Within a Deep Mafia Forest - Game Topic (GAME OVER)

[Corwin]

LD: This is getty silly. Alright. I will say a lower-case otter, as in the animal, no ambiguity. I was a bit annoyed originally at the entire thing, and it snowballed places that just obstruct the game. Fine, I'll bow down properly and 100% to the full letter of the rules.

[Mad Fnorder]

I read this as "since when is what you did as scum a reason to pick out another person who did that thing as scum?" which seems kind of silly. I've seen a lot of argument revolving around what person X did as scum last time and what that therefore means for this time. Past behavior, argument surrounding what one did when they were scum and anyone with similar behaviors might be scum too, et cetera. Excal did it in VtM without being scum, so I don't really see why it's not a valid argument. You might possibly be saying that because smodge claimed it was a joke it was not in any way a reflection of his having been scum, but that doesn't seem particularly important. What he says is far less important than what he does.

To clarify- Smodge's assertion seems to be that "I did X, and it was a scum tell, so it must be a scumtell here, too. And yet, he said he was joking when he did it when he was scum, but now it counts?

Re: Italic Zone- This... makes no sense to me. You say in the first sentence "Past people's records count", seemingly supporting Smodge's point,  and then you say "Excal did the same action in the past that Smodge is calling out Andrew for and wasn't scum", which is the opposite of Smodge's point, that Andrew's stacking a jokevote is ZOMG SCUMMY.

Re: Bold Zone- This is precisely the point! Smodge is saying that his capricious jokevote action in game A where he was scum is, when reenacted, a scum tell in game B. This is terrible logic. It's like saying, "I was asked to pick a number 1-10, so I rolled a die and got four. That guy picked four too! Scum!"

Heck with it. I'm aboard this train.

##Unvote Corwoin
##Vote Smodge

[Lady Door]

The bolded part was my attempt to interpret the thing you were upset over smodge over in a manner separate from how I had initially read what you wrote. That is, "I read this as 'since when...'" compared to "You might possibly be saying..." They were two different interpretations of what your argument could have been because I wasn't quite sure and the second one, the one you bolded, was my moment of "oh, well maybe he meant it this way." I dismissed the idea you proposed -- smodge meant it as a joke therefore it's scummy for him to take someone else doing the same thing seriously -- because I could care a less what he says he meant when he did it. Simple matter is, smodge did X in previous game and was scum, smodge sees someone else doing X and thinks they're scum. That seems more or less logical to me.

In the part you italicized, I said I've seen a lot of people arguing about what people having done in the past having bearing here, including past behavior, argument surrounding what one did when they were scum implying that anyone else doing similarly was likewise scum, etc. My point about Excal was that he made a similar argument -- I did X as scum, so I see this person who's also doing X as scummy -- and he was town. It seemed valid to me, despite the fact that I abhor a reliance on it, to refer to what people did in other games as reflective of how they're acting in this one.

Your minimization is overstating the point, but yes, I get where you're coming from. It seems too random to be substantive. You could just as easily perform the action he's castigating someone for without being scum. It's just not the reason I'm voting for smodge.

[Luther Lansfeld]

##Unvote: Andrew
##Vote: Ciato

I honestly thought it was bad phrasing and town-vs-town day 1 arguing thus far, but Ciato's last post bothers me quite a bit. In the same breath she calls my second vote on a person a train and suspicious, while the next sentence condemns smodge for seeing a second vote as scummy and starting a train. And then she returns to two votes in a larger game (such as this, wrt WoW) not being as suspicious after all.

Yeah, this looks like a shiftier stance than Andrew's to me, especially since it comes later on in the day and not in the transition from jokevote phase. When I try to read your arguments, Ciato, I find some of your words refuting or invalidating others of them, and that simply shouldn't happen. That it isn't the first time you... misspoke? Slipped? Well, that's disturbing and vote-worthy, IMO.

2/5 is over 1/3, 2/7 is not. 1/3 of the amount of votes to lynch is what pings to me from jokes to not jokes. My stances have been made clear, I do not see where I can make them moreso. Your vote on Andrew wasn't for joke reasons, this is a different matter altogether. Jokevotes should not go 1/3 to lynch, because I feel that is dangerous. Jokevotes can be hidden behind. Real votes and their placement is completely different to me. (I mean, shouldn't they be?)

You're being very rude and nasty AND brief and I think you are intentionally trying to misrepresent me.

[Corwin]

I can live with brief but I honestly don't see where I'm being rude or nasty. I think either your train of thought doesn't work with your argument, or you're writing it in a way that seems self-contradicting. That is suspicious and I'm voting on that. Please don't accuse me randomly of being uncivil. If your stances are clear, why are you being questioned on them repeatedly? Perhaps it would help to take a step back and reread your posts to see if, maybe, there could be something off about them.

[Luther Lansfeld]

I have been questioned, and I have explained my stances based on what I've been asked. If you have questions, ask them! I answered Excal's questions about my stance on lynching lurkers, and uh you didn't really ask me questions but just accused me of things. I'm not sure how all of this even came about anyway, I don't really see what's so strange about taking jokevotes less seriously than normal votes and wanting to lynch people with low-content...

[Luther Lansfeld]

But anyway, I agree with LadyDoor, I think. Argh I don't know if this is smodge just being smodge or if he's scum. I'll think about it more while I am in lab (just ran over to the computer lab between class and lab because thinking about whether smodge was scum or not and the implications of smodge being scum was driving me somewhat mad in class. <_<) but the WIFOM is strong in this case. It certainly seems like he is repeating other people's arguments and being less-than-helpful in general, but I can definitely understand being busy so I can't fault him for i- oh shit it's 2 I'm going to be laaaate bye~

[Dhyerwolf]

Smodge does appear to be jumping around too quickly. While the lack of time argument rings pretty strongly, throwing in at least some reason for why he was voting Andrew before disappearing would have been a good idea if he knew it would be a while before he could post again. His logic behind of some his votes has been pretty bad (Ciato jumped on one little thing in one Mafia game, but not in this one, and then voting for Andrew because he thinks that Ciato's not voting an Andrew would mean that if Ciato was scum, Andrew was also scum? Which is an odder leap because he's voting Andrew for a Ciato-centric reason, it feels like. Although afterwards he then says that Otter vs Ciato feels like town vs town, which just kind of confuses me since his vote for Andrew is tied up in him being scumbuddies with Ciato).

There are other people not posting too much, but the one that stands out right now is OK! We don't have a serious vote from him yet, or any valid vote for that matter. Corwin's dogged attempt to evade the rules doesn't necessarily strike me as scum behavior because it effectively draws lots of negative attention to him when he's not even going against someone, and he could be advised not to do that.

##Vote: Smodge

I agree that he's the best candidiate. His logic for voting has seemed to contradict itself, and been based on really tenuous evidence from other games in the first place. I believe that's 5 votes total for him.

[Corwin]

Since it's the way your posts read rather than your actual arguments (after you explain them in follow-up posts) that bother me, Ciato, you can't really answer any questions, because I have none. I still find your continued choice of phrasing weird, but I'm willing to get smodge's flip and move on to debating based on an actual record day2.

##Unvote: Ciato

May I ask for a votecount, please? I think my vote would place smodge at -1 to hammer, but it's getting late and I don't want to hammer before giving him a chance to roleclaim.

[Excal]

-2 to Hammer on Smodge.  I think we're hitting last words territory here, so if you have anything to say, now's the time to say it, Smodge.

Lady Door, as flattered as I am that you're using my blunder from a previous game as an argument for why a similar blunder shouldn't be considered scummy, you do need to look at why I was castigated for it.  Namely, if you can get accepted as town while also using arguments along the lines of 'while I was scum...' then you could also get into a place where any small slips you make as scum (Well, I'm betting this is what we, err...  the scum, are thinking at the moment) involving how they think would just be part of your memories.  It's simply an argument that, while not being heavy in tells itself, would do a great deal to obscure future tells.

[Kilgamayan]

Andrew: I certainly hope no one excuses bad play because of "oops, bad play!" but I also certainly hope no one sees bad play and immediately tears the player a new one. The what, when and how of a mistake are all important in determining whether it's worth pursuing. Would you pursue a spelling error the same way that you would pursue a questionable roleclaim that was quickly challenged? Probably not. (Yes, I realize these two scenarios are rather extreme opposites.) In the case of your mistake, I don't see it as malicious enough to be worth pursuing.

Smodge: I could have added more to the post I made on Page 3 but I saw nothing else worth commenting on at the time. (A wise man once said, "I am not going to form an uninformed opinion." >_>) Specifically, I did notice, as LD did, that Dhyer and Fnorder hadn't posted in 24+ hours, but I quickly realized that it was something like the 26.5 hour mark when I was posting and I felt it would've been a bit of a dick move to call them on it then, like I had a stopwatch going and was waiting for them to hurry up or something. (Apparently LD either disagreed with or simply dismissed this mode of thinking.) I went to bed with the plan that if one or both still hadn't posted by the time I got up I would switch my vote, but lo and behold they both appeared over night, and it was magically not a big deal anymore.

Ciato/LD: I wasn't talking today before now because I had to go to work. Nothing more, nothing less. :C

Note to Dhyer sinc I think it was you who brought it up: Much like in Pretty Princess Mafia, I consider Otter's actions something of a smokescreen not because they draw attention away from other issues but because they black hole attention toward them without being terribly useful themselves. The discussion had a bit more of a "gaming philosophy" flavor to it than point-counterpoints over, say, "Why did you vote this way, this way and this way", which I do not consider smokescreens at all. I also saw a potential bit of emotional involvement, brought on by my Touhou Mafia experiences - The whole cloud issue (which Ciato was involved in) coupled with Alex's plan for scum to go out of their way to not accuse anyone notorious for OMGUSing still being rooted in my mind - and wondered if that wasn't intentional.

In fact, in thinking about what I've been writing about, I've convinced myself to change my vote.

##Unvote: Yakumo
##Vote: Otter

Now that I'm finished generally reading up on everyone (for the time being) Imma go back to read up on smodge specifically.

[Lady Door]

Excal: What was with the parenthetical? Anyway, my point was not to ignore the arguing-as-if-I-were-scum/based-on-how-I-acted-when-I-was-scum as being shifty, but rather that it isn't a surefire way to pick out scum in this game. You did it, perhaps unadvisedly (and definitely to the tune of reaaally quickly wheeled suspicions), and you were town. That's all. Urging caution in making mountains out of molehills, as it were.

Kilga: I'm more than sympathetic to RL getting in the way, because heaven knows I've got a busy enough schedule myself, but I pointed them out at the time because I've generally come to believe that LaL is as good a place to go as any on the largely mudslinging Day 1. I said it in another post, but that's because being absent so much (and then being present absent, as in posting but without content) can interfere a LOT with later game. It seems safer to push at and/or remove those who can't play regularly so that scum can't later hide behind the oh-so-convenient bait and switch of "Oh, hey, look, this person hasn't been very active, LYNCH ALL LURKERS (and allow my scummy behaviors to slide for another day)."

They came back, as did you, and have made some contributions, so I decided against voting them and refocused my energies on targets with reasons beyond the meta-game to attract votes.

(( And now I'm off to Latin which I'm aiming to not be late for. Hopefully my Latinate vocabulary chills out after tomorrow's class. >_>

[Kilgamayan]

Okay, I can see a case against smodge for going after an easy target. I probably wouldn't buy into it if we were much later in the game than we are now (and I sympathize with smodge somewhat as I tend to use the "If I were scum" line of logic a lot myself) but jumping from one easy target to the next is perfectly plausible to me as far as Day 1 cases go.

On a side note, I happened to notice in my second trip back through the topic:

Isn't it the case that scum are the ones who don't pay attention?  In that case, Andrew, why didn't you know everything everywhere and stick a second vote on someone when your text clearly indicates you think you're sticking vote 1 on them?

I agree, Kilga.  I can't think of why scum would let themselves make such, well...  obvious mistakes.  Especially when they have buddies that they can confer with.

That's quite the turnaround considering there's no posts of yours in between. What's going on?

[Kilgamayan]

LD: I'm not saying calling them Dhyer and Fnorder out on not posting was a bad thing, I just didn't think it was necessary yet, and I imagine both would have posted even without prompting from anyone.

[Excal]

LD: The parenthetical text was simply illustration of the point.  Very bad illustration with cheap third-rate knockoff crayons.  But illustration none the less.

Kilga, the post you want me to defend is one that was firmly located in the joke vote stage.  It was made firmly tongue in cheek and with the expectation that there would be banter of some form rising from it instead of a quick and abrupt retreat that I find vaguely disturbing (large scale implications, not for this game).  So, the disconnect you see is one of different contexts behind the words, leading to one set being entirely serious, and the other being banter.

[Kilgamayan]

All right then.

I really need to get my sarcasm detector fixed. >_>

[Ranmilia]

Votecount! 

With 13 alive, it takes 7 to lynch.

LadyDoor (1): Dhyer
Excal (0): , Andrew, Nitori
Otter (2): Yakumo, Kilgamayan
Yakumo (0): Kilgamayan
Corwin (0): , Andrew, Fnorder
Dhyer (0): Excal
Andrew (1): Smodge, Otter, Corwin
Ciato (1): Otter, Smodge, LadyDoor, Corwin
Kilga (1): Ciato, Smodge
Smodge (5): Andrew, Excal, Nitori, LadyDoor, Fnorder

44 hours have elapsed in day 1!

Smodge is -2 to lynch!

Dhyer's most recent vote has been disregarded since by my count he still has an outstanding vote on Ladydoor!

[Luther Lansfeld]

Alright, I'll give smodge time to roleclaim before doing anything else smodge-related.

And Corwin, all I can say is that sometimes I find it hard to explain things in text without coming off badly. I have kind of a bad temper sometimes, and some things just make me mad. :/

[Otter]

I really don't agree that someone needs to be in danger before meaningful content can be found, as you're suggesting in your subsequent post. It helps when they're responding to specific criticism, it's true, but sometimes what they do and don't say when no one's suspicious says volumes.

I'm not going to argue this at length anymore, I've said everything I have to say on the subject in the strongest ways already, but directly in response to this: something has to be at stake for anything to be taken really seriously.  If somebody makes some half-hearted remark about how he didn't like your phrasing somewhere, doesn't back it up with a vote, and never mentions it again, you probably won't bother to answer him!  Your phrasing might have been an accidental scumtell, but since he didn't bother to apply the pressure to get a direct answer out of you, he missed his chance, the subject will be closed, and town misses out.

Attentiveness is crucial.  But if you see something that strikes you the wrong way, making a quiet note of it to yourself isn't going to win the game for town; confronting it head-on and demanding an explanation, on the other hand, may seem tactless but actually forces people to give an account for themselves.  If my wording seems caustic sometimes, it's because the people I'm talking to are taking entire posts of rigorous issue-dissection from me and writing them off as "Oh Otter's just inflating issues again" without actually addressing anything I'd said.  This kind of evasive posting is exactly the sort of thing I'd like to pursue and highlight, but if everyone says "Meh" and moves on without really demanding any sort of resolution, then that's that, and I hate to see that happen if I feel like I'm onto something.  Obviously I'm not going to hit scum 100% of the time, but I have reasons for reasoning the way I do and I do my best to explain them thoroughly.

---

Note to Dhyer sinc I think it was you who brought it up: Much like in Pretty Princess Mafia, I consider Otter's actions something of a smokescreen not because they draw attention away from other issues but because they black hole attention toward them without being terribly useful themselves.

I, um, wasn't in Pretty Princess Mafia.

You can consider my posts to be smokescreens because "they draw attention away from other issues," but, um, what DOESN'T draw attention away from other issues?  It is my hope that people can read my posts and other posts.  As for whether they're useful, well, right now I've been going "Hey, Ciato has been saying some very scummy things, here's why they're scummy and why I'm voting for her."  If you want to disagree with me on some point, feel free, I'll be glad to discuss whatever it is, but I do wonder why you think this mode of behavior isn't useful.  Town does want to find and lynch scum.

---

This is probably a decent time for smodge to claim, yes.

[Corwin]

Eh. Ciato, your reaction to what I thought was a fairly brief and neutral case on you made me think twice about doing it in the future, which I think is a shame. I don't like people taking offense or hating the game, but wearing an attitude like that as armor is as... well, it's one of the reasons people don't like to finger Tom and a few other players. Even though it's likely quite natural and not fake on your part, that doesn't sadly make it any less intimidating.

In any case. Smodge is still not at -1 hammer and he really should be. ##Vote: Smodge. Debate has been decent, but we really need to get going and I always look funny at people who agree with me, especially with spurrious reasoning. He fits the bill, so here's the promised vote.

[Smodge13]

Won't Save me but i'm Vanilla.

As for my voting, when i first came here and played in Tsukihime mafia, i was cautious with my votes like Ciato was, i prefered to try to hold it back and i was almost lynched for it.
Its just like the joke vote phase, regardless of if you agree with it or not you get lynched for not doing it "the way the town does it"
Personally i like to hold off my vote until i see something substantial but because i get almost lynched ofr it i have had to change my playstyle, instead i leave mine sitting on whoever looks the worst at the time regardless of whether i think the case is valid or not.

The logic behind Ciato vote was that she was acting differently therefore i sat my vote on her, i later realized that the only way Ciato could be considered acting strangely is if Andrew was scum and she was deliberately avoiding that same point.
Hence i switched my vote, i had less than 5 minutes to do it with a possible 8 hours to go before i got home, i didn't read over the thread, just checked the latest vote-count.
Andrew was the worst at the time, simply for doubling up and quick retraction.

All thats happened is people have stated their stances on gaming philosophy for the whole day and nothing else stuck out to me, hence i left my vote sitting on Andrew because despite it being a weak case, it was the only one out there i could plausibly see at the time.

[Smodge13]

Ugh, no post until i get home from work.
Just recieved a $162 fine for having feet on a seat on public transport so psending my free time looking to contest it.

[Luther Lansfeld]

I didn't mean to make you not argue with me over things, it's cool and all. It's more of that I think scum are short and such that I mentioned it, I take no personal offense or anything. After Touhou Mafia I try to watch out for people being snippy because the scum were in that game, that's all.

Also, that blows, dude. <_< 162 dollars for... having feet on a seat? o.O

[Luther Lansfeld]

And I will try to be less snippy in the future, I'm sorry. Hugs? ^_~

[Lady Door]

Kilga: Eh. I'm not so sure I agree. Joke vote frivolity has its place and all, but when the discussion starts going, it still doesn't look great to hop between whatever people are in the hot seat and hope to slide in on a train or something. Honestly, I don't know what to make of it, but it seems on par with attention-related mistakes like Andrew's and posting-infrequently lurking such as a few others have. Especially when combined with some of the other things people have pointed out. Were this the only case against him later in the game, I'd be far more hesitant to lynch him, but we're approaching 48 hours of Day 1 and the other possible targets don't seem to be worth pursuing too hard until the flip because we WILL have more information and any arguments that could be dredged against them would have to convince a number of people in a short amount of time. That, the "last minute" lunge for a new target, seems destined to cause problems for us.

Re: calling out Dhyer and Fnorder. Eh. Can't do much about it now. I wanted to bring up other cases for people to discuss, something outside of the argument between Otter and Ciato which was not getting anywhere as far as I saw it, and I was heading to do homework/chill for the evening/go to bed. I didn't pressure either of them with a vote, just pointed it out. Then they showed up, so that was the end of that. They quite possibly might have posted without me mentioning it, but I thought it was worth mentioning since 24 hours was halfway through what Day 1 "should" be (even though there's no deadline).

Excal: Cute. I thought it might be, but I didn't see the harm in asking, so thanks for clearing it up for me.

Otter: I still think the intensity of your attack is off-putting. You may indeed have a point, but because you routinely overstate it and drive it home, people are starting to pay less attention to it. Can you blame them? It's similar to Ciato's reservation with voting -- she does it all the time, so people are inclined to let it pass (well, some people!). Likewise, you pick a point to draw out information and keep on it until it's resolved (? does it ever get resolved?) or results in a lynch, and people are inclined to let your argument fall to the wayside when they don't agree because... well... that's what people do when they don't agree. It's not a scum/town thing, it's a behavior/response thing.

I will also take exception to the implication that there is no grey area between voting someone and passivity. Did you ever notice that you get more accusing looks if you respond to a polite question with hostility or silence than if you respond to an attack in like or fail to rise to it at all? The claws-out approach is certainly a show-stopper, but in the end it doesn't tell anyone anything other than that emotions were involved. If a line of question arises and you pursue without a vote, but keep asking questions, it certainly makes the other party look a helluva lot more suspicious if they continue to dodge it or attack you for it. It also provides more material for other people to jump in on the argument. "Hey, yeah, Alex did have a point, Carthrat; why are you being so cagey about it?" A vote can come in later. It doesn't have to precede the argument. As far as I'm aware, there's no limit on the number of questions you can ask a person before you have to vote them, either, so I don't see why it has to be a case of "ask once and if they ignore it, just forget it" or "vote his ass and make him pay attention to me."

I suspect this is going to resolve into a difference of play styles. Deny it all you like, there IS more than one way to skin a cat.

smodge: I don't fault you for seeing Andrew was scummy and voting him for it. Unfortunately, I do have a problem with the philosophy "i leave [my vote] sitting on whoever looks the worst at the time regardless of whether i think the case is valid or not." That just does not work.