[ENDGAME] The Office Mafia

#501

indiglo wrote:What did you think (if anything) about BWT's vote for Quin? And the ensuing back-and-forth with SVS over those 2 Quin votes?

It was a very easy vote and that does not thrill me. I think people giving Quin crap for suggesting that there's more to town mafia than just figuring out who the baddies are is more suspicious than Quin is himself for saying that. I frankly think Quin was stating the obvious, not something controversial.

I have no immediate perspective of S~V~S relative to this interaction. I'll look over it and report back.

#502

Also, just to be that guy, I'm voting Accounting to tie it back up. :P

#503

Scotty wrote:
DrumBeats wrote:@ Scotty - The thing is that you directly said that we would get to make more sense of things after the flip and then voted a player with 0 interactions to make sense of post flip. What were we supposed to learn from Goldys flip other than Goldys alignment?

@ Quin - Why do you think INH defended you so hard last phase?

@ Matt - What do you think about INH's defense of Quin last phase?
If Goldy were ultimately voted out, we could have made sense of that- When people voted, how people voted, why people didn't vote for her- it's all information. Wilgy was ultimately lynched so now we get to make sense of that.

I know you didn't ask for my opinion, but I'm giving it here anyway dammit! You can't not make me!

To me, Wilgy's usual MO seems to be the type that draws some soft targets early on in most games. I think it was easy for a baddie or two to latch onto his case.

But then again, it was Day 1 so you could make that argument for almost anyone who got votes on Day 1. But I think it stands to reason we can find a baddie or two in his voters.

#504

insertnamehere wrote:
DrumBeats wrote:@ Scotty - The thing is that you directly said that we would get to make more sense of things after the flip and then voted a player with 0 interactions to make sense of post flip. What were we supposed to learn from Goldys flip other than Goldys alignment?

@ Quin - Why do you think INH defended you so hard last phase?

@ Matt - What do you think about INH's defense of Quin last phase?
Just an FYI, I still stand by my defense of Quin, and if you'd like to ask me a question about it, feel free.

Yes I would. Why do you think Quin is town? Other than that you don't like why others are accusing Quin. Why do you feel strongly enough about Quin being civ that you are comfortable defending him as hard as you are?

#505

Elohcin wrote:
DrumBeats wrote:@ Leetic and Eloh - What are your current reads?
I do hope you aren't lumping me with this Leetic person by asking us both about our reads at the same time. At the moment I am most concerned with Quin for his/her "I'm a civ and you'll be sorry" post before EoD 1. As I've said before and as most people are probably tired of hearing...big games are difficult for me. I am trying to keep up, take notes, and participate as much as possible. I will have more things to say as time goes on, promise.

Not lumping you together, other than the fact that you were two recent posters who hadn't offered much in terms of reads. Other than Quin, who is your second largest scumread right now?

#506

Hello, people. Haven't read through the thread yet, will do so after lunch. If anyone has any questions for me, let me know.

#507

Spacedaisy wrote:I'm really very sorry for being absent. We had a whole thing occur on Thursday night that led us to decide instead of renewing our lease at our current apartment we will turn in our notice and move. So all of Friday we were apartment hunting and Saturday we did the same right up until I went to work. So yeah... I missed the vote. And I am moving in a couple months from now.

Yeah, Alex told me about that today. Sorry you've both had lots of sucky things happen, but hopefully you can move somewhere that is much better and actually fixes your problems and issues instead of band-aids or no help at all!

#508

timmer wrote:
insertnamehere wrote:
DrumBeats wrote:@ Scotty - The thing is that you directly said that we would get to make more sense of things after the flip and then voted a player with 0 interactions to make sense of post flip. What were we supposed to learn from Goldys flip other than Goldys alignment?

@ Quin - Why do you think INH defended you so hard last phase?

@ Matt - What do you think about INH's defense of Quin last phase?
Just an FYI, I still stand by my defense of Quin, and if you'd like to ask me a question about it, feel free.
I'll actually agree, here. Although Quin's statement about not everything having to be about baddie hunting sounded... poorly worded? I think jumping on it as a baddie slip is a major reach. Of course, it was day 1, so I'm not eyeing Quin's voters TOO much, either, but yeah... that statement does not = much of a case, imo.

Same question I asked INH, what is your reason for your belief that Quin is civ, other than not liking SVS and BWT's case?

#509

Quin wrote:
DrumBeats wrote:@ Scotty - The thing is that you directly said that we would get to make more sense of things after the flip and then voted a player with 0 interactions to make sense of post flip. What were we supposed to learn from Goldys flip other than Goldys alignment?

@ Quin - Why do you think INH defended you so hard last phase?

@ Matt - What do you think about INH's defense of Quin last phase?
I'd lean civ on INH right now, so I'd put it down as him genuinely believing that I'm a civ as opposed to an attempt to gain civ cred by defending a player who could very well have been lynched yesterday. I'm going to check when exactly he did defend me and hopefully it was early on rather than before I'd gotten all those votes

Why do you civ lean INH right now?

#510

DrumBeats wrote:
Quin wrote:
DrumBeats wrote:@ Scotty - The thing is that you directly said that we would get to make more sense of things after the flip and then voted a player with 0 interactions to make sense of post flip. What were we supposed to learn from Goldys flip other than Goldys alignment?

@ Quin - Why do you think INH defended you so hard last phase?

@ Matt - What do you think about INH's defense of Quin last phase?
I'd lean civ on INH right now, so I'd put it down as him genuinely believing that I'm a civ as opposed to an attempt to gain civ cred by defending a player who could very well have been lynched yesterday. I'm going to check when exactly he did defend me and hopefully it was early on rather than before I'd gotten all those votes
Why do you civ lean INH right now?

I don't anymore. New information and stuff, yo.

#511

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
indiglo wrote:What did you think (if anything) about BWT's vote for Quin? And the ensuing back-and-forth with SVS over those 2 Quin votes?
It was a very easy vote and that does not thrill me. I think people giving Quin crap for suggesting that there's more to town mafia than just figuring out who the baddies are is more suspicious than Quin is himself for saying that. I frankly think Quin was stating the obvious, not something controversial.

I have no immediate perspective of S~V~S relative to this interaction. I'll look over it and report back.

My personal suspicion of Quin was that he was doing no baddie hunting despite when he was defending his first statement he claimed that "baddie hunting comes first". Actions not being consistent with words isn't something I'm a fan of, and also why I find Scotty's vote on Goldy odd.

#512

DrumBeats wrote:
JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
indiglo wrote:What did you think (if anything) about BWT's vote for Quin? And the ensuing back-and-forth with SVS over those 2 Quin votes?
It was a very easy vote and that does not thrill me. I think people giving Quin crap for suggesting that there's more to town mafia than just figuring out who the baddies are is more suspicious than Quin is himself for saying that. I frankly think Quin was stating the obvious, not something controversial.

I have no immediate perspective of S~V~S relative to this interaction. I'll look over it and report back.
My personal suspicion of Quin was that he was doing no baddie hunting despite when he was defending his first statement he claimed that "baddie hunting comes first". Actions not being consistent with words isn't something I'm a fan of, and also why I find Scotty's vote on Goldy odd.

That's a more reasonable rationale. Quin, defend yourself.

I'm so bossy.

#513

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Now that INH has responded to my original case, I expect other players to start chirping in now. What is your stance?

While I didn't find most of the Matt/INH interaction to be suspicious at the time, I do agree with you that INH has put in a lot of effort into discrediting other players. First Matt, then Wilgy (though imo Wilgy was also doing the same to INH, but that whole interaction was hard to follow), I feel INH did the same with me in my interrogation of indiglo, and I find the reaction to your post to be in a similar vein.

3J - What do you think of INH in this quote tunnel

(It won't let me throw in 7 quotes, so the first post is SVS's that triggerred it all)

S~V~S wrote:OK, So Indo, do you think Quin is a civvie?

insertnamehere wrote:
DrumBeats wrote:
insertnamehere wrote:
DrumBeats wrote:
insertnamehere wrote:
DrumBeats wrote:
indiglo wrote:
I have no idea. I have no idea of anyone's alignment but my own.
Too safe of a response. What's your lean on him. Civ or toaster?
this seems like a dumb excuse to invalidate his argument without actually engaging it; "if you don't like the conversation, change the subject."
Huh? What was his argument? SVS asked if he thought Quin was civ, and indiglo responded by saying that he doesn't know anybody's alignment. The thing that stuck me about that post is that indiglo made no argument. I asked him to provide a lean.
His argument in protection of Quin and against BWT and SVS.
Not the one I just quoted in disagreement to. That was a straight up "I don't know". How was I invalidating her protection of Quin by saying that his neutral response was too safe and I wanted a lean?
I was just worried that you were going to say that because Indi was vague on Quin's alignment, therefore his protection of Quin shouldn't be taken seriously.

#514

Quin wrote:
DrumBeats wrote:
Quin wrote:
DrumBeats wrote:@ Scotty - The thing is that you directly said that we would get to make more sense of things after the flip and then voted a player with 0 interactions to make sense of post flip. What were we supposed to learn from Goldys flip other than Goldys alignment?

@ Quin - Why do you think INH defended you so hard last phase?

@ Matt - What do you think about INH's defense of Quin last phase?
I'd lean civ on INH right now, so I'd put it down as him genuinely believing that I'm a civ as opposed to an attempt to gain civ cred by defending a player who could very well have been lynched yesterday. I'm going to check when exactly he did defend me and hopefully it was early on rather than before I'd gotten all those votes
Why do you civ lean INH right now?
I don't anymore. New information and stuff, yo.

Why did you?

#515

I recall I already defended myself in saying I didn't have a defense. I'd been lacking in the scumhunting department in this game, I know. It's a perfectly reasonable suspicion, albeit disastrous for town.

#516

DrumBeats wrote:
Quin wrote:
DrumBeats wrote:
Quin wrote:
DrumBeats wrote:@ Scotty - The thing is that you directly said that we would get to make more sense of things after the flip and then voted a player with 0 interactions to make sense of post flip. What were we supposed to learn from Goldys flip other than Goldys alignment?

@ Quin - Why do you think INH defended you so hard last phase?

@ Matt - What do you think about INH's defense of Quin last phase?
I'd lean civ on INH right now, so I'd put it down as him genuinely believing that I'm a civ as opposed to an attempt to gain civ cred by defending a player who could very well have been lynched yesterday. I'm going to check when exactly he did defend me and hopefully it was early on rather than before I'd gotten all those votes
Why do you civ lean INH right now?
I don't anymore. New information and stuff, yo.
Why did you?

I suppose I could relate to what he had been saying from a town mindset. At the time, I'd also been under the impression his defense for me came before the votes for me were made. I was wrong about that and if I'd known beforehand, I wouldn't have said I leaned civ on him.

#517

@DrumBeats

Poor S~V~S and indiglo, forever dudes in the eyes of newcomers.

I think your demand that indiglo take some manner of a stance is a fair one. INH's interjection into that discussion reads awkwardly to me; I don't know that he and you were talking about the same thing at all. I'm not a fan of his last post in which he tried to project what you might have said in the future based upon what was a rather ordinary interrogation.

#518

Quin wrote:I recall I already defended myself in saying I didn't have a defense. I'd been lacking in the scumhunting department in this game, I know. It's a perfectly reasonable suspicion, albeit disastrous for town.

The best defense is sometimes a good offense. Find the baddies immediately and help us slaughter them.

#519

Current ranking of suspicions in case I die: (Top = most bottom = least)

INH
Quin
leetic
Scotty

#520

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
Quin wrote:I recall I already defended myself in saying I didn't have a defense. I'd been lacking in the scumhunting department in this game, I know. It's a perfectly reasonable suspicion, albeit disastrous for town.
The best defense is sometimes a good offense. Find the baddies immediately and help us slaughter them.

I intend to, it's just that I'm struggling to find my feet in this game for some reason. Right now I'd push for a BWT lynch. My opinion holds that he jumped on that specific post as if it were a baddie slip so quickly that it felt like he was reaching for a reason to vote for me that was different from the rest so it didn't look like he was jumping on a wagon.

I think when Day begins I'll have a look at some players I think are playing under the radar and see if I can bring them out into the open.

#521

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:Now that INH has responded to my original case, I expect other players to start chirping in now. What is your stance?

Well based on his responses, it seems like he's big on trying to deflect away from criticizing Matt's playstyle by saying some of the arguments leveled against him aren't based on alignment and mafia theory. Basically, I feel he is not owning up to what he is really trying to get out of his back-and-forth between Matt and himself.

I want to see what else develops and give it some more time to sink in. But it definitely looks like it might be worth something to look into.

#522

More resources for our lovely Pam to use at her own discretion: (Focusing on detecting civilian informational roles and putting our subs into the old BTSC pairs)

Spoiler: show

#523

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
insertnamehere wrote:From the beginning of this game, I disagreed with Matt's strategy. I didn't say that I thought that Matt was bad, I just thought his strategy was dumb and hurtful towards the civilians. And if you'd like to debate me on that, fine. But it has nothing to do with me or Matt's alignment, it's just a disagreement over playing styles. I'd like for you to explain to me how false-suspicions are "sound and legitimate," but that'd probably be what the mafia wants. Getting us distracted over playing styles and mafia theory, and not actually reading and judging people based on their opinions in the thread seems like a pretty good way to sidetrack us.
I didn't say I suspect you because I disagree with your position. I said I suspect you because I didn't think it looked like your stance on that position was as much a motive for your post as was discrediting Matt. I think this became more evident as play progressed.

As for your request: I make a living with reaction-baiting reads and it often works wonders. You're wrong.

OK, you got me. I think civilians shouldn't take reaction-baiting reads seriously. That's my opinion. I wasn't saying that Matt was completely off the reservation and should never be listened to, I just meant that these specific reads hold little to no value to me, and I find the entire practice counter-intuitive.

As for your response to my request: I disagree. I think that they're overly flashy plays that not only risk people suspecting civilians but also confusing the entire thread. They make civilian baddie hunting harder. And I don't think they work.

insertnamehere wrote:Once again, this is an argument about playing styles and mafia theory. I.E. this has jack squat to do with the game itself!
Whether or not you're giving other players a fair opportunity to respond to substantive accusations has everything to do with the game.

How am I stopping people from responding to me? Am I hacking into their accounts and banning them from posting in the thread? Yes, I play and talk aggressively, and if a player's strategy strikes me as hurtful to civilians, I'm going to say something. That doesn't mean I'm actively trying to censor people.

insertnamehere wrote:OK, I've taken so much heat for this goddamn joke post that it's not even funny. I WAS MAKING A JOKE. YOU KNOW, HUMOR? Yes, I put effort into it, bully for me. I guess I shouldn't put any effort into jokes otherwise they'll be taken as rope to lynch me with.
Jokes can be fine. I like them less when the purpose of the joke is to make another player look silly -- especially over something as meaningless as Matt's little "+1" and "-1" stuff. I don't think this serves any valuable purpose to the town cause at all, and indeed it has the potential to restrict another player's (Matt's) ability to play the game his way. This is especially problematic coming from a player who'd just loudly criticized Matt for his methods being "counterproductive". This is worse than anything Matt did for the town cause.

So we shouldn't talk about people's playing styles at all? We should just completely ignore people's opinions of how to play the game, and focusing on finding baddies? If you really think this, you should find some better reasoning for your case against me. I didn't intend to somehow repress Matt's ability to play the game with my nasty mean-spirited jokes that weren't nasty or mean-spirited at all. If you think I'm wrong for thinking that Matt's reaction-baiting reads are useless to the civilian cause, then fine. I don't see how that means that I'm bad.

insertnamehere wrote:Matt, if you were genuinely offended by my sarcasm, I apologize. Sometimes I go too far, and I get too personal. I don't necessarily think that this is one of those times, but that's not really for me to decide. Just know that this wasn't intentional on my part. PM me or the mods and we can talk about this.

3J, I'm gonna say the same thing I said two times already. THIS IS AN ARGUMENT OVER PLAYING STYLES AND MAFIA THEORY. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO EITHER OF OUR ALIGNMENT. If you're gonna try and lynch me over me not agreeing with how someone plays the game, even though I think he isn't scum, so be it. But I'm not going to go down without a fight.
Just to make it clear: I'm not accusing you of being "mean" to Matt. I'm accusing you of treating him in such a way that he is made to look like a fool for what I perceive to be a very bad reason. I've seen plenty of baddies do exactly this kind of thing, so I'm not interested in hearing you tell me that it's not alignment indicative. Maybe it isn't for you; I don't know you very well. But it is for some people. Hell, this kind of behavior was part of criticism I leveled [correctly] upon nutella in Battlestar Galactica -- she was more interested in making ika look like a dope than actually giving him the space to play his game.

Aren't you trying to discredit me and make my opinions of how to play the game seem wrong? Because all you really have against me is that you don't like how I didn't take Matt's strategy seriously, and because of that I must be "trying to make his opinions mean nothing" and that equals bad? This is a dumb chain of logic that has to do less with concrete facts and more to do with us having ideological differences when it comes to mafia. The difference between me and you is that I don't necessarily find you scum because of it.

insertnamehere wrote:I disagree with his statements against me for the same exact reason I disagree with your statements against me earlier in this post. At the time, I thought it was so patently obvious that these conversations existed outside the context of the game, that everyone would see how obviously illogical his points were. I guess I was wrong. I thought at the time it was him getting back at people who said that they had problems with him in the thread, i.e. me and Quin. He listed Quin as a likely teammate of mine for no reason given other than feels, and I thought his points against me were built on nothing. I was wrong, I admit. But I'm not gonna say that my thought process didn't make sense, or was illogical.
Those conversations existed in this game thread, in white text, and they were completely relevant to the play of a player in this game. They are valid to be discussed and I am inclined to discuss them.

Once again, 3J, I'm not trying to censor you, I disagree with you. Yes, they are valid to be discussed, but I don't think they should matter in possibly condemning me. Don't try to discredit or censor me because of my opinions on how to play the game, please and thank you.

insertnamehere wrote:Because I thought his reasons for suspecting me were slight and based on nothing, like I did with Wilgy.
You thought timmer was accusing you "based on nothing", which is demonstrably false, and you made no fair effort to engage him. You threw him aside. That's not good enough.

I thought that his points against me were based less on stuff I could actually answer to, and more about his own feelings about me and about the group. Plus I thought they were slight and not enough to suspect and vote for someone, and I said as much. Once again, I didn't try to censor him, I just disagreed with him.

@Matt: Do you feel like my actions and statements in any way made you want to change your strategy or shamed you and your playstyle in any way? Or do you think opinions are opinions, and we all have our own separate ones? 3J's been speaking a lot about your possible perspective and how I possibly negatively influenced it. I want to hear from the man himself.

#524

also I voted Sales because DB's analysis said that's where the most possible roles would be

#525

Quin wrote:I don't even know. I was pinged by Matt because I agreed with the principle behind what INH said in that faking reads is counter-productive, but I don't scum read him after taking everything else into account right now. BWT doesn't look all that great given his vote for me, though. I feel as though my vote might go there tomorrow.

Sorry. I was exhausted last night when I was trying to explain my voting for you. Let me clarify:

1) Yes, your statement rubbed me the wrong way in terms of what you said about baddie hunting. But, combined with the fact that I felt you had done pretty much no quality baddie-hunting yourself up to that point, made that statement jump out at me even more.

2) I didn't have much else to go on at that point. Wilgy's positions seemed completely ungrounded in anything factual and was 100% suspicions. I did not think that there was anything at the time in between Matt and INH and felt it was civ on civ. Your statement was the first thing that jumped out at me on Day 1 and was the strongest ping I got.

That being said, it is still a ping that I will keep in the back of my mind as the game progresses. But that along isn't a strong enough reason to vote for you on Day 2 vs. on Day 1 unless you give me other reasons to do so going forward.

#526

insertnamehere wrote:also I voted Sales because DB's analysis said that's where the most possible roles would be

Technically though the most roles would have been in personnel yesterday but we only got 3. I wouldn't be suprised if they all had the same number but just were from different pools of people.

#527

insertnamehere wrote:OK, you got me. I think civilians shouldn't take reaction-baiting reads seriously. That's my opinion. I wasn't saying that Matt was completely off the reservation and should never be listened to, I just meant that these specific reads hold little to no value to me, and I find the entire practice counter-intuitive.

No, you didn't overtly state that Matt "was completely off the reservation and should never be listened to". Instead, you made light of his methods in the form of repeated sarcasm and jokes. That's exactly what I'm talking about. It's essentially the same thing. In so many words, you portrayed Matt as a player who should not be taken seriously.

insertnamehere wrote:How am I stopping people from responding to me? Am I hacking into their accounts and banning them from posting in the thread? Yes, I play and talk aggressively, and if a player's strategy strikes me as hurtful to civilians, I'm going to say something. That doesn't mean I'm actively trying to censor people.

Yeah I clearly didn't make the highlighted suggestion. It's nonsense logic to associate my commentary with that question. Nothing I said is remotely similar to that.

I didn't say you wanted to censor Matt. I said you were making him look like a dope. This is about how the viewing audience in this thread can be influenced by your behavior, and how that can affect Matt's ability to make headway in this game. This isn't theoretical, it literally happened in this game thread -- your treatment of Matt became a running gag, and as a direct result Matt's ability to make any dent in this game was inherently damaged.

insertnamehere wrote:So we shouldn't talk about people's playing styles at all? We should just completely ignore people's opinions of how to play the game, and focusing on finding baddies? If you really think this, you should find some better reasoning for your case against me. I didn't intend to somehow repress Matt's ability to play the game with my nasty mean-spirited jokes that weren't nasty or mean-spirited at all. If you think I'm wrong for thinking that Matt's reaction-baiting reads are useless to the civilian cause, then fine. I don't see how that means that I'm bad.

I didn't say this either. You're making absurd logical jumps to turn the things I say to you into decidedly more extreme and more ridiculous comments than they originally were. This is precisely the sort of thing that makes you look disingenuous.

insertnamehere wrote:Aren't you trying to discredit me and make my opinions of how to play the game seem wrong? Because all you really have against me is that you don't like how I didn't take Matt's strategy seriously, and because of that I must be "trying to make his opinions mean nothing" and that equals bad? This is a dumb chain of logic that has to do less with concrete facts and more to do with us having ideological differences when it comes to mafia. The difference between me and you is that I don't necessarily find you scum because of it.

Absolutely not. This is just a horrific response. I am accusing you of being bad, not "discrediting" you. To discredit a player is to work a visible agenda against that player's commentary such that their commentary is perceived to be less valuable. I have no interest in affecting the perceived value of your commentary, I have an interest in conveying the suspicion I have of you. The fact that you treated Matt as you did despite not suspecting him is the whole problem. I do suspect you. The comparison is nonsense.

insertnamehere wrote:Once again, 3J, I'm not trying to censor you, I disagree with you. Yes, they are valid to be discussed, but I don't think they should matter in possibly condemning me. Don't try to discredit or censor me because of my opinions on how to play the game, please and thank you.

You're trying your best to make me look like a hypocrite, and in so doing you're making repeated logical leaps and assigning words to me that I did not type. You don't suspect me, but you think I'm discrediting you. You're bad.

#528

birdwithteeth11 wrote:
Quin wrote:I don't even know. I was pinged by Matt because I agreed with the principle behind what INH said in that faking reads is counter-productive, but I don't scum read him after taking everything else into account right now. BWT doesn't look all that great given his vote for me, though. I feel as though my vote might go there tomorrow.
Sorry. I was exhausted last night when I was trying to explain my voting for you. Let me clarify:

1) Yes, your statement rubbed me the wrong way in terms of what you said about baddie hunting. But, combined with the fact that I felt you had done pretty much no quality baddie-hunting yourself up to that point, made that statement jump out at me even more.

2) I didn't have much else to go on at that point. Wilgy's positions seemed completely ungrounded in anything factual and was 100% suspicions. I did not think that there was anything at the time in between Matt and INH and felt it was civ on civ. Your statement was the first thing that jumped out at me on Day 1 and was the strongest ping I got.

That being said, it is still a ping that I will keep in the back of my mind as the game progresses. But that along isn't a strong enough reason to vote for you on Day 2 vs. on Day 1 unless you give me other reasons to do so going forward.

It's easy to say that you thought I was already suspicious for not doing baddie hunting after its already been established I don't have a defence to the accusation. The only time you actually referred to me before your vote was when you disputed Wilgy's assumption that INH and I are on a team. On top of that, you've contradicted yourself. If the first thing that caught your eye in this game was the post you voted me for, you clearly didn't have my lack of baddie hunting in your arsenal already.

#529

S~V~S wrote:You think suspecting him is opportunistic,but you won't say you think he is a civ? Gotcha.

Not a fan of this mindset. I don't think there's anything inconsistent about someone thinking an accusation appears opportunistic without necessarily reading the target of that opportunism as a civilian. That's a development that should come after the alignment of the potential opportunist is revealed, but before that it's all fair game.

#530

DFaraday wrote: 1. People suspect Quin for saying there's more to Mafia than hunting baddies.

This is not why I, personally, suspect Quin. I actually see his point. What makes me suspect Quin is his actively encouraging the LD to check uncheckable statements, which would cause a useful civ role to waste their power. That drumbeats has been actively pursuing this with very long selections of such statements makes me wonder if drumbeats is just following what has been presented as a good idea, or if they are teammates.

#531

LoRab wrote:
DFaraday wrote: 1. People suspect Quin for saying there's more to Mafia than hunting baddies.
This is not why I, personally, suspect Quin. I actually see his point. What makes me suspect Quin is his actively encouraging the LD to check uncheckable statements, which would cause a useful civ role to waste their power. That drumbeats has been actively pursuing this with very long selections of such statements makes me wonder if drumbeats is just following what has been presented as a good idea, or if they are teammates.

Dom confirmed in the thread that the statements I was making were fashioned in a way that could be checked by a lie detector.

#532

Night 1

Rabbit8 has died.
It is now Day. You have 48 hours to select a lynchee.

#533

LoRab wrote:
DFaraday wrote: 1. People suspect Quin for saying there's more to Mafia than hunting baddies.
This is not why I, personally, suspect Quin. I actually see his point. What makes me suspect Quin is his actively encouraging the LD to check uncheckable statements, which would cause a useful civ role to waste their power. That drumbeats has been actively pursuing this with very long selections of such statements makes me wonder if drumbeats is just following what has been presented as a good idea, or if they are teammates.

To be fair to Quin, I was actually the one who initially suggested that everyone state "I am a civ" and Pam to check them. I only skimmed the roles so I didn't notice the conditional statement there. That being said, I think providing Pam with more resources to check in the absence of a good lie detect popping up in the day is a good course of action and I will continue to do so. I do not like the one's that Quin put out there, as all of those checks would be useless information and a waste of Pam's role.

#534

Dom wrote:
Quin wrote:If Pam is able to detect lies in all statements (excluding the obvious), I wonder whether it matters if the statement is made by someone who knows whether or not its the truth themselves. I'm going to ask Dom about it, and if he says it's right, it might be a good idea to just stockpile a whole bunch of hypotheses so she can gather information.
If a statement can be rendered true or false (i.e. Factual not opinion based) and does not break the alignment rule I gave earlier then it is check able.

Dom wrote:
LoRab wrote:Ugh.

And Creed is listed on the first page under civies, so I'm thinking that's a pretty clear indication that he was civ.

Sorry for missing the vote--I thought I'd be back to my computer in time to vote, but dinner took longer than planned.

I'd have likely voted for Quin, because he is encouraging people to post statements that from my read of Dom's answer, Pam wouldn't be able to check--as they are not based on factual information that the poster has, but on opinion. Theorizing incorrectly and not telling the truth are not at all the same thing.
Because this is predicated on my answer to a question, let me clarify my answer.

"The Theme Song is a secret role" is a checkable statement.

"I think The theme Song is a secret role" is not a checkable statement.

Here, LoRab. But it looks like you already saw these. Did you just forget?

#535

Voting SVS. I do not recommend that she be lynched, unless of course further information comes to light that would support it. Either way, don't take my vote to mean I even suspect SVS, as I do not.

#536

Where does the budget go?

Poll ended at Sun Jun 26, 2016 10:36 pm

Accounting
5
leetic (6), Epignosis (9), timmer (11), fingersplints (15), birdwithteeth11 (18) 24%
Customer Service
6
Elohcin (5), sig (8), LoRab (10), Scotty (12), Sorsha (16), rabbit8 (21) 29%
Sales
7
Quin (4), DrumBeats (7), S~V~S (13), DFaraday (14), indiglo (17), JaggedJimmyJay (19), insertnamehere (20) 33%
Sandals [host/non/dead]
3
Dom (1), Dex (2), Golden (3) 14%
Total votes : 21

#537

Bummer dude. I was hoping to play off of rabbit a little bit in this game. He seems like just the sort of infuriating presence that would complement my methods well, and in BG it was mostly mutual suspicion between us.

Oh well. I kind of do suspect S~V~S.

#538

Quin wrote:
LoRab wrote:
DFaraday wrote: 1. People suspect Quin for saying there's more to Mafia than hunting baddies.
This is not why I, personally, suspect Quin. I actually see his point. What makes me suspect Quin is his actively encouraging the LD to check uncheckable statements, which would cause a useful civ role to waste their power. That drumbeats has been actively pursuing this with very long selections of such statements makes me wonder if drumbeats is just following what has been presented as a good idea, or if they are teammates.
Dom confirmed in the thread that the statements I was making were fashioned in a way that could be checked by a lie detector.

No, he did not.

Quin wrote:
Dom wrote:
Quin wrote:If Pam is able to detect lies in all statements (excluding the obvious), I wonder whether it matters if the statement is made by someone who knows whether or not its the truth themselves. I'm going to ask Dom about it, and if he says it's right, it might be a good idea to just stockpile a whole bunch of hypotheses so she can gather information.
If a statement can be rendered true or false (i.e. Factual not opinion based) and does not break the alignment rule I gave earlier then it is check able.

Dom wrote:
LoRab wrote:Ugh.

And Creed is listed on the first page under civies, so I'm thinking that's a pretty clear indication that he was civ.

Sorry for missing the vote--I thought I'd be back to my computer in time to vote, but dinner took longer than planned.

I'd have likely voted for Quin, because he is encouraging people to post statements that from my read of Dom's answer, Pam wouldn't be able to check--as they are not based on factual information that the poster has, but on opinion. Theorizing incorrectly and not telling the truth are not at all the same thing.
Because this is predicated on my answer to a question, let me clarify my answer.

"The Theme Song is a secret role" is a checkable statement.

"I think The theme Song is a secret role" is not a checkable statement.
Here, LoRab. But it looks like you already saw these. Did you just forget?

I did not forget. You claim to have misinterpreted his statements and multiple explanations in the thread. I even pm-ed him to ask for further clarification. Theorizing is not lie detectable. Claims are. There is a difference. Making up a statement to check if it is accurate is not lie detectable, as a false theory is not a lie--it is simply false. Your claiming a role is something different--that is a claim. I think you undersatnd the role perfectly well, but are pretending to not understand how a lie detector works.

#539

He was pretty clear about it in this post. Maybe you missed it--or did you just forget?

Dom wrote:
LoRab wrote:
Dom wrote:
LoRab wrote:Ugh.

And Creed is listed on the first page under civies, so I'm thinking that's a pretty clear indication that he was civ.

Sorry for missing the vote--I thought I'd be back to my computer in time to vote, but dinner took longer than planned.

I'd have likely voted for Quin, because he is encouraging people to post statements that from my read of Dom's answer, Pam wouldn't be able to check--as they are not based on factual information that the poster has, but on opinion. Theorizing incorrectly and not telling the truth are not at all the same thing.
Because this is predicated on my answer to a question, let me clarify my answer.

"The Theme Song is a secret role" is a checkable statement.

"I think The theme Song is a secret role" is not a checkable statement.
Thanks for the clarification. I'm finding this confusing, but my brain is fried and I'm exhausted, so I'll trying thinking this through again in the morning.
I am getting further questions via PM, so let me clarify further.

If someone frames something as a theory, it is NOT checkable. The context matters.

If someone claims something, that is checkable.

#540

LoRab wrote:
Quin wrote:
LoRab wrote:
DFaraday wrote: 1. People suspect Quin for saying there's more to Mafia than hunting baddies.
This is not why I, personally, suspect Quin. I actually see his point. What makes me suspect Quin is his actively encouraging the LD to check uncheckable statements, which would cause a useful civ role to waste their power. That drumbeats has been actively pursuing this with very long selections of such statements makes me wonder if drumbeats is just following what has been presented as a good idea, or if they are teammates.
Dom confirmed in the thread that the statements I was making were fashioned in a way that could be checked by a lie detector.
No, he did not.

Quin wrote:
Dom wrote:
Quin wrote:If Pam is able to detect lies in all statements (excluding the obvious), I wonder whether it matters if the statement is made by someone who knows whether or not its the truth themselves. I'm going to ask Dom about it, and if he says it's right, it might be a good idea to just stockpile a whole bunch of hypotheses so she can gather information.
If a statement can be rendered true or false (i.e. Factual not opinion based) and does not break the alignment rule I gave earlier then it is check able.

Dom wrote:
LoRab wrote:Ugh.

And Creed is listed on the first page under civies, so I'm thinking that's a pretty clear indication that he was civ.

Sorry for missing the vote--I thought I'd be back to my computer in time to vote, but dinner took longer than planned.

I'd have likely voted for Quin, because he is encouraging people to post statements that from my read of Dom's answer, Pam wouldn't be able to check--as they are not based on factual information that the poster has, but on opinion. Theorizing incorrectly and not telling the truth are not at all the same thing.
Because this is predicated on my answer to a question, let me clarify my answer.

"The Theme Song is a secret role" is a checkable statement.

"I think The theme Song is a secret role" is not a checkable statement.
Here, LoRab. But it looks like you already saw these. Did you just forget?
I did not forget. You claim to have misinterpreted his statements and multiple explanations in the thread. I even pm-ed him to ask for further clarification. Theorizing is not lie detectable. Claims are. There is a difference. Making up a statement to check if it is accurate is not lie detectable, as a false theory is not a lie--it is simply false. Your claiming a role is something different--that is a claim. I think you undersatnd the role perfectly well, but are pretending to not understand how a lie detector works.

Apply the structure of the coloured statement and compare it to the statements I made. You will find that they are checkable.

'There are items in this game' is structured as a claim, not a theory. Therefore, it is checkable.

#541

JaggedJimmyJay wrote:
insertnamehere wrote:OK, you got me. I think civilians shouldn't take reaction-baiting reads seriously. That's my opinion. I wasn't saying that Matt was completely off the reservation and should never be listened to, I just meant that these specific reads hold little to no value to me, and I find the entire practice counter-intuitive.
No, you didn't overtly state that Matt "was completely off the reservation and should never be listened to". Instead, you made light of his methods in the form of repeated sarcasm and jokes. That's exactly what I'm talking about. It's essentially the same thing. In so many words, you portrayed Matt as a player who should not be taken seriously.

So I'm not allowed to disagree with another players methods and bring that up in the thread, because doing so would somehow completely discredit that player? I wasn't saying that everyone shouldn't listen to everything he says. I said that I won't be listening to what Matt says as a result of this specific method of playing that I don't agree with.

insertnamehere wrote:How am I stopping people from responding to me? Am I hacking into their accounts and banning them from posting in the thread? Yes, I play and talk aggressively, and if a player's strategy strikes me as hurtful to civilians, I'm going to say something. That doesn't mean I'm actively trying to censor people.
Yeah I clearly didn't make the highlighted suggestion. It's nonsense logic to associate my commentary with that question. Nothing I said is remotely similar to that.

I didn't say you wanted to censor Matt. I said you were making him look like a dope. This is about how the viewing audience in this thread can be influenced by your behavior, and how that can affect Matt's ability to make headway in this game. This isn't theoretical, it literally happened in this game thread -- your treatment of Matt became a running gag, and as a direct result Matt's ability to make any dent in this game was inherently damaged.

Once again, if I have an opinion on a person's read and that person's playstyle, I'm not going to censor myself to avoid possibly hurting "their thread reputation." If I think something is stupid, I'm gonna say that it's stupid, and provide reasons why I think so. Presumably, people who play mafia online aren't complete sheeple, and will be able to look at both sides and determine who they agree with. You keep saying over and over and over again that I damaged Matt's ability to play this game by disagreeing with him. Do you have a quote from Matt saying that? Because you seem to know a lot about Matt's inner feelings and experience playing this game without, y'know, actually being Matt. Once again, I'd really like to hear his side of this story rather than your interpretation of his side of the story.

I personally find your assessment that I somehow shut down the conversation is ridiculous to me, because in a forum game, anybody can post anything and respond to anything, so it would be impossible to do so. Hell, you disproved yourself by continuing the conversation.

insertnamehere wrote:So we shouldn't talk about people's playing styles at all? We should just completely ignore people's opinions of how to play the game, and focusing on finding baddies? If you really think this, you should find some better reasoning for your case against me. I didn't intend to somehow repress Matt's ability to play the game with my nasty mean-spirited jokes that weren't nasty or mean-spirited at all. If you think I'm wrong for thinking that Matt's reaction-baiting reads are useless to the civilian cause, then fine. I don't see how that means that I'm bad.
I didn't say this either. You're making absurd logical jumps to turn the things I say to you into decidedly more extreme and more ridiculous comments than they originally were. This is precisely the sort of thing that makes you look disingenuous.

I'm critiquing the logic behind your posts by applying it to a wider scale in order to show how disingenuous it is. C'mon, it's fairly obvious that was what I was doing. Are you running out of argument points? Because you just ignored most what I actually said in favor of this nonsense.

insertnamehere wrote:Aren't you trying to discredit me and make my opinions of how to play the game seem wrong? Because all you really have against me is that you don't like how I didn't take Matt's strategy seriously, and because of that I must be "trying to make his opinions mean nothing" and that equals bad? This is a dumb chain of logic that has to do less with concrete facts and more to do with us having ideological differences when it comes to mafia. The difference between me and you is that I don't necessarily find you scum because of it.
Absolutely not. This is just a horrific response. I am accusing you of being bad, not "discrediting" you. To discredit a player is to work a visible agenda against that player's commentary such that their commentary is perceived to be less valuable. I have no interest in affecting the perceived value of your commentary, I have an interest in conveying the suspicion I have of you. The fact that you treated Matt as you did despite not suspecting him is the whole problem. I do suspect you. The comparison is nonsense.

I shared my opinions on Matt's type of gameplay that he used, mainly that I didn't find it applicable or something that I'd take seriously, even though I don't suspect him. The only agenda I'm trying to push is my own genuine ideas on things. Meanwhile, you seem to want to both discredit and accuse me, using your own supposed definition of both. You, A. Think that I'm bad for what I think are nonsense reasons, and B. Are trying to make my opinions seem less valid by exaggerating them and making me seem like I'm running some kind of smear campaign.

insertnamehere wrote:Once again, 3J, I'm not trying to censor you, I disagree with you. Yes, they are valid to be discussed, but I don't think they should matter in possibly condemning me. Don't try to discredit or censor me because of my opinions on how to play the game, please and thank you.
You're trying your best to make me look like a hypocrite, and in so doing you're making repeated logical leaps and assigning words to me that I did not type. You don't suspect me, but you think I'm discrediting you. You're bad.

I could quote that first sentence back at you. You keep saying that I'm trying to "discredit" people and make "people look like dupes" when all I'm doing is expressing my honest opinion on matters, that for me, are independent of alignment. You keep ignoring my arguments in favor of exaggerating what I say, and assuming how others feel.

Your arguments keep getting less and less coherent. When we first started this back and forth, I thought you were a confused civ, but the more you keep ignoring logic and digging into your stance against me, the more you begin to ping me.

#542

@ LoRab - Based on what Dom has said, the wording is the only distinction between theorizing and a claim. For example if I said "LoRab and Quin share BTSC" - that could be checked regardless of whether I know it to be true/false. If I said "I think LoRab and Quin share BTSC" then it cannot be.

@ Quin - I do not get the point of voting if you don't suspect him. The only thought I came up with is reaction baiting, but in that case why the hell would you follow the vote with "but I don't suspect you". That sort of negates any reaction you would try to bait. Explain.

@ linki Quin - It's checkable, but its useless as hell

#543

That is not how LD roles work. And I clarified with the host that it doesn't work that way in this game.

If you post a theory, that is not checkable, because it is not a matter of telling the truth or a lie. If you post a claim, it is either truth or a lie. The LD is not a fact checker--it is exactly what it says it is, a lie detector.

@Drumbeats: That is not what the host told me when I asked, or what he said in his follow up post. Again, it is not fact checking it is LIE detecting.

@Dom: Please clarify in thread.

#544

DrumBeats wrote:@ LoRab - Based on what Dom has said, the wording is the only distinction between theorizing and a claim. For example if I said "LoRab and Quin share BTSC" - that could be checked regardless of whether I know it to be true/false. If I said "I think LoRab and Quin share BTSC" then it cannot be.

@ Quin - I do not get the point of voting if you don't suspect him. The only thought I came up with is reaction baiting, but in that case why the hell would you follow the vote with "but I don't suspect you". That sort of negates any reaction you would try to bait. Explain.

@ linki Quin - It's checkable, but its useless as hell

I think you should come to your own conclusion, as I cannot explain.

Useless in the context of baddie hunting, sure. But like I said at one point and spent an entire game doing - I like to uncover game mechanics.

#545

LoRab, while we wait, care to give some reads that aren't mechanics related?

@ linki Quin - its just as useless then though. If items are in play, people will find them. That's confirmation of items without Pam wasting a shot.

#546

LoRab wrote:That is not how LD roles work. And I clarified with the host that it doesn't work that way in this game.

If you post a theory, that is not checkable, because it is not a matter of telling the truth or a lie. If you post a claim, it is either truth or a lie. The LD is not a fact checker--it is exactly what it says it is, a lie detector.

@Drumbeats: That is not what the host told me when I asked, or what he said in his follow up post. Again, it is not fact checking it is LIE detecting.

@Dom: Please clarify in thread.

Context matters.

If something is presented as fact. A claim. That is checkable.
If something is presented as conjecture. A theory. That is not.

#547

DrumBeats wrote:LoRab, while we wait, care to give some reads that aren't mechanics related?

@ linki Quin - its just as useless then though. If items are in play, people will find them. That's confirmation of items without Pam wasting a shot.

If you really want to push for its uselessness, sure.

#548

DrumBeats wrote:LoRab, while we wait, care to give some reads that aren't mechanics related?

@ linki Quin - its just as useless then though. If items are in play, people will find them. That's confirmation of items without Pam wasting a shot.

A player encouraging a civ to waste their role is, IMHO, not mechanics related.

And I don't have many other reads. With limited time to devote to reading through this game, that is the only ping I've really had at this point.

#549

So basically I was right. Cool.

New rule: We should all present everything as fact. Get rid of any "I think" or "Maybe" statements in order to allow everything we say to be checked by Pam.

@ linki Quin - you've given me worse reasons to push you than that, but INH is my current vote. You're a close second though, and LoRab is working his way up to third

@ linki LoRab - What are your thoughts on the following people? :

INH
3J
Scotty
Matt
Indiglo
birdwithteeth11

#550

insertnamehere wrote:So I'm not allowed to disagree with another players methods and bring that up in the thread, because doing so would somehow completely discredit that player? I wasn't saying that everyone shouldn't listen to everything he says. I said that I won't be listening to what Matt says as a result of this specific method of playing that I don't agree with.

You did it again. I didn't say that either.

I didn't say you're not allowed to disagree with other player's methods. I said you're suspicious for parading Matt around like his methods are too crappy for him to be taken seriously in numerous different posts instead of making your complaint heard once and proceeding on with the game.

insertnamehere wrote:Once again, if I have an opinion on a person's read and that person's playstyle, I'm not going to censor myself to avoid possibly hurting "their thread reputation." If I think something is stupid, I'm gonna say that it's stupid, and provide reasons why I think so. Presumably, people who play mafia online aren't complete sheeple, and will be able to look at both sides and determine who they agree with. You keep saying over and over and over again that I damaged Matt's ability to play this game by disagreeing with him. Do you have a quote from Matt saying that? Because you seem to know a lot about Matt's inner feelings and experience playing this game without, y'know, actually being Matt. Once again, I'd really like to hear his side of this story rather than your interpretation of his side of the story.

I personally find your assessment that I somehow shut down the conversation is ridiculous to me, because in a forum game, anybody can post anything and respond to anything, so it would be impossible to do so. Hell, you disproved yourself by continuing the conversation.

I'm not the person you treated like an idiot, Matt is. I am the one accusing you. To assert that me speaking to you about my suspicion of you somehow "disproves" what I am saying about you and Matt is nonsense.

I don't care what Matt himself might say about this. I care about what I see in this thread and in your posts and my own interpretation of events. I don't need Matt to confirm or deny his "feelings", I only need your posts and my responses to them.

insertnamehere wrote:I'm critiquing the logic behind your posts by applying it to a wider scale in order to show how disingenuous it is. C'mon, it's fairly obvious that was what I was doing. Are you running out of argument points? Because you just ignored most what I actually said in favor of this nonsense.

Nope.

You have now stated that in a PRIOR POST, you were trying to show how "disingenuous" I am being. Yet you expressed no suspicion of me in ANY post until this one. If in a prior post you felt I was being disingenuous, then you would have suspected me in a prior post. You didn't. It's too late now.

insertnamehere wrote:I shared my opinions on Matt's type of gameplay that he used, mainly that I didn't find it applicable or something that I'd take seriously, even though I don't suspect him. The only agenda I'm trying to push is my own genuine ideas on things. Meanwhile, you seem to want to both discredit and accuse me, using your own supposed definition of both. You, A. Think that I'm bad for what I think are nonsense reasons, and B. Are trying to make my opinions seem less valid by exaggerating them and making me seem like I'm running some kind of smear campaign.

This is, as usual, nonsense. I am accusing you of running a smear campaign, yes. That's the focus of my suspicion. It's not an "exaggeration" of anything. It's an interpretation. It might be right, it might be wrong, but no matter which -- it's still an interpretation.

insertnamehere wrote:Your arguments keep getting less and less coherent. When we first started this back and forth, I thought you were a confused civ, but the more you keep ignoring logic and digging into your stance against me, the more you begin to ping me.

If there's one thing my arguments in Mafia nearly never are, it's "incoherent".

My reasons for suspecting you are clearly stated and perfectly legible. Anyone else reading this exchange should have no difficulty understanding the points I have made against you. They may not agree, hell they may even suspect me more than you, but they'll understand the nature of my accusations. I say this with absolute confidence.

Who's getting a pink slip?