894 replies to this topic

[Falzis]

So should my suspicion be on Sojourner or not?

You ask yourself. You already know my position on soj.

VOTE COUNT
Falzis (3): Martino, Theophilos, KevinH
KevinH (4): Electric Mango, Narsis, Falzis, Sir Jesus

Not Voting (5): sojourner, Nerau, partyin01, Kaziocore, Aquinas

With 12 alive, 7 votes are needed to lynch.

- Sir Jesus is V/LA
- I'll be checking on those who I prodded shortly. If they haven't posted since the prod, they'll be replaced.

Edited by molestargazer, 22 June 2009 - 04:16 PM.

[Aquinas]

Phew! Back before I got modkilled.
I got taken on some family business over the past week. I was hoping someone would see that in another section of the forums as I forgot to announce it here.

I just finished reading everything I missed and to be honest I am not that impressed. Falzis seems to be begging for attention. This isn't necessarily a bad thing as lots of posting is good for the town (hypocritical I know...cut me a break here). However, he quite obviously called for the suspicion and was not in the least bit sneaky about it. He must have realized he was begging for heat with some of his posts. I do not think any more scum like of him for this. Its just that it seems more like he wants to do something that actually build evidence seeing as he could have just kept his mouth shut. I don't find a real reason to vote for him due to the fact his overt aggression is not overtly scummy.

KevinH was cleared in my book long ago. Unless he makes some new moves he will remain that way. I was surprised to see the no lynch conversation still continuing, that is getting a little ridiculous. I'm having a little trouble understanding that evidence against him, it doesn't seem very concrete.

At this point I'm more concerned about watching those who are voting for these two guys. You will all need to build some more evidence before you get my vote.

So, I'm back, active and caught up. Again, I apologize.

[Electric Mango]

I think we all can agree that if we are to win this game we need to gather as much information as possible in order to make the best informed decisions on who to lynch. Since I have my vote on KevinH I will weigh in and present you the things that have made me suspicious of him over anyone else.

What did you learn from Day 1 besides that Junkahoolic was the cop and someone killed him? Usually we are able to learn a lot more because we have better discussion and voting patterns that we can look back on. This did not happen on Day 1 because of two reasons in my opinion. First, we have a lot of new players and second, KevinH stifled the discussion. Most of Kevin's posts on Day 1 only revolve around not lynching, which all of the other experienced players recognize as a bad idea. Moreover, that was the biggest thing anyone talked about. By not lynching on Day 1 and not having any conversation we knew very little heading into the day. This makes KevinH suspicious of stalling our investigations.

Again, how do we win? By lynching all the bad guys. We lynch bad guys based off of getting information which comes up through conversation. The person who posted the most is now dead. The person who is posting the most now (Falzis) is being targeted by KevinH. It seems very unlikely that Falzis is scum because of all the comments he has made so far. If you were scum would you really be acting as crazy as Falzis? KevinH is also suspicious about me. I have also tried to lead many debates and have not been shy to speak my mind or create pressure on people. These are all things we must do to win.

KevinH clamis that Falzis was trying to mislead when he himself was the one trying to mislead us. He was referencing the lynch or no lynch debate as found on mafiascum. He quoted a part that seemed to back him up but failed to include the next paragraph which directly contradicted what he had said. When I confronted him on it he chose to ignore it. This is also a scum tactic and makes me suspicious of him.

Kevin has done a lot more suspicious things than anyone else IMHO. Please present your cases on anyone else and comment on what I said.

[molestargazer]

Partyin01 is being replaced.
I have replacements lined up, expect someone later today or tomorrow if they reply.

[Falzis]

Falzis seems to be begging for attention.

OOC (or out of game comment)

I just laughed out loud when I read this. It does look like I'm an attention whore hugging the discussion. (and this post will only reinforce that idea... )

I plead guilty. I have way too much time on my hands... and I love analytical games.

/OOC

Ok just ask yourself Aquinas.

Isn't it a bit too convenient to push for the head of the most active players (which the people on my wagon are doing) just because they are the most visible and have the most ammunition to bring up against...

...when...

...you yourself (I'm talking about KevinH and Theo here) just stood by, yes active but not truly participative, and took a silent-on-my-own-thoughts approach with a finger-wagging tone?

The truly skilled Mafia make it appear like they are participating in the discussion but actually are only chiming in and commenting on other people's voices... and waiting for their missteps. Or muddling the discussion with generally dead-horse and divisive points.

KevinH did the following:

1. Muddled and distracted town scumhunting with to-lynch-or-not-to-lynch-on-D1 debate up until D2. Insisted that pro-lynching is a scum tell (nvm that not lynching increases mafia chances of winning accdg to mafiascum wiki)

2. Disingenuously edited out the sentence in mafiascum wiki countering the validity of no-lynch strategy. Misleading in the highest order. Silence when confronted by it.

3. Role fished. Accdg to mafiascum, those who smealt em dealt em. Meaning, those who role fished persistently either have that role, or scum looking for with those roles.

4. Pushed for my head and EM's stating a BIG BIG wifom that "we could be mafia who NK'd junkahoolic to make sojourner look like scum", when his original logic pointed his suspicion to sojourner. The inconsistency came about when he was shot down by the town for simplistic logic.

I'd be very surprised if KevinH was lynched and he turned out to be townie. Me thinks that town will lose this game because of the inactivity of the newer members. Lacking their votes, and voices, it is easier for scum to drown the discussion with their agenda.

[Narsis]

Phew! Back before I got modkilled.
I got taken on some family business over the past week. I was hoping someone would see that in another section of the forums as I forgot to announce it here.

I just finished reading everything I missed and to be honest I am not that impressed. Falzis seems to be begging for attention. This isn't necessarily a bad thing as lots of posting is good for the town (hypocritical I know...cut me a break here). However, he quite obviously called for the suspicion and was not in the least bit sneaky about it. He must have realized he was begging for heat with some of his posts. I do not think any more scum like of him for this. Its just that it seems more like he wants to do something that actually build evidence seeing as he could have just kept his mouth shut. I don't find a real reason to vote for him due to the fact his overt aggression is not overtly scummy.

KevinH was cleared in my book long ago. Unless he makes some new moves he will remain that way. I was surprised to see the no lynch conversation still continuing, that is getting a little ridiculous. I'm having a little trouble understanding that evidence against him, it doesn't seem very concrete.

At this point I'm more concerned about watching those who are voting for these two guys. You will all need to build some more evidence before you get my vote.

So, I'm back, active and caught up. Again, I apologize.

you are right that the evidence against KevinH isn't particularily overwhelming, but it is enough to lynch him at this point imo. what better case(s) do we have to go off of?

[Sir Jesus]

you are right that the evidence against KevinH isn't particularily overwhelming, but it is enough to lynch him at this point imo. what better case(s) do we have to go off of?

This is almost exactly how I feel about the solution. I feel like Falzis has built a semi-solid case against KevinH, but to me the "evidence" lies more in playing style. Falzis has been extremely open with his thoughts and subsequently has been vulnerable to attack, certainly not something an anti-town faction member would do.

However, I feel like we may service the town by eliminating the quietest and least active. Does anyone have a feel for the post-partyin01 character? He and those who play similarly have been allowed to easily glide under the radar, if they are scum they would be playing the perfect strategy right now. Nobody knows anything about them ... and I see the inactive players around here surviving into late-game while the most active and "helpful" players are being targetted...

[Falzis]

Let's see the activity of the replacement before we rush into judgment. If we all agree to do that, it would have to be on D3 and not now.

[sojourner]

Going back, my whole case against Falzis stems from his voting to lynch and then making a few semi-misleading statements.

This is Kevin's whole case against Falsis......?????

[KevinH]

I'd be very surprised if KevinH was lynched and he turned out to be townie.

Prepare to be very surprised.

So I get lynched and turn out to be townie. Doesn't that make those that pushed for my lynch a little more scummier?

So I get lynched and turn out to be townie. Will you reread my supposed misleading posts and see the point I was trying to make?

So I get lynched and turn out to be townie. What then? Will you go back and decide that maybe it's possible that a townie will discuss roles? Will you go back and think that maybe the scum can post just like a townie?

It's a bit of a crapshoot in my opinion but the town has to lynch somebody if there is any chance to win. I know it's quite possible that Falzis and Electric Mango are innocent townies doing their best to scum-hunt.

But they have it wrong in my case. Maybe when I'm dead you'll believe me. I will come back and say "I told you so"!

[Falzis]

So I get lynched and turn out to be townie. Doesn't that make those that pushed for my lynch a little more scummier?

Yes. That's always the risk. But I'm willing to take it. I've done it with sojo. I don't know about the others.

So I get lynched and turn out to be townie. Will you reread my supposed misleading posts and see the point I was trying to make?

Maybe. But you can make the point now, if there is one. Why wait for your death for the "proper" re-interpretation of your "supposed" misleading posts when you can do it now?

So I get lynched and turn out to be townie. What then? Will you go back and decide that maybe it's possible that a townie will discuss roles? Will you go back and think that maybe the scum can post just like a townie?

Yes and yes. But that's assuming you turn out townie.

It's a bit of a crapshoot in my opinion but the town has to lynch somebody if there is any chance to win.

Better to lynch me than you, right? This statement of yours is a too late and a bit too opportunistic though.

But they have it wrong in my case. Maybe when I'm dead you'll believe me. I will come back and say "I told you so"!

Maybe. But the problem is, this post of yours isn't particularly convincing since it all hinges on the assumption that you will turn out a townie. This defense can be made by anyone, and isn't particularly relevant to the cases thrown against you.

[KevinH]

Maybe. But you can make the point now, if there is one. Why wait for your death for the "proper" re-interpretation of your "supposed" misleading posts when you can do it now?

The no-lynch debate need to end, but since you requested it...

"The appropriateness of this strategy has been much debated, but it generally comes down to two things: preserving favorable voting ratios ... or waiting for investigations." No Lynch on Mafia Wiki

My strategy of keeping more votes and waiting for an investigation is recognized as valid.

I quoted the part that was germain to my point that some people (not everyone) think no-lynch is a valid strategy. I referenced the whole article to prove my point.

The author of that article is on the other side but at least recognizes that there are two sides.

[Falzis]

Using a post-modernist perspective, we can only truly glean what point you want to make once we know where you're coming from (your alignment). Like the author's recognition of the double edged nature of a No Lynch strategy, the interpretation of your posts also has two sides.

But even if we take that into consideration, it doesn't discount the fact that you dwelled so long on the No Lynch thingy. And the other cases such as persistent role fishing.

[Electric Mango]

God this sucks! I had this big, nicely worded post done and I lost it. I don't have the will power to do it all again so I'll give you the short version.

We need to find scum

Scum are most likely trying not to post anything that will draw fire

People who post value and challenge people are putting themselves at risk.

We have a lot of people not challenging others or voting

We have a short amount of time left, especially if you figure low activity on weekends. We only have until the 29th.

The only debate going on right now is Kevin/Falzis who ironically are 2 people who have at least added some good value and contributed.

I'm very suspicious of those that have not really made a strong opinion, challenged someone, or voted.

We need to expand our scope to debate more than just Kevin/Falzis.

My vote will stay with Kevin until there is stronger evidence against someone else.

[Martino]

I'm in the final week of my master's thesis. I have been reading all posts the last few days and I will continue to do so, but I may not have as much time to spend on my own posts as I'd like to. However, I still have a few things to add.

First of all, I still regard Falzis' contradiction as a scum tell and I have one more question for him concerning this statement:

meta-game and WIFOM posts. read between the lines.

Why didn't you just include the names of the people you were suspicious of in your post? Why did you want/expect us to read between the lines. Wouldn't a townie like his posts to be as clear as possible?

That being said, I do like most of your other posts and they make me doubt if you really are scum. I'll keep my vote on you for now, but I am certainly willing to change it if a better case appears. However, I don't think the case against KevinH is that strong. The problem with KevinH is that he is playing this as he always does. He votes no lynch on D1 and then targets one of the voters of D1 on D2. I, therefore, find it very hard to get a good read on him on one of the first two days.

Finally, I would really like some of the players to get more active. We really need more opinions out there. It seems like some are about to get replaced, so I won't vote for the inactives yet. But if this day is drawing to a close, they are still inactive and haven't been replaced, then I would be willing to change my vote to one of them.

[Falzis]

Because I wanted to see if they (namely KevinH and Narsis) would become defensive, thus giving me an impression that they could be guilty. Had they reacted to that post without me attributing anyone by name, I would have been very suspicious of them.

And your contradiction-Falzis'-scum-tell was already shot down. I pressured Narsis to reveal his cards, he answered vaguely and shortly. EM pressured me to reveal my suspicions, I answered immediately and substantially. So there's no contradiction there. I demand of myself what I demand of others! No one has been more transparent than me in this game.

[Martino]

Because I wanted to see if they (namely KevinH and Narsis) would become defensive, thus giving me an impression that they could be guilty. Had they reacted to that post without me attributing anyone by name, I would have been very suspicious of them.

Would they really need to be scum to get defensive about that? If you had mentioned something which was clearly referring to me, without adding my name, I would probably also respond.

And your contradiction-Falzis'-scum-tell was already shot down. I pressured Narsis to reveal his cards, he answered vaguely and shortly. EM pressured me to reveal my suspicions, I answered immediately and substantially. So there's no contradiction there. I demand of myself what I demand of others! No one has been more transparent than me in this game.

Yes, you did refine your statement after EM pressured you, but I still think you may have kept it at least a little vague on purpose.

[Narsis]

My thoughts on everyone so far in no particular order:

Theophilos: seems to me to post only when necessary, although he is actively trying to put pressure on Falzis.

sojourner: his posts dont really seem to contain a ton of substance. at least from my point of view.

Nerau: like Theo seems to post only when necessary, but almost more so. as in only really when someone directs a question at him or puts pressure on him. doesn't seem to really be putting much pressure on anyone, or really want to. fence-sitting. that and his whole lucky scum post at the start of the day has caught my eye.

Sir Jesus: not as active as i've seen, although he has been agreeing with my thoughts so far.

Calderone partyin01: inactive.

Narsis: no comment.

Electric Mango: posting a lot and trying to keep discussion going. a plus in my book.

Martino: similar to theo, but with a bit more fence sitting it would seem.

Falzis: active. really active. putting pressure on people. arrogant though(if that's the right word).

Kaziocore: seems to be watching the game but not really posting much. could use a few more posts on what's going on.

KevinH: is his usual self but...something seems a little off in his posts.

Aquinas: was away for a bit it seems. when he has been around he has posted his opinions though.


so like i said not much. but since it's out here now...:

Unvote

Vote: Nerau

[KevinH]

I'm in the final week of my master's thesis. I have been reading all posts the last few days ...

My first thought was "a master's thesis on mafia?"

To reinforce what EM said: The deadline is Monday and lots of players don't play on the weekend. Get your vote in soon so it can be discussed!

Also, I will be mostly offline Wednesday through Friday.

[Aquinas]

Ok just ask yourself Aquinas.

Isn't it a bit too convenient to push for the head of the most active players (which the people on my wagon are doing) just because they are the most visible and have the most ammunition to bring up against...

...when...

...you yourself (I'm talking about KevinH and Theo here) just stood by, yes active but not truly participative, and took a silent-on-my-own-thoughts approach with a finger-wagging tone?

The truly skilled Mafia make it appear like they are participating in the discussion but actually are only chiming in and commenting on other people's voices... and waiting for their missteps. Or muddling the discussion with generally dead-horse and divisive points.

KevinH did the following:

1. Muddled and distracted town scumhunting with to-lynch-or-not-to-lynch-on-D1 debate up until D2. Insisted that pro-lynching is a scum tell (nvm that not lynching increases mafia chances of winning accdg to mafiascum wiki)

2. Disingenuously edited out the sentence in mafiascum wiki countering the validity of no-lynch strategy. Misleading in the highest order. Silence when confronted by it.

3. Role fished. Accdg to mafiascum, those who smealt em dealt em. Meaning, those who role fished persistently either have that role, or scum looking for with those roles.

4. Pushed for my head and EM's stating a BIG BIG wifom that "we could be mafia who NK'd junkahoolic to make sojourner look like scum", when his original logic pointed his suspicion to sojourner. The inconsistency came about when he was shot down by the town for simplistic logic.

I'd be very surprised if KevinH was lynched and he turned out to be townie. Me thinks that town will lose this game because of the inactivity of the newer members. Lacking their votes, and voices, it is easier for scum to drown the discussion with their agenda.

Prepare to be very surprised.

So I get lynched and turn out to be townie. Doesn't that make those that pushed for my lynch a little more scummier?

So I get lynched and turn out to be townie. Will you reread my supposed misleading posts and see the point I was trying to make?

So I get lynched and turn out to be townie. What then? Will you go back and decide that maybe it's possible that a townie will discuss roles? Will you go back and think that maybe the scum can post just like a townie?

It's a bit of a crapshoot in my opinion but the town has to lynch somebody if there is any chance to win. I know it's quite possible that Falzis and Electric Mango are innocent townies doing their best to scum-hunt.

But they have it wrong in my case. Maybe when I'm dead you'll believe me. I will come back and say "I told you so"!

These are the two posts I choose to hold as the most resounding evidence build against both parties. I think there has been a lot of bickering about exactly what was meant by a majority of it but, this is the most concise and clear evidence I can find. Falzis does a good job of laying out point by point the evidence he raises. All of it deduces and lays groundwork for a conviction. I am impressed with the straightforward nature and clarity. I am much more disappointed by KevinH. His post builds no specific evidence to bolster his defense or build a case against Falzis. Thus, we have a greater ability to pick apart Falzis' reasoning.

One thing I find interesting is Falzis claim that scum try to muddle down the discussion with their own agenda. That seems a lot like what Falzis is doing to me. In the first day he was very much a part of the lynch or no lynch debate. KevinH didn't build the debate, it was all the rest of us (myself and Falzis included) that brought that on. It would have been much more relevant to Falzis' strategy if he would have built a separate case and got a lynch on somebody rather than drown with the rest of us and have a no lynch conclusion. He did vote for Sojurner, but that evidence was weak and Falzis knew that. Is it not consistent then that Falzis participates in discussions that muddle down discussion of innocence while riding on a vote for a weaker candidate?

Is that what the Falzis/KevinH discussion has boiled down to? Its just he said/she said for now. Nothing new is being brought up, but it goes on. The case will probably be argued by Falzis that that is what this game is and that is all we have but, lets not let that control us. Falzis, to remain consistent with what you claim about what scum do and who you are, refrain from comments unless they contain new and relevant information. We've heard everything we need to about what what has already been brought forward.

In light of our small evidence pool I think it is sound that we demand less. All of us besides KevinH agree that the no lynch of D1 was a serious mistake. Lets not let that happen again. We can not call it good enough to not lynch because we don't have enough evidence, that doesn't get us any closer to having evidence. I fully expected to come to the conclusion that i was not secure enough with the evidence to vote but now, I feel that is not good enough. As has been pointed out

I demand of myself what I demand of others!

Vote: KevinH
FOS: Falzis

The FOS is not unnecessary with a vote locked in. There are still a few days before sundown and votes may change. Then, there will be another. Hopefully, one I am lucky enough to wake up in. Falzis, I am interested to hear your response to your consistency with your own qualifications for scum tells. You are by no means off my radar as of yet. KevinH, I have voted for you because of your inability to defend your position. Falzis presents seriously concerning sentiments for the time being, however he has laid out his position in a clear straightforward manor. For the time being I am sticking with the empirical evidence rather than attitude. In addtion, I'm sure Falzis can defend his point in a clear manor that will at least explain if not completely absolve. If you can do the same with an equal amount of depth, that is to say, equal or greater than amount of evidence you may well swing my vote. However, I find it the most scummy, at this point in time, of an inmate not to be able to articulate their reasoning. That sounds just a bit...crazy to me.

As for our unactive players, if they are not dealt with my the moderator, what will we do? We could lynch them now in the interest of activity and I would be okay with that. As long as they stay in the background and not considered they could be getting by as scum and that is bad news. On the other hand if they are sticking with us as townies, we're in good shape as the scum would have no need to lynch them if they are not pulling any votes. All in all, inactivity is no fun and I know I was the way for a week, so I don't completely excuse myself from sucking the fun either but, something needs to be done. I think it needs to be dealt with by the moderator immediately. I see no other playable solution. Molestargazer, please help.