captain8track

MS +1 MO -1 Arizona: 12 Arkansas: 13 California: 11 Colorado: 54 Connecticut: 11 Georgia: 14 Illinois: 11 Indiana: 12 Iowa: 10 Maine: 10 Massachusetts: 14 Minnesota: 10 Mississippi: 14 Missouri: 6 Montana: 23 Nebraska: 8 New Hampshire: 15 New Mexico: 9 New York: 29 North Carolina: 9 North Dakota: 10 Ohio: 25 Oregon: 47 Pennsylvania: 11 Rhode Island: 10 South Carolina: 11 South Dakota: 8 Utah: 10 Vermont: 10 Virginia: 19 Washington: 21 Wisconsin: 12 Wyoming: 12

MS +1 MO -1 Arizona: 12 Arkansas: 13 California: 11 Colorado: 53 Connecticut: 11 Georgia: 14 Illinois: 11 Indiana: 12 Iowa: 10 Maine: 10 Massachusetts: 14 Minnesota: 10 Mississippi: 13 Missouri: 8 Montana: 23 Nebraska: 8 New Hampshire: 15 New Mexico: 9 New York: 29 North Carolina: 9 North Dakota: 10 Ohio: 25 Oregon: 47 Pennsylvania: 11 Rhode Island: 10 South Carolina: 11 South Dakota: 8 Utah: 10 Vermont: 10 Virginia: 19 Washington: 21 Wisconsin: 12 Wyoming: 12

WV -1 MS +1 Arizona: 11 Arkansas: 10 California: 12 Colorado: 54 Connecticut: 11 Georgia: 14 Illinois: 10 Indiana: 12 Iowa: 10 Maine: 10 Massachusetts: 10 Minnesota: 10 Mississippi: 12 Missouri: 9 Montana: 23 Nebraska: 8 New Hampshire: 11 New Jersey: 8 New Mexico: 10 New York: 28 North Carolina: 9 North Dakota: 10 Ohio: 25 Oregon: 48 Pennsylvania: 10 Rhode Island: 10 South Carolina: 11 South Dakota: 8 Utah: 11 Vermont: 10 Virginia: 16 Washington: 21 West Virginia: 5 Wisconsin: 12 Wyoming: 12

MS +1 WV -1 Arizona: 11 Arkansas: 11 California: 12 Colorado: 54 Connecticut: 10 Georgia: 14 Illinois: 10 Indiana: 12 Iowa: 10 Maine: 10 Massachusetts: 10 Minnesota: 10 Mississippi: 11 Missouri: 9 Montana: 23 Nebraska: 8 New Hampshire: 11 New Jersey: 9 New Mexico: 10 New York: 28 North Carolina: 9 North Dakota: 10 Ohio: 25 Oregon: 48 Pennsylvania: 10 Rhode Island: 10 South Carolina: 10 South Dakota: 9 Utah: 11 Vermont: 10 Virginia: 15 Washington: 21 West Virginia: 6 Wisconsin: 12 Wyoming: 12

Alabama: 9 Alaska: 9 Arizona: 11 Arkansas: 10 California: 13 Colorado: 25 Connecticut: 10 Delaware: 2 - Georgia: 10 Hawaii: 10 Idaho: 10 Illinois: 10 Indiana: 10 Iowa: 10 Kansas: 10 Kentucky: 10 Louisiana: 10 Maine: 10 Maryland: 10 Massachusetts: 10 Michigan: 10 Minnesota: 10 Mississippi: 11 + Missouri: 9 Montana: 11 Nebraska: 10 Nevada: 9 New Hampshire: 10 New Jersey: 11 New Mexico: 10 New York: 12 North Carolina: 10 North Dakota: 10 Ohio: 11 Oklahoma: 8 Oregon: 16 Pennsylvania: 10 Rhode Island: 10 South Carolina: 10 South Dakota: 10 Tennessee: 10 Utah: 12 Vermont: 10 Virginia: 10 Washington: 11 West Virginia: 10 Wisconsin: 10 Wyoming: 11

no u (channeling ee cummings)

Tonight's forecast is "dark." Followed by "mostly dark," leading to "widely scattered light" in the early morning. (credit to George Carlin)

I blame NAH for Van Halen's inability to reunite with Sammy Hagar I DON'T CARE ABOUT DIAMOND DAVE, IT'S VAN HAGAR OR NOTHING FOR ME

death by snu-snu

brands

Granted... you step on a land mine; they aren't attached to you any more, so they aren't "hurting", per se. I wish this cold would go away.

No, screw all you guys; me.

Granted, and you are immediately arrested and jailed for robbery. I wish I had a pizza.

By not wishing for anything, Phish, you only wind up angering the thread gods and all sorts of crazy bad fortune befall you. I wish this weather would clear up.

Granted, you'll find your brand new BMW has been wrecked right outside your domicile. I wish I had a million dollars.

"Argh!" *twitch* *twitch* GG everybody!

Actually, yeah, it can. And if you want to be equal about this, you need to start calling out all the others who are laying dormant in this conversation. Please let them all know that you have personal expectations about how often they need to be posting. And if you look at the dates on my posts, they are pretty regular- about one a day. It seems a little coincidental that you pick only three people to analyze as scum. The first two, you claim, are both almost above suspicion (so why bother to even pick them? Unless you're only using them to contrast against #3). The last one you claim is completely scummy. That last one, however, just happens to have been calling you scum for a few days now. Guys, I'm telling you, when you lynch me and I turn out townie, it's going to be a little late to lynch Mole.

You're right, I'm a newbie. I didn't know how the game was played. Still don't, really. And I get the feeling you're rolling your eyes every time I mention I haven't played Mafia before, but it's the truth, so that's why I keep reiterating it. My first post was so "oh my god you suck" because I had no idea of the proper tone for this game. I thought it might be "first person"-type response- you know, "post it like it's really happening." That elicited a bunch of "WTF" and "is this your first game?" responses, so those were clear signs that I was mistaken. So my tone changed. Lurking for two reasons: 1) trying to figure out how it works 2) I actually *do* have a day job in RL If you want to lynch me for taking my time to figure out how the game is played, you're certainly able to. But it doesn't seem logical. Yes. I thought you two were constantly posting to try and control the conversation, and settle the focus on whoever you wanted- and that you were trying to lynch a townie. That was my suspicion. I'm not the only one who wasn't posting. I don't recall Curu posting that much either. I got the impression that he was new(ish?) at this because his responses seemed, kind of like mine, to not "measure up" to the expectations of others on the board. At least that was the impression I got from responses to his posts. I still think KevinH, CD, and Narsis haven't posted all that much. They've made good points- points mostly about how the game is played. I don't think I've got a strong basis for suspecting any of them as mafia or druggies so far. It's not fence-sitting. I was saying I believe you are BOTH scum. I was suspicious of both of you, and I still am. I would also point out that it seems to be impossible to make a solid case in this game. All you can ever do is quote somebody's posts back at them. That's not "solid," by any reasonable definition. I can see how that gets irritating. But it's the truth. And my actions don't make sense unless I tell you where I'm coming from. I didn't say that. Falzis didn't case the first serious vote. You did. Go back and reread my post. I said it was probably cast by you, because you said "RVS is over," and I trusted your words when you said that indicating you meant your vote seriously. I used the word "blatant" because, from reading the Mafia wiki, your actions appeared blatantly what a druggie would want to do. You led attention directly to someone, kept the focus on them, and as a result the town wound up lynching a mafia. I didn't think it was "very convincing." I don't think it was "very convincing." Remember? I used the word "flippant." You cast a vote without providing any rationale. And I also remember you calling others out later on, when they cast votes without, in your eyes, adequately justifying them. You voted to lynch without providing any reason. That's flippant. I can see why you're sick of readdressing my arguments. I'm a little sick of reiterating them against you. I've already done so above. I'll recap them at the end of this post. I wish I could see what # reply each post was, so I could just refer you to that post. But I thought he gave several insightful posts on page #2, including the flowchart of possible outcomes ("If we lynch a townie on Day 1," et cetera). Actually, I didn't (and don't) have a clue if they're mafia or druggies- I was thinking they might be ONE of the two, but I don't know which. They might be mafia, they might be druggies. I can see why you'd want people to jump to conclusions that I thought they were mafia though. There's no justification for that statement: "he may have been able to get me lynched." I counted the votes. You and Falzis were tied. KevinH's post told me, in case of a tie, nobody is lynched. I wanted one of you two lynched. I felt confident you were both scum (druggies? Mafia? Didn't know, but I felt confident you guys were scum) so I was okay with lynching either one. I'd initially wanted to lynch you. But I was facing the choice of changing my vote and lynching Falzis, or nobody gets lynched. So I changed my vote for the greater good. So the town lynched 1 scum instead of 0. Turned out I (and all the others, including you) were right about him. I don't believe, at that late point where everyone had voted, that anyone was going to read my post and change their votes before the final vote was tallied. So I acted. At the time I posted that quote? No, I was still initially suspicious of you from day 1. But I didn't want to lead off with formalizing that vote because I thought it was improper. Nobody else jumped into voting. I figured I'd wait and read a few more posts, try and get some more information first. I still voted for you based off my suspicions from day 1- from your actions on day 1. The logic was very weak. It's a classic ad hominem. I state my grounds for suspecting you as scum, and you simply reply (in about ten words or less) "maybe YOU'RE scum." That doesn't further the game. That doesn't help anybody decide anything. It's ad hominem. You're second-guessing me, I'm second-guessing you; everybody is second-guessing everybody else. It's WIFOM. You can always respond that way: "but I'm a townie." I don't think you are. Your words aren't convincing. Actions are convincing. Words are cheap. This entire post seems to be a "oh my god you suck" post, veiled in pseudo-logic. You claim to be making an impartial investigation of three suspects. The first two, you claim, more innocent than the last. But the third suspect? The one you save for last? The one who just *happened* to be loudly and logically stating the case for your lynching- *that one* just happens to be emphatically scum?! Sure seems like "oh my god you suck" to me. Like you're saying, "Lynch me? Oh no, buddy, lynch you!" I'm not scum. Not a druggie, not a mafia. I know that. And I know those words don't help convince anybody else. So judge me by my actions. On day one, I thought Mole was scum. That's why I voted for him. Then, when it looked like we wouldn't get to lynch anybody because of a tie, I changed my vote to avert that tie. I settled on my next-most-suspicious candidate, Falzis. He was proven to be scum. That encouraged me to follow my instincts and refocus on Mole. That's been my thought process the entire time. Why did I focus on Mole? Drug dealers know who the mafia are. They want to eliminate the mafia so they get the night kill power. Mole was the first person to focus our attention on Falzis. Mole led the charge that resulted in the lynch of Falzis. Falzis was proven to be a mafia then. Lynching a mafia is exactly what a drug dealer would want us all to do. Not only that- Mole went right to Falzis. His first serious vote was to lynch Falzis. His first serious vote just happened to be right on the money. And then he kept loudly, insistently, hammering away at that first vote, like he had all the certainty in the world. I think he knew Falzis was mafia. I think he knew that because Mole is a drug dealer, and as a drug dealer, he knows who the mafia are. Now, I think he's trying to avert suspicion by getting the town to lynch me, thus killing a townie on day 2 (see KevinH's flowchart to remember where that gets us) and following his agenda on another day. Or, alternatively, killing a townie and then getting lynched himself, but his partner may be able to fly under the radar (call that "taking one for the team," if you will). I'm voting for Mole based on his actions. Several of you previously posted that you felt he was the obvious choice. Let me suggest to you that day 2 is a critical day in deciding what endgame scenario we're faced with. Day 2 is no time to go for longshots. "Maybe it's this guy." "Maybe it's that guy." Use your common sense. Go for the one you have the strongest feeling about. If you think I'm the one most likely to be scum, then fine, go ahead and lynch me. But if you think Mole is probably scum, and you'll just lynch him later, you should remember that unless we lynch scum on day 2, our endgame scenarios don't look that good. Use your common sense. Mine still says, and has consistently said, that Mole is scum. I'm voting for Mole.

Yes it is. Here's the definition of ad hominem. Don't feel like following the link? Fine: What was it you said again? Did that appeal to anyone's intellect? Was it an answer to any of the contentions I made? No. Did it appeal to prejudices, or attack my character, by simply inferring I'm scum? Yes. Why would I spend so much time focusing on this? Because this entire game, to one degree or another, is WIFOM. Someone says something. Then someone else says what the first guy said means he's scum. Guy1 says "Nuh-uh." Guy2 says "yeah-huh." Guy3 chimes and says Guy2 was a little too quick with that accusation on Guy1, and then suspicion shifts. That's WIFOM. It's all WIFOM, to at least a small degree. That's the game. Until you can prove somebody is lying. But nobody can read minds. So we can never tell if someone's lying. All we can do is judge people by their actions. Like we do in everyday life. When you catch someone in a lie, you're really just catching them in a contradiction. Unless you get them to admit they're lying, all you're left with is the fact that they said/did something that's at odds with what you know the truth is. This entire post so far has been about you being caught in a contradiction. You say it wasn't an ad hominem attack, but it was. It's not necessarily a lie. Because nobody can read your mind. But we can all judge your actions. You said it wasn't ad hominem. But it is. It's textbook ad hominem. It's right out of the dictionary. You're caught in a contradiction. From the outside, it looks like you're lying. I was suspicious of the two of you because it seemed like you were driving the conversation. And I figured that meant you were trying to guide it. I also considered that you might be experienced players, and you wanted the game to be fun, rather than lame. And that you were simply trying to get it going. But there's no definitive evidence either way. And when you get out in front, sometimes you wind up getting shot in the back. Like I posted when I changed my vote from you to Falzis: I was focused on the both of you. Now he's gone, and my focus is on you. I completely agree with these statements: that you can't prove anything in this game. But this game isn't about proof. There's no proof in this game. There's suspicion, and deductive reasoning. Let's follow a classic syllogism here: 1. Druggies know who the mafia are. 2. Druggies want to kill the mafia. 3. Molestargazer was the first to truly focus the attention on Falzis. 4. Falzis was found to be a mafia. 5. Therefore, Molestargazer is a druggie. Does that necessarily follow? No. You could be a townie. A lucky, lucky townie. A lucky, lucky townie who went right to the mafia. A lucky, lucky townie who went right to the mafia, claiming to have been suspicious of him based on the handful of posts already made. A lucky, lucky townie who went right to the mafia, claiming to have been suspicious of him based on the handful of posts already made, and now is arguing vociferously (rather than logically) about his own innocence. It's all possible. That doesn't mean it's probable. That's why I think you're a druggie.

You engage in ad hominem attacks. You attack me, rather than my logic. That's what someone would do when they want to distract others. Before you say, "no, I never levelled any ad hominem attacks against you," here you go: That's ad hominem. It's about the game, yes, but it's still ad hominem. It in no way refutes my logic. It simply casts baseless aspersions on me. Meanwhile, I suspect you for a logical reason. Your first vote, which you claim was just a pressure vote, just happened to be for a mafia. Like I said, it could be luck. But it's also exactly what a druggie would do. You acted just as you would have if you were a druggie. That's evidence. Feel free to say "no" all you like. It still is. If you want to tell the others here they can't judge you by your actions, fine. I'm not sure it will make you seem any more credible. But go ahead. Yes, they could do anything. But it's when they do something deliberately in their own interests that they attract attention. You attracted just such attention. I think you're a druggie. No. My logic is, your "random" vote was right on the money, and led to the lynching of a mafia. That is exactly what a druggie would want to do. I don't think your "random" vote was random at all. I think you knew Falzis was mafia because you're a druggie, and druggies know who the mafia are. Now, I think you're protesting loudly and emotionally (rather than logically) because you don't have logic on your side.

My thoughts on the remaining players so far: Molestargazer- I think he's a druggie. I think he "pressure voted" Falzis in a genuine attempt to get everyone to focus on him, and I think he did that because he knew Falzis was scum. And he knew it because he's a druggie and knows who the mafia are. KevinH- very insightful. Seems to be an experienced player. Seems like he hasn't posted that much, but he's made substantive points that really further the discussion. If he's scum, on either side, he plays it close to the vest. So far, the only reason I have to suspect him is because of how good of a job he's done at flying under the radar. CanucksDynasty- also insightful. Posting possible game outcomes teaches newbies the mechanics and helps this game flow smoothly, as well as making future games more enjoyable. By posting that list of scenarios he seems like a trustworthy figure giving good advice. The advice was good. He may have posted it to gain credibility, to get above suspicion, and ride the game out. Curufinwe- so far I think he's inexperienced. I haven't seen reason to suspect him as scum. He "changed" his vote to Mole, true, but his vote hadn't been on Falzis- it had been on me. When he switched it to Mole, he was the second vote there, and Falzis was already leading with a total of three votes- his wasn't the deciding (tie) vote. Seems like a possibly normal shift to me. Plus, that initial vote (on me) was, he admits, placed as a blind guess. So his first deliberate vote was on Mole, where he left it. Narsis- again, like KevinH and CanucksDynasty, he makes good points but overall seems to be playing it close to the vest. Hard for me to get a read on him so far. KevinH just made a good point: The following people voted for Falzis: Electric Mango- dead. Captain8track- I know I'm not a scum, so I know not to vote for me. Molestargazer KevinH Narsis I'm already suspicious of Mole as a druggie. So this logic would suggest I should focus on KevinH or Narsis as some type of scum. (For the record: I shifted my vote from Mole to Falzis because KevinH pointed out that in the event of a tie, nobody is lynched. I did the math and realized we were at a tie. I felt confident that Mole and Falzis were scum, and I was comfortable with lynching either one. I changed my vote because, if I hadn't, neither one would have been lynched. Now that that's done, my focus is back on Mole).

barge

That's not a convincing reply at all. Me: "That's what a druggie would do." You: "Doesn't prove I'm a druggie." No. No it doesn't. But it is evidence. Alright, didn't know we could do that. I had no idea what FoS even meant. For anyone else like me, follow this link. No. That's not true. You voted for Falzis with your "pressure vote." You went right to him. Your "pressure vote" was right on the money. That's either luck, or *exactly* what a druggie would do. I don't think you're that lucky. My focus was split between you and Falzis last round. I went with him, and he turned out to be mafia. I think you're a druggie. Vote: molestargazer

kisser

Right now my focus is on Mole. He started the focus on Falzis. Who wound up being a mafia. The druggies know who the mafia are. Mole started the focus on Falzis, who was found to be mafia. What are the odds of that? (...about 25%.) Still, the fact that he brought the focus, so early, towards someone who was eventually revealed to be mafia is a clue. This is exactly what a druggie would want to do. It's a blatant move- quite possibly too blatant. It might just be an unfortunate coincidence for him. But what the hey, it's a sign, and somebody's gotta die. We've got too many ropes here. So I haven't cast a vote just yet, but if I did, it'd probably be for Mole.