Fire Emblem Mafia (Game Topic)

[Sierra]

Excal: I'll concede that such posts don't actually serve much purpose. I think it's too minor a thing to hold against someone, though (unless they don't follow through on their word, which is, as you said, a reason not to bother with them in the first place; not coming through with content after such a post looks as bad as simply being absent for a long period of time).

Also, while I can see the timing of that double voteswitch looking odd, pretty much no good can come of linking two living players of unknown alignment as you seem to be considering doing. This isn't WIFOM, it's just...it's hard enough to find one scum player at a time, and you can mislead yourself dangerously with scenarios that hinge on connections between individuals you just don't know enough about yet.

Ninja'd by Andy. Blah, posting this first.

[Excal]

Andy, if you read my post, you weren't the only person I was presenting a case against.  Meeple is the one about whom I felt the most certain at the time, but I also presented cases against you and Dread Thomas.  And, to be frank, you were producing good content and moving further out of my consideration for people to go after.  Still top three, yes, but nowhere near Meep and Tom.

As for voting on someone I don't feel too sure on?  It's Day 1, Andy.  If you can feel certain about someone on day 1, then more power to you, but I think you're just deluding yourself.  More explicitally, that comment was prompted by the fact that I could easily Meeple's and Tom's actions as simply being in character for them, and that I don't want to vote them off for being, essentially, themselves, but not really having any alternative based on how I see things.

As for your personal attacks?  Yes,  I do think they're a good sign to watch someone.  But I'm not basing everything on just one trait.  Meep's been all over the place, and his logic at that point was generally such that it mostly felt regurgitated.  Hell, Tom's also been all over the place, with spotty logic, and calling people out for horrible reasons.  So, yes, I do think you're looking spotty; but I think those two look worse.

[AndrewRogue]

Okay. Seriously man! Tone down the attacks on my play, man! :p You were critical of my attendance before game really got rolling (in fact, you were critical of my mafia attendance in general) and now you are passive-aggressively ascribing a view point to me that I did not express. At all. This isn't actually reassuring.

More to the point though, you missed the gist of my post. I wasn't questioning that you did not vote for me. I know that you had other arguments in your post. I was questioning what I feel is a notable disjunction in your vote on Meeple: your argument and subsequent vote for Meeple does not take into account the fact that I have been voting for and attacking Meeple for a period of time now. My question was, to try and make it more clear, why did you ignore the then-current dynamic between myself and Meeple when you actually placed that vote? It really strikes me as strange to say that someone is raising your suspicions... then join them (looking back at the vote count, you actually join both me AND Tom) on their vote train without even really giving a passing acknowledgement of it! See where my problem is coming from?

[EvilTom]

Checking in quickly before I run off to school, just to say I have a full day of uni and won't get time to post until tonight.

Okay. On consideration, I'm backing away from Alex for now. I'm getting too many bad vibes along the lines of Clue mafia, wherein Meeple and I effectively killed each other through mutual tunnel vision. I'd rather not be part of the day one townie slapfight, thanks. If there's even the potential for objectivity to be lost, you need to deal with something else for a while, so:

...

In spite of my earlier statement that him and Meeple sounded like townies shouting at each other, yes. He looks like the worst of the two and no one else stands out right now.

...Just now realize I left Andy out of my post above, also. Basically okay with him now that he's more active, but I second the general "Wait, what?" reaction to his last couple posts.

So how do you feel this town fight is better than yours? If you think I'm town, why are you voting for me? Why the sudden jump? Alex train not working out for you?
Especially since it is me you're seconding with the 'wait, what'.

Which is odd that when I initially brought it up, you basically did the same thing with:

Read over recent developments; mulling over stuff, not sure what to write just yet. Heading out to work right now, but I'll have something to say in a couple hours once the morning's busyness dies down.

But now that everyone is catching on, you're critisizing it? Hmm.

How about posting right now. Is that better? C'mon, man. I think I've been pretty consistent about posting the last few days; if I say I'm going to do it, I bloody well will. This feels like a really trivial thing to hit me for. If someone makes a habit of it, you're right to call them on it, of course.

Will respond to actual arguments in a few minutes (this means Post In Progress, yes; I'm sure this sounds post sounds snippy, so I will make sure to keep it out of the next one).

The tone in this just sounds bizarre. It sounds as if you're putting on the whole snippyness thing because Rat told you to.. it seems fake. "Oh, I'm being snippy now, but don't worry, I'll be nice again soon?" :S

As for me being cranky in my response? Well, yeah. I acknowledged that at the time, and then I moved on. Do you see that attitude in this post? A moment's irritation isn't quite comparable to declaring another poster's entire arguments trash (this is pretty much what Tom's early attacks amounted to), so the hypocrisy card isn't really going to work here.

Dude. Seriously.
'A moment's irritation isn't quite comparable to declaring another poster's entire arguments trash' 'this is pretty much what Tom's early attacks amounted to'

Where are you trying to go with this?
I'm assuming you weren't paying attention, or didn't read those early posts, otherwise you're intentionally trying to stir things. Because Meeple's arguments were full of holes, I pointed out those holes, and it was generally accepted that Meeple's arguments *were* bad.
Such things as 'Tom is voting for a lurker therefore Tom is scum'.


El Cid, first you were trying to wagon Alex. That didn't work. Now you have jumped on me after Meeple... and are now starting to throw down misreps?


Argh. That's all there's time for considering vote swap to El Cid noo gotta run to class

[Excal]

Hmm, I do see where your argument is coming from.  The simple fact is, I didn't give any consideration to who you were voting for, though I had at least noticed that you were going after Meeple.  As for Tom, I hadn't even bothered to look where his vote was at that time, as it has been all over the place, and consequently, I feel that it is of no weight whatsoever.  And yes, while I do realise that this is a shortcoming in my logic, I feel it's better, right now, to take everyone on individual merits than to try and focus on connections that really haven't had time to assert themselves yet.

On a side note, my comments about you are not in relation to your quantity of posting, but in what you say in them.  Using the game I took over for you in (Touhou!  That's it!), you were perfectly active and constantly in the frey.  But I probably would have accepted Alex's arguments against you if I hadn't had the word of Mod as to your innocence.  So, it is a comment that you are someone I have an easy time seeing false reports of scumminess in, and I am admitting that bias in my reports to explain part of why I don't move against you even when I see things that I feel should be mentioned.  It's the same with Tom, who has burned town more than a few times, and I'm hoping he won't end up doing so this time.

[Carthrat]

The tone in this just sounds bizarre. It sounds as if you're putting on the whole snippyness thing because Rat told you to.. it seems fake. "Oh, I'm being snippy now, but don't worry, I'll be nice again soon?" :S

I was telling Excal, actually, this didn't really apply to Cid. Like, at all. (Excal is just too nice, and was kinda fencesitting at the time. Cid... wasn't, really.) So. Yeah. Bit weird to bring this up.

<->

Excal: You're voting for Meeple. After this you've said you can easily see both Meeple and Tom's actions as them being themselves rather than any implicit scumminess about them.

Now, with Cid and Meeple's swift and concidentally simultaneous change to both vote for DreadThomas- which you commented on- why you stick with Meeple? One of the reasons you voted for Meeple was how he sort of just suddenly switched to Alex instead of Tom despite having ranted about Tom for much of the game; given that Cid pulled a similar stunt just now (he switched from Alex to Tom, didn't say too much about why, and has already stated that he was leery about voting for either of them due to their inherent... uh... suspiciousness due to posting style or whatever), it seems like Cid could be right up your list as someone to vote for.

In short; why Meeple, and why not Cid?

[Luther Lansfeld]

I agree with the general sentiment that Excal has been hanging back pretty heavily (I mentioned having no read on him earlier) but I don't think this is a sign of scumminess in and of itself; aggressiveness has always been something that's I've found hard to muster on Day 1, so faulting him for that is eh. Excal vs. Andrew is interesting because it doesn't seem like Andrew can do right in Excal's eyes, but I'm too tired to really try to analyze deeper.

I also find this switch from Alex to Dread Thomas by both of the people voting for him to be slightly suspicious.  I mean, it seems a bit risky for both scum to do it, but the difference in time is almost twenty minutes, which disinclines me to be entirely supportive of the mutually independent development idea which Meep tries to claim in his addendum.

I also find this push for Tom all of a sudden slightly unnerving as well, especially since I don't exactly see what Tom did to deserve the extra push and I don't really see what Alex has done differently that would change someone's mind regarding vote for him and unvoting him. Do I think this is a link between El-Cid and Meeple? It seems pretty sloppy if so. Meeple's switch... well, he has gone after Tom for a while, but he basically doesn't regard him in the post aside from a vote. The post timing is a odd, and the dormant case has been randomly revived (maybe a little OMGUS going on here?) but it's less alarming than Cid.

Cid has said very little about Tom, even stating in a previous post that he thought that the fight between Tom and Meeple was town vs. town. I'm not really sure why he suddenly flipped this stance with basically no interaction between the two at all between his last commentary on the subject and this one. Most of his recent posts seem to be directed at building a case on Alex. At this point it seems like to me that he keeps testing the waters on people votewise to see if anything will stick, which I find bothersome. Enough to place a vote? Yeah, I think so.

##Unvote: Andrew
##Vote: El-Cid

[EvilTom]

Ok, after a long day of uni, aand.. this game is starting to stagnate, barely anyone posted all day. Everyone is asleep over in America-land.
Or are afraid to move forward and take a stance when there's no time limit to push them.
##Unvote,

And as I said I was probably going to in my previous post, I am now going to go through with a vote for El Cid, placing him at -2 (by my count). El Cid's weirdness with train-jumping etc. seems like a decent enough place to start with a day 1 lynch.

##Vote: El Cid

Also, no news from GTAU recently, and no content. I'd like to hear from him before the day's out, but this day has almost lasted mafiascum proportions >.> Which is doublesuck because it's still just day 1.
Let's get things moving!

So very tired, bed time.

[Ranmilia]

Blagh.  Now I get sick and knocked out for long times.  That's not the only reason I haven't posted, though - I've been trying to decide what I think about this double switch away from me, and now a double switch to Cid.  In the end... I got nothing.  I think flips will be necessary to make heads or tails of it.

I do think the most significant thing that's happened today has been Cid and Ciato flipping out over my earlier comment and accusing me of singling Cid out, when I was rather clearly doing no such thing.  I can kind of see Cid viewing it as part of my case against him, even though I separated it out, but I can't see why he would respond to it in such a heated fashion.  He was in no danger, nobody else was buying my case on him, and said case was on an entirely different issue.  Plus he was moving towards and did vote Tom, on the stated basis of Tom being uncivil.  Even with all this, though, I might chalk it up to OMGUS pricklyness - except that Ciato, out of the blue, picked up the same line and agreed I was singling Cid out, and she definitely has no reason to read it that way.  So I have no idea what the deal there is - especially with her now moving to Cid.

Overall I agree with the assessment that Cid's jumping around trying to make something stick.  This isn't necessarily scummy behavior day 1, in fact I'd say it's good, but the way in which he has gone about it - promoting LAL day 1, threatening/entrapping people to post impossible content, and attacking Tom for being uncivil while making the self-admitted least civil post of the game himself - does not sit well with me.  This makes him the currently scummiest person in my eyes.  While there are others - Meeple, Tom and now Ciato - I also consider scummy, in addition to the above Cid's been involved in nearly all of today's major wagons and vote movements, so I think his flip is not only the one most likely to come up scum but will give productive information even if he is town.  I am confidant in this lynch and strongly encourage people to consider this and hammer him. 

[VySaika]

Super Special Awesome Morphtastic Votecount!

(0) Sir Alex - El Cid, Meeple
(3) El Cideon - Alex, Ciato, Tom Andy
(3) Evil Tom - Carthrat, El Cid, Meeple Meeple, Meeple
(1) Meeplelard - Excal El Cid, Tom, Andy, Tom
(0) Guide To An Uprising - El-Cid, Carthrat, Excal
(0) Ciato -
(0) AndrewRogue - Carthrat, Tom, El-Cid, Ciato
(1) Excal - Andy Tom
(0) Carthrat - Tom

With 9 alive, it takes 5 to lynch.

El Cid and Evil Tom are both at -2 to hammer

If Guide To An Uprising does not continue posting before 9pm PST(midnight eastern time), he will be replaced by OblivionKnight, if the latter is still willing to replace in.

[Luther Lansfeld]

Okay, I can see why you'd think I meant that, but I didn't mean you were singling him out. What I meant that Cid in particular as opposed to other people who throw out this promise actually makes due on said promise. The reason Cid came up in my line of thought was because you said  "The last three non-mod posts in this thread trigger a deep DO NOT LIKE" and Cid's post was included in those last three posts, plus the issues that you addressed is something that Cid does frequently. I knew you weren't singling Cid out because you talked about me doing that in the same post and I responded to that post, so obviously you weren't singling him out. I apologize for not making my point more clear, though.

Reading over Excal's post, I see what Andrew means. The criticism of Andrew didn't seem to match the vote that he ended up placing.

As for voting on someone I don't feel too sure on?  It's Day 1, Andy.  If you can feel certain about someone on day 1, then more power to you, but I think you're just deluding yourself.  More explicitally, that comment was prompted by the fact that I could easily Meeple's and Tom's actions as simply being in character for them, and that I don't want to vote them off for being, essentially, themselves, but not really having any alternative based on how I see things.

I'm not really sure exactly what this means. If I'm understanding you right, you are saying that despite understanding their respective posting styles, you are going to find them the most suspicious anyway.

It's the same with Tom, who has burned town more than a few times, and I'm hoping he won't end up doing so this time.

You clearly know that this attitude of lynching people based off of things that are just their personality traits -have- burned town, and then you say you don't want to vote them based off playstyle but... have no alternative?

Hmm, I do see where your argument is coming from.  The simple fact is, I didn't give any consideration to who you were voting for, though I had at least noticed that you were going after Meeple.  As for Tom, I hadn't even bothered to look where his vote was at that time, as it has been all over the place, and consequently, I feel that it is of no weight whatsoever.  And yes, while I do realise that this is a shortcoming in my logic, I feel it's better, right now, to take everyone on individual merits than to try and focus on connections that really haven't had time to assert themselves yet.

It seems odd to try to vote in a vacuum to me. If there's a train that's being pushed too quickly or people voting on someone for weird reasons and possibly doing this on purpose, then it seems like you'd take into account that fact. Votes -do- have weight; if someone who is flittering around constantly, that's something you should consider.

Okay. On consideration, I'm backing away from Alex for now. I'm getting too many bad vibes along the lines of Clue mafia, wherein Meeple and I effectively killed each other through mutual tunnel vision. I'd rather not be part of the day one townie slapfight, thanks. If there's even the potential for objectivity to be lost, you need to deal with something else for a while, so:

...

In spite of my earlier statement that him and Meeple sounded like townies shouting at each other, yes. He looks like the worst of the two and no one else stands out right now.

...Just now realize I left Andy out of my post above, also. Basically okay with him now that he's more active, but I second the general "Wait, what?" reaction to his last couple posts.

So how do you feel this town fight is better than yours? If you think I'm town, why are you voting for me? Why the sudden jump? Alex train not working out for you?
Especially since it is me you're seconding with the 'wait, what'.

Which is odd that when I initially brought it up, you basically did the same thing with:

Read over recent developments; mulling over stuff, not sure what to write just yet. Heading out to work right now, but I'll have something to say in a couple hours once the morning's busyness dies down.

But now that everyone is catching on, you're critisizing it? Hmm.

This is an interesting enough point, but as explained earlier, what Andrew did (said he'd post, left for the night) is different than what Cid does. Cid's desire to latch onto targets is the reason my vote is on him, though, so I pretty much agree.

How about posting right now. Is that better? C'mon, man. I think I've been pretty consistent about posting the last few days; if I say I'm going to do it, I bloody well will. This feels like a really trivial thing to hit me for. If someone makes a habit of it, you're right to call them on it, of course.

Will respond to actual arguments in a few minutes (this means Post In Progress, yes; I'm sure this sounds post sounds snippy, so I will make sure to keep it out of the next one).

The tone in this just sounds bizarre. It sounds as if you're putting on the whole snippyness thing because Rat told you to.. it seems fake. "Oh, I'm being snippy now, but don't worry, I'll be nice again soon?" :S

As Rat pointed out, he wasn't addressing El-Cid here. I... hmm. He's trying a little too hard to build a case on Cid in this last post? I'm not really sure what to make of this.

New guy! Come and visit us, please!

[Sierra]

So how do you feel this town fight is better than yours? If you think I'm town, why are you voting for me? Why the sudden jump? Alex train not working out for you?

The answer to question one is simple: I know I'm town. I'm surprised you even had to ask the question, really. And I never said I was convinced you were town; I said the arguments between you and Meeple felt like town infighting. This does not necessarily clear either participant. I've had minor misgivings about you before and mentioned them; this is simply the first time I've collected them into a case. The fact that you vs. Meeple felt like a townie fight doesn't automatically invalidate the other details that make you look bad (or, at least, worse than everyone else; that's the thing, you see. I'm not convinced of anyone being scum right now, you simply have the biggest collection of minor oddities that seem off to me). What part of "He looks like the worst of the two and nothing else stands out right now" wasn't clear?

I also stated my reason for switching my vote from Alex: I suspected I was starting to view the matter in an unbiased fashion. Go back and reread the post. It's no fault of mine if you didn't read that part, or simply chose not to believe it because the simple fact of my voting for you triggered your fight-or-flight reflex. You need to stop taking it so personally when people vote for you, Tom. Plenty of townies do so with reasons based on simple observation.

Especially since it is me you're seconding with the 'wait, what'.

Among others. I really don't see how this is relevant in regards to, well, anything. The Andy post in question was odd; it' something people would question regardless of which side they're on. The fact someone I'm now voting for also found it odd doesn't suddenly make it irrelevant. I've said before that I'm not convinced of your alignment either way, so that wouldn't have had any impact on my reaction to Andy's post. Even if I find other things about your posts questionable. People can be wrong about one thing and right about others, you know.

Which is odd that when I initially brought it up, you basically did the same thing with:

Read over recent developments; mulling over stuff, not sure what to write just yet. Heading out to work right now, but I'll have something to say in a couple hours once the morning's busyness dies down.

But now that everyone is catching on, you're critisizing it? Hmm.

Let me get this straight: you're knocking me for not making a comprehensive review of recent developments in a post that said "I'm alive but I don't have time to post in-depth now." I dealt with it when I had time for it.

How about posting right now. Is that better? C'mon, man. I think I've been pretty consistent about posting the last few days; if I say I'm going to do it, I bloody well will. This feels like a really trivial thing to hit me for. If someone makes a habit of it, you're right to call them on it, of course.

Will respond to actual arguments in a few minutes (this means Post In Progress, yes; I'm sure this sounds post sounds snippy, so I will make sure to keep it out of the next one).

The tone in this just sounds bizarre. It sounds as if you're putting on the whole snippyness thing because Rat told you to.. it seems fake. "Oh, I'm being snippy now, but don't worry, I'll be nice again soon?" :S[/quote]

What does Rat have to do with this? I wasn't involved with him at all. Really not sure what you're talking about here.

As for me being cranky in my response? Well, yeah. I acknowledged that at the time, and then I moved on. Do you see that attitude in this post? A moment's irritation isn't quite comparable to declaring another poster's entire arguments trash (this is pretty much what Tom's early attacks amounted to), so the hypocrisy card isn't really going to work here.

Dude. Seriously.
'A moment's irritation isn't quite comparable to declaring another poster's entire arguments trash' 'this is pretty much what Tom's early attacks amounted to'

Where are you trying to go with this?[/quote]

Read on.

I'm assuming you weren't paying attention, or didn't read those early posts, otherwise you're intentionally trying to stir things. Because Meeple's arguments were full of holes, I pointed out those holes, and it was generally accepted that Meeple's arguments *were* bad.
Such things as 'Tom is voting for a lurker therefore Tom is scum'.

I read them. I read things like "That kind of double-reverse logic.. is dumb," "Ok now that's absolute trash," both of which can be found, along with more vitriol, right here: http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?action=post;quote=16932;topic=898.25;num_replies=110;sesc=e0b3b53e4560e180c84a081ea59ae00c

Quoth the Carthrat:

At almost every point in Tom's post, he states something along the lines of "I hate your post, Meeple," in various colourful (and repeated) ways.

I did, and still, agree with this. Meeple's arguments were bad, yes. There's no call to go all Simon Cowell on him, though. The kind of attitude you displayed there was uncivil and unhelpful to town. I got the impression of one player trying to get another stirred up and I can't stand this kind of behavior. All it does is make us unable to trust one another, and that sure as hell doesn't help town. You can quote my little venting post all you like, but I don't think it compares.

El Cid, first you were trying to wagon Alex. That didn't work. Now you have jumped on me after Meeple... and are now starting to throw down misreps?

I'm not misrepresenting anything here, Tom. You need to stop assuming that someone is scum just because they're voting for you. Stop and think about why other townies (assuming you are one) find your actions suspicious, please. I've stated my reasons. As for the matter of voteswitching too much, I'll deal with that in conjunction with a response to Alex/Ciato, in the next post. Though I will say, for your sake, that I never made an attempt to "wagon" Alex. I saw someone saying something that didn't make sense to me and I called him out on it. It's only your own hyper-defensiveness that makes you perceive it as bandwagoning.

[Sierra]

Ack, minor quote tag failure there. Sadness. Well, I think the bits that are Tom should be clear enough. Anyway, onwards:

Overall I agree with the assessment that Cid's jumping around trying to make something stick.  This isn't necessarily scummy behavior day 1, in fact I'd say it's good, but the way in which he has gone about it - promoting LAL day 1, threatening/entrapping people to post impossible content, and attacking Tom for being uncivil while making the self-admitted least civil post of the game himself - does not sit well with me.  This makes him the currently scummiest person in my eyes.  While there are others - Meeple, Tom and now Ciato - I also consider scummy, in addition to the above Cid's been involved in nearly all of today's major wagons and vote movements, so I think his flip is not only the one most likely to come up scum but will give productive information even if he is town.  I am confidant in this lynch and strongly encourage people to consider this and hammer him.

This is more for everyone else's benefit, since Alex seems unlikely to listen to any more reasoning on my part, but:

"promoting LAL day 1"

-This is a disagreement over playstyle, and the fact that you keep pushing it as a mark against me is very disturbing. Especially when you don't give much of a reason for making the statement in the first place and don't even give us an opinion on viable alternatives beyond saying that day one discussion is meaningless. I'd like to know what you suggest we do as an alternative. Select someone at random? In the absence of other information, I find lynching someone who's failing to contribute to the conversation to be a perfectly reasonable method. Your continuing to push this as one of my faults (especially when several others have voiced agreement with my side of the argument) tells me one of two things: you're either a townie so convinced in the effectiveness of his own particular playstyle that someone deviating from it is automatically scummy, or that you yourself are scum metagaming your way towards the lynching of a townie.

"threatening/entrapping people to post impossible content"

-This is a pretty blatant exaggeration. It was never a threat on my part; is it really much of a surprise that, if someone is gone for the first two days of a game, one would expect him to have a lot to say about the events he missed upon reading them all?  Perhaps you view it as entrapment because of your belief that nothing of value can be said on day one. I remain baffled at this attitude and mildly shocked that you expressed it. Obviously I don't share it, and the fact that part of your reason for voting on me is that I had the temerity to expect more of an opinion from you than "Everything said before my arrival was meaningless" is quite frankly mindboggling.

I still have a nagging suspicion that your first post upon returning was itself a trap; if so, I feel like a jackass for falling into it.

"attacking Tom for being uncivil while making the self-admitted least civil post of the game himself"

-The little outburst was unfortunate, yes. I still don't think it's worse than Tom's early behavior, though, and I doubt you'd even mention it if it didn't suit your current case.

Ciato: I'd like to posit that the sheer length of this day may be skewing your perception of my votes. Day one has been going on since last Friday; this is a damn sight longer than any other first day in the history of DL mafia as far as I'm aware (CC mafia's attenuated first day may come close?), so I don't think it should be that much of a shock that someone's opinions change more often than is usual on a first game-day simply as a result of it taking more actual time. I think I've had concrete reasons for voting for everyone I did (past the jokevote stage, at least) and tried to make them clear. Do you get the impression that I've not done an adequate job of this?

---

So, anyone not involved in this little fracas want to weigh in? Rat/Andy/Excal/Meeple? Tom's pretty convinced, either because I voted for him or because he's scum, and Alex seems pretty convinced, either because my playstyle irks him or because he's scum. The more I read Alex's last post, the more I lean towards the latter scenario.

[Meeplelard]

Alright, figured I'd way in on a few things that happened recently...

Andrew's vote change: Doesn't say much to me at the moment.  I do agree that Excal puzzling (is that even a correct use of the word?) over Andrew's attack on me, THEN voting for me was a bit awkward, though unsure if you can really call it a scumtell?  I suppose it'd seem less odd if Excal had worded it something like "However, I still find Meeple suspicious, for completely other reasons!"  I dunno...doesn't say a lot one way or another.

Post Warning Nonsense: Agreeing that they're generally useless, though Excal did bring up a good point.  If we're getting close to a hammer, they *ARE* useful there, if the post is long and such, and you want people to hang back for a bit so you can formulate your points.  However...we're in no such case, so the posts are meaningless, and as Excal did note, the two scenarios from these posts under normal, nonpressure to Hammer situations are:
A. Person follows up, and nothing occurs; neutral read from it, barring the actual content of the post naturally.
B. Person doesn't follow up on it, and looks bad cause of it.

However, I will note that I see no problem with making a genuine post and at the end saying something like "planning on posting more thoughts as I go along!"  El-Cid likes to do this, and he follows up with it; seems like its just his way to dealing with multiple points; stay on one topic, post about it, go back and look up info on another topic, post about that, etc.  I think he's mainly just saying "No, I didn't forget other topics, I just haven't gotten to them yet!" Nothing wrong with that; its just the posts that say nothing *BUT* "going to post more later!" that are bad.

El-Cid's vote change: I...don't see this as all that bad as some people are saying.  Yeah, its sudden, but he does give a reason why...
He's trying to avoid mutual tunnel vision which just gets both killed, he references Clue Mafia where that occurred between me and him (and ultimately, lost the game.)

I'll grant that Cid's recent "yes, this sounds Snippy, but I'm still doing it!" post did feel unnecessary, but...I can understand why he did it.  He was annoyed, felt like he was being singled out (which he wasn't, but again, I can completely understand WHY he felt that way), what have you...but this doesn't mean it should be entirely ignored.

I dunno...El-Cid feels more like Townie whose backed into a corner, and is being constantly picked on.  I've been in that situation before, its not easy to deal with, and unless someone comes in with a blatant scum tell, people are going to be glaring at you the entire time.  In fairness, its still day 1, so there really isn't much to work with...but yeah.

Alex still has me muddled.  He seems to keep just debunking points brought up, not really making any new ones himself (barring a few on El-Cid), and its hard to get anywhere due to that.  Not so much scum tell as much as "just what the hell is he saying?"
I can understand his point about Day 1 arguing being useless, but I agree that its not useless for the entire game.  Day 1 Arguing may be useless INITIALLY, but it becomes important once roles start being flipped, as interactions are important regardless.  Talking a lot on Day 1 can help for subsequent days, if meaningless on Day 1.

I still think EvilTom is the best at the moment.  I'm not happy with his previous actions, between the first few responses to my initial vote on him (and El-Cid just explained that some), the GTAU antics, the OMGUS vote to Rat that followed, his hypocrisies in that post to boot ("I'm suspicious of those who still have their votes on GTAU" and then in that very same post says "I'm not making accusations", mainly)...eh, its not as strong as it use to be, but beyond MAYBE Andrew's latest "I'm going to post!" and then not following up, I haven't seen really that much going on to make me feel worse about anyone else at the moment.

...
.....
NINJA'D BY EL-CID AGAIN? ARGH! Bad Meeple! STOP POSTING LARGE POSTS SO THIS HAPPENS LESS!

[Meeplelard]

Reading El-Cid's latest post, and the one in response to Alex...

The LAL thing I agree is mostly bickering over play styles.  Its parallel to whining about my super sized posts (I hate to use myself in an example, but its the best one that comes to mind.)  Alex has been attacking play styles (Ok, Attacking is a harsh word here) since he came I feel, and that's why his posts feel so "ARGH" inducing.
Either way, neutral read from both ends on that.

I think Alex is overexaggerating El-Cid's actions here. 

Alex gave us an reason for inactivity in advance. While it has been said, accurately, that legitimate excuses are great for scum, his reason is enough to give him a pass for now. Damn well better have something interesting when he comes back, though! Andy's reticence is enough to make me switch my vote now, though (especially given that I'd like the mod to weigh in on GTAU).

El-Cid's line that can be viewed as Entrapment, important part to me is bolded.  Something tells me that if Alex did not attack El-Cid, El-Cid wouldn't have cared that Alex's post was short and concise, barring maybe the whole "Discussion is meaningless on Day 1!" fiasco Alex went through (and El-Cid wasn't alone there.)  Either way, El-Cid's line, implied to me by the "!" felt a bit tongue and cheek; I think all El-Cid meant was "When Alex returns, he better have more to say than 'I'm back!' and have actual content."  Calling it Entrapment feels like you're boldly labeling something he did as something worse than it really is.

Of course, Alex may have been referring to something else entirely.

"attacking Tom for being uncivil while making the self-admitted least civil post of the game himself"

-The little outburst was unfortunate, yes. I still don't think it's worse than Tom's early behavior, though, and I doubt you'd even mention it if it didn't suit your current case.

Hard to say whether Alex would have mentioned it or not.  He'd probably have taken note of it, but how much emphasis he puts on it? Hard to say.  If it wasn't part of his case, though, he'd probably put less emphasis on it, but again, I have no clue; I'm not Alex, I can't read his mind.

In any event, I think El-Cid's reaction was far more warranted than Tom's regarding the two.  El-Cid was doing something, Alex noted 3 specific posts that he was part of, and Alex has a vote on El-Cid and a case against him, I can see El-Cid being annoyed.  Putting myself in El-Cid's shoes for a moment, I'd think Alex was finding an extra case on me without singling me out, just to make his stronger.  No, I am not saying that's what you did Alex, I'm saying that's the kind of attitude you should expect from people in Cid's position, especially since Cid tends to do that "Posting Later!" stuff all the time.

Tom's felt a bit annoyed that someone placed a Day 1 vote on him with bad reasoning.  As rat noted, the post could be summed up as "I hate Meeple's post!" While his points in his post may have not been wrong, the tone of it was completely unwarranted.

Either way, both posts don't exactly help the respective poster's case, and in both cases, the tone was unwarranted.  I just feel El-Cid's should have been somewhat more expected.

Just my thoughts on the manner.

[Sierra]

I think Alex is overexaggerating El-Cid's actions here. 

Alex gave us an reason for inactivity in advance. While it has been said, accurately, that legitimate excuses are great for scum, his reason is enough to give him a pass for now. Damn well better have something interesting when he comes back, though! Andy's reticence is enough to make me switch my vote now, though (especially given that I'd like the mod to weigh in on GTAU).

El-Cid's line that can be viewed as Entrapment, important part to me is bolded.  Something tells me that if Alex did not attack El-Cid, El-Cid wouldn't have cared that Alex's post was short and concise, barring maybe the whole "Discussion is meaningless on Day 1!" fiasco Alex went through (and El-Cid wasn't alone there.)  Either way, El-Cid's line, implied to me by the "!" felt a bit tongue and cheek; I think all El-Cid meant was "When Alex returns, he better have more to say than 'I'm back!' and have actual content."  Calling it Entrapment feels like you're boldly labeling something he did as something worse than it really is.

That's pretty much all it was, yeah (I'd even forgotten about the post in question there). Anything I write that includes swear words should be read with kind of a jocular tone. If I'm seriously addressing something, that won't be how I express it. And I never, ever use exclamation marks if I'm making a major point. I mean, come on.

[Excal]

I'm not sure that I agree that Alex hasn't been bringing up new material.  It's just that most of his material consists of reactions to things that are going on, specifically to actions that he has taken.  Now, this does feel a little off, but I'm willing enough to accept it not to be overly suspicious of him right now.

Also, before I go into my own thoughts, some answers for people.

Rat: You're right, I did become a bit more suspicious of El Cid because of that, but...  I've been an innocent part of those too many times in order to use it as a heavy piece of evidence without a flip of some kind.  Moreover, El Cid was the one switched vote first, which means that he's less likely to be the scum of the pair (I'd assume they're more likely to follow the leader there rather than instigate it, otherwise focusing on them is pointless).  And finally, I found him less suspicious than Meep when they were both involved.

Ciato: If the posting style in question is one that happens to look scummy to me, then I do try and use that to mitigate my impression of them due to the high possibility that they are, in fact, town.  That said, there is still a chance that they are scum, and I cannot ignore their actions because of that.  At the end of the day, we need to pick those who look the worst, regardless of whether they are, or are not, scum.

Now, on to the main part of this post, we've hit the time when we need to cut the chaff and focus on lynching, which means we need to focus on the two people we've got at -2: Tom and El Cid.

Now, the main reason I didn't care too much about El Cid earlier is because, despite not matching up to Alex's criteria, I generally found the reasoning behind his votes ok.  This includes his vote on Tom when he finally gets around to explaining it.  Also of note is that fact that the supposed Ciato/Cid block which Alex has been theorizing has split, with Ciato going for Cid.  Sure, it can be a bussing.  But that seems risky at the moment given the fact that Ciato would still be connected with him through that defense, and she'd be getting rid of her only partner in crime when they could have held on, and possibly gotten someone else.  So, while I can see the case, I don't think there's anything too interesting to be gotten by going after Cid.

Tom, on the other hand, provides an interesting case.  He's been a pet project for a few people, he's definatly been throwing bile around all over the place and jumping to half-baked conclusions.  Now, I can't tell if this is hyperactivity in order to catch scum, or hyperactivity in order to try and make something stick or even just to make him look too ludicrous to be viable scum.  But there's definatly something slightly off about him this game as opposed to others, and he's given me no reason to delve to the core of it.

As such, here's my vote for Day 1 lynch.

##Unvote: Meep; ##Vote: Dread Thomas

[VySaika]

NOTICE: EVIL TOM IS NOW AT -1 TO HAMMER.

[EvilTom]

I did, and still, agree with this. Meeple's arguments were bad, yes. There's no call to go all Simon Cowell on him, though. The kind of attitude you displayed there was uncivil and unhelpful to town.

Uncivil, perhaps. Deliberately stirring? Certainly not.
Unhelpful to town? How is defending myself from poor accusations unhelpful to town? Logical debate is what we do.

Tom's felt a bit annoyed that someone placed a Day 1 vote on him with bad reasoning. 

Is there something strange about that? See above.

<->

I would like everyone who believes I was strangely rude to go back and read http://www.rpgdl.com/forums/index.php?topic=898.25  (the post in question). You will note that all of my points are accurate and valid. I defended myself from all accusations perfectly well.

The fact that this post is still being argued about is not good for town. We should be arguing on the basis of logical argument and facts only. Facts such as suspicious voting behaviour, not 'emotions' such as 'tone of voice' on the internet.

<->

Basically what we have here is two things.
1. We have a couple of people playing off the "poor meeple, EvilTom was mean to you" emotions. This is not good mafia play! Scum do not typically act like badguys, in fact, they actively try not to! Voting for people because they are snippy/mean/arrogant will not get you any further than voting for Ciato because she's nice or voting for Alex for being Alex. You need to analyze the game, which is something everyone around here tends to forget.

2. We have actual scumtells for El Cid (trainjumping etc.).

<->

The Mafia Handbook(tm) says to ignore appeals to emotion etc. and indeed sometimes it is worth doing the opposite. I refer you to point 1, and insist on a vote for option 2.

No time to address other points, off to uni again.

[Excal]

Tom, why should we look past uncivil behaviour?  I've seen it used at least twice as part of a calculated attempt to devolve conversation into an emotional mess so that bad decisions could be encouraged.  Both times, the person in question turned out to be scum.

It works, it's generally anti-town, and it's a good tell.  Heck, take a look at this game, where both Rat and I reacted angrily to your assault on us.  You didn't encourage reason there, and it's a bloody double standard if you expect us to remain rational and calm when you don't seem to see any need for you to do it yourself.

So, go ahead and get angry at me for calling you on this.  But there is no way I am ever going to see incivility as anything other than a trait to be hunted down.

[Carthrat]

It works, it's generally anti-town, and it's a good tell.

Aren't the first and last statements somewhat contradictory? I really think the incivility thing is being overstated. If you're going to get under someone's skin, slamming their arguments down, down, down, ranting at them and throwing a half-baked vote aren't going to further your cause much; it'll just draw piles of attention onto you and cast them in a sympathetic light.

There are also people who believe this is OOC for Tom and.. well.. uh.. no, not really...

In fact I'm generally taking issue with why people are voting for Tom in general and that's enough to make me recind my vote.

##Unvote

People seem to have contradictory reasons for voting for him, both acknowledging his rather notorious status as an attention-magnet but not 'allowing' it to affect their opinion; if so, why bring it up as anything but a way to exercise plausible deniability in later days?

<->

-The argument between Alex and Cid is bizzare. Both seem convined the other is opining a style of play that is ultimately harmful to town (in Cid's case, LAL day 1, in Alex's case, shooting down trivial lines of enquiry day 1).

On reflection I can't see Cid involved in entrapment; that, if anything, is a reasonable extension of a LaL philosophy, given that what 'entrapment' actually means is 'asking for content'- a not-uncommon stance in the early game.

This, though.

I did, and still, agree with this. Meeple's arguments were bad, yes. There's no call to go all Simon Cowell on him, though. The kind of attitude you displayed there was uncivil and unhelpful to town. I got the impression of one player trying to get another stirred up and I can't stand this kind of behavior. All it does is make us unable to trust one another, and that sure as hell doesn't help town. You can quote my little venting post all you like, but I don't think it compares.

"All it does is make us unable to trust one another" seems like a weird viewpoint. I'm actually of the theory that it's better for town to be paranoid about.. well.. the rest of town as a whole. For instance, I myself frequently attack people who seem to be cruising along; half the time it's just to see how they respond to *any* attack and wake them up. (The other half, I think they're scum. I usually vote that half.) Incivility is overstated as a scumtell, and mafia is not a game about being nice in any case.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that powerfully worded arguments will generally be seen as uncivil by their detractors, even if they are likely to have significantly more impact. This game is as much about convincing others as it is logic. Even for townies.

Furthermore, the comments he's made to Ciato about voteswitching/length of the day... wellll. Although the time is quite long, the actual quantity of posting hasn't exactly been impressive. (I know I've posted in the early afternoon, come back at midnight, and found like 1 more post since.)

I somewhat feel that lynching Cid is not a bad choice today. I feel his argument with Alex is the most likely to spill over into day 2 and obscure further progress. I'm generally cagey about people fostering goodwill between townies as a whole. In general I'm leery of the other people voting for Tom at present and that's probably my biggest concern.

(The right reason to vote for him, as far as I'm concerned, would've been his future-thinking langauge early in the game and his propensity to slam only those who have targeted him. These were not brought up very often. I feel that today, others have decided to take advantage of his reputation as both an easy day 1 lynch and an easy excuse in the future.)

##Vote: El Cideon

-Overemphasis on civility, and, indeed, a propensity to jump his vote around somewhat.
-Batting away Ciato's point on said jumping with overtures to the length of the day; meaningless given that we're only slightly above the usual amount of content for day 1 (imho).
-Had a big ol' list of people earlier today and he forgot Andy, which is one of those minor details I love to follow up on.
-I don't see Excal or Meeple getting lynched today and wouldn't be sure how to form a case on them at this stage, and in any case I want to see what they do (particularly Excal.)
-Cid's flip is the most likely to open a new avenue of discussion later on; there's been quite a bit of discussion around him on either side, I feel.

But mainly I'm just really uncomfortable with a lynch on Tom today.

<->

Andyandy+Ciatociato have been rather low-key today in general. As has the guy who hasn't posted yet. What's his name? GTAU? OK? I don't know anymore.

[AndrewRogue]

Ho'kay, having thought about it. I'm inclined to not really see the case on Tom at this point. Yes, I realize he has had some problems, and they simply can't be written off as Tom being Tom. It feels like the arguments against him have been highly... exaggerated? While there have been legitimate points, they've been hammered repeatedly, overemphasized and brought down very heavily. I can't help but get a sense that there is an attempt to prey on Tom for being... well Tom! I'm honestly not seeing the magnitude of the case on him.

As is, I'm definitely leery of Excal, but it is clear that he won't be on the block today. At this point, I do agree with some of the oddities surrounding Cid and his interactions. He's not my top candidate, but he's been someone who I have been a bit... leery of?

As such, I'm announcing intent to hammer Cid.

[Sierra]

Le sigh. Alright, give me a few moments for a last post, por favor?

[AndrewRogue]

No problem. Hell, I'm open to being swayed.

[Sierra]

-Had a big ol' list of people earlier today and he forgot Andy, which is one of those minor details I love to follow up on.

This got a smile out of me. What does it mean when a townie forgets to mention someone in a big ol' list post? We'll find out tomorrow if you follow up on this.

And Rat: there's a difference between "powerfully worded" and "derisive," and I maintain that Tom crossed over into the latter category and that nothing good can come of this.

Anyway, someone in the votetrain on me is probably scum, so that's the natural place to start discussion tomorrow. For obvious reasons, I suspect Alex. First thing day two, he's going to say something along the lines of "Cid looked scummiest at the time; at least we got some information from the lynch even though we killed a townie," and wash his hands of the whole mess. Don't let him. His attitude throughout the day has been very bizarre in my opinion and most of his reasons for pushing my lynch have been mere playstyle differences. If he's town, this is destructive; if he's scum--more and more likely in my opinion, since on reflection I feel it very likely that the initial post he made on his return was nothing but trolling and I fell for it--then you know what to do.

Okay. If you absolutely must do so, Andy, now's the time. (Obviously I'd prefer you didn't, but the group seems decided).

EDIT: Andy post at the last minute! Hah, at least someone's still willing to listen. Still, I'm not sure what else to say; you state that you're unwilling to join the train on Tom, and the only other person I've really got a lead on right now is Alex. I've stated my reasons for suspecting him and can do so again if necessary (but it'd be easier to go reread my last big post, of course!)