Finished Mafia XLII: War of the Gods ~ GAME OVER ~ Town wins!

[mirdo]

@mirdo - Have you posted your thoughts on NP yet?

This does make sense. And I dunno if im making a misstake by saying that but i would give NP a pass here. Also he is one of the more usefull players in the game. I would like to avoid a lynch like me last game where a highly contributing player goes out because of bs. Granted his beginning play was shady. But i don't have enough evidence to push a lynch against him cause he is also usefull.

 

[Scattered mind]

How the case on NP created:

He's over-exaggerating his perceived town meta to cover up the fact he's scum. His real town meta is different to what he thinks it is, so the fact he's playing this game by how he always says he plays as town is a pretty good starting point.

Celever makes the observation that NP's behavior (attacking morda over the first RVS vote, in an obvious way to pressure) is an attempt to appear as town NP, which NP presumably perceives as aggressive. Celever also most probably refers to the quote NP made from the pirates game, in response to Lord's post who voted NP asking him to relax, implying he is too aggressive for this RVS stage. The quote NP used to defend himself was to show how this is how he plays and treats RVS, in order to, probably, prove that this is not something unusual on his part.

When did I say this?

NP is asking this question, which might be a dumbtell to buy some time, because it is pretty obvious that Celever referred to the quote NP gave from the pirates game.

Well, you did literally quote you saying you always play hella aggressively and said "look I'm playing like this so I'm town". That's just a convenient phone example.

Celever points the obvious.

Just because I always RVS aggressively doesn't mean I always RVS the same.

Here, NP indirectly admits that this time he was more/less aggressive than past games, but that this is not an issue, because the level of aggressiveness cannot justify what Celever says.

Explain to me the shifts in attitude between this game and your past games which have resulted in you RVSing differently this time around.

Here Celever asks from NP to explain what is the reason behind the change of the way NP is being aggressive. Meaning: Celever thinks that the change is because this is scum NP trying to imitate town NP's aggressiveness, and because NP says that it is not so, Celever asks him:" then what is it?"

Both hosting a game and reading the first couple of days in the mafia tournament.
Hosting a game let me see a lot about how nothing gets done without pressure starting early. You only got out of RVS because of your weak lead on Jesi, which just lead to more weak leads and a last minute lynch.
In the mafia tournament, they didn't even consider RVS worth it. That showed me how much we should strive to get out of RVS and find a lead. Pressuring people helps find one.

Here, NP explains that the change in aggressiveness is the result of his attempt to quickly get out of RVS, which in his opinion, consistently harming the game and leads the town to a last minute lynch. A good reason, however, stay with me.

And as a result of these experiences, you have played differently by ... in this game.

Fill in the blank.

Questioning every post, and taking a more vocal stance.

According to NP, the change of aggressiveness in practice is him questioning every post and being more vocal,

OK. And this is different to the last time you played aggressively in what way?

Considering you said you always play aggressively.

Here Celever is reaching. This is a dead end. NP has given a decent answer, but Celever is trying to pressure him further, from some reason.

I don't have the time, nor the desire, to examine my own meta. I know what I've tried to do more of. To see what I did in the past, just look at the opposite of what I said.

If you know already it shouldn't take any time or desire. Last game you talked continuously about the importance of discussion. Don't try to stop it without giving a real answer please. ^w^

I'm talking to Luis about CaC any time now. I don't want to start looking and not have time to finish. When I'm done with that, I'll look through past games.

Why do you need to look through past games? I thought you already knew.

I know what I've tried to do more of, which by extension, I did less of before. I can't tell you what I did more of then and less of now.

Good, so the only difference you think you have is that you're more vocal.

Because there's been a mindset shift. That's the scummy part.

Here, Celever explains that NP's reason of being more vocal is a mindset shit, and that this is the scummy part. I am not very sure what he meant there, and so was NP:

Questioning every post is certainly a mindset shift.
If you mean something else, show me what you're talking about and I can try to explain it for you.

I think Celever might be onto something, and this is the most interesting part of it. I can't figure out if it's annoyance of Celever pushing for him, or whether it's just a cop-out.

@everyone Should post their thoughts on the NP case.

Which part are you referring here. bb?

NP's hypocrisy is important to remember. bb made the same play as others had made, which NP then swiftly labelled as "bad", yet NP said it was "good" when bb did so. 'Tis an interesting interaction.

Celever is not willing to continue explaining the mindset thing. Instead he is referring to a complete different issue, and that is the fact that NP said bb's vote was townie, but..

NP actually gave a reason why for this; did you miss it?

Exactly! So why, Celever? and why even bringing this up when you still have not completed the first point? I am confused. But here, Lord explains :

It could easily be a fabricated stance, this has been pointed out. Don't rule this out.

Yes it could, like everything pretty much, but what is the evidence that it is so?




-----


ANYWAY, remember the part where I asked you to stay with me? The one where it seemed like NP gave a good answer to his change in aggressiveness? Well, the point in which this statement is contradicted is here:

Both hosting a game and reading the first couple of days in the mafia tournament.
Hosting a game let me see a lot about how nothing gets done without pressure starting early. You only got out of RVS because of your weak lead on Jesi, which just lead to more weak leads and a last minute lynch.
In the mafia tournament, they didn't even consider RVS worth it. That showed me how much we should strive to get out of RVS and find a lead. Pressuring people helps find one.

This post is very much "RVS isn't helpful; we need to pressure instead". Yet, only a few posts prior, you RVS'd Ice Espeon (see below). Out of the blue, without any form of pressure, nothing. What's with that contradiction?

##UNVOTE: mordacazir
##VOTE: Ice Espeon
You were the last player to like the conformation post. That clearly mean that you're scum.

NP's answer to that contradiction is:

RVS is still important. I RVS'd IE because it can get people to talk if it they otherwise wouldn't (not like he responded anyway). If a player hasn't posted, there's not really anything to pressure them on.

In one word : annoying.
This RVS vote on IE holds no attempt whatsoever to pressure. And in general, this behavior is not adding up to the presented new ideology of NP regarding RVS, which he gave as an explanation to his change in aggressiveness instead of Celever's explanation that the real reason behind the change is NP being scum trying to act too much what he believes his town meta is.



So this is what I think is most likely the entire issue with NP. To all of you who were not so sure about it like:

Spoiler

I honestly cant form an opinion as from what I've seen he's commenting on his past meta, while being admittedly dodgy.

Calm it down in confirming assumptions. Yes this is true and it's worth considering but slow down, we need more evidence than that. Players change the way they play gradually over time. This could be one of those changes, as it's not a big one.

He's been more aggressive than I've seen in the past. Pirates and Superheroes, the games I remember him in, were not as aggressive as this. This is a mindset change as stated by Celever. I agree with that. However NP used a similar argument that I used in Dazzling Star, involving a change in the way I played. These kinds of points are points no one can argue with, which is why this is getting us nowhere.

It really could be either one, but this isn't something I'm going to worry about because it gets us nowhere. He's a high up choice but his saying BB made a "good vote" is weird, and incorrect. I get that pressure is a thing but it's a weird way to put pressure on a player.

It also seems like you're trying to grab townie points by promoting this kind of pressure, which really seems like something you'll try to use to your advantage later. His mindset isn't what I think makes him scummy, its his defense and his promotion of intense pressure.

Him not replying to further conversation when he earlier implied he wanted to keep it alive with pressure is super contradictory and is scummy as well. And NP has 2-3 votes on him already. In a game as small as this the last thing I need to do is give other players the opportunity to hammer.

This does make sense. And I dunno if im making a misstake by saying that but i would give NP a pass here. Also he is one of the more usefull players in the game. I would like to avoid a lynch like me last game where a highly contributing player goes out because of bs. Granted his beginning play was shady. But i don't have enough evidence to push a lynch against him cause he is also usefull.

My thought on NP is that everyone is over-reacting on him, and also that NP over-reacted to an obvious RVS vote. There's nothing more to it than that.

Here I go:
If I understand the whole case, it started by NP saying bb's vote was a good vote? Which I don't exactly see how that's scummy...could someone please explain? Also playing more aggressive than usual. I saw him not answering some questions and saying he needed to leave, then he'd still be on and but not answering the questions (I believe he answered all the questions eventually, though will look back again to double check).


I don't really know if I see Cel a scummy or not, I was mainly going with the fact that he was tunneling into NP right away. Don't have anything else on him atm so I'm just going to drop that case and keep an eye on him.

Why? Why do you think NP is scum?

All of you guys and really everyone, can now, I think have much more to say. :3

 

[NinjaPenguin]

Case on Lorde coming hopefully within the next hour, but maybe in three.
@Jadethepokemontrainer

What specifically makes you think that Cel is bussing me (as opposed to it being scum vs townie or townie vs townie)?

@Jadethepokemontrainer Do you have a Double Voteweight.

Completely unnecessary role fish. You know jade has a double vote weight (since you know you have a single one), so why bother telling the scum?

 

[bbninjas]

How is that scummy?

If a player is not normally concious of their town play, then sudden conciousness can be indication of a scum alignment. This is simply because scum need to be concious of their town play, whereas town do not. I thought that this was a part of the case, and it appears it wasn't completely it, but either way, I don't think it's a scumtell because NP is normally concious of their town play iirc.

I doubt that this was a defense made by NP for bb. I think scum NP would not feel the need to defend scum bb because of 1. bb's experience to handle by himself. 2. the fact that it was a weak accusation. Putting a vote after someone else does not risk anything if it's just 2 votes during RVS, so the point made by Lord (I think it was Lord) was not very good. I was actually thinking that it was a slip because it seemed like NP referred to something bb said somewhere, but then NP explained that it is some kind of play to get reaction by himself. bb never confirmed this, iirc.

If you're referring to why I made that vote; I did sorta explain it here:

I'd just like to point out that the vote I made on NP was good in that he caused discussion. It wasn't exactly a random vote - a knew that NP would react to that somehow, and probably substantially (which he did), and if so, people would react to that (and they did), etcetera, and thus discussion would happen.

How the case on NP created:

Thank you, this is very helpful.

Which part are you referring here. bb?

If you're talking about what I thought Celever could be on to; It would be the fact that NP had "no desire" and that if NP knew his meta, he should need to go back and analyse it.

ANYWAY, remember the part where I asked you to stay with me? The one where it seemed like NP gave a good answer to his change in aggressiveness? Well, the point in which this statement is contradicted is here:

NP's answer to that contradiction is:

In one word : annoying.
This RVS vote on IE holds no attempt whatsoever to pressure. And in general, this behavior is not adding up to the presented new ideology of NP regarding RVS, which he gave as an explanation to his change in aggressiveness instead of Celever's explanation that the real reason behind the change is NP being scum trying to act too much what he believes his town meta is.

I can't believe that I both forgot that contradiction in listing those case points earlier, and didn't really pursue it, because you're right, NP's response doesn't add up. >.>

Aaand I'm out of time to expand my updated read right now. In short, I think that NP could be scum based on this inconsistency/contradiction in particular. His lynch could be good, depending on the other cases that get brought up today. I'm not sure, however, if NP has contradicted himself like this in past as town. Also, I am a little concerned about how noone has been pushing against the case until now, which if NP is scum, normally a scumbuddy would be trying to direct everyone's attention elsewhere.

Case on Lorde coming hopefully within the next hour, but maybe in three.

Huh, that's convenient, considering lorde is my top scum read atm based on my quick readthrough of her posts last night. I was planning on looking into her today, but if you can get a case done, that'd save a lot of time on my part (>.>). I'm curious to see what you find scummy.

 

[Vracken]

Effective immediately, @Haunted Water has been subbed out at his request, being replaced by @PikaMasterJesi

Hades decided he doesn't much like someone

 

[NinjaPenguin]

##VOTE: NinjaPenguin

It's RVS, chill out dude!

Trying to make someone chill out in RVS is counterproductive to town. Not sure she got why RVS is used in past games, so this point is pretty weak (her motivation could be scummy, or it could be an honest mistake).

##UNVOTE: NinjaPenguin since BB put a vote there. Putting a second vote on a player this early mere minutes after someone else did is weird, especially for a seasoned player like BB. I'm marking this. So for now, ##VOTE: bbninjas because that's a weird move to make.

Also, @NinjaPenguin where is that second quote from?

This is the first time lorde tries to stop minture bandwagons. There are seven votes to lynch; you can still get to four without even risking accidental hammers. Bandwagons put more pressure on people, as they know (or at least think) that they are at risk, which gives you the best time for reads on them.

Wait, what? His first post was just a vote on you. No words, nothing, how is that a "good thought"?

Good questioning. Nothing of note here.

K

##UNVOTE: bbninjas ##VOTE: Professor Palutena (watch there be a tongue face here)

I've explained why not giving any reason is bad (except for bandwagons), but she still does it. Why? Because she doesn't want to advance the game state.

It's bad reasoning, he's not being 100% serious.

This prevents any possible reaction on IE's part.

Calm it down in confirming assumptions. Yes this is true and it's worth considering but slow down, we need more evidence than that. Players change the way they play gradually over time. This could be one of those changes, as it's not a big one.

He's been more aggressive than I've seen in the past. Pirates and Superheroes, the games I remember him in, were not as aggressive as this. This is a mindset change as stated by Celever. I agree with that. However NP used a similar argument that I used in Dazzling Star, involving a change in the way I played. These kinds of points are points no one can argue with, which is why this is getting us nowhere.

It really could be either one, but this isn't something I'm going to worry about because it gets us nowhere. He's a high up choice but his saying BB made a "good vote" is weird, and incorrect. I get that pressure is a thing but it's a weird way to put pressure on a player.

It also seems like you're trying to grab townie points by promoting this kind of pressure, which really seems like something you'll try to use to your advantage later. His mindset isn't what I think makes him scummy, its his defense and his promotion of intense pressure.

Him not replying to further conversation when he earlier implied he wanted to keep it alive with pressure is super contradictory and is scummy as well. And NP has 2-3 votes on him already. In a game as small as this the last thing I need to do is give other players the opportunity to hammer.


Why? That's only slowing the progress of getting out of this dreadful phase. That's scummy if anything here is.

There a lot of "It could be this, but it could also be this," which is noncommittal and useless. She also seems to not know why she thinks I'm scummy, as but is used to should why you may be wrong. Saying you may be wrong because I'm incorrect makes no sense.
Later on, she is also against mini bandwagons, which help advance the game.
Finally, do you remember when I said she might not get RVS at the beginning? She obviously considers it dreadful, which proves she does care about doing that phase right. Yes she still was fine with people giving absolutely no reason.

I have no reads, but you pretty much just "evaluating" and trying to fly under the radar D1 is annoying. Sure, we have no information, that's why you start with asking questions. Why are you gonna complain that we have no information, and just withdraw yourself until we have some? Unless you don't have the time right now than you should be here helping us gather information. If you want to be certain scum has been found then could you please help us find one?

Scum is rarely found D1, but you can either policy lynch if you really have nothing at the end of the day, or someone can just in general be scummy. You're never gonna be certain scum is found, and even when the "confoscum" dies they can still flip town. Last game is evidence of this. Saying you need to be certain is probably exaggerating, but you should always go with who you think is the scummiest. It makes no sense to simply wait because "there isn't enough info", then bandwagon later. That is blantantly scummy, and you trying to argue it is useless.

It's not enough to really make me that suspicious of you but simply withdrawing yourself from D1, despite how f-ing terrible RVS is, is preventing potential discussion and that is scummy behavior. There's no denying that.

It is, especially in RVS where no one really knows what they need to do to win yet.

It could easily be a fabricated stance, this has been pointed out. Don't rule this out.

Done for today, I have stuff I need to do.

First, lorde didn't commit her vote to the player she considered the scummiest, even though there was no threat of scum. She once again says RVS is terrible, showing that she cares about it once again. Lastly, there's the anything can be a fabricated stance post, which is there to cause doubt in the town.

What?

Yes, I'm aggressive. Nothing new.

I mean I wouldn't really know, seeing as he subbed in D2 last game and wasn't around for RVS last season, but if this is normal for him than I'll probably let it go.

Only this isn't the normal 8-9 majority game, this is 7. Because of this I will hold back a vote, even on D1.

If you interpreted that as misread then you're wrong. I was just saying you're more aggressive here than in most games.

I don't recall you ever being aggressive. You're also defending HW strangely. Being noncommittal is different from not wanting a Day 1 lynch.

My thoughts on NP haven't changed much. I no longer see much connection with bb (which I think could be planned to distance them from each other). He's been pretty illogical a few times, as well as hypocritical based on the situation he's in.

This is normal. We've seen him get like this pretty much every recent game D1. He seems like anti-town but considering it's Celever there's nothing new happening here.

It made sense at first but they're doing well distancing themselves from each other. That said, NP's lynch gives an accurate read on BB, which in these games is crucial.

Guys this is an absolute mess. Celever needs to stop tunneling, both BB and Celever need to stop fueling each other's fires, or we'll end up lynching a townie caught in the middle. ##UNVOTE: Professor Palutena

Kinda true, kinda not true. Mostly he would, occasionally he wouldn't. Great point though, never thought of that.

If you have any time, you mind requoting the question? You've asked quite a few so I have no idea which question you're referring to.

Jade's right, that's exactly what put NP in the spotlight, but him pressuring you was a factor.

"Kinda true, kinda not true. Mostly he would, occasionally he wouldn't." means absolutely nothing. Not committing to your opinion on what is happening helps nobody. Also, any point that is kinda not true cannot be great.
Also, I tagged jade not lorde, which is strange, but I don't know what to think of it.

Main thoughts:
Lorde tries to stop RVS from going through, but attacks other people for doing the same.
Lorde tries to shut down pressure, but claims her playstyle is aggressive.
Lorde doesn't commit, preventing us from getting many interactions.
Lorde tries to WIFOM us out of making any conclusions.
Lorde steps up to defend others, preventing us from getting good reactions out of them.

If Lorde is scum, I'd suspect that her scumbuddies include at least one of IE, HW/Jesi, and Cel (and perhaps jade). IE and HW because she took questions for them and Cel and jade because of their strange interactions with her.

##UNVOTE: Ice Espeon
##VOTE: lord o da rings

 

[JadeGemTM]

What specifically makes you think that Cel is bussing me (as opposed to it being scum vs townie or townie vs townie)?

I thought it was weird how he jumped right onto you and started tunneling. I now realize how stupid that is and am not really into that idea anymore.

jade because of their strange interactions with her.

What strange interaction?

being pulled away from the computer. be back later

 

[Lorde]

Trying to make someone chill out in RVS is counterproductive to town. Not sure she got why RVS is used in past games, so this point is pretty weak (her motivation could be scummy, or it could be an honest mistake).

You are blowing this way out of proportion. That was simply a light-hearted comment saying you could relax a little bit. You're misreading this.

This is the first time lorde tries to stop minture bandwagons. There are seven votes to lynch; you can still get to four without even risking accidental hammers. Bandwagons put more pressure on people, as they know (or at least think) that they are at risk, which gives you the best time for reads on them.

Sure.

I've explained why not giving any reason is bad (except for bandwagons), but she still does it. Why? Because she doesn't want to advance the game state.

It was RVS, to me it's the same thing as giving some obvious gag reason like this:

Also, I'll
##UNVOTE: mordacazir
##VOTE: Ice Espeon
You were the last player to like the conformation post. That clearly mean that you're scum.

They're equally beneficial.

This prevents any possible reaction on IE's part.

How?

There a lot of "It could be this, but it could also be this," which is noncommittal and useless. She also seems to not know why she thinks I'm scummy, as but is used to should why you may be wrong. Saying you may be wrong because I'm incorrect makes no sense.

My thoughts on NP haven't changed much. I no longer see much connection with bb (which I think could be planned to distance them from each other). He's been pretty illogical a few times, as well as hypocritical based on the situation he's in.

Listen next time, thanks.

Later on, she is also against mini bandwagons, which help advance the game.

Not exactly sure how you think this makes sense. I don't like the idea of hyper-pressure, simply building a case is enough in most cases, which is why I prefer to rely on a case. Most players (such as myself) will react with just a case.

Finally, do you remember when I said she might not get RVS at the beginning? She obviously considers it dreadful, which proves she does care about doing that phase right. Yes she still was fine with people giving absolutely no reason.

RVS = Random Voting Session, where you randomly vote and wait until you get a reaction. Why are you adding more and more layers of complexity to what should be a simple phase of the game?

First, lorde didn't commit her vote to the player she considered the scummiest, even though there was no threat of scum. She once again says RVS is terrible, showing that she cares about it once again. Lastly, there's the anything can be a fabricated stance post, which is there to cause doubt in the town.

Town should always have doubt, why is that bad? If town instills all their trust into someone the game will end up just like last time.

I don't recall you ever being aggressive. You're also defending HW strangely. Being noncommittal is different from not wanting a Day 1 lynch.

Okay you obviously don't understand a few things here. I'm not aggressive in the same way you are. You are aggressively pressuring people to get a response, which is okay, I just think using an actual case is better in most cases. I'm also weighing the options, which is why I'm saying "it could be this it could be that". Again, 100% normal for me. I'm not the quickest to commit.

"Kinda true, kinda not true. Mostly he would, occasionally he wouldn't." means absolutely nothing. Not committing to your opinion on what is happening helps nobody. Also, any point that is kinda not true cannot be great.

Sure.

Also, I tagged jade not lorde, which is strange, but I don't know what to think of it.

What is there to think of? That's an error on your part, not mine.

Main thoughts:
Lorde tries to stop RVS from going through, but attacks other people for doing the same.
Lorde tries to shut down pressure, but claims her playstyle is aggressive.
Lorde doesn't commit, preventing us from getting many interactions.
Lorde tries to WIFOM us out of making any conclusions.
Lorde steps up to defend others, preventing us from getting good reactions out of them.

If Lorde is scum, I'd suspect that her scumbuddies include at least one of IE, HW/Jesi, and Cel (and perhaps jade). IE and HW because she took questions for them and Cel and jade because of their strange interactions with her.

##UNVOTE: Ice Espeon
##VOTE: lord o da rings

- Where?
- My playstyle isn't aggressive the same way yours is, or evidently at the same time.
- How do these points relate in any way, and how does my lack of commitment prevent reactions?
- WIFOM is normal for me, no matter how much I want it not to be.
- Sure.

If you want commitment, ##VOTE: NinjaPenguin. You and BB are the only people I've consistently seen as scummy. We're getting to the point where we need to start making our choices anyways, especially me since my availability is limited right now.

Strange interactions? Quote these, please.

Packing for vacation tomorrow, flying out the following. Don't expect long posts for at least two days.

 

[bbninjas]

If you want commitment, ##VOTE: NinjaPenguin. You and BB are the only people I've consistently seen as scummy. We're getting to the point where we need to start making our choices anyways, especially me since my availability is limited right now.

Sorry? Looking back, I don't think you've actually ever said I'm scummy, for starters, so this comment is out of the blue. It's also interesting to note that the two people that have a scumread on you are NP and myself, and while NP is scummy for other reasons, finding me scummy so suddenly is indication of scummy OMGUSy.

Also why does everyone have to go on holidays now? D:

 

[Scattered mind]

Lord did find you scummy and even voted you at the beginning of the day.

 

[bbninjas]

##UNVOTE: NinjaPenguin since BB put a vote there. Putting a second vote on a player this early mere minutes after someone else did is weird, especially for a seasoned player like BB. I'm marking this. So for now, ##VOTE: bbninjas because that's a weird move to make.

Also, @NinjaPenguin where is that second quote from?

I'd say that this is a Day-1-don't-have-any-reads pressure vote based off some flawed reasoning, and it shouldn't really be influencing a read at this point. The thing is, @scattered mind, has lorde actually found me scummy since the NP/Celever interactions, which is when a lot of stuff progressed?

 

[Scattered mind]

I'd say that this is a Day-1-don't-have-any-reads pressure vote based off some flawed reasoning, and it shouldn't really be influencing a read at this point. The thing is, @scattered mind, has lorde actually found me scummy since the NP/Celever interactions, which is when a lot of stuff progressed?

That I do not know, but there is an underground assumption within some players that there is a certain connection between you and NP

The connection seems to be a result of:
1)NP's defense on your vote (which I think was explained well by NP later on after I asked him for it)
2)Your hesitation on putting your thoughts on the case of NP, asking everyone to do so, and only later on slightly putting doubt on the case. (which could be a decent argument, but only if point 1 was good or any previous evidence was given, otherwise, it is kinda biased towards looking into your connection beforehand after making the connection over a point that was well explained by both of you at some point of the game).

 

[NinjaPenguin]

You are blowing this way out of proportion. That was simply a light-hearted comment saying you could relax a little bit. You're misreading this.

Sure.

It was RVS, to me it's the same thing as giving some obvious gag reason like this:

They're equally beneficial.

How?

Would IE ever give us a good reaction to a vote Lorde confirmed was not serious?

Listen next time, thanks.

Not exactly sure how you think this makes sense. I don't like the idea of hyper-pressure, simply building a case is enough in most cases, which is why I prefer to rely on a case. Most players (such as myself) will react with just a case.

RVS = Random Voting Session, where you randomly vote and wait until you get a reaction. Why are you adding more and more layers of complexity to what should be a simple phase of the game?

How do you get a reaction without your votes even having a reason (and not being a bandwagon)? You were supporting those.

Town should always have doubt, why is that bad? If town instills all their trust into someone the game will end up just like last time.

It's one thing to have doubt for healthy reason. Your fabricated stance post does nothing like that. It tells the town to trust nobody based on their interactions, as anything can be fake. This attempts to get rid of one of the most effective ways of scumhunting.

Okay you obviously don't understand a few things here. I'm not aggressive in the same way you are. You are aggressively pressuring people to get a response, which is okay, I just think using an actual case is better in most cases. I'm also weighing the options, which is why I'm saying "it could be this it could be that". Again, 100% normal for me. I'm not the quickest to commit.

How are you aggressive?

What is there to think of? That's an error on your part, not mine.

Here's what I said:

@Jadethepokemontrainer Any response to my question?
In theory, a case on someone should come in the next couple of hours. I may have to do some errands, so you shouldn't count on it. It will be up by the day of the day, though.

I tagged jade. You responded. That's clearly strange (also, jade, this should answer your question on the strange interaction between you and her). As, since when was this an error on my part? You're attempting to light OMGUS me her, but it's not working.

- Where?
- My playstyle isn't aggressive the same way yours is, or evidently at the same time.
- How do these points relate in any way, and how does my lack of commitment prevent reactions?
- WIFOM is normal for me, no matter how much I want it not to be.
- Sure.

-Stop RVS from going through is bad wording. You tried to stop me from being aggressive to get us out of RVS more quickly.
-I'll respond to this when you respond to this post.
-Imteractions, not reactions. I can't tie you to others upon their flip because you flip flop on them. You can always point to the part of the quote that says you're not sure or it could be another reason, to show that you "obviously didn't help the mislynch". Same goes for vote counts. If you don't vote, nobidy can see it as we analyze vote counts near the end of the game.
-Only you can control your own playstyle. If you WIFOM all the time, you should probably tell yourself that your logic is bad and stop using it.

If you want commitment, ##VOTE: NinjaPenguin. You and BB are the only people I've consistently seen as scummy. We're getting to the point where we need to start making our choices anyways, especially me since my availability is limited right now.

AtE mixed with OMGUS (on bb, like he said) and an appeasement vote.

Strange interactions? Quote these, please.

Packing for vacation tomorrow, flying out the following. Don't expect long posts for at least two days.

jade was when you fielded the question for him. Cel was when he said you summed up his thoughts even though you didn't understand the case.

 

[NinjaPenguin]

I thought it was weird how he jumped right onto you and started tunneling. I now realize how stupid that is and am not really into that idea anymore.

Why is this idea stupid?
Also, quick defense on the IE vote. How can you pressure someone who hasn't posted yet? That was the best idea I could find, and it clearly could have gotten rainy to react if he was in IE's place.

 

[bbninjas]

@NinjaPenguin Did you say before that this Cel vs me thing from earlier was a waste of time? Or was that scattered? Eitherway, I question the effectiveness of the scumhunting method you're taking right now. It's not particularly clear, much like how Celever and myself were earlier, and it's something of tunnelling behaviour. I'll explain more later once I finish off this more detailed post.

 

[Scattered mind]

Also, quick defense on the IE vote. How can you pressure someone who hasn't posted yet? That was the best idea I could find, and it clearly could have gotten rainy to react if he was in IE's place.

By only voting them and not making that light joke reasoning that only emphasizes "this is just RVS and I am not serious in voting you". Rainyman's reaction is exceptional, and I doubt that you really thought IE might not understand that it was a joke and not that you actually found him putting the last like to be scummy.

 

[Scattered mind]

The only thing that I can say is that I was also thinking about commenting on rainy's confusion with NP's vote on IE, but then I said to myself "wait, let's see how NP/IE/others response to that, maybe something interesting will happen. So Lord could not think about it because a)he's scum or b)she just didn't think about that. Overall that point against Lord is too WIFOMy, in my opinion.
The rest of the case I haven't delved into yet.

 

[NinjaPenguin]

@NinjaPenguin Did you say before that this Cel vs me thing from earlier was a waste of time? Or was that scattered? Eitherway, I question the effectiveness of the scumhunting method you're taking right now. It's not particularly clear, much like how Celever and myself were earlier, and it's something of tunnelling behaviour. I'll explain more later once I finish off this more detailed post.

Nah. I thought Celever vs me was a waste of time. Looking forward to seeing your more detailed post.

The only thing that I can say is that I was also thinking about commenting on rainy's confusion with NP's vote on IE, but then I said to myself "wait, let's see how NP/IE/others response to that, maybe something interesting will happen. So Lord could not think about it because a)he's scum or b)she just didn't think about that. Overall that point against Lord is too WIFOMy, in my opinion.
The rest of the case I haven't delved into yet.

The issue is that she also did this with HW. The IE thing may have been to help Rainy be less confused, but with HW, she clearly steps out to defend him before we can get any reaction from him. That certainly doesn't help the town.

 

[NinjaPenguin]

Anyone feel like commenting on the Lorde case? Lurking can't help the town at all.

 

[JadeGemTM]

I don't expect to be on until after the end of the day so ##Vote: NinjaPenguin

@PikaMasterJesi what are your thoughts on the day?