization like you're implying in your first question. My argument had nothing to do with me in particular. But more to the point, this is not a counter-argument, for which I am still waiting.
Cam #210: DrippingGoofball, PostSat May 17, 2008 1:48 am
----
mathcam = resistance to claim
Resistance to claim = scum
Therefore:
mathcam = scum
mathcam, claim or die. #211: Glork, PostSat May 17, 2008 3:11 am
----
mathcam wrote: On a related note, I'm very suspicious of Glork, raj, and DGB for pushing for a claim. Oh, I'm sorry. Apparently where you're from, people don't claim when they get run up to Lynch-1.
And yes, we know that everyone has separate quotes for alignment and role. How does that make your claiming any less useful than in a traditional game, where there can be both protown and scum variants of pretty much every common role? Do you refuse to claim in regular games when you're about to be lynched?
ShadowLurker (aka Jathan) is not anyone's alt, and as far as I know, he's not in the game. I'm pretty sure he's posting in the thread just to fuck around with us. He never posted in the sign-up thread, and his name is not listed in the playerlist in the signup thread. (Note that none of us have mod powers in there -- except Tally, I guess, as she's a List Mod, but that's beside the point.) I've PMed the mod to ask if he is in the game. I suspect I'll ether get a non-answer, or confirmation that he's not. But seriously, I would ignore SL's posts. #212: Adel, PostSat May 17, 2008 4:01 am
----
ok, I'm going to take a stand here. The mathcam wagon is a bullshit semi-random (probably fueled by scum) nonsense.
He shouldn't claim since he shouldn't be at lynch -1!
Someone please unvote him, soonest!
Otherwise, I guess he will have to claim, but it shouldn't come to that.
DGB will the "mafia firingsquad" thread as meta-cover is behind this, and I feel she is a much stronger lynch candidate than mathcam is. If nothing else, her association with this wagon should give the rest of you pause. At least unvote now and think about it. #213: Talitha, PostSat May 17, 2008 4:28 am
----
Sorry all, the last few days (and pages) got away on me. I'll catch up very soon. #214: Adel, PostSat May 17, 2008 4:32 am
----
Talitha wrote: So your vote for "explicit" and Coron's vote for "count" count?
Vote: ditch the lame script unvote: ditch vote: mathcam unvote mathcam first, please. #215: Talitha, PostSat May 17, 2008 4:35 am
----
unvote: cam #216: Adel, PostSat May 17, 2008 4:36 am
----
thank you #217: rajrhcpfreak, PostSat May 17, 2008 8:46 am
----
Adel wrote: I feel she [DBG] is a much stronger lynch candidate than mathcam is. If nothing else, her association with this wagon should give the rest of you pause. At least unvote now and think about it.
you know at right i did, not i haven't gotten the same scummy vibes i had in the beginning of the game. #218: DrippingGoofball, PostSat May 17, 2008 12:39 pm
----
The cam wagon has far more merit than the nascent raj wagon. If a wagon was ever fueled by scum, it would be the latter, rather than the former.
mathcam refuses to claim, I repeat, this is a MEGA scumtell.
Mega mega mega.
Even if we had no reason to wagon mathcam before, now he have a huge reason.
And then some players are attempting to distract mathcam from claiming by starting a wagon on Raj. Raj??? Pretty flimsy. One of these players is Glork, whom I believe may be mathcam's partner.
FOS the raj-wagon riders #219: Phoebus, PostSat May 17, 2008 2:51 pm
----
pff.
as far as i'm concerned. waffle waffle.
confirm vote: cam #220: Phoebus, PostSat May 17, 2008 2:53 pm
----
Adel wrote: I still have a nagging suspicion that something weird is going on.
unvote, vote:ShadowLurker
Also: Um...what? #221: Axelrod, PostSat May 17, 2008 3:27 pm
----
Generally, Mathcam, you claim when you are in range. This is true whether or not the reasons people are giving for putting you in claim range are good or bad.
Plus, there's one thing you've said that's a definite Red Flag for me (which I am not saying what it is yet, so there) and I'd like to hear a claim at this point as well. #222: mathcam, PostSat May 17, 2008 5:15 pm
----
DGB wrote: mathcam refuses to claim, I repeat, this is a MEGA scumtell.
Ah, I've found where you're confused. This sentence is false.
Being snarky aside (there it is, Pooky), I've repeatedly explained why it is bad play for me to claim in this situation. Why don't you explain what about my argument you find invalid, instead of repeating the same inane phrase over and over again.
Axelrod wrote: Generally, Mathcam, you claim when you are in range. This is true whether or not the reasons people are giving for putting you in claim range are good or bad.
Not in split role-motive games. There is nothing in my role that could be used to determine if I was scum or not. It only gives away information to mafia about who they would like to kill if they would like to eliminate some mod power from the game. Why doesn't anyone else see this?
Glork wrote: Oh, I'm sorry. Apparently where you're from, people don't claim when they get run up to Lynch-1.
And yes, we know that everyone has separate quotes for alignment and role. How does that make your claiming any less useful than in a traditional game, where there can be both protown and scum variants of pretty much every common role? Do you refuse to claim in regular games when you're about to be lynched?
Are you serious? The whole point (and I can't seem to emphasize this enough) of separating alignments from roles is to make the claiming of one's role significantly less important than it is in other games. In non-split games, of course one claims when one is at lynch-1.
As I have also already said, this is not a refusal to claim based on one of those obnoxious meta-"I never claim" rules. It is just clearly a bad play in this particular situation. Would someone please try to poke a hole in this argument?
Cam #223: Phoebus, PostSat May 17, 2008 5:17 pm
----
No. Die. #224: Axelrod, PostSat May 17, 2008 5:35 pm
----
I just want to hear the "Alignment" part of your claim. I don't really care about the "Role" part. I agree that the "Role" part could be town/scum equally and there's not a real basis to tell the difference. But not the "Alignment" part, so I don't get what you are saying there. #225: elvis_knits, PostSat May 17, 2008 5:51 pm
----
mathcam wrote: Let me ask you, elvis -- given that you seem to buy my argument about claiming, why would you ask me to claim in the first place?
It's not that I buy your argument about claiming. It's something about how you alluded to how your claim is set up that made me unvote you.
mathcam wrote: elvis wrote:
As far as I know, he is not an alt, but an uninvited guest.
Personally, I suspect that there is more to it than that. Either he's a by-product of someone's role, or it's something like emp_tyger has asked him to post in the thread to test us. It's tough to know what to do here -- a "mature" player in the sense we've been interpreting it would PM mith and ask for SL to be given a warning or a banning for so blatantly breaking the rules of the forum. I'm reluctant to take this social experiment to a site-wide level, though.
I expect that someone should have been given the task of deleting non-player posts. I ask that that person delete jathan's posts now, and send him a pm to stop posting here as it is distracting us from the game.
If nobody has been assigned the task, I would do it if everyone wanted me to/agreed.
I don't believe Jathan is screwing with us because Emptyger told him to, or that Jathan is a by-product of a role. Seems far-fetched to me, and not fair considering the other stuff we have to deal with in this game.
Actually, I do have a question: JATHAN... did you edit any posts in this game? #226: mathcam, PostSat May 17, 2008 10:54 pm
----
Phoebus wrote: No.
No to what? No, you refuse to engage in reasonable discussion?
Quote: I don't believe Jathan is screwing with us because Emptyger told him to, or that Jathan is a by-product of a role. Seems far-fetched to me, and not fair considering the other stuff we have to deal with in this game.
It seems far more far-fetched to me than SL would post in a game he's not in, a game that happens to be ill-equipped to deal with such an interloper.
Cam #227: DrippingGoofball, PostSat May 17, 2008 11:04 pm
----
mathcam, I'm looking really hard, I'm reading your post over and over, but I can't seem to find your claim.
Can you point it out to me?
Many thanks. #228: Adel, PostSat May 17, 2008 11:11 pm
----
unvote, vote:DGB #229: mathcam, PostSat May 17, 2008 11:24 pm
----
DrippingGoofball wrote: mathcam, I'm looking really hard, I'm reading your post over and over, but I can't seem to find your claim.
Which post were you reading?
Don't you think it would be better to take a broader stance and examine all my posts not only for a claim, but also for remarkably compelling reasons why I shouldn't claim in the first place?
Honestly, DGB. I'm not going to make a demonstrably bad play just because you refuse to listen to -- nay, even consider listening to -- reason.
Cam #230: DrippingGoofball, PostSat May 17, 2008 11:27 pm
----
mathcam wrote: Don't you think it would be better to take a broader stance and examine all my posts not only for a claim... Oh, so there's a claim. Where is it? #231: ShadowLurker, PostSun May 18, 2008 7:15 am
----
i hope this doesnt come off as omgus but i find it suspicious that the editing of posts stopped right after adel thought there might be penalties for the scum for editing posts #232: Adel, PostSun May 18, 2008 8:03 am
----
ok so all players in this game were granted moderator rights and so have the ability to edit their own posts.
@Shadowlurker: please edit your above post (#230) to prove that you are legally allowed to post in this game thread. Otherwise you risk not only being considered a rude interloper, you risk the wrath of everyone playing in this game. #233: Talitha, PostSun May 18, 2008 10:48 am
----
Where's Coron when you need a vote count?
After catching up on the last several pages I've sort of gone off cam as a lynchee. He's right that there really isn't a case against him. Also, the must claim at lynch-1 thing is news to me. I think that in any game the when and if of claiming should be up to the individual. If we don't like it we can vote to lynch them.
I am interested in both the DGB and Raj wagons, but wondering whether they are scum or just tantalising lynch bait. Raj's post 129 in particular made me want to vote him.
Then there's logicticus, who raised my hackles a little as I was reading through.
Some things that are confusing me: 1. Shadow Lurker - Do you think you're playing in this game? Why? Your posts here don't seem to fit the troll profile. 2. If we all have some kind of mod powers, how come zu_faul said he was vanilla (or whatever it was that people saw before the post got edited)? 3. What happens to our powers when we die? Can we delegate someone else to continue our job? 4. Why do posts 87-91 read so weird? Did someone edit them? 5. Would it actually hurt if we all claimed? It might make the game easier. #234: Phoebus, PostSun May 18, 2008 12:19 pm
----
A modless game is one thing but I'm having certain reservations about an interloping player.
I am not too happy about this. We need to have some sort of consensus on it.
It's enough that we need to figure out what exactly is happening here with the mod refusing to answer questions with original answers. I'm not interested in getting my brain frazzled with randomness.
As far as I'm concerned, his posts could just be nuked. Persona non grata - until proven otherwise. #235: Macros, PostSun May 18, 2008 1:18 pm
----
sorry foir my absence but the weekend is fun times for macros, going golfing now, i'll read upto date later (post 5ish gmt) #236: Phoebus, PostSun May 18, 2008 1:47 pm
----
Surprised Golf?! Shocked #237: Axelrod, PostSun May 18, 2008 2:01 pm
----
Talitha wrote: Some things that are confusing me: 1. Shadow Lurker - Do you think you're playing in this game? Why? Your posts here don't seem to fit the troll profile. 2. If we all have some kind of mod powers, how come zu_faul said he was vanilla (or whatever it was that people saw before the post got edited)? 3. What happens to our powers when we die? Can we delegate someone else to continue our job? 4. Why do posts 87-91 read so weird? Did someone edit them? 5. Would it actually hurt if we all claimed? It might make the game easier. 1. Shadowlurker posts in games he is not playing. He's rude like that. That is my current assumption here as well. 2. I have not been assuming that everyone has Mod. powers (or rather, Mod. duties). Completely vanilla townies seem very possible. 3. Dunno. 4. posts 87-91 have not been edited, I remember that sequence. 5. I don't think it would hurt too much for the claiming of "Mod" powers, as I suspect they don't have much effect on the overall game.
I still want Mathcan to claim for devious reasons of my own devising. #238: elvis_knits, PostSun May 18, 2008 2:44 pm
----
I think shadowlurker is a red herring and whoever has the ability should modkill/delete his posts.
It is very weird to me that people are thinking he is somehow part of the game. If you know something, spill it. Otherwise, Jathan is just a punk distracting us. #239: Glork, PostSun May 18, 2008 3:06 pm
----
Axelrod wrote: 1. Shadowlurker posts in games he is not playing. He's rude like that. That is my current assumption here as well. That's currently what I'm thinking, but I'm going to ask a few other not-in-the-game people if they have mod powers or not. If so, I'm going to ask for replacement, as I feel the game would be compromised (because I could see SL screwing around with posts). If not, SL continues to be an annoying-but-harmless little boy.
Axel wrote: 2. I have not been assuming that everyone has Mod. powers (or rather, Mod. duties). Completely vanilla townies seem very possible. Bzzt. Seriously, guys. Use the signup thread. I think it's the most guidance we're going to get in this game. #240: Phoebus, PostSun May 18, 2008 3:08 pm
----
Axelrod wrote: 1. Shadowlurker posts in games he is not playing. He's rude like that. That is my current assumption here as well.
Is this a fact?
Can you link to other games?
If there is a "body of rudeness", I'd consider appealing to the Boss. That is one distraction we could definitely do without here. #241: Phoebus, PostSun May 18, 2008 3:13 pm
----
Quote: That's currently what I'm thinking, but I'm going to ask a few other not-in-the-game people if they have mod powers or not.
Actually, I've been wondering about this.
How were mod powers achieved without being added to a certain group? I'm aware groups can be hidden from public view but the people in the groups know about its existence.
Did any of you get any notification of being added to a group? I already have powers as a List Mod. I was wondering if perhaps people with modding privileges in Theme Park were the only ones with edit capabilities. That theory has been shot...but yeah...what's the deal?
Like I mentioned before, I was not impressed with the mod's reply about SL and replacement has crossed my mind. At this time though, it seems a little hasty and petulant...
Thoughts? #242: Glork, PostSun May 18, 2008 3:15 pm
----
Okay, I just spoke to Mizzy, and here's what she gets: Mizzy wrote: You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot moderate your topics in this forum
I just logged in as Gaspar, and here's what I see:
Gaspar wrote: You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can vote in polls in this forum
You cannot moderate your topics in this forum
I am going to ask Mizzy to try to post here. I am also going to make a test post with Gaspar, and then I will try to edit it. #243: Phoebus, PostSun May 18, 2008 3:15 pm
----
Triple post. Sorry but...
Tals...did the approval for this come from you? Or should that be checked with the Boss also?
This is not some weird Ten Little Indians Thing going on here, is it? #244: Glork, PostSun May 18, 2008 3:16 pm
----
EBWOP: Fixing tags
Okay, I just spoke to Mizzy, and here's what she gets: Mizzy wrote: You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot moderate your topics in this forum
I just logged in as Gaspar, and here's what I see:
Gaspar wrote: You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can vote in polls in this forum
You cannot moderate your topics in this forum
I am going to ask Mizzy to try to post here. I am also going to make a test post with Gaspar, and then I will try to edit it. #245: Gaspar, PostSun May 18, 2008 3:16 pm
----
Test post by Gaspar, as Glork... #246: Glork, PostSun May 18, 2008 3:22 pm
----
I'm reasonably certain that ShadowLurker can't moderate anything. I would suggest that, for archiving purposes, we leave the posts he has made thus far and simply delete all future posts of his on sight. #247: Axelrod, PostSun May 18, 2008 3:28 pm
----
Phoebus wrote: Axelrod wrote:
1. Shadowlurker posts in games he is not playing. He's rude like that. That is my current assumption here as well.
Is this a fact?
Can you link to other games?
If there is a "body of rudeness", I'd consider appealing to the Boss. That is one distraction we could definitely do without here. Possibly I am being unfair here. I was looking at the endgame of raj's "War to End all Freaktowns" and happened to see SL posting there when he was not playing - but it looks like he might have been helping the Mod. at some point during that game, which makes some difference. Dunno.
@Glork: I am aware that everyone in the game has "Modding Privileges". This is not the same as everyone having a specific "duty" as part of this game (like Elvis saying he's the "Executioner" etc.) I think some people have the Mod. privileges but no specific Mod. related duties to go with them.
Either that or zu_Faul was scum and lied when he said he was vanilla, and the scum are being allowed to hide the fact that scum was NKed (which begs the question "Who killed zu_Faul if he himself was scum").
Or zu_Faul was town but lied about being vanilla after his death? I doubt that. #248: Glork, PostSun May 18, 2008 3:34 pm
----
Oh, I see. Sorry, I misunderstood. In that case, yes; I agree with you. #249: Glork, PostSun May 18, 2008 3:35 pm
----
Also, Gaspar can't edit anything. 99% sure that SL is harmless. Let's get back to playing the game now. #250: elvis_knits, PostSun May 18, 2008 3:39 pm
----
I checked my alt and PP can't edit other people's posts in here. #251: DrippingGoofball, PostSun May 18, 2008 3:51 pm
----
I like>>> Axelrod wrote: I still want Mathcan to claim for devious reasons of my own devising. Very much. #252: Phoebus, PostSun May 18, 2008 4:02 pm
----
Also: We might want to decide how long we let discussion/day go on in general.
Anybody in charge of deadlines? I'd rather not swim around in endless days... #253: Adel, PostSun May 18, 2008 4:03 pm
----
I suddenly suspect that Emptiger edited zu's post, and that Sl is posting here with her permission.
I think we would be best off if we ignore both.
Wiki software would be the easiest way to detect changes in the game.
Go to http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?printertopic=1&t=8286&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0&finish_rel=-10000 to view all posts, select all text, then copy paste onto a wiki page. Once in awhile edit that wiki page, and then the history page for that wiki page will show any changes.
fyi. #254: Axelrod, PostSun May 18, 2008 6:00 pm
----
Okay, so, in the interests of "playing Mafia" let's take a closer look at this whole Mathcam Wagon, shall we?
First Vote, Post #9: From Macros. This is clearly a joke vote. Nothing to see here.
Second Vote, Post #13: From Phoebus. No explanation given. One assumes this is still simply a random vote.
Post #22 Pooky makes his announcement that he will vote for whoever Talitha votes for. Again, this is rather obviously a joke. I did fully expect him to follow up on this promise whenever Talitha voted though.
Third Vote: Talitha appears and votes Math. Again appears to be simply an initial random vote.
Fourth Vote: Pooky follow through on his threat to vote whoever Talitha votes for.
So it's quite true that Mathcam got up to 4 votes very quickly based really on nothing.
Mathcam himself has nothing to say about the fact he is at 4 votes in his next post. I'm not saying that he needed to say anything about it - as noted, the votes were pretty much worthless - but there it is.
Pooky then prods Mathcam a little bit, in what I would take to be (1) still a joke, but (2) also legitimate attempt to get a reaction out of another player.
Mathcam continue to ignore this particular situation in his next post. I'm still not calling this scummy. Everything that has happened so far has been pretty much joking and no one is seriously questioning Mathcam, so him ignoring 4 votes is probably okay.
Talitha revotes Mathcam here, but again, it appears to be mainly a joke, with her try to mess with Adel's vote counting program script.
Now it gets interesting.
Post #76: Mathcam votes for Pooky. This, conversely to what has gone before, is not a joke vote. It's a serious vote based on Pooky's "disavowing" any responsibility for his own vote. It's almost like a delayed OMGUS vote, because it comes quite a bit after Pooky's vote, which Mathcam had previously ignored.
Pooky's response is here, which seems completely reasonable to me. Basically, what's the big deal?
Mathcam is a bit flippant in his response here.
Post #102: Mathcam appears to suddenly realize that he is actually at 4 votes for the first time. He expresses "confusion" over why he has 4 votes. For some reason he understands Macros's vote (joke), but doesn't understand that the other posts were equally joking/without reason 1st votes. He re-explains why he is voting for Pooky, but does not try to press that case, and goes on to talk about something else.
Fifth Vote: Elvis_knits. He has his own independant reason to vote Mathcam, which is what he perceives to be Mathcam's fear-mongering (my words).
Logicticus doesn't see the case here (and this would be the case that Elvis_knits was making, not anyone else, since no one else had made any kind of case at all).
Glork "more or less" agrees with Logic here. Asks weird question about the over/under for scum on the Mathcam wagon.
Macros confirms his vote was a joke vote here. Doesn't unvote though. Does not appear to be paying very close attention to the game.
Raj makes an interesting post here. He says Mathcam's last post is enough to convince him to vote Mathcam, but he won't do it yet because that would put Math at L-1. Says he'll wait until "tonight" so as not to rush the lynch.
This post is one of the main reasons I'm still voting for Raj. right now. It's really scummy.
Mathcam posts again here, and is still pushing the Pooky thing. This is another post of his that I don't like.
My next question is to Talitha, who hasn't said much up to this point.
Macros will Unvote at post #116. Mathcam is now at four votes.
'Cam continues to make a push against Pooky in #118.
Pooky comes back at #130 and now he appears to like his vote as a real vote. Says Mathcam's posts reek of scum who is frustrated he's getting voted for no good reason. This is not a completely unreasonable assesment, in my opinion.
Next Vote (vote #5 again): DGB. This appears to be in accordance with her newly announced strategy of voting someone to make something happen, regardless of reasons.
Elvis wants a Mathcam claim at #134.
Glork votes DGB at #135 for blindly pushing wagons.
Glork wants DGB to give him 5 reasons why Mathcam is scum in #139 (or 5 reasons why shamelessly bandwaggoning is good for the town)
DGB responds here. Actually comes up with seven reasons. Clearly these are slanted, not really being "objective" but from the perspective of someone who is trying to prove someone else is scum. I don't think they are all bad though. I didn't like when Mathcam asked for something "stronger" against DBG early on either. And I didn't like the delayed vote on Pooky which Mathcam seemed to push more and more as time went on.
Phoebus makes a long post at #153 which ends with him not changing his vote. I would presume at this point that his initial "random" vote has now been converted to a serious vote. It's very hard to tell exactly what his reasoning is in this post though because it's so confusingly written.
Sixth Vote at #154: Raj. Following through on his previous threat to vote. Says it's mainly "gut." Still scummy.
Glork agrees Mathcam should claim now that he's at L-1 in #155.
Pooky then switches his vote from Mathcam to Glork in #156. Doesn't like how Glork demanded that DGB give him 5 reasons Mathcam was scum. (Mathcam at 5 votes)
Shadowlurker votes Mathcam in #158 (only noted in case he isn't just being a dick)
Mathcam comes back and defends himself in #162.
Mathcam comes back again in #194 and switches his vote from Pooky to Raj. Exactly why he is switching is unclear because he's still all over Pooky in this post. It appears to me that Mathcam is moving on to a target of easier opportunity, as Raj. has gotten a couple of votes (one of which is my own). This post here is another big reason I am still asking Mathcam for a claim. I dislike the way he associates Raj, Glork, and DGB very much, and I don't like the way he refers to his role PM and argues why it would be pointless for him to claim.
Elvis switches his vote from Mathcam to Raj. in #200. (Mathcam now at 4 votes)
Adel says Mathcam shouldn't have to claim at
- 211 since the wagon was pretty much BS from the beginning.
Talitha comes back and Unvotes in #214.
Mathcam is now at 3 votes, I believe. Phoebus, DBG, and Raj.
I throw my support towards a Mathcam claim in #220. The truth is that I thought Mathcam had more votes than he actually did at that point. But my reasons for asking for a claim are, in fact, independant of the votes.
That's where it is now. I don't know what the vote count is. I suspect Raj might be the vote leader. Maybe even DGB.
I would be happy with either a Raj claim or a Mathcam claim. I'm still voting Raj, and he hasn't done anything to make me want to change it. But I certainly could change it.
Someone needs to claim something. #255: Coron, PostSun May 18, 2008 6:15 pm
----
Hi guys, I have been/am busy this weekend with the whole finishing up high school and partying with my friends stuff, so I'll have plenty of time to vote count and stuff this week. #256: DrippingGoofball, PostSun May 18, 2008 6:46 pm
----
Axelrod wrote: Someone needs to claim something. Indeed.
In particular, mathcam. #257: mathcam, PostSun May 18, 2008 7:57 pm
----
DrippingGoofball wrote: mathcam wrote:
Don't you think it would be better to take a broader stance and examine all my posts not only for a claim... Oh, so there's a claim. Where is it?
No, there isn't, as you would know if you had actually read the posts as I had suggested. I just thought you'd benefit by reading my posts in an attempt to understand the intricacies of the game rather that doggedly pursuing a single strategy whose detriment has been clearly explained in those posts.
Axelrod wrote: Someone needs to claim something.
For Pete's sake. Will someone please explain to me why? I just don't see what good Raj claiming would do for us, and I can see a detriment. If he reveals a mod power that it would be to scum's advantage to get rid of, then it obviously behooves us to keep it hidden. On the other hand, I doubt there's a mod power so vital to the continuing of the game that we wouldn't lynch someone we thought was scum just to hold on to that power.
Unless, of course, there's an affirmative answer to Tally's questions of whether we can re-assign mod powers.
Cam #258: DrippingGoofball, PostSun May 18, 2008 8:55 pm
----
mathcam wrote: For Pete's sake. Will someone please explain to me why? BECAUSE... you have been specially selected.
That's how day 1 goes. We find someone reasonably scummy (you) and that someone claims. We hear the claim, and we decided whether we should hammer or not.
Again, your stubborn refusal to claim = super dooper godfatherrific scumbagorama.
mathcam wrote: I just don't see what good Raj claiming would do for us, and I can see a detriment. Unbelievable. Of course, someone is going to claim something by the time this day is over. You think we can go a whole day 1 without anyone claiming?
We're playing mafia, not "stallfia" - claim please. #259: Axelrod, PostSun May 18, 2008 11:01 pm
----
mathcam wrote: Axelrod wrote:
Someone needs to claim something.
For Pete's sake. Will someone please explain to me why? I just don't see what good Raj claiming would do for us, and I can see a detriment. If he reveals a mod power that it would be to scum's advantage to get rid of, then it obviously behooves us to keep it hidden. On the other hand, I doubt there's a mod power so vital to the continuing of the game that we wouldn't lynch someone we thought was scum just to hold on to that power.
Unless, of course, there's an affirmative answer to Tally's questions of whether we can re-assign mod powers.
Cam So wait, you are voting for Raj., but you don't want him to claim?
You just want him to be lynched?
Shadowlurker wrote:
Someone is trying to draw attention away to the fact that replacements are not possible in this game (see the fact that there was nothing said about replacements in the signup thread)
You have 2 choices here: (1) Explain your presence in the game (2) Leave
If you choose option (3): continue to just post whatever the hell I want without explaining anything - don't expect your posts to remain in the game. At least not in their current form.
See how mature I am being? #260: elvis_knits, PostSun May 18, 2008 11:32 pm
----
ShadowLurker wrote: Man, I am annoying. Look at me! Me, Me, ME!!!!!
I don't think his post said this before... #261: rajrhcpfreak, PostMon May 19, 2008 12:21 am
----
lol, no it didnt.
but i wouldnt be suprised if someone else did it. its kinda funny, and true. #262: DrippingGoofball, PostMon May 19, 2008 12:23 am
----
Elvis, raj,
I love ShadowLurker too, marinated on a skewer. mathscum must claim. Let's get back to work. #263: PookyTheMagicalBear, PostMon May 19, 2008 12:56 am
----
You forgot to mention that if Mathcam was really going to vote me for Disavowment of Responsbility, he should've done it when I first disavowed(aka when i promised to follow tally) and not way afterwards after I vote him. #264: rajrhcpfreak, PostMon May 19, 2008 12:56 am
----
oh i agree. i'm voteing for him and i think he should claim.
question the ones defending him.
ok so what should we do cam, as mature mafia players?
what do i do if i get to lynch -1? let you all lynch me? #265: DrippingGoofball, PostMon May 19, 2008 12:56 am
----
So Pooky, what you're saying, is that you want mathcam to claim? #266: Axelrod, PostMon May 19, 2008 2:46 am
----
Because I am bored, please allow me to present: A votecount! (unofficial, of course)
mathcam - 3 (phoebus, DGB, raj) raj - 4 (Axelrod, Glork, mathcam, elvis) DGB - 4 (Coron, logicitus, Macros, Adel) Glork - 1 (Pooky)
Not Voting: Talitha
If we assume Pooky is willing to vote for Mathcam, then three people are essentially tied. I already said I could vote for Mathcam here as well.
Talitha, you may get the tie-breaker! #267: Adel, PostMon May 19, 2008 5:20 am
----
I would love for a couple of people to switch their votes to DGB to give her a taste of her own medicine.
DGB you are at -4 to lynch! Why haven't you claimed yet!
oh, wait, was I supposed to say she is at lynch -1?
ok then:
DGB you are at -1 to lynch! Why haven't you claimed yet! #268: PookyTheMagicalBear, PostMon May 19, 2008 8:02 am
----
I dont put much stock in claims.
i kinda just want him to die
but I want Glork to die more. #269: PookyTheMagicalBear, PostMon May 19, 2008 8:07 am
----
unvote vote Mathcam
cuz noone seems to like Glork Sad #270: DrippingGoofball, PostMon May 19, 2008 12:10 pm
----
PookyTheMagicalBear wrote: unvote vote Mathcam
cuz noone seems to like Glork Sad Don't worry Pooks, Glork is next.
And then, there's the Adel problem. Have you noticed how profoundly daft her more recent post is? I have. #271: DrippingGoofball, PostMon May 19, 2008 12:14 pm
----
Also, the raj-wagon (Axelrod, Glork, mathcam, elvis) is complete and utter rubbish. And look! Both mathcam and Glork are riding it. Great distraction from mathcam!
And look further! Adel gave me a fourth vote. Given her dubious voting record in this game, that's one more strike in her favor. Another one that wants to distract from mathcam. #272: elvis_knits, PostMon May 19, 2008 1:56 pm
----
DrippingGoofball wrote: And then, there's the Adel problem. Have you noticed how profoundly daft her more recent post is? I have.
I agree about Adel. I don't see why people want you dead, DGB. I think you were unfairly singled out about the mathcam wagon.
I do not support DGB wagon. #273: Adel, PostMon May 19, 2008 2:35 pm
----
She misrepresented the number of votes on mathcam to fortify her case for getting a claim.
That is called rolefishing, and just because it is so obviously anti-town doesn't mean she won't do it as scum, I fully expect her to do it as scum just so she can feel extra special and smug about it. #274: logicticus, PostMon May 19, 2008 4:11 pm
----
Phoebus wrote: Also: We might want to decide how long we let discussion/day go on in general.
Anybody in charge of deadlines? I'd rather not swim around in endless days...
I mean, why even bring this up. Discussion has not stalled, we have not been in this day for an extreme amount of time.
Its only in the scums benefit to limit discussion by putting in a deadline. #275: Macros, PostMon May 19, 2008 4:48 pm
----
somebody deleted one of my posts this game jsut gets fucking better #276: Phoebus, PostMon May 19, 2008 5:19 pm
----
logicticus - I brought that up because I foresee a terrible situation where people would just go on and on without reaching a consensus. We're already going around in circles over Cam's claim without him doing it (claiming) or anyone really bothering to push any other wagons.
I'm afraid I don't much care for that.
If that makes you wonder about me... So be it. #277: elvis_knits, PostMon May 19, 2008 5:20 pm
----
Hmmm... Macros - what did your deleted post say?
I suggest we don't reread anything in this game as it can be easily tainted.
I would feel okay about going forward off memory. I don't like rereading anyway (and prefer not to do it).
(Or I guess we can copy the whole game every day and look for changes. But honestly, I am never going to do that. If anyone else wants to... go for it). #278: Glork, PostMon May 19, 2008 5:57 pm
----
EK wrote: I suggest we don't reread anything in this game as it can be easily tainted.
I would feel okay about going forward off memory. I don't like rereading anyway (and prefer not to do it). Yeah, that's going to be hard for me. I tend to read back an awful lot. I just plan on playing as though nobody is going to cheat; if somebody does, I will consider the game a draw, or cancelled.
Phoebus seems quite protown to me.
I understand where Adel is coming from regarding DGB's misrepresntation of votecounts, but I don't see that as being out-of-the-ordinary for DGB. I am also still trying to evaluate DGB's behavior, although I will say that she's reverted to her typical stubborn self. She seems content to build and stick with factions, which is not unlike her behavior was in Famous Cats. Naturally, the difference here is that in Famous Cats, she and Pooky were dead in the water after I'd gotten a guilty result on Pooks and had debunked her fake claim. I don't find it all that likely that she'd draw battle lines so distinctly this early as scum, which is a point in her favor.
On a pseudo-related note, I find Cam's stance on not-claiming to be ridiculous. Whether alignment and role/ability are distinguished in different quote tags, different lines (such as here), or not at all has NEVER been a deterring factor in claiming one's role in my ~4 years of playing mafia. At this point, I do feel that Cam's defense is an excuse not to claim, as opposed to a reason. Naturally, I suppose that it comes down to the nature of "abilities" that we're talking about here. Supposing Coron were to bite the dust: Would we never have an official vote count again? Would we be unable to lynch? Hardly. I'd give 95% certainty that if a player with a "mod responsibility" dies, one of three things happens: A) The responsibility is transitioned to a living player; B) The deceased player continues to fulfill their responsibility; C) We carry on without the "official" responsibility
Cam, do you honestly believe that this game is set up so that if players with mod responsibilities die, the game would become crippled or nonfunctional? Do you expect that having a mod responsibility will make a player less likely to be lynched? More likely to be nightkilled (if town)? #279: Macros, PostMon May 19, 2008 7:06 pm
----
it wasnt much, jsut an update on my opinoins of the game, i havent really been followingt hat closely I'll admit, and I'll endevour to be more active, starting tonight. That Cam seems to be hell bent on only giving his alignment and not role is odd, If you're reluctant to claim its generally scum or a power pro town, if the latter, scum arent stupid and will assume that anyway so........ i'll read his arguements for it again and reconsider my vote accordingly, but it seems like its time to shit or get off the pot #280: Axelrod, PostMon May 19, 2008 7:40 pm
----
I do not see why anyone would delete a post of Macros'. Especially one that "wasn't much."
And if I were Macros and knew that a post of mine had been deleted, I rather think I might think it was important, and try to, you know, replicate said post. As opposed to saying "oh well."
I am also not a fan of Glork's #277 above. Glork, please look back closely over what you just wrote, go re-read your role PM, and tell me if you made a mistake of any kind. #281: Macros, PostMon May 19, 2008 8:28 pm
----
it was just me saying i would endevour to get a few more meaningful posts in. thats the baffling part #282: Adel, PostMon May 19, 2008 9:06 pm
----
this is post 281, just sayin'.
Glork wrote: I understand where Adel is coming from regarding DGB's misrepresntation of votecounts, but I don't see that as being out-of-the-ordinary for DGB. I refuse to acknowledge "typical for DGB" as an excuse for anti-town behavior. I've been in a bunch of games with DGB in the last few months and while she has abused her meta to the point where people consider her anti-town actions to be a null-tell, I note her day 1 activity level and enthusiasm for a quick claim and I'm feeling more and more confident that she is scum. mafiascum.net -> Theme Park All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group