Clue Mafia - Game Over

[Hunter Sopko]

On one hand, Corwin's (initial) reasoning for not bouncing off Meeple on to someone else seems somewhat inconsistent with his WaDF behavior, when my refusal to immediately throw a vote on someone after unvoting Nitori on Day 2 was apparently enough to get him to choose me for an NK target. I guess the difference is that I unvoted and he didn't, but honestly, I don't see why unvoting would be any worse than keeping a vote on someone who you voted for purely to start discussion and then questioned the reasoning behind the only other vote for that person.

This is what I mean by referencing past behavior. The 20% part is not part of that, and was not contributing anything new either. Alex's vote is reasonable in the line of thinking that he had prodded Rat to refine his thinking, and when Rat seemed to be spinning his wheels, it prompted Alex to vote him. We'll see where this leads to later though. Not sure it'll actually hold water later in the day as far as Alex's vote on Rat.

Again though Kilga, you post little to no content aside from a fleeting defense and explain away reasons why you don't. This is scummy behavior.

##Vote: Kilgamayan

[Ranmilia]

I'd love an explanation as to how my vote is "incredibly flimsy".

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=437.msg9708#msg9708

I was attacking Rat for attacking Sopko for Sopko attacking Meeple as a discussion starter, on the premise that attacking people for starting discussion with a flimsy case on day 1 is unproductive because any starting day 1 case is understood to be flimsy and less of an attack than an issue to spark discussion.  On day 1, especially at its start, flimsy cases are all we have to talk about, and attacking people for making them equals attacking people for starting discussion, as the only way to avoid being attacked for this is to make no cases at all.  Ergo I find Rat's position anti-discussion and antitown. 

This has been superceded by what I feel to be a stronger case against Excal.  To wit:

To your first point, Cid.  Do you honestly think there's any benefit to be had in hiding the exact weight our votes hold?  If it is alarmist, then I humbly apologise for playing upon the fears of others without any intention to do so.  But, I think that in a small game such as this, it is important that we recall that our votes are more effective than they would be in a larger game.  And I wish to minimise the risk that a carelessly left vote will alter things needlessly.  Especially since it could easily either be a careless town move, or a clever scum tactic playing upon that ambiguity.  And I will say this to all of you who have commented on my use of 20%.  Hiding from the power of our votes does not help town.  Bringing it up as a reminder is there to promote a sense of responsibility, and not to encourage a dread of doing what must be done. 

Yes, this is alarmism.  This is *exactly* what alarmism is.  "Be careful guys, votes are powerful!  A carelessly left vote (voting is bad!) will alter things needlessly (a bad thing!  Don't vote!)!  If you do this, you could be scum!"  This is cloaked with the word 'careless,' which I feel is meaningless.  What's the difference between a 'careless' vote and a careful vote?  We're out of jokevote phase, we know where our votes are and what they mean.  The effect of this statement is to make people think twice about voting, and there's that sentence thrown in about how 'careless' votes could be a scum tactic, which implies that people making 'careless' votes (by Excal's standards, presumably) will be attacked for it.  Which further dissuades people from voting.  I feel that discouraging voting is quite anti-town. 

As for the Excal/Rat connection, that comes from Rat adding to Excal's jokevote to put Sopko at 2.  I'm surprised Excal doesn't seem to have a problem with this - is it not precisely the possible "clever scum tactic" he was referring to?  Sure, Excal unvoted, but does that clear Rat for it?

[Hunter Sopko]

On a seperate note, I'm usually kind of wary of people who posit possible scum pairings early on, especially first day, so Alex coming up with Rat/Excal actually doesn't sit too well with me in that respect.

[Meeplelard]

If I may say one thing...
I feel that factoring in adding a vote to a joke vote doesn't really tell us much at all.  Its possible people just ignore joke votes entirely and its only when several are geared at one person that they are noticeable.  I don't think Rat really event factored Excal's vote on Soppy at all when he voted him.

So by itself, voting alongside a joke vote doesn't really feel like it does much to tell us anything.  Maybe on a further day when there's more to look at it, it can add points leading us in the right direction, but by itself says little.

Looking back at Rat's posts, feels more like he was jumping the gun than anything else (for lack of a better description), so...eh, hard to get ANY read on him as a result.  Feels like he was now just saying "Don't expect to get people out of a joke phase THAT abruptly!" and then some drama happened.

In all honesty, I think people are getting to worked up over this 20% line Excal was talking about.  So he's playing with numbers sure...but at the same time, he could just be simply reminding us that one vote here has more of an impact than one vote in a big game which seems to be what most people have been playing lately (correct me if I'm wrong though!)  In a game where initially, 9 votes on day 1 = lynch, 1 vote doesn't come off as much, or even two.  In a game like this, a few wrong votes at the wrong person can be alarming since it suddenly means it can bring a person that close to lynching.  I think Excal was just simply putting a bit too much emphasis on this fact, and I think people are overreacting to Excal's "playing with numbers" aspect.

This isn't to say I am sure Excal's townie; I don't have a good read on him either.  Blech, hate day 1.

Also, might I request people use the nice little "Preview" button before posting?  It makes those accidental "Quote everything" posts less likely to occur <_<;

[Ranmilia]

I should clarify, then, and say that I'm not seeing a link that explicitly points towards them being scum together.  I am seeing a link of interaction that doesn't look like town+town.  At this point, it looks like Excal's trying to put forward a line on discouraging voting because of possible shenanigans while ignoring that Rat pulled the exact shenanigan in question, and the two of them are otherwise agreeing with each other. 

Meeple, how does what you just posted sync with your vote on Corwin?

[Sierra]

Sayeth Excal: "Do you honestly think there's any benefit to be had in hiding the exact weight our votes hold?"

Nope. I don't think anyone was really doing that, either, which is part of what made your statements odd. Quite frankly, I don't think we need to be reminded. If it was just generic advice on how to be a good townie, then it seems out of place in a post that was mostly an attack on Cor.

[QuietRain]

Well, checked into the hotel and have just enough time to get in a post before crashing for the night.  HATE flying into NYC.

So, that went rather quickly through our usual 'playful silliness' starter and right into our also usual Day 1 grasping at straws.  Gotta love having no other recource of information.

So, thoughts:

I'm not getting a real read on anyone Day 1, but what else is new?  I think so far the single thing that sticks out to me the most is Alex' comment that Corwin actually gets cred from him for spurring conversation when, at the point he made the comment, Cor hadn't really posted much of ANYTHING other than in character banter and short quip answers to questions.  Now, he's active now so this is definately not saying anything about Corwin himself (that's for the next paragraph though), but Alex thinking his few comments at that point give him 'cred' is...odd.  

Now of all the trains we could get going on Day 1, I think I'm most behind the one on Corwin.

First post is the same as most everyone, just giving the character name and 'showing up to play'.  The second post is a little side banter with Cid (although really, if you've seen the movie, I could SO hear the character saying it just that way <_<) and a jokevote on Meeple.  Third and fourth posts weer short one sentence responses to people asking him his thoughts on issues.  Content nil really at this point.  And the fifth just clarifies something about someone else's post.  

It's after this that he jumps on Alex' little red wagon about Carth stifling conversation which...frankly when I sat down and read te thread in a single go I didn't see a blessed sign of, so...looks bad to me.  And then his response to Meeple calling him out on his keeping the jokevote was to..banter for a post asking rhetorical questions rather than actually posing answers or perhaps asking a few questions of his own.  It's Day 1, so do I have my analytical spidersenses tingling that Cor's a scum?  Not really.  But so far he and Alex look the oddest to me and of the two, Corwin has more things on his plate that raise my suspicions than Alex does.

And since I don't have a jokevote to remove,

##Vote Corwin

Heading off to bed now, but will be up early enough to reply before heading downstairs to the conference.

[Kilgamayan]

Alex (and Sopko to a lesser extent): Sopko's reasoning for voting Meeple wasn't "flimsy", it was flat-out incorrect. There's a very important difference. I don't see how Meeple could possibly have been flying under the radar on Page 1 with joke vote phase in full swing despite only 4 joke votes actually being cast at the time. What radar is there to fly under at that point? I agree with Rat's mentality that there's no reason to give people that vote for incorrect reasons a pass just because they were "trying to start discussion". There are plenty of ways to start discussion without voting for incorrect reasons - Corwin's a shining example in this very game.

I also disagree with your assessment that Rat's vote was anti-discussion; it's given (so far) yourself and myself and Rat something to actively discuss and anyone else in the game is quite welcome to weigh in on it. Regardless, why would a vote stop discussion at all? I sure as hell don't shut up when people start flinging octothorpes in my direction, and anyone that does is probably going to get voted off for it. If anything, it was pro-discussion, as it gave Sopko an active reason to defend his incorrect reasoning.

Sopko (again?): I was fully aware of what part of my post you meant by "bringing up past behavior". I said that because I was irritated that you seemed to simply brush away the rest of my post as if it didn't matter and then me too'd Corwin and left it at that. The least you could have done while accusing me of a lack of content is explain why my vote was flimsy instead of just saying it was. >_>

And QR posts just as I was about to call her out. Oh well. :V

[Meeplelard]

Meeple, how does what you just posted sync with your vote on Corwin?

I didn't say anything that'd go against my reasoning for voting Cor.  He claims to have defended himself well, yet...I still feel something is off with him.  He votes against me with a flimsy reason like Soppy, then keeps it once its fulfilled its role.  He did take it off before Soppy, though, but...his response seems incredibly defensive, and frankly, a bit insulting too.  There's also Soppy bringing up the fact that he did the whole grudge aspect...why bring it up AT ALL?

He's playing...oddly.  His response to my vote was basically "Its an OMGUS vote!" which wasn't the case.  He just kind of rambles in a manner that says nothing and the rest of his posts don't really add anything either.  I dunno, there's little to go off of, and he seems to be saying very little.

Didn't notice QR hadn't posted in a while myself, but...yeah, I'm not one to jump on lurking so easily anyway (mostly cause I don't believe a lot of what is called "lurking" really is lurking, and often is "Not Existing thus unable to post." but that's an aside), so can't expect that!  Sounds like she actively couldn't post, and yeah, her post actually has some content, so yeah.

(no, wasn't suspicious of her, just weighing in on what she said.)

[Kilgamayan]

Looking back over this Meeple post, I notice agreement with Alex's stance on scum wanting to wait on starting discussion, which seems WIFOM-y to me (though more so in the way Meeple phrased it than the way Alex phrased it). He also apparently missed Rat's intentions in voting for Sopko...

Carth is hard to read.  While yes, he did defend me (at least, I think)...he is calling Soppy out for starting serious discussion?  It'd be one thing if Soppy had started a train that got me to -1 Hammer or something, at which point, we'd have some potential read on scum, since getting someone that close to hammering without any real voting is suspicious.  But Soppy was the first vote on me, and as he noted, he was trying to create discussion...and he did.   Feels a bit odd that Carth's taking the direction he is.  If nothing else, I'd think it'd be a lot more in town's interest, and less suspicious, to go along the lines of questioning the vote based on a post with little substance, during a phase with little substance, rather than calling Soppy out on trying to push things into the serious end?  Its hard to read if Rat was hit with false implications in his posts, or if he really did slip, or I dunno, its hard to say.

Bold and italics added by me. I'm pretty sure the bold was exactly what Rat was trying to do, and that the italics didn't actually happen:

Soppy, why'd you say Meeple was flying under the radar? What with him posting right before you and all, it's a bit strange. What did you mean, exactly? In the name of prodding for an answer...

Meeple's Corwin paragraph and vote is then primarily a "me too" of Excal's thoughts. I remember Meeple "me too"ing a lot in SuikoMafia (a game he mentioned himself in that paragraph, ironically) where he was scum because I was starting to call him on it right before I had to split.

I don't have much else to say about the other posts that came about while I was at work. I will thank Excal (and Alex as well) for using the term "alarmist", however, as I was trying to think of it earlier. Come to think of it, Excal, you also used "kill our poor cook" in the 20% line, which seems like it could be geared toward a pity-based distraction disguised behind roleplay linguistics.

However...

##Unvote: Sir Alex
##Vote: Meeplelard

Vote is better spent on someone actually being wrong (among other things) rather than someone simply defending someone else's right to be wrong, I suppose.

[Excal]

My main reason for not asking for more content from QR earlier is because she has been kind enough to inform us of her trip to New York.  ie. she has a legitimate excuse for posting less than she normally would.  Hopefully, her typical high standard for quality in her posts will continue though until such time as her conference is done.  For those wondering about the details, they were posted in the signup thread so we can tell if she's being above board on this (though I cannot imagine why she'd want to be anything other than that in a situation such as this.)

Now, Alex, as to your concerns.  You claim that my definition of 'careless' is vague?  Then let me define it for you.  It is a vote which is placed on a person without a valid reason given along with it.  A reason similar to "Person X said what I think but better" I don't find careless, whereas the specific of voting for a person apparently at random, while there is a serious case being made against them is careless.

As for what Rat did?  Are you referring to combinations of joke vote/real vote that I appear to take issue with when it comes to Meep?  If so, then you are again missing the point I was aiming at.  Adding a serious vote to someone with a joke vote on them is not only to be expected, it is to be commended.  If you believe your vote is doing its best work there, and are trying to convince people to lynch said person, then you shouldn't be dissuaded from voting just because a joke vote is already resting there.

But...  Corwin?  He made a vote to spur discussion, and pushed someone to two votes to do so.  However, he effectively chose someone at random in order to do that, and accepted the one person with a serious case on him at the time.  It's not the act of voting itself that is the problem here, it's the order as well as the fact that the reason in question didn't call for a vote to be placed on Meeple.  If there had been even the slightest reason why it had to be on him, then there would have been no call to question Corwin.

And, on a related note, I find it very curious that you've now started two lines of inquiry that are basically "These guys dared to ask questions that I am now going to spin as anti-town!  Let's vote them for daring to follow up on things they found suspicious."  Discussion only helps town, but you seem to be doing a good job of trying to frame the act of asking questions into scummy activities.

[Meeplelard]

If you notice, Kilga, I played Rando Mafia and unranked Mafia (for all that I was a COMPLETE MORON there for completely different reasons) in completely different ways.  Carth tried to call me out on doing the same thing as being scum, and it was completely false.

You keep going on about this whole "OMG INCORRECT THING!" and frankly, you're looking too into it as far as I'm concerned.  We're human, we can make mistakes.  I misread what Carth was saying, and stopped looking heavily at him after I went back and reread it.  Yet you keep insisting on this whole "You are incorrect, SCUM!" thing, frankly.  Being incorrect from reading something, and flat out lying are two different things.  People are allowed to be wrong.

Also, how is it WIFOM that Scum want that?  Its true, no Scum would say "Lets keep things jokes!" cause that'd be a scum tell (though, Soppy did do something like this in Suikomafia where things were serious and he basically pulled a "Crap! Missed the joke phase, well I'm continuing with it anyway!" and joke voted, despite being Town, but that's more just poor playing than anything else, since he followed up in a less than ideal way too.)   FLIPSIDE, though, a scum wouldn't want to promote too much discussion unless they were actively taking on a role of ring leader and leading town to wrong targets.

An example of this? From what I recall of the first Mafia game played in the DL, it was a chat game.  Alex was scum there.  Alex used his experience and such to convince most of the chat into discussing things in the EXACT WAY HE WANTED, and ultimately, removed suspicion that way, and eventually won with super cause no one was questioning him.

Its a risky way to go unless you're absolutely sure you can succeed; in Alex's case, he was an experienced player vs. lots of first timers, so he knew he could cheat the system, in a sense.  Given now, though, everyone's being questioned, that strategy won't work.

I admit I did some bad moves with calling Rat on something he didn't actually; that was my fault and misinterpreting, etc. It happens, I look bad because of it, and I end up in this situation.

Lastly, this "me too" thing...you do realize when there's not much more to be said, all you really can say is "me too." I did agree with what Excal mostly said there, what the hell am I suppose to say?
"I agree with him, but frankly, he's wrong anyway just so I don't look suspicious!"

That logic just...doesn't really fit.  You're saying cause I was scum in one game you called me out on, in a game I was playing no different than the other two, is a good enough excuse?

This entire game, frankly, I've just felt people are jumping on lines a bit too easily.  The whole "joke vote + vote alongside = suspicious!" thing doesn't work this early when there's nothing else.  Calling Excal out on his playing with numbers (which felt like Excal being Excal, honestly; he tends to bring up weird, useless, sometimes overemphasized aspects out of nowhere at unexpected times, so that fits in with him as himself) also feels iffy.  Now there's the whole thing of being incorrect = scum tell.

It happened not that many times, frankly.  Its one thing if these mistakes are CONSISTENT.  Take Super in NR Mafia; he kept calling out the wrong people over and over again, when he meant to target someone else.  Lo and behold, he was Scum (though what ultimately got him killed was trying to role claim cop and claiming I was scum when I was the real Cop and proved this by Otter backing up my claim...and then I got myself Modkilled FURTHER proving my innocence...yeah, again, not the best of my moments >.>; )

I dunno; I feel you're putting too much emphasis on minor points and how I ALWAYS word things poorly anyway; if you've seen my rants, you'll know that's the case.  I tend to say things incorrectly, and get burned about it one way or another.  Now, yes, that alone can't excuse me from everything automatically; no questions asked, that's just saying "ignore Meeple, he's being himself, clearly not scum!" but claiming its acting Scum at the same time...well, its basically WIFOM at this point.  I act this way regardless, I say things like that regardless, really feels like you need more than basing off my Suikomafia Scumplay than that.

[Excal]

I love the shout for Kilga to talk more.  Especially since it seems to have worked, and he seems to be thinking in fun and novel ways, but how about we get some more folks to talk.  Notably, our good friend El Cid.

You've made a few minor points about me (though nothing that Alex hasn't basically done better) and said you could kind of see the argument against Corwin.  And...  that's it.  This silence is unbecoming of someone who would help town, so please speak and share your thoughts.  There's so much being said, and almost certainly a few interesting tidbits that aren't being said, but should be.  And I'd hate to see you slip into that second category.

[Hunter Sopko]

Now that Kil's posted some actual content...

##Unvote: Kilga

I think at this point we're talking in circles regarding Rat. Alex has his points about it being slightly anti-town to question moving it into serious discussion, but Rat was within his rights to question the vote I made as that also counts as moving into serious discussion. It's the main reason I didn't vote for him.

Excal, your questioning of Corwin's vote on Meeple seems WIFOMy to me, since this could have been posed to anyone Corwin could have voted for at the time.

[Excal]

Not really, Sopko.  No one else had a serious vote on them at the time Corwin voted.  Sopko started it off with his vote on Meeplelard.  The second one, discounting Corwin's which wasn't for anyone in particular, was Rat jumping on Sopko.  At the time he voted, there was just the one serious vote.  That said, given that we're at about 13 hours remaining, I am beginning to get more suspicious of El Cid, who has only made one post with any real content, and even then the content was slim.

It's not so much the fact that he only has two serious posts to his name either, it's the fact that he's done so little with them.  So...  For the time being, and since I will be around when the deadline hits...

##Unvote: Corwin,  ##Vote: El Cid

[Hunter Sopko]

I'll wholeheartedly agree with prodding El Cid...

but I still have to pursue your reasoning in this. Corwin's vote came right after mine and specifically mentions that since now the cook was ahead in votes, serious discussion could begin. You're writing off that statement. You're right in the fact that it could have been anyone that Corwin voted for, but you can't claim that you couldn't question Corwin if he had voted for anyone else but Meeple.

[Excal]

I suppose, if I really wanted to, I could.  However, look at the argument I've used, and what I needed to build this particular argument.  Namely, the fact that he went after someone who already had a serious vote on him.  If he went for anyone else for his second vote, and then left that second vote on them, then my argument, and my initial observation, cannot happen.  It was the fact that he left his vote on a target that was being advocated for lynch and made that vote after the case had been presented, that I found curious.

So, yes.  You are technically correct.  I could have found a reason to go after him if I wanted to see him swing.  However, I would not have gone after him unless he had made some other mistake that I had found suspicious.

[Ranmilia]

Well, I'm *not* going to be around for deadline, so... tonight's the night.

QR's right to question my giving Cor 'cred,' however she missed the part where that cred was solely for the purpose of not being the one out of Sopko/Rat/Meeple/Cor I found most suspicious (those being the only people involved in serious discussion at the time, and it being too early to pursue others just for not being in serious discussion).  The only cred Cor has with me now is indirectly gained from my disagreeing with the train on him.  I'm not seeing any case at all on him except for him leaving his vote on Meeple, and I can't see that as anywhere near as scummy as, say, dissuading people from voting.  In fact I can't see it as scummy at all.

I agree with the El Cid callout.  The reason I asked Meeple for that explanation was to call him out similarly - he'd posted, but I hadn't gotten a read on him and just wanted to see him talk more on issues and his vote. 

[Shale]

Update!

Carthrat (1): Kilgamayan, Sir Alex, Corwin
Corwin (2): Sir Alex, Excal, Meeplelard, QuietRain
Hunter Sopko (1): Excal, Carthrat
Excal (2): Carthrat, El Cideon, Sir Alex
Sir Alex (0): Meeplelard, Kilgamayan
Meeplelard (1): Hunter Sopko, Corwin, Kilgamayan
Kilgamayan (0): Hunter Sopko
El Cideon (1): Excal

With nine alive, it takes five to lynch.

Day 1 ends at noon February 25, roughly 12 hours from this post.

[Carthrat]

I still do not get how my vote for Soppy constitutes anti-discussion. It's just ridiculous. I had to *agree* or *disagree* with Soppy's reasoning for voting for Meeple, and if that was how he was trying to prod discussion forward, I took that to the logical conclusion given my stance on his reason. What else was I supposed to do, go "You're wrong, Soppy!" and leave my vote on Excal? I'm obviously not anti-talk, and maintain that it was mainly me that propelled conversation forward at that time of the game.

Anyway. I will grant that the case against Soppy is not really that strong, but it had as much merit as could be had at this point in the game. I don't really subscribe to a policy of 'let's wait until someone passes a certain threshold of badness in their posts to vote for them' so much as 'let's vote for who seems most suspicious, regardless of scale'. I hope that clears this up, because I'm getting tired of being mischaracterized like this and seeing people spout out that viewpoint without bothering to confirm it.

<->

Which leaves me suspicious of the following people.

Alex- for bringing it up. He admitted it was flimsy himself and unvoted, but it still really baffles me how he came to the conclusion in the first place. A vote or case isn't justified just becase it 'gets things going', and when I'd identified what seemed an actual flaw in Soppy's reasoning, why should I not point it out and back it up with a vote? Voting to get people talking is the done thing. *Voting* is the done thing, and leaving my vote on Excal- which was a jokevote- compared to putting it on someone who'd done something wrong, however slight- that seemed the worse option to me.

Meeple- for pretty much the same reason Kilga identified. I can't really put it better than him; it's basically Meeple not paying attention exactly what I said around the him and Soppy thing. Of course, he figured he was wrong...

People are allowed to be wrong.

no they're not, actually. This isn't even a defensible position. If you're wrong, you've made a mistake. If you're town, you're going to have to admit it- as you have- and deal with it as best you can, but it is very definately BAD. Generally your post actually reads as a lot of analogies that have almost nothing to do with the actual situation, and some complaining about your own flaws and telling us we shouldn't pay much attention to them.  You pay attention to them, and don't blame us when we call you on them!

Other people look to be in various states of... bad... to me, which is worrisome. Cid needs to talk more, for one. Corwin, as I think his vote for me is misplaced (I DID spur discussion, his crap on soft targetness.. bah, it's all in my other post here- http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=437.msg9699#msg9699. I also dislike how he agreed that I was stifling discussion... despite... agreeing with what I'd said. If you think what I said is truth, why accuse me of such?) I don't really like Excal positing 'but I'm scared of -2 to hammer!' as a legitimate excuse. Most of this stuff has been covered before and seems valid enough to me.

But, anyway. ##Unvote, ##Vote: Meeple. Corwin and Alex... neither of 'em look great. But while I hated how Corwin picked up on Alex's stupid idea, Meeple did likewise and basically made stuff up that was total bunk to fit it. Alex himself is still suspect for originating it. He took it off later and called it 'discussion-prodding'. But at least he's not totally ignoring what I actually said... although I still think he's hypocrtical for agreeing with me on calling out Soppy and then voting for me for... calling out Soppy.

Meeple, on the other hand, said I didn't do what I actually did do. Sure, he admitteded he made a mistake. And then talked about how mistakes are ok. I'm inclined to cut people a little slack on the early day 1 voteprodding at this point- more than I'm willing to do for these kind of stances and errors.

[Ranmilia]

A vote or case isn't justified just becase it 'gets things going',

I disagree, at least for the beginning of day 1.  This is exactly the point I was trying to get at - if we don't start with something to 'get things going,' we'll never get anywhere, unless you think good cases are spontaneously going to erupt from jokevotes.

Anyway. I will grant that the case against Soppy is not really that strong, but it had as much merit as could be had at this point in the game. I don't really subscribe to a policy of 'let's wait until someone passes a certain threshold of badness in their posts to vote for them' so much as 'let's vote for who seems most suspicious, regardless of scale'. I hope that clears this up, because I'm getting tired of being mischaracterized like this and seeing people spout out that viewpoint without bothering to confirm it.

And this is why I unvoted you once you were no longer the most suspicious.  My view of you at that point quite pales in comparison to the issues that have arisen since, and I'm not sure why folks are still making a big deal of it. 

[Meeplelard]

I agree with the El Cid callout.  The reason I asked Meeple for that explanation was to call him out similarly - he'd posted, but I hadn't gotten a read on him and just wanted to see him talk more on issues and his vote.

Ok, fair enough.  Felt like you were saying my post contradicted my vote, but if its simply for the sake of getting me to talk more and explain why I did what I did, then that makes sense.

Pretty much agree with the whole "El Cid needs to talk more!"

And carth, you missed the point...

There's a difference between "Mistake, whoops!" and "Constant mistakes."  One mistake is BOUND TO HAPPEN, going on over it over and over only ends up hurting town more than attacking the person who made the mistake.  For example, Smodge in random Mafia made the mistake of wording things badly and claiming something that shouldn't have been said.  At first, he was attacked...then things subsided that it was just bad town playing...that is except that one person had complete tunnel vision on him, and was pretty much ignoring everything until Smodge was gone.  Well, we finally got rid of Smodge based on this mistake...OH CRAP HE FLIPPED TOWN!

Also, you're missing the point of how Mistakes can come from misinterpretations, reading quickly and not thoroughly, what have you.  Its not just "rar, I wasn't reading, I'll make an assumption!"  No, you can't just go "NO ONE IS ALLOWED TO MAKE MISTAKES!" like you are.  Huge difference between "one mistake" and "consistent."  Like I said with my Super point; he made MULTIPLE mistakes over and over again...of the same nature.  This was indeed pretty bad.  The first few times he did it, it was brushed off as simple confusion, which does happen, both town and scum alike.

Saying "people can't be wrong!" is exactly like saying "people have to be perfect!"  Think about the ridiculousness of that statement.  Yes, ok, its ideal not to make mistakes, I agree.  What I meant was "People can make a mistake, its going to happen from time to time, going on it like its this big massive scum tell can't get you anywhere."
Yes, I didn't pay full enough attention...I don't know where you're getting this "You're blaming us!" thing from.  I didn't say anything like that.  I'm not blaming anyone for calling me on them; you were right to do that.
What I'm saying is making a big deal out of it.  Its not like I was going on about it over and over again AS A FACT.  I mentioned it once, and never again...so wait, now its the only thing that matters?

I admitted it was my fault in the end.  You say you noted that I did recognize this, but then you go on a bit of a hypocritical point before saying "You are blaming us for calling you on it!" which I didn't do.

Anyway, I can't really say I'm suspicious of you rat, despite your attack on me, mostly cause it feels like you're just being an aggressive town at the moment.  Yes, I'm aware I probably didn't do anything to help my case, but I felt like I should still speak up, even if it makes me look worse.

[Corwin]

Can someone try to point out exactly how I'm pulling this discussion-stifling thing? It seems like Alex said one thing that's pretty damn unfair to say and everyone else is nodding along with it.

Sure thing, allow me.

How about:

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=437.msg9673#msg9673

Beyond that- and I was mainly echoing Excal before, I realise- I find it strange that when I look at both yourself and Sopko, neither of you are actually saying anything much.

I pretty much used the same quote in the post I mentioned 'stifling', but if the word really troubles you, I can find a suitable synonym. You are basically jumping at two people trying to get things started, and quite hypocritically at that. My main attack on you was that for all your talk, what have you brought to the table that's new? You go on attacking both myself and Sopko for finding our reasons for the Meeple votes in question flimsy for different reasons, repeatedly attacking our lack of participation.

Again, from the same post:

Neither of you have really brought much new to the table since; to be fair, there hasn't been much time, and a lot of people have yet to weigh in. Still, it's odd that the two who seemed most keen to get discussion started have said the least, at least until they're actually questioned.

Obligatory disclaimers about fairness cast aside, hypocrisy doesn't really look good to me. Your entire input up to that point was questioning the two people who tried to get discussion going, voting for one of them and calling the other into suspicion. You are echoing Excal, who keeps on going gravely about the dire consequences of our votes in percentages and other scary things. So yes, let's apply your own standards to yourself.

http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=437.msg9662#msg9662

Alex:  I'm hardly stifling serious discussion. I do have a view on the transition from 'jokevote' to 'serious' that indicates it doesn't usually just happen spontaneously because someone suggests it, but it's not like I told Cor "No! We Cannot Do That!" and did nothing to create discussion myself.

This is an earlier post. Yes, you protest Alex's characterization. And the proof you bring is... what, exactly? That you used a vote on Sopko, whom you considered mildly scummy. Which is what Sopko did to Meeple. Except you disagreed it actually created discussion then.

I never called him out on starting discussion. It's his reason that raised my eyebrow.

"I never did this openly. I found some flimsy reason to attach to this, instead, which makes it all okay."

In any case. You yourself note that there are still many people yet to weigh in. And yet, the two you choose to go after are those that are actually posting and trying to get things going. If that and the rest don't give the impression of trying to clamp down on discussion by punishing anyone daring to step out of line and go past the joke stage, what exactly would? "I want to joke around more, so I'm voting for the people who try to go past it." <-- this?

Okay. This is a response to my latest post to date: http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=437.msg9699#msg9699

You never address me calling you out on where you got the idea that my actions somehow stemmed from a desire to avoid looking bad. You started with that accusation in a previous post, but this one curiously omits it as it finds other things suddenly more pressing. As matter of fact, I can't see how visibly placing myself in the center of attention and then sticking to my idea is somehow deliberate avoidance of looking bad, when waiting until someone is scummy enough to warrant a real vote is quite unpopular around the players here.

What I've brought to the table? Let's see, I attacked Soppy for flimsy reasoning, responded to your attempt to start discussion with actual questions rather than simply going 'yeah, discussion would be nice!', was forced to defend my position and did so, and both elaborated on the position Excal took, which I agreed with, and pointed out that for people trying to push the whole 'let's discuss things!' angle have *not really furthered this themselves*

The stifling thing snipped due to me covering it above. And honestly, why must you bring it up all the time, sometimes several times in a post? You just seem to protest a bit too much.

Okay. So your stated contribution to discussion is attacking the people who tried to start it, defending yourself, agreeing with another player and going on about how you are this awesome person that contributes while the others pretty much don't. And I even managed to type this with a straight face. Up until your recent post voting for Meeple, I can't see anything remotely unique in your posts. Unlike Alex, I should be around for the deadline, so I'm not moving my vote yet. There is ample time to do this.

A brief comment on said post of Rat's: while I agreed that Sopko's reasons didn't look so hot, I disagreed with voting based on it and said as much. I don't see how that contradicts any of my views, since I don't fault you for having valid suspicions, but for what you did with them.

And this post ended up being all about Rat. I'll cover the rest in another.

[Carthrat]

Re: Meeple

What I mean is that by saying 'people can be wrong!' sounded like a tacit assumption that you're going to let people off when they are. Although it's true that consistant mistakes are worse than an individual one, that doesn't alleviate the original concern.

Also, you're missing the point of how Mistakes can come from misinterpretations, reading quickly and not thoroughly, what have you.  Its not just "rar, I wasn't reading, I'll make an assumption!"  No, you can't just go "NO ONE IS ALLOWED TO MAKE MISTAKES!" like you are.  Huge difference between "one mistake" and "consistent."  Like I said with my Super point; he made MULTIPLE mistakes over and over again...of the same nature.  This was indeed pretty bad.  The first few times he did it, it was brushed off as simple confusion, which does happen, both town and scum alike.

I tend to associate 'reading quickly and not thoroughly' as *more likely* to be a scum thing to do than a town thing in general, anyhow. You're mentioning that you weren't hammering the point, and that's true, but you were still completely wrong with your first try.

As far me saying that you're blaming us for following up your mistakes. Well. Here's why I took that to be what you meant.

You keep going on about this whole "OMG INCORRECT THING!" and frankly, you're looking too into it as far as I'm concerned.

(words)

I act this way regardless, I say things like that regardless, really feels like you need more than basing off my Suikomafia Scumplay than that.

This basically read to me as "I did something wrong, but it's your problem if you follow it up." I understand that you also say in the same post that we're right to go after you.

I find a mistake more compelling than the other cases thus far, which are more a matter of disagreeing with the conclusions that people have reached rather than them outright getting facts wrong.

Also, when you say I'm making a BIG DEAL about it, keep in mind that my post went over things I found wrong with other people as well. It remained the strongest point I had against anyone. The main reason you have a vote on Cor, it seems, is that he kept his vote on you longer than necessary- except at the time of your post, he's actually voting for me. Then you follow it up with an analogy to Suikomafia which I don't understand- someone voted for you, you OMGUS'd them, and then someone else was voting for you based on the OMGUS? What's that got to do with this? Clarify if I'm missing something there.

<->

Re: Corwin

I pretty much used the same quote in the post I mentioned 'stifling', but if the word really troubles you, I can find a suitable synonym. You are basically jumping at two people trying to get things started, and quite hypocritically at that. My main attack on you was that for all your talk, what have you brought to the table that's new? You go on attacking both myself and Sopko for finding our reasons for the Meeple votes in question flimsy for different reasons, repeatedly attacking our lack of participation.

For the period in which I was posting last night, it didn't seem like either of you were participating much; Soppy dropped a few lines on his vote, you weren't really talking much until Excal questioned you. That's changed since, but can you seriously say that it wasn't a valid call at the time? What I mainly see is that at the time, you both said 'let's get things started!' but it didn't seem like you were posting very much new yourselves, whereas I felt my accusation of Soppy was a new thing.

Obligatory disclaimers about fairness cast aside, hypocrisy doesn't really look good to me. Your entire input up to that point was questioning the two people who tried to get discussion going, voting for one of them and calling the other into suspicion. You are echoing Excal, who keeps on going gravely about the dire consequences of our votes in percentages and other scary things. So yes, let's apply your own standards to yourself.

The main point I echoed Excal on was that it was weird for you to not have moved your vote from Meeple when you didn't seem to really think it was valid and were more suspicious of another case. It had nothing to do with his thoughts on calling percentages out, which I have already stated I thought was foolish.

This is an earlier post. Yes, you protest Alex's characterization. And the proof you bring is... what, exactly? That you used a vote on Sopko, whom you considered mildly scummy. Which is what Sopko did to Meeple. Except you disagreed it actually created discussion then.

Yes. At the time, I believe it was stupid to call Meeple for flying under the radar. I still do, but I can accept that it was done in the name of discussion. I didn't read it like that at the time.

"I never did this openly. I found some flimsy reason to attach to this, instead, which makes it all okay."
In any case. You yourself note that there are still many people yet to weigh in. And yet, the two you choose to go after are those that are actually posting and trying to get things going. If that and the rest don't give the impression of trying to clamp down on discussion by punishing anyone daring to step out of line and go past the joke stage, what exactly would? "I want to joke around more, so I'm voting for the people who try to go past it." <-- this?

Okay. This is a response to my latest post to date: http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=437.msg9699#msg9699

If disagreeing and arguing with someone's position is not beginning a discussion or debate, but instead stifling it, then what IS beginning such a debate?

I don't see how it's implied that I was saying "I want to joke around more, better attack people discussing things!" I had only launched an actual attack on you well after others had joined the discussion and were taking it seriously. To call my attack on you some kind of attempt to discourage debate is misrepresenting my intention.

You never address me calling you out on where you got the idea that my actions somehow stemmed from a desire to avoid looking bad.

On the you not posting because you were looking bad thing, it came out of this.

Corwin said...

Portraying a second vote in terms of -2 to hammer is quite the mischaracterization, I'm afraid. It also looks quite nasty, even though three people would actually be needed to the majority. The only way to avoid this... why, it is not to vote in any meaningful fashion!

I read this as "It will look bad if I did that. So I didn't." I took this to be your intended stance, although after going over it again, I'm wondering if I got things confused with something else you meant wrt Excal's post. Care to clarify that for me?

Okay. So your stated contribution to discussion is attacking the people who tried to start it, defending yourself, agreeing with another player and going on about how you are this awesome person that contributes while the others pretty much don't. And I even managed to type this with a straight face. Up until your recent post voting for Meeple, I can't see anything remotely unique in your posts. Unlike Alex, I should be around for the deadline, so I'm not moving my vote yet. There is ample time to do this.

A brief comment on said post of Rat's: while I agreed that Sopko's reasons didn't look so hot, I disagreed with voting based on it and said as much. I don't see how that contradicts any of my views, since I don't fault you for having valid suspicions, but for what you did with them.

I used my suspicions as the basis for a vote, which was on a topic nobody had yet covered. I don't really see how this is a tell, as you admit my suspicions are indeed valid; I believe I've established that I just wait around when I see problems.

[Ranmilia]

Wellll this is about as long as I can stay up waiting for Cor's promised next post, and I surely won't be back around till after deadline.  SO:

Vs Corwin - I still don't get the train on him for his failure to unvote Meeple.  That action does not read as scummy to me.  His last post attacking Rat is a little weird, it's basically my original case against Rat amplified.  I don't think Rat's initial case-punish vote is that large of an issue now, but he does make good points regarding Rat's lack of other content.  No cause for concern with Cor himself, would not support Cor lynch.

Vs Rat - See above, Cor makes a decent case on him, and I find myself in moderate agreement.  Especially with Rat's wall o'text defense following, which is exactly the sort of overdefensiveness he's being accused of.   Granted, he has a wall of text attack to respond to, and he does manage to fit in his own case vs Meeple, which is what I like to see from folks on the defense.  Except I don't like his case on Meeple.  Still not too sure, would not object to Rat lynch.

Vs Meeple - The whole Rat/Meeple talk on mistakes doesn't ring in as very relevant to me.  I still have some trouble getting a read on Meeple, and disagree with his case on Corwin, but he's thought it through and is posting so I don't have much of a problem with him right now.  Kilga's case on him is not flawed, but not very convincing to me at the moment either.  Would not support his lynch.

Vs El Cid - Beep beep it's the LAL bus!  He has what, all of ONE POST of note and a three liner?  Deadline's tomorrow morning, where you at?  I think the case he brings up in his post is solid, but, uh... needs more with the talking.  I know this is his usual style, day 1, etc, but there's nothing there to make me shy from supporting an El Cid lynch.

Vs Kilga - I disagree with him on basically everything so far, though in most cases it seems like different but valid opinions, and the case he's pulled on Meeple is insightful (if not convincing).  Neutral here, wouldn't really support lynching him based on today's actions.

Vs Sopko - Harder to read here.  I'm not getting anything from him once the serious discussion started.  That said, he did still start it and that's worth some brownie points to me, especially in a roleless setup.  Would not support his lynch.

Vs QR - The reason I'm doing a list like this.   It feels like she's getting a more or less free pass due to her situation, nobody else has so much as mentioned her except once as a token "get a post in" thing.  This is probably unavoidable and I can't disagree too much - however it does mean I'm expecting her to post more and better content when she does speak, and her post today does not really impress me in that regard.  It feels like an odd mixture of focus and gut, I agree with little or none of her arguments and even if I did they seem to lead to a vote on me rather than on Cor.  I'm not sure what to make of this.  That said, it is day 1, so neutral.  Don't forget her, though.

Vs Excal - Refer to my earlier posts.  His alarmism reads very poorly to me, and I haven't seen anything to make me unvote him.

Vote stays on Excal, FoS/"I'd be down with lynching this person should deadline hit" to Cid and Rat.
If this is an okay request to make, should deadline come around with a tie, I'd like my vote to go towards lynching those three in that order of possibility.  (ie if deadline cometh and the count is for example 3 Cid/3 someone non-Excal, change my vote to Cid for the hammer.)