Messages

151

Forum Games / Re: Post Restriction Mafia - Game Thread - Day 1

« on: March 18, 2008, 08:05:14 PM »

##Vote: Excal
##Unvote: Excal

152

Forum Games / Re: Post Restriction Mafia - Game Thread - Day 1

« on: March 18, 2008, 07:25:11 PM »

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg12516#msg12516

What can I say, three stars. Anyway, you're right about the special context, but said context was built on observed interaction between myself, Tom and OK (not entirely accurate, as had been pointed out and I can quote once more if people miss that). However, it called to observe us if Tom turned out scum. He wasn't! I'm not sure what you can draw from me not referring to Tom much. I don't talk much about OK or Yakumo, either. I just have nothing to say about people whom I can't confirm or accuse in my head. I believed in VSM being town, and in smodge. I still think Excal and Tonfa are likely scum. The rest are currently in limbo.

Back to Cid, though, I repeat again that I can't believe he investigated Tom and then voted for him. And had I been scum and he had investigated me, then why would he have started a train on Tom rather than voting me straight away? He was the second vote, even without a roleclaim he could've possibly gotten momentum to lynch actual scum if he had any evidence.

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg12517#msg12517

If you're getting annoyed, Tonfa, then do provide content. How about we start with all the surviving players, who could be scum (remember, there are three), and why. Feel free to dedicate a post to each. Also, why are we in LYLO and I still have to prod you repeatedly to provide any content at all? I'm not even alone in demanding that. Have a star of fail, why don't you.

There's nothing wrong with being a bit mean when it's both in character and not crossing any lines. My posts are certainly nothing like OK's post at Cid, or even alone in this in the game. In fact, I must question why you name this 'rudeness' as harming town discussion (sorry, were you involved in any thus far?) but never actually mention OK, here. You must be perfectly fine with his discussion-conductive post, right?

Now, you touch on my arguments on lynching all lurkers. Well, yes. Given our supreme success so far at lynching scum I'd say that had we eliminated both the lurkers and the phenomenon itself, forcing people to post more and with more content, we would be in a better position so far. And hey, we would have likely hit at least one scum. It is a statistically proven fact that scum post less. There's bound to be at least one such scum in this game keeping a low content profile, perhaps unintentionally.

153

Forum Games / Re: Post Restriction Mafia - Game Thread - Day 1

« on: March 18, 2008, 05:56:54 PM »

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg12506#msg12506

So we have here Tonfa reiterate his restriction. Almost in the very same words, I note with a disapproving frown. 1 star! Come ON! I can forgive the bad grammar, the horrible smilies and the netspeak (well, no, every time you do that a little orphan child dies) but where it the CONTENT? Look what you've made me do! You made me use all caps! And multiple exclamation marks!

You and LD just—argh. Let's say I buy your restrictions. Which part of them is actually preventing you two from making MULTIPLE POSTS? And while LD's content is sadly barren, yours is nonexistent. Your only original participation ended up putting us in LYLO, unintentionally I'm certain, and now when the heat is back on you for, yes, lurking in the truest meaning of the word, what do you do? Repeat yourself. Do you even find anyone suspicious? If so, who and why? If you can't quote, what about naming the number associated with each post you refer to? If you can't, what about 'page X, third post down'?!

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg12509#msg12509

4 stars of encouragement. Have a post to go on. If I hit such a case in the future, I think I'll abuse the vote/unvote in the same post to get you to talk more. Would such a way be fitting with your restriction to go on posting more?

154

Forum Games / Re: Post Restriction Mafia - Game Thread - Day 1

« on: March 18, 2008, 11:55:26 AM »

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg12428#msg12428

IT IS LYLO. There are 72 hours remaining.

Well, then, this tells us there are three scum. Very informative of you, Rat, another 4 stars. So who is the scum? Tonfa is an obvious choice. I presented a case against him the previous day, and he conveniently found a way to divert attention from himself towards the stumbling Tom. It could have been an honest to goodness mistake – five of us voted Tom, after all, and others such as LD expressed a desire to do so, only avoiding hammering before other people could weigh in/Tom could produce a stellar defense. Apparently.

However this leaves us with the problem that whether a malicious push to deflect attention or something far less sinister, Tonfa has posted infrequently, and has contributed next to nothing to the game other than this recent Tom affair. If there is a lurker in this game, it would be Tonfa, and I find this very troubling.

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg12447#msg12447

-No commas or such allowed.

Does 'or such' include periods? Question marks? Exclamation marks? Parentheses? Quotation marks? If not, why not? If so, why are you using them?

Please define 'or such' clearly.

-Everyone come fully clean.

I have no objection to this. As a critic (and, by the way, this post of yours gets 4 stars of informativeness) I happen to be a vanilla town. My restriction had been detailed amply already previously, and I haven't had it changed. I would suspect you for claiming that, but Tom's words about a warning re: breaking restrictions was apparently right, as I can't see why he'd lie about that as town, so I suppose your change is also possible.


http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg12449#msg12449

Yes, you've been saying you don't like me for quite a while, Excal. I've noticed. 3 stars of persistence, for you. It's hardly anything recent and whatever arguments I present end up being dismissed in favor of parts you cherry pick, as if they devalue the entire thing.

But what about answering some of the questions towards you instead to our satisfaction? I won't press you on the things others don't like about you. All I want to know at the moment is what I asked the previous day: why exactly did you not vote for someone you believed was scum? In fact, why did you vote elsewhere? I can see LD's reasoning in wishing to wait for Tom to talk more, or for other people to perhaps comment on the matter. But you accepted the Tom lynch as a done deal, and yet placed your vote elsewhere. I find this puzzling to the extreme. I find your avoidance on the matter even more puzzling. It wasn't decided, you claim? Yeah, that's not what you said here:

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg12373#msg12373

Let's call it 3 stars and move on to the quote.

So...  so...  I know, I know Tom is probably going to be pushed... 

And then here is a token of your own thoughts on Tom, from the same post:

I'm sorry Tom...  really, I am, but...  Well...  That darker me, she wants me to talk, and...  well...  all I can hope to do is put it all in my words.  Please forgive me!

If any of this or what follows it is an actual defense of Tom, I must've missed it.

So, I find myself forced to ask again: if you saw Tom as scummy due to an apparent slip and other matters, why did you not vote for him? If you had something to object to in the case against Tom, where was it?

I cite your next post (http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg12406#msg12406 ) which gets 3 more stars and came a few minutes before my vote as further evidence. By that point, Tom HAD spoken. Also, I stated my intent to hammer him and my reasoning for this, as well as the time I set for this. I specifically stated I was going to wait if there was a request for such. You neither clearly asked for more time, defended him nor voted him yourself.

It is as you said.  We hadn't heard all of his words, and there was no proof yet that Mr. Thomas was going to be pushed.

This is true… for the situation back then (the original post of yours I was commenting on). But what about the situation at the time you made that new post of yours? It was already after Tom's arguments. You speak about me and OK, yes… but none of your words actually constitute a defense of Tom. I could understand if you said "he must've gotten a warning, I believe that, now you I don't trust and everyone should switch their votes to you instead". I tried something similar with smodge. But that's not how you acted. You accepted the Tom lynch without a pro-Tom argument, while pointing fingers elsewhere. And you never actually took the time to go change your vote to make your stance against me clear while still voting for what we all considered near-confirmed scum with no single challenge against it. Why didn't you go along the lines of "FoS Corwin, Vote Tom" despite having no defense for Toms apparent breaking of his restriction?

I find this incredibly scummy of you.

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg12444#msg12444

A two-star post of failing at the reading comprehension of the rules. What reason do you have for this bout of inattention?

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg12487#msg12487

A three star post of annoyance. And not just at the failure to use proper tags. People keep on going "I think I know what you mean but—"

Yeah, no. I, for one, don't get where it's headed, so why don't you clear that up for me? I don't mind waiting until OK and Andrew post for you to do so, just as long as you revisit this.

And speaking of revisiting things… this entire post is intended to present questions to Andrew and Excal, and to restate what case exists against our lurker Tonfa. Given it's LYLO I hesitate to outright suggest a lurker lynch, but he better talk today, and a lot. On Excal and Andrew, I'd like to see some responses first, before deciding. This leaves Yakumo and OK, whom I can't really read either way, and LD who I still think is both weird and lurking. But she's no longer my prime candidate, and with three scum around I can't keep on looking just for the one.

155

Forum Games / Re: Post Restriction Mafia - Game Thread - Day 1

« on: March 18, 2008, 08:11:24 AM »

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg12360#msg12360

Hindsight allowing for new observation it is. I started with Cid's last post in the game, here, which is nice and decent for a solid 3 stars. He is saying there is something suspicious about the interaction myself and OK have with Tom, and that if Tom is scum we should draw conclusions.

Tom is not scum, we now know.

In fact, Cid invests quite a deal of effort to say 'If Tom is scum this may be important' which I feel he wouldn't if he had, you know, investigated Tom in advance. I believe he would have been more certain in his post in such a case. That he was the second to vote Tom, right after Tonfa pointing out the apparent discrepancy and voting Tom straight away leads me to believe he didn't cop Tonfa either. Had he even tagged scum?

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg12318#msg12318

An earlier Cid post of likewise 3 stars, made on the same day. There's ample suspicion here:

Of Tom, on Tonfa's arguments. Of myself, on Excal's and on Shale's. He also happens to refer to me as the scummiest to him at that point, yet doesn't actually vote me. Then he finds OK likewise suspicious, based on disagreeing with his arguments and echoing LD. He finds Tonfa suspicious next, based on Excal. And finally Excal as well, quoting Yakumo's argument.

Nothing in the above makes much sense if he had copped scum. I can't even see anyone alive he might've cleared as town with the possible exception of Yakumo and LD, since I find it difficult to believe he would clear someone and then cast suspicion on them.

This covers my thoughts on Cid, a different post would handle my own suspect list and how it changed.

156

Forum Games / Re: Post Restriction Mafia - Game Thread - Day 1

« on: March 17, 2008, 06:08:33 PM »

##Vote: EvilTom

157

Forum Games / Re: Post Restriction Mafia - Game Thread - Day 1

« on: March 17, 2008, 03:52:40 PM »

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg12380#msg12380

Tom in his two-star post asks whether I even read his explanations. I have. I just don't believe in them. Moreso, as I've noted, even if he is being incompetent as town (and by that I mean that he defined his restriction insufficiently when he should have, when we were all doing so) I'd rather not have him around at LYLO. But even though I'm allowing for the possibility, it is just that – a possibility. I still think him the most scummy, and said possibility of incompetence fairly unlikely.

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg12397#msg12397

Oh god my eyes my brain my hate why can't I give this less than the one star? Why can't I go into the negatives? He cusses and he uses colors and bold and large font and why god what did I do to you recently?!

Also, where exactly does Cid actually vote for him? All I see is the vote/unvote Cid does for suspicion. I understand it's hard to have people suspect you and a tiny thing shrivels up and dies inside when that happens, but all I can ask here is why do you hate us all with your huge block of text?

Fine, then, I hate you too. And you voting reminds me that it's about the time I said I'd vote myself. If people actually have something they'd rather discuss before I hammer Tom, who certainly looks like he slipped… please say so. To get those in the US a chance to comment on this I'll place my vote when I get home from work, which should be under two hours from now, today.

158

Forum Games / Re: Post Restriction Mafia - Game Thread - Day 1

« on: March 17, 2008, 09:13:28 AM »

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg12297#msg12297

There are two Cids because one of them was originally in italics, and copy-pasting to Word for the wordcount and back didn't allow the style to survive. Re: Yakumo, as you'll notice I was quoting, and messing with quoted text is iffy. A two star post of effort on your part, though I have to wonder why so often you only resurface when prodded.

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg12306#msg12306

I hope you don't mind if I comment on my own arguments? You did ask everyone. Have four stars for being helpful and not ruining my eyes when you post.

As per my previous stance of observing people who talk on their own and plenty, I backed off Shale earlier. I still thought him (and Excal) incredibly suspicious, but I was far more wary of leaving around people who hid behind their restrictions, and thus didn't contribute much of anything.

I also happened to be proven wrong on him when we saw his flip on a modkill. That made me rethink my stance on Cid, since part of what I've seen there was a dynamic between two scum supporting each other's claimed restrictions. Also, I must admit, gritting my teeth and everything in annoyance, that I haven't considered merely dropping letters and common phrases for Cid to quote, and it took seeing them in action to actually believe that Cid could contribute despite only quoting things. If he's scum, I salute him, because that shows a level of zeal to the game I believe I would have sadly lacked in his place to such an extent.

So who's left that I still suspect? Lady Door, whom I've pursued before quite a bit. I must reiterate that she is extremely low on content and tends to lurk (inexplicably, given that her posts are mandated to be short and have filler, at that) where merely picking up her posting pace would've gotten her over the restriction she claims. And finally, a personal reason – she hadn't really struck back at me in any serious way. After playing a few games with LD, I find that puzzling. My take on her is that if she believed I were scum, she would be all over me. And yet… she doesn't even defend herself against me by going all out, mostly dismissing parts of my arguments and defaulting to the words of others.

Next is Tonfa, for aforementioned low content. The only thing of value he had done so far was point out Tom. I intend to vote Tom, but… if Tom turns out to be incompetent town (again), then this means absolutely nothing and Tonfa comes out even more suspicious for me.

And Tom. I find the warning unlikely... but we did suffer two modkills already. Who knows. I do find that altering one's restriction or not stating it clearly enough when I called for the restriction claims and we all agreed to do that… well, it's a failure to be good town at best. If he is actually playing such a bad game as town, and isn't scum that slipped, I shudder at the thought of going into LYLO with him. I suppose his OMGUS tendency might've prevented me from commenting much on him. Then again, he was posting more than Tonfa and LD, and so I could live with that until he would finally tip off his hand; which he just had. Argue with my gaming approach all you like, but I find it working so far.

This does leave Excal as a suspect. I suspected him earlier in the game. Shale suspected him far more, to the point it agitated him enough to misclick and get modkilled. But finally, when faced with Tom's slip… he goes to vote for me. Yeah, call it OMGUS or whatever if you wish, but there's a way to say I'm suspicious the way Cid did while placing your vote where it should be. Never suffer scum to live. Ever. We have someone who broke his claimed posting restriction and Rat posting afterwards, with no modkills in sight. What possible reason could there be to NOT vote Tom? If you were defending Tom, that is one thing. I certainly tried to oppose the previous lynches. But this isn't how it goes, is it? There'll be more when I address that post directly.

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg12350#msg12350

I think that's a star of fail. I never pushed hard for it? What else would you call pretty much standing up against a fully-formed train and urging people to abandon it and vote LD instead based on the case I presented and repeated several times? How would you describe arguing that while a part of my argument was shaky even by my own later admission, I still believed the rest of it was solid enough and asked others to consider it?

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg12354#msg12354

Three stars for cementing my feeling on Tom, if nothing else. It's true I stopped calling for your lynch. This has two reasons: the first being that people didn't really care to agree with my case, and you are not the only one I consider scummy. Until Tom, I merely considered you the scummiest, but you were hardly alone. Anyone seeming sufficiently scummy to me was an acceptable target (certainly more so that people who seemed okay that were actually being lynched). The second reason was Shale's flip, and furthermore reconsidering Cid afterwards. I have been proven wrong on Shale, I could be wrong on Cid… this caused me to take a step back and tackle the issue from another direction. If it still lead me to the same general area, excellent. If not, well, then perhaps I would avoid tunnel vision.

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg12373#msg12373

Yet another star of fail. I still intend to vote Tom before work is over, which is ~7 hours away, but I would like to hear what people already uncomfortable with Excal in this game have to say about this. He does not defend Tom. In fact, he accepts Tom's lynch as a done deal. He also doesn't actually object that Tom looks scummy; on the opposite, Excal is building off this scumminess to make connections to myself. Why are you suffering scum to live, Excal?

Also related, it's clever how you catch the minimum post length I have but ignore the other components of my restriction. Oh wait, no you don't. You reference them earlier in your post as something cleverly scummy. It's not exactly easy to always react rather than act, and what more do you need than a direct link to the post I'm referring to, however tangentially? It's only a click away.

159

Forum Games / Re: Post Restriction Mafia - Game Thread - Day 1

« on: March 16, 2008, 07:13:54 PM »

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg11750#msg11750

Sopko (8): Otter, Excal, El Cid, Dread Thomas, Tonfa, LadyDoor, Yakumo, Andrew

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg12259#msg12259

Smodge (6): EvilTom, AndrewRogue, Tonfa, El Cideon, El Cideon, Excal

Let's see here. Both posts get a nice, informative 4 stars rating for providing handy votecounts for easy cross-referencing, such as one I'm going to do right now.
 
Out of these people, Otter is pretty much the only one confirmed as town.

I somehow am not surprised that the people I find most suspicious are those who happen to be here, while those I trusted in my posts disagreed with the lynches, same as me.

Out of all those on both trains that got a townie lynched each time, I find Tonfa the most suspicious. I find his lack of serious content troubling, his infrequent posting suspicious, and his posts just don't jive with his claimed restriction well for me (the latter is a personal reason you may freely ignore; just don't ignore the actual argument in its entirety, as you guys have done the previous day). It also feels like he started using a lot more netspeak and grammatical errors ever since putting the supposed restriction to paper, so to speak. Perhaps he was trying to discern himself from Andrew in such a way? After checking day 1 again, he only posts after Andrew, so this is possible. So, in that case, let's check all of Tonfa's contribution to this game:

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg11519#msg11519

A post of one star, made of fail and bad grammar.

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg11607#msg11607

A two-star post, where he votes Cid after calling out lurkers and echoing others.

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg11666#msg11666

Another one star for another essential oneliner post. Again, as I've said before, just because your posts must be short/brief/illegible is no reason not to just make several of them in succession (such as Andrew making a second post continuing his opinion after someone posts for him, per his claimed restriction).

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg11735#msg11735

A three star post of minimal effort. Some defense of his vote, another unvote/vote. I already noted before inconsistencies in his posts before (when he says he isn't sure where to vote and later on votes in that same post). Here, in the same post he tries to defend this, he does this again by saying Sopko should get a chance to respond and that the train is moving too fast… and follows up by later voting Sopko and saying this puts Sopko at -2 to hammer. Uhh… yeah.

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg11905#msg11905

A post of 2 stars. I can't fault people voting smodge originally. I hoped people would listen to me once the train became more apparent, but we can't have everything in life.

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg11912#msg11912

What can I say, 3 stars for explaining his restriction. It seems very complex.

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg12181#msg12181

4 stars for a quote I like. This is all.

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg12193#msg12193

3 stars for effort (finally!) but that's about it. I don't like how he ignores several arguments made. Again, just because you have to stick to one-liners (as he claims he must) doesn't mean you can't continue your train of thought later on. Andrew has shown this himself by continuing his thoughts with multiple bullet points.

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg12195#msg12195

1 star. Yeah.

Okay, so I'm looking at all these posts. Quantity-wise, he hit the post button more than I had. Quality-wise, has there been any original case, thought or insight anywhere, there? How many times did he need to get prodded to return and post?

Well. This is it, comment and what have you. I have my own comments about the previous day, but I'll likely type them up tomorrow, as there should be plenty of time.

160

Forum Games / Re: Post Restriction Mafia - Game Thread - Day 1

« on: March 15, 2008, 09:46:23 AM »

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg12074#msg12074

I am curious about one thing, Mr. Critic: why are you, who claims to have a minimum word count post restriction, coming down so hard on the people who have a maximum? That’s pretty much saying “I am town because I do this thing, they are scummy because they do the opposite” which doesn't work for fairly obvious reasons.

What we have here is a failure to communicate. A failure which is entirely your fault, naturally. Have a star. What I am doing is saying that some of us have (claimed) crippling restrictions, yet there are those who keep on providing content anyway despite that. And there are those who… don't. Why should those people get a free pass? I have to struggle quite a lot to see what you've brought to the game so far.

You seem to be trying to say that it’s impossible for those who have tough restrictions to be town because it makes them hard to understand/hard for them to explain their thoughts. Have you honestly forgotten that that’s exactly the point of the theme? I urge you to read the first post again. I’ll wait.

Yeah, sarcasm is my deal, so kindly leave it in my hands. Notice that I don't have a problem with Tom or VSM, who aren't exactly easy to understand. What I do have a problem with it people claiming safe restrictions and then relying on those restrictions to not participate much. I think you are the one who forgot the point of the game, which is to bring town to victory despite the restrictions.

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg12076#msg12076

Well, then. Could you please explain why you shouldn't be lynched based on my suspicions, Cid? How about providing an original case against someone?

Thought so. In that case, how do you find it suspicious when I say I don't see you as an asset to town? Another star.

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg12098#msg12098

I'll believe it when I see it for the first point.

On the second…. 'horribly'; 'awfully'. How about a case that isn't blowing things out of proportion? I'm saying that there is someone who is posting a lot, several someones who aren't posting much, and most of that latter group is the absolute majority on the first person's train. Do enlighten us all how this is a horribly flawed argument, if you will.

I am judging them on their own merits, but considering how a claimed restriction affects one's contribution to the game is also a part of this. Take LD and Tonfa. Now show me how they've helped us so far. To quote LD, I'll wait.

I'm thinking, two stars with an option for a third if you can actually give me the examples I'm asking for.

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg12113#msg12113

Hmph, and another two-star post. You claim you have only ten lines to work with, and can't post against without someone else doing so in the meantime, correct? And yet, over half of those lines repeat the same argument.

As for Sopko, yes, he had a crippling restriction. No, it wasn't as crippling as Cid's apparent one. He could always quote selectively, and babelfish is enough to get the meaning across when he would be pointing out things. Only the part on his own defense would've been crippled.

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg12130#msg12130

I do have to wonder why everyone seems to be jumping at one part of my previous post while leaving out the other. Yes, I'm looking at those who claimed restrictions that limit their usefulness by definition. No, that is not enough for me to consider them suspicious. Having contributed low content… how is THAT not suspicious, especially when it seems to be getting dismissed with 'oh well they can't do much with a post, let's look elsewhere'?

I find it particularly troubling that you're calling people out on that same basis of 'where is your contribution', except you do it while dismissing my own efforts in the same breath. Ah yes, dismissing one part of my argument surely entitles you to overlook it in its entirety. One star.

161

Forum Games / Re: Post Restriction Mafia - Game Thread - Day 1

« on: March 14, 2008, 11:50:44 PM »

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg11956#msg11956

I hesitated to be explicit about post restrictions for fear of modkill, and much preferred implication instead of risking that. Now that we have word from on high that this is not the case, though!

I don't know if I buy that. There seemed to be plenty of time to consult our mod, if that were the case. But more to the point, that hardly excuses your low content. More words when you have them, you say? A four stars' worth deflection, seems to me.

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg11972#msg11972

Also, for reference, Lady Door's length restriction seems to be about 250 words, as the longest of her missives clocked in at 244.

'Seems to be' is exactly the kind of thing I hoped to avoid, here. When something is left open to interpretation, scum can always pick several of them, or even latch onto one better provided by an ever-helpful townie. I think this merits a two star rating for this post.

And speaking of restrictions. Mine is building off the content of others, even if it's tenuous, grading their posts (1 to 5 stars) and having my reviews over 200 words. There's more, but that's flavor and doesn't look like actual, modkillable restrictions. Even so, I do try to be mean to stay in character.

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg11988#msg11988

Cid, in a solid 3-star post here recommends throwing smodge down the well. Smodge certainly isn't perfect, but he is participating. Can anyone explain to me why people who (claim to) have a restriction on maximum post length or other such matters that effectively prevent them to play the game and give the rest of us information on them will get a free pass? Andrew and LD qualify, and Tonfa doesn't seem all here despite having no restriction about this. There's also Cid, who has fingered half the town with votes/unvotes today and the 'I find them suspicious' line, which is well and good… but I cannot see someone who only ever quotes others as a town role. If he can't even point something suspicious out in some post that the rest of us had missed, what esset is he to town?

And out of those four, three of them happen to be voting for smodge, which… pretty much is a mark against that lynch in my eyes. VSM's (claimed) restriction is pretty harsh, and yet he participates more than LD. Can anyone explain that to me? Until they do to my satisfaction, my vote remains where it is, and I urge others to follow my lead.

162

Forum Games / Re: Post Restriction Mafia - Game Thread - Day 1

« on: March 13, 2008, 01:54:11 PM »

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg11805#msg11805

We start with this post by giving it a resounding 2 stars of near-fail. It lacks flavor, it doesn't show sufficient effort or thought involved. It is so short there is hardly enough to mock.

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg11808#msg11808

We move on. 3 stars for having the following line:

Oh, and both those dead townies were vanilla. So claims of role-madness are less convincing now.

And it's only three stars because stating the obvious never gets people beyond mediocrity. That's yet another argument against a mass roleclaim… but what about a mass restriction claim? I would like to use this opportunity to call on everyone here to express an opinion about that, and present at least a token reason for or against doing so. Of course, that is hardly the only issue I wish to discuss at this opportunity.

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg11813#msg11813

2 stars! While smodge's lines are pretty stupid there, I don't see it as immediate proof of scum. Do I suggest dropping the issue? Hardly. But I feel there are several leftover ones from day 1 we must resolve, and finally the vote record against Sopko.

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg11750#msg11750

If I had to grade this post, I'd say it rated four stars, certainly higher than our very own Rat's economy post, and yet with glaring omissions that might confuse us, thus dropping a star from the total rating.

Sopko (8): Otter, Excal, El Cid, Dread Thomas, Tonfa, LadyDoor, Yakumo, Andrew

Otter is quite clearly not scum, being dead and all. Shale is… not on the list, despite being one of Sopko's chief accusers. Excal is someone I don't quite trust. There are Cid and Tom whom I can't read for now, Tonfa and Andrew who had been mentioned already in terms of restrictions; I personally think their participation is lacking so far, especially on Tonfa's part. Then, we have LD. Except LD was the second vote, and later unvoted/revoted Sopko. I don't believe she had much of a case on him, but the way this worked… what was the point of the whole exercise, since the unvoting and voting took place in the same post? This joins my list of things I don't like about LD. Then, we also have Yakumo, who in turn joins Cid and Tom as far as I'm concerned.

Therefore, glancing at this list of suspects and based on my reasons from day 1, my vote goes to LD.

##Vote: LD

163

Forum Games / Re: Post Restriction Mafia - Game Thread - Day 1

« on: March 12, 2008, 07:57:48 PM »

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg11729#msg11729

We'll start with this first post. I'm wavering as I critique it, which means a 3 star rating. Neither here nor there, but merits a glance while lesser posts would be ruthlessly crushed in the waste bin of history.

You are asking me several things, starting with Sopko, and as the post does merit an answer, here it is. What DO I think of Sopko? Had I been answering before he returned, my response might've been different. However, he is back, now, and I'm confident we should wait and see what tomorrow holds for us with him around. His claimed posting restriction seems closer to the convenient excuse side, true, but there are others who are closer. Cid is the easy answer, but using smilies and netspeak shouldn't be too difficult. Certainly easier than Alex's restriction, which got him modkilled. So when you look at the other things he's suspected of, I see the same things I also see about yourself. The lurker charge is certainly lessened now, if not made moot altogether.

And I also see other things about you I'm not willing to put aside, like I am doing temporarily for Sopko's claimed restriction, and I'm still not voting for you.

What is this case I see against you? Let's see. I don't expect you (if you're town) to seriously consider or even type out the possibility that you're scum, no. BUT I also get wary when you type things like 'I am town', which is something I quoted you do. In fact, when OK does it (a lot, and over the top), I look at it as a weird restriction on his part. It certainly grabs my attention in a bad way, but I'm just trying to make the best-informed decision based on actual content, and not restrictions. As time passes and we get info from lynches, plus a lot more content out there, this might change. But not now, not for me.

Also. You fielded the idea. As far as I can see, if that didn't happen to be the most concrete case against Sopko, it certainly is way up there. And yet, you don't press it as much as I'd expect. Day 1? Who knows. But this looks bad to me. Also, like I noted before, hiding in this wifom would be perfect. If Sopko is lynched and flips town, any attempt to use the same theory to lynch you is likely to be perceived/spun as 'if x isn't scum, lynch y', and thus the person proposing it would get tossed into the well. I don't like how your argument handily defends you against something you are equally 'guilty' of, same as your own target. I'm treating Sopko as that, btw, since you clearly intended to vote him, and only didn't correct the tag mistake because many others joined in and you seemed to want to give Sopko a chance to respond.

On you using the wrong name: there's no good response to this, and it's not a question from me, but merely me noting this for posterity's sake. To repeat, scum commit this kind of mistake far more often, and that usually happens on day 1 when this gets largely ignored. On its own, not nearly a case. But along with other things? Helps pad it.

The idea of a full roleclaim day 1 is stupid. I see it as bad and harmful to town. Even though you're no longer calling for it now, you still supported and pushed the idea before (not alone, no, but scum hiding in that crowd makes sense, as you yourself mentioned). That's still a point against you in my book.

On a second thought, I'll grant you the point on Cid. While I still think it's likely you two could be working together, your explanation is very logical, and until either of you flip or are otherwise confirmed, this will just pollute an otherwise decent start-of-game case.

So why didn't all this get you my vote? I was fully intending to vote for you until nearly the end. But due to my restrictions, I had to phrase the post in certain ways, and time just kept on running out. In the end, I couldn't make a second post just about LD, and I did (still do) find her actions the scummiest.

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg11731#msg11731

Yakumo, in fact, gets 4 stars for spotting this. It is, in a way, hypocritical of me to do something similar to what I accuse others of. However, in this particular case, I didn't have a better option. My restriction forces me to react rather than act, and to have a lower limit of words, among other things. With the time available to me, I couldn't find a better way to achieve my goals and both leave my thoughts on two people I considered scummy AND make a short summary of why I think LD needs to be thrown down the well. After getting NK'd a couple game on night one, I just kept getting this feeling that if I don't say what I think I'll just regret sitting on it well into my death.

And my vote on LD. Well, she'd posted. I'm still not sure she has an annoying posting restriction, and she is actually against it. I understand people being cautious and not going for it (well, not really, but I'm trying to be nice), but why would someone be outright against it?

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg11739#msg11739

I disagree with mass restriction claiming, but maybe there could be a concerted effort to make them more obvious? I – seem to lose my train of thought easily.

Here, we have LD earning five stars for this performance. Reemerge when called upon for lurking, be vague enough about your restriction to allow you freedom of action later on, and categorically object to a mass restriction claim without a single reason why. While one could object to this proposal, I at least outlined why I think it's a good idea. It would be nice if she gave even a token effort why I'm wrong, or why she's right. In fact, a token effort to provide content would be appreciated, period. She fielded a vote against Sopko from early on, and has asked him a single question in her recent post. Could this truly be her only contribution to the game? Do the rest of you buy her attempts at showing that vague restriction she claims to have?

164

Forum Games / Re: Post Restriction Mafia - Game Thread - Day 1

« on: March 12, 2008, 01:02:37 PM »

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg11604#msg11604

Interesting. I must give this post 4 stars for originality. No, not for stating the obvious about find/replace, Alex's grammar or what have you. For mentioning that it is quite possible scum was around to defend Alex. Had it been a third party commenting, I would have eyed it with suspicion. However, with Shale including himself, I'm disinclined to dismiss this outright. I do, of course, reject quite firmly Shale's insistence that he is town. Part of this comes from his line here: "I know I'm town"

Yes. Well. Don't we tend to look at such things as suspicious? Also, he seems to be preparing the ground for his own defense. If we lynch Sopko based on this reason, then it can be seen as disproving the case, and thus we'll be likely to leave Shale alone.

And yet, not quite enough for a vote, thus far.


http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg11607#msg11607

One star! You fail!

idk about voting rite now tho

##vote: el cideon

Reconcile this for me, if you can. But you can't, can you? Because the failure is so immense! Also, grammar, punctuation, drawing on the forum and netspeak. The offenses against you are many and considerable!

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg11615#msg11615

Crude language aside (3 stars it is):

Might we do more than vote?
Smodge's flavor text might not be crap

There might be merit in this, as evidenced by Alex's flip. A confirmed, conditional inventor tells us that this is entirely within the realm of possible. And yet… does it tell us anything about smodge's alignment? I think not.


http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg11618#msg11618

Something that hasn't come up since the flip and should: Alex's call for mass roleclaim was made in good faith. I remind people again that every role-heavy game where town massclaimed was won by town. Anybody care to re-examine the idea now that we know it wasn't a scum trick?

It was made by a townie. If a frustrated one, then perhaps not even truly in good faith, but to get what he considered a horrible game over with. Also, the role-heavy games were… yes, role-heavy. I suggest that had more to do with winning those games. What proof of it do we have here? Therefore, we're going for a shot in the dark, where the best possible outcome is playing mechanically with all our cards on the table. That makes mafia boring and unfun. The worst outcome, of course, is that we don't have that many roles and scum win handily.

Yes, I think this post warrants two stars, Shale.

Follow up to your second paragraph: yes, a dayvig revealing themselves would work best (but I doubt we have one, given no one actually claimed this yet). A nightvig… I think not. I cannot see how a consensus could be reached on finding a target for a vig night kill, while keeping said kill successful. If there is indeed more than a couple of roles in play, this would likely backfire.

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg11629#msg11629

I hope it can work like that.

It did, clearly. And yet… why are you so eager, going so out of the way to help poor, misunderstood Cid? That you seem to be the only one who actually tries to make an effort here, spanning several posts, makes me frown. I suppose it means nothing until one of you flips, but you're certainly playing well off one-another. Whether that is intentional or not remains to be seen. 3 stars of indecision.



http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg11638#msg11638

Yakko: The fact that Alex was telling the truth about his power should be a point on the "role madness" side too. Doubly so if the thinking about Tom's puppy sales is accurate.

One star! One! Tom, you say? Tom is not the one selling puppies. Far too often do people make such mistakes due to not paying enough attention, and far too often they are scum. Coupled with the earlier argument, and the picture becomes quite puzzling. You claim earlier that those supporting Alex's drive for mass-roleclaim by defending him should be examined once more. You helpfully suggest the OTHER person who did this, but you had been guilty of that yourself. And THEN, you decide to go and sell Alex's mass-roleclaim case once more! The above quote is but one example of you doing so. If people do end up looking at Alex's fellow travelers, I certainly hope you don't get a free pass, there.

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg11649#msg11649

However, calling for a mass restriction claim is, I would argue, a better cover for scum - this way, they have something on paper (metaphorically) that they can refer to, and set down guidelines and rules to follow.

Must I explain why this fails, getting a single star of shame? If scum are lying, they have a general idea of what they're trying to emulate. In the case you're suggesting, they haven't written it down before to consult later, but would certainly consult it if forced to type it out in the thread. This logic defies explanation and makes me wince in pain. I would argue that having to follow rules they cannot later change (such as 'oh wait tomorrow I will speak in Japanese, babelfish lulz') is far more dangerous for scum, and thus we should go ahead with the restriction claim.

It's better to look for inconsistencies (like Shale did with Alex's post) in their posts, looking for missed restrictions, and see why they weren't modkilled, without literally calling on them and giving them an open "season" to get things out in the open.

Can we really guess at everyone's restriction so far? Take Andrew's case, for example. How can you tell what is inconsistent to it? Let's not speculate. Let's have him tell us, as we share this information and commit to it from day 1 onwards.

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg11682#msg11682

2 stars. An apparent desire to be helpful, and yet, once again I find a poster confusing two people in the game. The attention span is either really low amongst townies this game, or we're hitting upon scum. Certainly worth a further look later on, as the game progresses.


http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg11689#msg11689

3 stars, due to the amusement of seeing my name as a tag. I think that's a first. Oh yes, there is also content relevant to what I've said above about Shale and Excal. While I won't take issues with the consistency of your arguments, that is actually dodging the issue. I, for one, am looking at you for the arguments made, not for flip-flopping on them.


http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg11693#msg11693

1 star for failing to get my gender right. I also don't like your vote on Sopko. It seems that you and Shale spend more time in latest posts on each other than on Sopko, and yet both of you end up voting for him. Disturbing.

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg11697#msg11697

2 stars on Cid, for putting a _pressure vote_ on someone he finds suspicious. When it is the fourth vote, and would've been the fifth if not for tag hijinks. That's some extraordinary pressure.

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg11717#msg11717

I'm not even going to bother with that whiny self-appreciation fest, and just focus on OK's words about Lady Door. On this reread of the thread, I'm having trouble spotting any restriction at all, and I can't say I see much content there, either. In that case, I'd rather be rid of the more silent crowd and let those I suspect like Shale and Excal to post more and more. If they're scum, they'll trip eventually. If LD's scum, she won't trip if she doesn't post much of anything.

##Vote: LD

And while we're on the topic of low posting... this would've be out there sooner, but I'm unexpectedly struggling with my restriction more than I expected. We're talking quantity and the actual theme, too, on top of the lesser annoyances. I envy those throwing one-liners for presence purposes.

165

Forum Games / Re: Phantom Brave Mafia - Game Topic (GAME OVER)

« on: March 11, 2008, 09:06:42 AM »

Because he called miller day 1 in a small game where he couldn't be assured there'd be a cop? It made no sense to place a spotlight like that on yourself as scum in his situation. After my flip, when everyone knew there had, in fact, been a cop, it should've made sense that it supports his claim. Hardly clears him, but still....

166

Forum Games / Re: Post Restriction Mafia - Game Thread - Day 1

« on: March 11, 2008, 08:59:36 AM »

Hmph. Alex's post gets a big F for failing, the equivalent of a single star. Never have I seen him fail as spectacularly as he does here, and if I could, I would give him a negative grade here and now. All that large post, with his smodge-worthy grammar! Since when does a lisp carry over into the written word? Agony, true agony to my eyes! And the reasoning, so unlike Alex, so filled with contradictions! Even the part where he sounds like Alex is flat-out wrong, so I cannot agree with it, either.

Otter gets a solid three stars for effort, but seems to foolishly miss the merits of any kind of claim in lieu of hunting down Alex for his failed stance. Indeed, we are being distracted from something, here. There is a way a mass claim would benefit town, but only if it were a claim of posting restrictions. After all, scum only have to emulate one, and until they have committed to something publically, they could always tailor an explanation later. However, explaining to the rest of us why they are not getting modkilled for stepping outside their own professed boundaries would be a sure way of finding them. And, of course, we mustn't forget that scum would be stressed by this, and we want them in such a situation, pressed into making a mistake.

-I do agree that Smodge needs to check in.

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg11513#msg11513
http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=572.msg11572#msg11572

Agree with whom? LD, who placed her vote on smodge based on _smodge's post_? A second F, I cannot decide who should find himself at the end of his posting career. That's a single star for you, Andrew, undoubtedly the first of many, given the quality you've shown us so far.

And Alex posts again.

#3:  I am convinced that this game is wole madness and that aggwavates me.

I find his reasoning flimsy, and that he shows his apparent annoyance at bastard moding in a game… with forewarned bastard modding. Yes, let's try to get our minds around that. Yet another single star, as the game is filled with failure right off the start. We might as well take his plan further and stop playing altogether, because clearly no deduction or effort is required, only role claims, role actions and an elimination from the very start, which could all be automated.

167

Forum Games / Re: Phantom Brave Mafia - Game Topic (GAME OVER)

« on: March 11, 2008, 07:18:39 AM »

I was really surprised Andrew got lynched. Re: cop, since I wasn't going to investigate either LD or Andrew (after his claim), it wouldn't actually have hurt us.

168

Forum Games / Re: Phantom Brave Mafia - Game Topic (DAY 1)

« on: March 05, 2008, 07:27:05 PM »

LD: Actually, I meant both parts, so you were right the first time.

Super: It puts pressure on him... to what purpose? What is that pressure supposed to achieve? Normally, a pressure vote is used to make people talk, or in some rare cases to keep lurkers from dispeappering and have them talkative. Tom, however, is anything but a lurker and you generally don't need to prod him with a vote to get him to talk and talk. So I'm still unclear on what the pressure would be designed to achieve.

169

Forum Games / Re: Phantom Brave Mafia - Game Topic (DAY 1)

« on: March 05, 2008, 03:08:19 PM »

To Excal, re: not voting early on day 1: Part of this comes from not taking it well myself when I'm accused of lurking when I am, in fact, sleeping. Therefore, it didn't feel right to vote Tom before I went to bed because he realistically would only be up in several hours. At the beginning of day 1, there is always the possibility of people simply not knowing the game had started, especially if they're not in the US or #dl regulars.

The second is the reference to not paying attention.  So far as I can tell, there was no true indication of a lack of attention thus far in the game when you made that comment.

I would beg to differ, except part of that was pretty much the regular day 1 game opening. I don't intend to be anal and get technical about how you and Otter didn't read my first couple of posts properly, thus resulting in a mischaracterization of them, since I wasn't exactly imparting any precious pearls of wisdom in them. On a relevant note (and the reason for me quoting you here) is that there has been more of this later on, wouldn't you agree? That's how the way you word things makes you sound (the 'when you made that comment' part). An obvious example would be Otter calling me Rat. Do you see other examples?

170

Forum Games / Re: Phantom Brave Mafia - Game Topic (DAY 1)

« on: March 05, 2008, 01:05:34 PM »

Let's see. Don't like Tom's original explanation for not posting, though his latter post works well enough for that. Don't like his reasoning behind his Otter vote, either. The whole currying favor thing seems weird to me, while to him it's obvious. Go figure.

Quick question to Super.

My vote's currently leaning towards a pressure vote on Tom, but hell if I'm going to do that until he posts.

Uh, explain this one?

This deserves a mention. And by mention I mean I second the request for an explanation. Town needing a good game and every mistake being more painful than usual is one thing, but holding back on one's vote for that reason is counter-productive. If we only end up lynching someone in a last-minute train, the voting record would be nigh-useless day 2 for us.

I'm currently keeping my vote on Tom because his attack on Otter doesn't look so hot, and in the absence of a solid candidate at this point (and Tom not being in danger of a lynch at this point) I don't have a better target. Therefore, it seems suspect to me to not use one's vote even as means of pressuring others.

Question the second to LD! Why weren't you using your votes as a means of pressure on either of the two people you defined as lurkers in your last post? You talk about not wishing to default to LAL, but using the pressure votes to get people to talk is actually the opposite of doing that, and the chances of starting a train this early on are ridiculously low. Therefore, why the unvote, a stern word to Andrew and Tom, and no followup voting?

171

Forum Games / Re: Phantom Brave Mafia - Game Topic (DAY 1)

« on: March 05, 2008, 06:22:12 AM »

Question to LD~

From your votepost and the follow up post, you make it seem like you were trying to vote for that someone who is still missing. That is clearly Tom, not Otter, as you later realize. However, your vote remains on Otter. Can you please explain your choice?

<-->

##Vote: EvilTom for having the chance to check in and not, y'know, doing it. Or having any pressure votes at all to compel him.

172

Forum Games / Re: Phantom Brave Mafia - Game Topic (DAY 1)

« on: March 04, 2008, 06:14:27 PM »

Since when is not paying attention such a pro-town quality, pray tell? Whatever. I think I'll wait till morning until everyone's checked in before placing my exciting day 1 vote.

173

Forum Games / Re: Phantom Brave Mafia - Game Topic (DAY 1)

« on: March 04, 2008, 02:49:06 PM »

Not for posting, but for beating me to it, surely a highly suspicious act in itself. Yet Otter's reading comprehension strikes again in a sinister manner, perhaps a ploy of his to pretend to misread another person's posts to generate undue suspicion over them!

174

Forum Games / Re: Phantom Brave Mafia - Game Topic (DAY 1)

« on: March 04, 2008, 10:29:24 AM »

Ditto on the flavor, though the source seems fun enough to pick up somewhere down the line, if you go by wikipedia.

And Excal is horribly suspicious, with his stealing of the first post!

175

Forum Games / Re: Gratuitous Post Restriction Mafia

« on: March 03, 2008, 03:42:14 PM »

~