mafia New Arkham Mafia - SK wins - Gratz to everyone who had fun!

[Crysta]

Whee. I have ten minutes to write up a post, but I'll be around later (when I'm not working).

Didn't think Izhuark's omgus was indicative of his alignment as much as his newbishness, but I can tell he may have problems in the near future. My recommendation is to be more coherent, imo, because being clear should be more of a priority in this game than being an eloquent RPer. I know it'll make my job easier, too.

Magnificence's defense of Izhuark was strange because I remember the initial question being which wagon he thought was spearheaded by scum, not that if he thought Izhuark himself was scummy. That's a different question.

Blitz is being Blitz lol.

I wonder how Rapier would have broken us out of RVS if it wasn't for nitpicking at small things. That seems routine. It's also very easy to go after Blitz going after Izhuark because of it, tbh, so I don't consider his own content all that informative.

I have to go. I have OPINIONS on things but I don't have the time to write them all up in detail right now. BRB.

[Terrador]

@Rapier, you're the only ones that stood out in any way I'd like to speak on. There are posts that I wonder about from just about the entire game, but there really isn't enough there for me to feel comfortable substantiating anything just yet. Both of you seem to be posting organically and contributing, even though Mancer doesn't have much content yet.

Doing some more reading, and I think I have a couple of questions for some more active players.

@eclipse, why does Izhuark feel more like independent than as part of a multiplayer antitown to you?

I'd also like to sheep SB's question on why @Hunter Nightblood voted Izhuark. It's just a hair too consistent with wagon limping, frankly.

@Izhuark, when you return to the thread I'd like to know what your thoughts are on who's scummy and who's not--and for the love of all that is holy, if you're gonna RP or be flowery in your posting, give us a tl;dr so we can tell at a glance what you're saying.

...I think I've found something worth voting for real.

##Unvote

##Vote: Blitz

What's up with the unsubstantiated obsession with Crysta? As far as I can tell, you're voting her because... she was around for RVS and hasn't posted content yet? I was in exactly the same boat until very recently. Engineering a lynch? Trying to look after a scumbuddy? It looks too blunt to be either, but usually town tunnel vision comes from something substantial--even if it's a wrong reason, it's still a reason.

[MancerNecro]

@Weapons: Wtf is that vote on eclipse after everything that's already happened in the thread since then?

@Snike: It was more of questioning Blitz than a defense of Izhuark. Care to explain what you found odd about my "defense" of Izhuark?

@Blitz: I don't think OMGUSes are optimal play but I don't think that they're inherently scummy as well, especially this early on in the game in the RVS. I took Izhuark's vote on eclipse as a joke or random vote with the role playing as extra flavour for the vote. Izhuark's also a new player so I don't think his vote on eclipse is scummy at all.

##Unvote: eclipse

##Vote: Rapier

Something seems different about Rapier's play compared to his usual playstyle. Also, I really feel like Rapier is just trying to make it seem like he's actively contributing when he's not. There's quite a bit of excessive statements, comments and elaborations that are pretty much fluff.

Also, he went on a huge 180 degrees with respect to Wen Yang and whether or not Wen Yang's vote was an OMGUS at all. He initially argued against Blitz, saying that Wen Yang was also OMGUSing. However, he quickly reversed his opinion saying that he didn't think Wen Yang was not OMGUSing at all?

@Rapier: Care to explain this sudden change in your opinions? Also, tell me more about your thought process with respect to Wen Yang.

Rapier seems to be pretty jumpy as well and that whole paragraph about his defensiveness catches my attention. It feels like an overreaction and the tone strikes me off as being unnecessarily jumpy and protective.

@Terrador: What part of me has actually shown that I'm trying at all? Care to elaborate on that? I've really only had two posts in the game so far and the first post was just an RVS vote. My second post was just questioning Blitz so I don't think I actually did much in the game at all yet.

[MancerNecro]

And I got ninja'd by Terrador as I was typing my post up.

@Terrador: What do you mean by organically?

[Terrador]

I just had a positive ping on it, is all. I'm not exactly defending you to the death here, but I liked it, and at first glance I like this post too.

[Terrador]

And the counter-ninja. By organic, I mean posts that are pro-town, not built for some nefarious purpose.

[Zkirsche]

Izhuark's posts really, really need to be written with the intent of being easier to read--I'm honestly not gonna go through the headache of reading them during ED1.

This is pretty much why I am struggling to care, just apply it to the rest of the game. We have posts like #113 less than 12 hours into this game and it's painful. Especially when that one is particular is almost all just super grasping. I guess it's Ed1 but seriously.

Don't want to suspect Rapier for playing better than he usually does. Being more thorough and contributing more is not scummy. Mancer is basically voting Rapier for playing differently and fabricated a reason for doing so. What makes you think it's Rapier trying to seem townie as scum rather than Rapier trying hard as town? He also didn't contradict himself on Wen as far as I can tell so ??? ##Vote: MancerNecro

SB's vote is sensible and I look forward to a response.

[WeaponsofMassConstruction]

I agree with kirsche.

##Unvote, ##Vote: MancerNecro

[MancerNecro]

kirsche, I feel like you really only read the first sentence of my case on Rapier. I'm voting him for way more than just a different playstyle.

@Terrador: Fair enough.

[eclipse]

Let us start, with a trip to the recent past.

@eclipse, why does Izhuark feel more like independent than as part of a multiplayer antitown to you?

Independent factions MUST survive to win, and that's the vibe I get from Izhuark's posts. However, this quote makes me uneasy, for role-related reasons.

Don't care for kirsche's post, either - that's one person out of everyone, and I doubt everyone is THAT HARD to read. Also, meta tells me that kirsche gets apathetic when he's in a role/alignment he doesn't like. Like Terrador's quote, it's something that makes me uneasy.

[Terrador]

>Like Terrador's quote, it's something that makes me uneasy.

Is this a sheep on something, or saying that something of mine raised suspicions? Either way, could you specify?

[Terrador]

EBWOP: never mind, it's calling what you're feeling analogous to how I feel about Blitz. ...right?

[Bluedoom]

This is a very serious incident - there's no time for jokes. And I spoke up about Bluedoom and Izhuark because I saw no reason not to and wondered if anyone would respond to it.

##Unvote

##Vote: Bluedoom

I feel like your vote on Wen has completely disregarded the context of his post. Wen was responding to a point about him that Rapier brought up, which is a completely reasonable thing to do. Why do you assume that this is a Wen is trying to fake productivity rather than just responding the post because it was relevant to him? You seem to even acknowledge that you're spouting rubbish when you talk about the coincidental crossvoting - but then still think that the point is worth pursuing, which I can't understand at all. Please explain this.

Rapier's content feels like standard Rapier content, and I would not lynch him for that. Izhuark, I'd like to ask what gave you the idea that clustering all of our votes on the same few people was a good idea? Darros, what do you think of players other than Rapier, since your appear to have no opinions on any of the other slots (aside from perhaps Blitz)?

Cut: Hunter, why are you voting for Izhuark?

I feel like your vote on Wen has completely disregarded the context of his post. Wen was responding to a point about him that Rapier brought up, which is a completely reasonable thing to do. Why do you assume that this is a Wen is trying to fake productivity rather than just responding the post because it was relevant to him? You seem to even acknowledge that you're spouting rubbish when you talk about the coincidental crossvoting - but then still think that the point is worth pursuing, which I can't understand at all. Please explain this.

Bah, I should've made this clearer. Very well then.

I think Wen's justification for his vote on Blitz was bad. He says he didn't want to add on to the wagons- but why? What's so wrong in adding a vote to the wagons? And what does a joke OMGUS vote accomplish? If anything, it sounds like scum wary of doing things to gain attention(unless you're arguing that his vote on Blitz stands out, but then if its passed off as a joke then it won't be getting any attention anyway). When I say faking contribution I mean it more like " Not gonna add fuel to the fire and I'm gonna analyze the guy who voted me...by just sticking a vote on him and doing nothing else."

@eclipse: I'm not really dodging anything, if I thought the joke wagons were worth it, I'd have made a vote earlier instead of my first post which was a joke. Also I commented on Izhuark because I thought Blitz's case sucked and he was taking the game too seriously. Clearly if I thought Blitz was off though I'd have voted him?

[Bluedoom]

Ok I'm sorry for the double quote.

[eclipse]

A diverging future. The choice is yours.

EBWOP: never mind, it's calling what you're feeling analogous to how I feel about Blitz. ...right?

No. This is directly related to something that is in my role PM. If I feel like it can be used to push a lynch, I'll reveal it. Right now, it's not solid enough.

@eclipse: I'm not really dodging anything, if I thought the joke wagons were worth it, I'd have made a vote earlier instead of my first post which was a joke. Also I commented on Izhuark because I thought Blitz's case sucked and he was taking the game too seriously. Clearly if I thought Blitz was off though I'd have voted him?

You don't have to vote to comment on a wagon.

Your "defense" of Izhuark is based on the length of his writing, and doesn't touch upon things like his logic. It's a weak defense, and then you go off on your own tangent. Furthermore, you didn't say a direct thing about Blitz's case until now. The logic you're using to vote Wen can also be applied to Izhuark's vote (somewhat) and yourself, yet you're giving Izhuark the newbie pass.

This isn't a dig at Izhuark - this is my analysis of your logic, and it's horribly inconsistent. I'm quite happy with my vote, for now.

Speaking of Wen. . .he should get in here and make a serious comment about the game.

[Bluedoom]

Bah, I was gonna vote kirsche for being a dick and complaining about the game and voting Mancer for the wrong reasons, but Mancer's rapier case is actually bad!

@Blitz: I don't think OMGUSes are optimal play but I don't think that they're inherently scummy as well, especially this early on in the game in the RVS. I took Izhuark's vote on eclipse as a joke or random vote with the role playing as extra flavour for the vote. Izhuark's also a new player so I don't think his vote on eclipse is scummy at all.

##Unvote: eclipse
##Vote: Rapier

Something seems different about Rapier's play compared to his usual playstyle. Also, I really feel like Rapier is just trying to make it seem like he's actively contributing when he's not. There's quite a bit of excessive statements, comments and elaborations that are pretty much fluff.

Also, he went on a huge 180 degrees with respect to Wen Yang and whether or not Wen Yang's vote was an OMGUS at all. He initially argued against Blitz, saying that Wen Yang was also OMGUSing. However, he quickly reversed his opinion saying that he didn't think Wen Yang was not OMGUSing at all?

@Rapier: Care to explain this sudden change in your opinions? Also, tell me more about your thought process with respect to Wen Yang.

Rapier seems to be pretty jumpy as well and that whole paragraph about his defensiveness catches my attention. It feels like an overreaction and the tone strikes me off as being unnecessarily jumpy and protective.

a) What is this fluff you are talking about? Don't exaggerate. Why are Rapier's excessive statements scum-motivated?

b)There was no 180 on his stance. He merely said that Wen's OMGUS was more playful while Izhuark's was serious, thus Izhuark was more off. What is there to explain here?

c)Where has Rapier been jumpy and about what and why is this scummy?

Basically your case is vague and not specific and that's scummy.

##Unvote ##Vote:Mancer

*****

Kirsche is still scummy though because his case on Mancer seems to be based off of analyzing the first point and only that. He also spends time complaining about ED1 and the game in general and how he does not care. If he can agree with cases(like SB's on me) then he can do much more, I'm sure. Also why cherry pick Mancer's case, what about Darros' ? Sounds like scum not bothering to read the thread, and being condescending too.

It was hard for me to decide who to vote btw, but more pressure on Mancer seems good for now.

Also I didn't have an issue with most of Terrador's content but his Blitz vote and case is basically fearmongering and that's bad. I'm aware of Town!Terra doing this so I'm not getting as strong of a scumread but it still doesn't make sense to case Blitz like that.

[Bluedoom]

And for anyone who asks me why Mancer's case is scum motivated, is because he's misrepping Rapier and portraying this as his major contribution.

[Crysta]

Rapier’s defense of Iz seems to go a few shades beyond what I would normally expect from a townie simply defending a dubious new player, but after re-reading it I’m considering it more genuine irritation and less scummy. That said, getting defensive about other people taking note of your defensiveness is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If that’s the difference Mancer’s picking up on then I’m tempted to agree with him, but I haven’t played a game with Rapier myself (he flaked in DBZ mafia).

Marth is bothering me more, though. I don’t think Terra openly wondering why Blitz is mentioning me every other post is unreasonable, even if it sounds a mite paranoid. That, and:

He says he didn't want to add on to the wagons- but why? What's so wrong in adding a vote to the wagons?

I probably could have asked you the same thing when you asked us where your vote should go. I mean, what's so wrong about throwing a vote in then, too? But eclipse has already explained why your logic seems inconsistent better than I could, tbh.

In addendum to my “Blitz is being Blitz” comment, he’s been doing what he did in the one game I played with him: ask a bunch of (sometimes seemingly irrelevant) questions and voteprod people into contributing more to the conversation, so I’m not actually bothered by it.

Uh... might have more later. There's less content via ISOs than I initially thought.

##unvote

##vote: Marth

I will continue to use funny joke pictures I do what I want.

[Crysta]

of course I'd mess up the quote.

[Bluedoom]

Uh, the "which wagon should I go on" was a joke.

I didn't think either of them were actually going to get anywhere.

[Balcerzak]

I suppose I should interrupt your fun for an (ir)regularly scheduled votals:

Being voted [number of votes]: voted by

Izhuark [1]: Hunter

Darros [1]: Izhuark

Crysta [1]: Blitz

Blitz [2]: Wen, Terrador

Marth [4]: Rapier, eclipse, SB, Crysta

Mancer [4]: Snike, kirsche, Marth, Weapons

Rapier [2]: Darros, Mancer

Not Voting [2]: Poly, Iris

If I've misplaced your (un)vote, please bring it to my attention, I'm only human.

Poly and Iris will get prods if they have not posted before I go to work tomorrow.

[MancerNecro]

"Bah, I was gonna vote kirsche for being a dick and complaining about the game and voting Mancer for the wrong reasons, but Mancer's rapier case is actually bad!"

This is really bad because it feels like you were going to vote for kirsche even though you didn't find him scummy. You had a case on kirsche later on in that same post but making this initial remark before you went in-depth about your case on kirsche pings me off regarding your intentions.

Regarding my Rapier case:

a) The fluff I was talking about is the needless use of more and decorative words in his defense of himself and case on other players. It feels artificial and forced to me. I interpret that as Rapier trying to sweeten up his lack of content by making his sentences and paragraphs seem longer.

b) I misinterpreted his post then, I admit. My initial read of Rapier's posts led me to feel the change in opinions I mentioned earlier. Also, the fact that he only changed his mind and mentioned that Wen Yang's supposed OMGUS was more jokey after Blitz responded to his earlier queries about Blitz's vote on Izhuark makes me feel like Rapier's change of mind is artificial and faked.

c) His jumping as is in his post mentioning his defensiveness. I feel a panicky tone from that post which pings me that Rapier got slightly riled up.

[eclipse]

Now, let's go on a journey to search for the future!

Marth's latest vote is better, though I strongly disagree with his logic behind Terraderp's read (while I have my own issues with Terra, I can sort-of see what he means, even if it's not worded the best). Also bothered by a lack of Rapier read, since it's Mancer's Rapier case that's fueling his current vote.

I also disagree with Mancer's latest justification for voting Rapier (#147). A change in writing style may be a subtle nod to RP (and given how this game has been going, that would not surprise me in the least), and Rapier being jumpy when put under pressure is a Rapier-tell, not a scumtell. Also, what are your thoughts on the rest of the game?

Speaking of. . .Rapier sort-of bothers me, but it's not enough to drive a vote. He said quite a bit about Izhuark, for reasons I can't really figure out. The worst thing he's posted, IMO, is this:

Man, why does this always happen? Whenever someone starts getting defensive, people come barging in and say "you're being defensive THIS IS SCUMMY". It makes no sense. Yes, I was defensive. In one post. I clarified some stuff for SB and justified my actions because they were put into question, there's nothing wrong with this. If you guys rend me incapable of defending myself then there's absolutely nothing I can do.

If something always happens, shouldn't you try to address the issue, so that it never happens again?

Blitz will either string together his seemingly random questions into a coherent case, or he'll get himself lynched because his random questions don't lead anywhere. Thus, he's low on my priority list right now.

Crysta needs a time machine.

And since I'm super-tired, and am not happy with where my vote is. . .

##Unvote

I'll figure it out tomorrow.

[MancerNecro]

@eclipse: That particular quote is the main thing that pings me off about Rapier.

[Zkirsche]

tl;dr Snark snark KIRSCHE SMASH snark.

kirsche, I feel like you really only read the first sentence of my case on Rapier. I'm voting him for way more than just a different playstyle.

I actually read the first two lines. I don't particularly agree with your last point as what he's doing can easily be a townie frustrated because essentially we lynch/shoot him for being apathetic and we case him for being active. =S I guess the logic is better but still want examples of how he's construing stuff/scum motivated quotes. Something other than the generalisation.

Also, meta tells me that kirsche gets apathetic when he's in a role/alignment he doesn't like.

Once again people join in on the inability to meta me. I have been remarkably apathetic for every mafia game recently. When the first time you open a mafia thread you see posts like yours it doesn't help.

Kirsche is still scummy though because his case on Mancer seems to be based off of analyzing the first point and only that.

Whoa someone else didn't read my post properly. It's also someone else I'm scumreading. What the actual fuck you copy all of my case and then throw the obvious counter point to his third line and call my case a cherry pick. The difference between Mancer's and Darros' case is also obvious if you actually cared about the case you're making: Darros quoted something he found objectionable and explained why he found it objectionable. Mancer generalised the entirety of Rapier's content. Again, that's the objection we both raised so the fact that you can't see that in Darros' post is suspect because it clearly shows you're not looking for stuff like this which makes it more likely you just invented that read on Mancer.

Can we leave the ITP nonsense until later please, going "I don't want to die" doesn't make you ITP and it's not getting us anywhere.

Okay Mancer's response is well presented, but using fancy words isn't really scummy and again, the panicky tone could easily be paranoid town. It's graspy but it's ED1 so I can forgive it, and I've definitely seen the case as town. The way he starts it off analysing Marth's thing is cool, shows that he has a focus on scumhunting.

##unvote

##vote: Magnificence Incarnate

I'll analyse the rest of his stuff after I get back from my mates.