My-Hime Mafia

[Sierra]

Soppy talk? I'm down with that. It is distressingly easy to sum up his posts: a jokevote, a few one-liners, and the four-point summary post he recently put up.

Strago's covered point #1 already; I'll add that point #2--"I'm glad that the whole Cid/Bard thing was dropped. That coulda been a huge distraction had that blown up"--is functionally useless. Anyone can go "Something horrible failed to happen; this is good." It's such a bland observation that it tells us nothing. The post feels like filler put out to allay criticism of low presence (I know I at least have previously pointed that out; I think Alex did too).

I'm also uncertain why exactly Soppy felt it necessary to unvote Xanth if he still felt him to be suspicious. Xanth was minus one to lynch, yes, but does this really make a huge difference? Surprise hammer doesn't happen on day one (barring tie votes where one candidate is scum with nothing to lose, and we're nowhere near a tie vote here). As has been said many a time in many other games, few things make a player more suspicious than hammering without allowing sufficient time for discussion. Soppy should know that's not likely to happen, which raises the question of why he unvoted in the first place? Lacking better explanations, I'm inclined to defer to Strago's conlusion here: political expediency.

Bottom line, Soppy reads like textbook lurking scum so far. Observe enough so that people think you're paying attention, but don't include enough fine detail to commit to anything.

Other stuff in a moment.

[Xanth]

Back, and with more to answer to. Ho hum.

El Cid: re: the paired stuff that still hasn't been laid to rest, your new quote on the matter was again justifying why it was there in the first place ("to start from"). Alex was "still the sorest thumb out there" for his bizarre follow ups, but the bracketed section is just saying that I stand by putting the vote down when I did, even though I'd crossed the wires on principles. Random oddity to start discussion, yes. Backing a serious end of day vote, no.

I'm not even sure what you're voting for me now other than that and mentioning metagaming at all.

-I really don't like Tom's attitude so far. So many pointed questions at both myself and Strago of the "when did you stop beating your wife" variety on top of the misrepresentation.

So you apparently get out of questions by calling them stupid?

I answered your questions. My point there was that you're asking questions / making points where you've left room to attack regardless of the answer.

I'm more on Kilgamayan's side than Tom's in that little fray, partially for Strago's reservations and also because Tom's joke argument is [unsurprisingly] incorrect. Well, I'm not really on Kilga's side so much as I'm against randomly firing him into the lead so soon.

-In Tom versus Kilga, there was no Kilga's side to be on.

Xanth: first you said you were on Kilga's side. Then you said Kilga didn't have a side. That was the odd contradiction.

Big inconsistency right here, people. Check the end of Tom's post here for where he claims I've contradicted myself. You'll note that not only does the quotation in question have nothing to do with Kilga, the post where I say that 'Kilga had no side', but this second quote he's now using to justify this contradition comes after the post where he claims there's a contradition. In fact, it was in the same post where I respond to that claim. Try again.

Oh, and you'll notice that I clarify myself immediately after saying I was 'on Kilga's side' to mean 'against giving him a bunch of votes'. It's right there in the section just quoted.

-Only in so far as not shoving someone randomly in front.

I don't buy that.
1. If you were on his side, why would you consider voting for him?
2. Not wanting to put him at -4L should have nothing to do with whether or not you support his side/argument/case.
3. He didn't have a side, nor was there a 'fray', and you didn't vote anyway.[/quote]

0. You don't buy it? See what I've just pointed out. It was there from the start.
1. What.
2. Sure in principle, but being against your vote on Kilga (if taken more than a pure joke vote) and being against El Cid for dropping a third vote on a stationary target are two separate issues.
3. Side thing again. Not voting for it isn't a big thing.
 

That was all very odd, but the part that set my alarms off when he called it a 'fray'.

Xanth cries about misrepresentation, but he was guilty of it first when he tried to portray two one-line jokevotes as some kind of heated war.
His comments were designed to stir up trouble from the sidelines, by labeling jokevotes as a 'fray' when they were obviously anything but.
He came, said he supported Kilga over EvilTom, didn't provide reasons other than 'See: Strago', and then ran.

Xanth - I'm not the only one who's mentioned your WOT non-concise posting style, so lashing out at me and crying misrepresentation isn't going to cut it. Why is it you gave Alex a civil response but I got OMGUS

Whilst I disagree with Alex's label, at least he was claiming a reasonable-lengthed post to be a wall of text. You, on the other hand, used the term to tar some of my short posts, at worst using it to describe a two-line piece. That's a big difference.

My vote is still on Tom. Actively manipulative over passively poor for sure here.

Oh no, surely not manipulation in a game of Mafia, of all things?  I don't understand what 'passively poor' is supposed to mean to be honest.

Let's direct you to "So you apparently get out of questions by calling them stupid?" for irony. That section was a summary of previous points, so it should be clear what each means.


More to come, but I'm really digging into Tom here, so I want this out now.

[Xanth]

Bah, quote failure. I hope it's all clear.

[Xanth]

I'm also uncertain why exactly Soppy felt it necessary to unvote Xanth if he still felt him to be suspicious. Xanth was minus one to lynch, yes, but does this really make a huge difference? Surprise hammer doesn't happen on day one [...]

I mostly agree with what you're saying in that post, but I sure felt nervous on -1 when there are two new [to the forum (and to me)] people playing and neither voting for me at the time. So far as I know, either could do it as someone not understanding the voting etiquette, regardless of alignment. Unless Sopko knows both of them enough to know that they won't do that, better safe than sorry.

[Sierra]

Re: Wall of textness? Not inherently a bad thing, and the rules don't specify that posts should be concise, so you can't claim that someone employing these is not adhering to the spirit of the game. Wall o' text =/= inherently scummy. I concur with Xanth that Tom has thrown the term about to indict Xanth as though "Wall of Text" was a pejorative and simply applying it to someone automatically makes them look bad. As always, the point of distinction should be whether or not said textblocks have content sufficient to justify their size. And Xanth's? Well, on skimming through the topic again, most of his biggest posts are in direct response to Tom. Which makes perfect sense, really--given how much time Tom's spent attacking Xanth, is it any surprise that the only way he can respond is with in-depth analysis in megaposts of his own? Given that, using "WoT-style" as a criticism against Xanth is futile at best when coming from Tom.

~

For Tom himself:

Oh no, surely not manipulation in a game of Mafia, of all things?

Sure, we expect manipulation in Mafia. The thing is, we expect it from scum. Or at least I do.

And Tom, you may believe you're not focusing solely on the people attacking you, but that runs counter to my observations. Xanth expressed skepticism over your jokevote way back on page one, and you two have been locked in mortal combat (MORTAL KOMBAAAT! Sorry, had to) ever since. Ditto for Strago. I believe self-defense is causing you to fixate overly much on a select couple players.

~

Alright. It's rather late in the day to be switching, but I'd rather lynch someone whose behavior is highly characteristic of lurking scum than someone who at least is energetically defending himself. So, I'm going to vote for the darkhorse here and see who goes with me:

##Unvote: Xanth
##Vote: Hunter Sopko

Xanth and Tom remain acceptable substitutes if this doesn't catch on. And Xanth? You're right in that I don't have a lot to hold against you. It just happens to be enough for a day one case.

EDIT: NinjaXanth! That's a valid point, and I'd accept it if Sopko himself had said it.

[Kilgamayan]

I have to leave for a bit, but I should be back before deadline. Vote is staying on Xanth for now just in case I DON'T return on time, but given the cases that have been presented I would not be averse to switching to Sopko or Tom if time constraints forced a lynch of one of them.

Not much to say about what has happened since my last post other than I am sad that Xanth seemed to ignore me completely. :<

[Xanth]

Kilga: Not forgotten. I'm in the middle of writing that (and others) now. It'll be up in a bit.

[Corwin]

I am somewhat disturbed by a tendency I'm seeing here to answer in the name of another player. Such as Sopko for Alex (http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=2506.msg42076#msg42076) or Xanth for Sopko a few posts back. There's this strange feeling that it's happened beyond that, but I won't be combing our thread based on a hunch day 1.

In any case, rather than trying to explain away the concerns I and some others have re: Sopko, I'd have hoped to have seen a response from Xanth on the question I asked him.

A votecount might be nice, if our delightful co-mod could be convinced to go to the trouble of doing so~

[Hunter Sopko]

This seems to be Affinity's only post this game so far, other than a one-line jokevote. While I haven't been too much better, I'm surprised no one's picked up on this lurking-wise.

I'm not even sure what you're voting for me now other than that and mentioning metagaming at all.

Xanth, the reason they're on you isn't because you only mentioned metagaming, it's because you didn't seem to grasp how inherantly flawed an argument based on metagaming is. If it's to be used at all, it's to be used in conjuction with more solid evidence and not the basis of an argument. Bringing up meta on Day 1 is usually kind of pointless because you're mostly grasping at straws anyway. If you want to talk about the meta of the game in regards to whatever the game is based on, thats slightly better but also still dangerous to make assumptions about since setups can be planned around this.

EDIT: NinjaXanth! That's a valid point, and I'd accept it if Sopko himself had said it.

Personally I feel that regardless of how much you know people, it's better to be safe than sorry. I would have done it regardless of who was playing, to be perfectly honest.

I like Tom's calling out of Strago here. It's kind of a subtle distinction to make, but I'm interested in Strago's rebuttal.

Obviously I'm a little biased towards, you know, myself, but where is the "subtle distinction" in Tom's post (the one I quoted above)? Soppy's an outsider looking in, here, offering next-to-none of his own input, certainly not taking a firm stance he couldn't maneuver out of.

He's calling you on a minor difference in your reasoning for your vote the end of your argumentation. You put forth more than enough to lay a vote on him, why did you need to pussyfoot around voting for him by saying it's your gut? Because of the amount of time left? Because it would be easier to pull your vote off later? It's day one, if you're going to accuse me of taking "politically expediant" stances, then I'll put it right back at you.

[Corwin]

Good point on Affinity, Sopko. I think it's due to Affinity simply being less visible due to being new here and all. At least, that's how it is for me. In other news, I should be around for half an hour more or so, I'll vote before going to bed.

[Xanth]

After glancing at Xanth's posts, something bothers me.

First, Xanth says that metagaming is just another thing town can and that town should use all the weapons at its disposal. He even uses it to place a vote on Alex, from what I understood.

Then, later on, Xanth decides on Tom for the lynch. Here, however, I see Xanth suddenly ignore anything metagaming-related with regards to Tom. After all, is Tom actually acting differently from usual? 'hideous misrepresentation' or not, I'm not sure I like how you both take in the players's history and discard it whenever it seems to suit the case.

If I had misundestood something, please explain this apparent discrepancy to me. There is still time to the deadline, and I haven't actually placed a vote along with this post, after all.

There's no discrepancy there. It's a weapon town should keep in mind, but that doesn't mean it's applicable everywhere. Alex acting weird was Alex acting weird (and at least mostly irrelevant to metagaming anyway as I'd like to think I'd have responded likewise regardless of the player). Tom's actions here are completely unrelated to information I can take/remember from other games, be it in support or against. There's a case on him regardless of that, so I don't see what's wrong there.

Xanth: I don't see Alex as having been distinctly unhelpful when you voted for him, and the fact that you retain this vote after he makes what is arguably the most helpful action all day (the fourth vote on me) makes your case seem even weaker.

Given that all I can see for your reasons for making - and, more importantly, sticking to (up until just recently) - the Alex vote are that he was being unhelpful (which I disagree with entirely) and because you didn't see any of Alex in his actions (which I frown upon on a fundamental level), I'd love a better explanation, since you say you're unsure why people don't get why you voted for him.

I can only offer to agree to disagree here. I found his tone confusing and disagree with the timing of pushing you out. It's not something to hang on to all day given a recovery, but I haven't. Is there a perceived lag in when I took my vote off? Alex recovered shortly after I went to bed, so my vote could have come off up to something like eight hours earlier had I been around. This doesn't wipe your initial point out, but I disagree with the implications of "up until just recently".

I'm still not seeing how Bardiche is doing his journalistic waffling thing (I believe Xanth brought this up since my last post but I know Alex has commented on it in the past as well and I think other people that I can't remember have also made mention of it). I am seeing several instances of "I like this" or "I don't like this", though. Can someone point out the predominantly waffling nature of his posts?

Looking back at his posts I think I've been overly harsh, but I still see little in the way of opinions other than in self-defence.  It's not so much waffling as it is the straddling the issues. Most of what I see there are questions. The only opinion I can pull out of it is the approach to Strago and Alex in this post.


Time to split again.

[Xanth]

I'm not even sure what you're voting for me now other than that and mentioning metagaming at all.

Xanth, the reason they're on you isn't because you only mentioned metagaming, it's because you didn't seem to grasp how inherantly flawed an argument based on metagaming is. If it's to be used at all, it's to be used in conjuction with more solid evidence and not the basis of an argument. Bringing up meta on Day 1 is usually kind of pointless because you're mostly grasping at straws anyway. If you want to talk about the meta of the game in regards to whatever the game is based on, thats slightly better but also still dangerous to make assumptions about since setups can be planned around this.

I... actually agree with this almost entirely. I didn't intend to imply that metagaming should carry huge weight, and should certainly be treated with caution, I just disagreed with the principle of completely ignoring what you know of people from other games.

And no, I'm pretty much completely against character metagaming in a game where the names are completely open and I assume it was said that anyone could be anything.

[Excal]

I do find it vaguely amusing that in a post that contains a vote against someone for what generally amounts to metagaming, Andy does some of his own with the Scum never vote second line, which frankly seems far more dangerous than noticing general traits of people like Xanth attempted.  Some of the other arguments against him also seem similarily useless, like the ones which take him to task for wanting to vote people without use of the metagame when not only has that been getting him in trouble, but also when he's simply labeled the metagame as a tool which should be used, and not the only way to play.  So, I'm not finding Xanth too troublesome at the moment.

Sopko, on the other hand, I am.  He simultaniously takes a spotty post by Andy and says it's better than it is (the guy admits that he's not fully up on the game in it, yet you seem to feel he is caught up?  the hell?) and then backs away from what he feels is the strongest lynch, and undoes a move that he felt was a good one for Andy to take.  So, I'm willing to see him as not entirely wholesome.

In more concrete terms, I think that pursueing a train on Sopko at present will provide more worthwhile data for later in the game, as having a choice between two viable lynch candidates reveals more than a single pile on.  As well, it means that two people are fighting for their lives, and that generally is the best way for me to get a read on a person later.  So, I approve of this, and will aid in it.

##Unvote: Andy, ##Vote: Sopko

[Strago]

I like Tom's calling out of Strago here. It's kind of a subtle distinction to make, but I'm interested in Strago's rebuttal.

Obviously I'm a little biased towards, you know, myself, but where is the "subtle distinction" in Tom's post (the one I quoted above)? Soppy's an outsider looking in, here, offering next-to-none of his own input, certainly not taking a firm stance he couldn't maneuver out of.

He's calling you on a minor difference in your reasoning for your vote the end of your argumentation. You put forth more than enough to lay a vote on him, why did you need to pussyfoot around voting for him by saying it's your gut? Because of the amount of time left? Because it would be easier to pull your vote off later? It's day one, if you're going to accuse me of taking "politically expediant" stances, then I'll put it right back at you.

You've got a fair point on that, or at least half of one. Any half-measures I made come from the fact that my suspicions of Tom - valid as I or anyone else might think them to be - are based largely on a style of communication, moreso sometimes than his specific points. I know that digging too deep into the form taken by players' arguments stems from my English-major tendency of overanalysis, and I know it's gotten me burned before. Not to mention that I do occasionally doubt myself. The difference between us is right that I still present a case with some rigor before I allow for those doubts I do have. And to make it perfectly clear: I'm by no means satisfied that Tom's a good and innocent townie right now. And I'd probably keep my vote with him were it not for two things:

1. Excal and El Cid have now voted for Soppy, the case against whom still makes a lot of sense to me. Given the fact that we've only got around five hours left, and Soppy's currently looking worse to me than Xanth, joining these guys seems pretty reasonable. Moreso than attempting to get another train moving this late in the game.

2. Tom's gone until past deadline, as per his most recent post. Ironically, this first and foremost makes me find him quite a bit scummier! The willingness to place a vote that long before deadline and state with such confidence that he definitely won't be around to change it doesn't exactly speak volumes for his helpfulness in the search for scum. That said, it's also a pretty solid defense for the rest of the day, since I'm not going to attempt to string up someone who won't even have a chance to give a final defense. So... well, blargh. I know he lives in some crazy upside-down country, and that people need to sleep. I also know that real excuses are often the best damn kind for scum. Blargh, I say.

##UNVOTE: Evil Tom
##VOTE: Hunter Sopko

Not a lot of time left, and I'd rather ride this wave than try to stir up my own. Excal's making a lot of sense to me in his most recent post, particularly with his catch of Andy's weird meta-moment.

Something odd. From this person who posted this:

I am somewhat disturbed by a tendency I'm seeing here to answer in the name of another player. Such as Sopko for Alex (http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=2506.msg42076#msg42076) or Xanth for Sopko a few posts back. There's this strange feeling that it's happened beyond that, but I won't be combing our thread based on a hunch day 1.

.... we've also got this:

Good point on Affinity, Sopko. I think it's due to Affinity simply being less visible due to being new here and all. At least, that's how it is for me. In other news, I should be around for half an hour more or so, I'll vote before going to bed.

Sure, Affinity's a new player, and therefore harder to get a bead on. He (she?) is also just straight-up not contributing much, so why that write-off of suspicion? Why not let Affinity defend himself?

People who I can't really get a bead on at the moment, and from whom I'd like to hear more: Kiro, Alex, Andrew.

[Xanth]

I'll vote to save my own skin if I have to, but I'd rather the attention was on Tom (can't answer before deadline, I know). I can't say I'd be against lynching Sopko, but would still put him behind Affinity for the obvious and probably also Bardiche for the aforementioned style. I'd prefer he talked about more, but I've felt that Sopko's been fairly incisive in his points on me.

[Corwin]

Where do you get a 'write off of suspicion', Strago? I pointed out that Sopko wasn't participating much, Sopko brought up Affinity was doing the exact same thing, and I agreed. If you're asking why, given the choice of the two of them, I'd rather focus on Sopko, it's (1) that new people get more leeway for their first game, as far as I'm concerned, and (2) that I actually find things I find troublesome with Sopko's post, while nothing to such an extent occurs with Affinity. That 'defense', if that's how you call it, was really a defense of my inadvertent omission of Affinity as he's not as visible to me the way Sopko is, rather than an excuse for Affinity's own actions, and I don't think it's particularly difficult to see what I was saying.

Moving on. Sopko hasn't really responded to my concerns despite being here after I made them, while Xanth... I could still go for Xanth, since I'm not convinced at all by his response on Tom (name a game Tom doesn't act horribly scummy, seriously, it's a dare and everything). Still, Sopko has really given me nothing and I'm forced to go for him.

##Vote: Hunter Sopko

Other stuff. Strago just feels weird, this isn't the first time he misrepresents me blatantly and we're still in day 1. And at the same time, he doesn't actually do anything with it, not even some FoS. Just... has it out there hoping someone will run with it and have things snowball? That's how it feels to me.

Andrew. Eh. Don't think we got much content from him, don't think he paid particular attention thus far to the game. This would need to be watched more carefully come day 2.

Cid... comes off as mildly confrontational. I can't really put the feeling I get from his posts into words adequately. Can't help but wonder if anyone else thinks that.

If you're playing and I haven't mentioned you thus far, you should probably be posting more, yes.  >_>

[Kiro]

In the essence of time, looks like 3 candidates for lynch today.

Re: Tom:
I was mildly surprised when I read that more people are supporting Strago's view over Tom while I went the other way. Tom is being rather defensive, but I don't see anything wrong with it. While I don't agree with using anger and derision to snap back at accusers, I think it's a tactic used by both Town and Scum to rattle opponents' viewpoints. Him doing so does not condemn him to be scum or even anti-town in particular. It's only misrepresentation if you let it color your vision like that.  His initial points against Xanth are reasonable and the criticism just piles on after. The thing is that they aren't even on big issues, but on things coming from his serious post on Page 1. As stated elsewhere, a Tom lynch wouldn't reveal very much at all.

I also understand Strago's reasoning for leaving the vote on Tom. A "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario.
##Unvote Strago since concerns about Tom are universally the same and not specific to Strago alone.

Re: Xanth:
Concerns are still the same. At L-1, he votes Tom for blatant misrepresentation. Misrepresentation because Tom quoted something that wasn't a WoT when you have posted some is not something I'd make a big deal of. Still bringing up metagaming every now and then. Nothing new has really changed for me since the last time I posted.

Re: Sopko:
The Unvote on Xanth from L-1 to L-2 is pretty damning. I'm confident people here wouldn't quickhammer that on Day 1. And you weren't convinced by Xanth's post at the time either so that excuse is out. The rest of what you've said is indeed waffling a bit. You have the least content among the 3 candidates so I can also understand why your wagon is picking up steam. Got anything to say before deadline, let's hear it.

I'll be around for deadline, but at the moment, I'd lean towards Sopko > Xanth > Tom. The last 2 will get vetted more the next day.

A few cuts: The votes on Sopko keep coming on. I'll be around to see if he replies to anything. Otherwise, time's running out.

[Strago]

Fair enough, Cor. It just read to me more like you were making excuses for Affinity than for yourself; I hope you can understand why, given that interpretation, I found those two posts of yours to be a bit discordant. I'm certainly not out to misrepresent you. I'm transparent about my thought process. *shrugs*

Mrff, I've got a little more than an hour between until I'll be gone until deadline. Not sure how to best spend that time. Hey, are we clear on what is required for a lynch? As in, does it need to be seven votes or is it just whoever has the most by deadline?

[Kilgamayan]

Whoa, that train built up fast.

Gimme a moment to catch up.

[Kilgamayan]

Strago: Rat's rules say Town Must Lynch, so I presume having the most votes at deadline would get someone offed.

[AndrewRogue]

Yes, I did put Xanth at -1. No, I'm not inclined to think it was that big a deal, given he looked like the best candidate to me at the time.

Sopko's post... is odd, since I don't think my post was particularly great and definitely not among the most coherent posts I have ever made in Mafia. The rest of his material (including the unvote) actually does make sense to me (I don't necessarily agree, but I do see some logic to it), but his endorsement of my own post feels... wrong.

Too many complaints about walls of text here, when we really aren't hitting any offensive length posts. Getting close, but not there yet. Don't get hung up on this issue, folks.

Corwin actually raises an interesting point regarding Xanth, and one I'm inclined to agree with. There also seems to be some disjunction with the unvoting of Alex, as it sets aside Alex's initial "weirdness."

Excal, any chance you could quote back to me the line in question? I think I know what you're talking about, but I want you to quote it yourself to fulfill a small curiosity of mine.

Hanging onto Xanth for the moment, but Sopko is also a viable lynch to me.

[Kilgamayan]

I didn't realize until just now how journalistic this post was. I think it's worse than anything Bard has done so far. I'm also bothered by the fact that Sopko took a serious vote off of Xanth and has yet to bother sticking it on anyone else (and he has had the opportunity!). Little posting, even less content, funky Andrew comments...yeah, other people have already made this case and I'm not about to pretend it's a Kilga original.

I'm pretty sure Sopko is at L-2, but I'mma go back and count one last time to make sure before I vote.

Xanth: The "up until recently" line is only there to acknowledge that you did indeed eventually change your vote, but you did not change your vote off of Alex at your first opportunity, which was your post stating how Alex is not acting like himself or some such. I did not (and do not) intend to use gaps of time as part of a case against you, only instances of publicly displayed opportunity.

[Ranmilia]

Awake again.  After sleeping on it I was going to propose moving to Sopko but I see folks have already done it for me!  Yeah.  Not much else to say on it, see what others have said, I get a pretty large scum vibe off him, very odd what he has and has not spoken about.  Don't have too much time right now... what's he at?  Votecount?

[Carthrat]

Day 1, Votecount!

EvilTom: Kilgamayan, Strago, Xanth
AndrewRogue: Excal
Corwin: HunterSopko
Affinity: Bardiche
Excal: Xanth, SirAlex
El-Cideon: Affinity, Kiro
Bardiche: El-Cideon
Kilgamayan: EvilTom, Corwin, El-Cideon, SirAlex
SirAlex: Xanth, Corwin
Xanth: HunterSopko, SirAlex, EvilTom, Kilgamayan, El Cideon, AndrewRogue
Strago: Kiro, Affinity
HunterSopko: El Cideon, Excal, Strago, Corwin

7 to lynch, 1.5 hours remaining or so.

[Kilgamayan]

My count has Sopko at 4 votes: Cid, Excal, Strago and Corwin.

Ninja'd by a vote count. Wonderful.