Anonymous Mafia - Game Over

[Refakitty³]

Letters, who are your top suspicions besides your vote?

[Kamina]

Excellent question.

[Marisa Kirisame]

Reread VoltTackle's last post. Something I found odd: You accused Asparagus of echoing, but I do not see that at all. Her posts regarding me were very much against what most people were saying, and I would not say the rest of her commentary was echoing.

[Olivier]

Um, in most of the games, the early D1 votes didn't have any actual reasoning behind them, but were just random votes piled in. It is extremely rare for the first game vote to be one based on genuine reasons derived from their role. I had assumed he was joking, and didn't have any actual reasons behind it, which is what I hoped he would have said. Or at least, if he ignored my inquiry, it would have been fine, because if he really wanted to imply he had genuine reasons, he would have clarified it. What I don't understand is why he voted me because of that.

Regardless of what you might say, my experience with Mafia here leads me to believe that most of the early D1 votes are random votes with no actual reasons. I did not think NE# was actually serious but if he was, I wanted to make sure that he was. All these early random D1 votes with no reasoning, and the stupid D1 joke posts are very annoying, since they fill up space in the thread and make players look active when they don't actually say anything relevant, so I wanted to know if NE#'s claim of having his reasons would fall into this category or not. If yes, I can ignore it and treat it like the rest of the fluff. If no, I can treat it like a serious game-related post that would add data for future analyses.

Bolds and italics are blatantly redundant, let alone the message of both paragraphs, which makes half of those words filler. This fits the strategy that I think you're using in that this section was aimed at dodging the question, or in this case, the accusation. But that's not all: According to underline, you did not think that he was serious. If you did not think he was serious, then why did you ask him about it? 'Reads' is not a valid excuse, especially considering that was in the RVS. It puts Letters in a difficult position if he actually does have info, in that he has to claim or look scummy when he does claim later after denying it. If he claims, he paints a target on his back. If he doesn't have info, then the mafia knows that he is less likely to be a high-priority target. Both responses help the mafia, which is why that question is considered fishing.

Like I said, most early D1 votes are random votes with no reasoning, and early D1 contains a few joke posts. I didn't see anything wrong with my question, so when someone says "This guy is rolefishing, which is scummy, so I'll vote for him" when I wasn't rolefishing, I didn't take it seriously. And then it started building up into a bandwagon and then I realized that players actually found that post scummy.

Rolefishing. Lady Manix would not approve.

Is that a userclaim I see there?

But if you did not take it seriously, why did you fail to ask Mochrie about the accusation/reasoning like you did Letters? Instead, you query about the use of a player's username, and suggest that CM is breaking the rules, which shifts the attention straight to her because she might be modkilled or otherwisely penalized. It's a dodge politicians would be envious of. "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain".

I voted for tails, because of his vote on Trafalgar. Because I found that scummy. What would you rather have me do, then? Keep talking about myself and write essays on why I should not be voted for?

Let us look at what you said at the time.

No, I wasn't rolefishing. It was more like an inquiry as to whether NE# really had any reasons aside from random voting. For some reason, he decided to vote for me because of that, so I'm just going to assume that he doesn't want to answer that question.

Anyhow, from what I read, I actually agree with Sparrrow in that tails' vote on Trafalgar is pretty stupid. Not only is he voting for Trafalgar simply because he disagrees with Colin looking Townish, but the quote that tails provided as to why he finds Colin as Town came AFTER Trafalgar's vote. In other words, he finds Trafalgar scummy for voting for someone who ends up making a townish post IN THE FUTURE.

##Vote: tails1996

What the heck, man?

What you said was that the tails vote was 'pretty stupid' because the post uses a post that was chronologically after the post Tails took aim at. After ignoring the appeal to emotion bits used in the second half of the vote('stupid, use of caps, the wth at the end'), you are putting words into our furry friend's mouth, as shown in bold. If one reads the whole post (try the line with your username on it), it is clear the vote is part of RVS, just like the vote by Trags was. Which is why I said it was to pressure Trags, because that is the point of RVS: to pressure people.

Also, I would rather you stop this misdirection business, but that is unlikely, so I will settle for you being lynched. I am a very reasonable man in that sense.

That's not what I found suspicious. The problem was that tails found Colin Townish, and then voted for Trafalgar for voting for Colin before the quoted Townish post. I can't understand that reasoning. He saw Trafalgar voting for Colin, then found a Townish post by Colin, and decided to go back and vote for the guy who voted for Colin? If his true intention was to pressure Trafalgar into saying more, that's okay But when he says nothing but, "X looks Townish because of this, so Y is scummy because of this (vote), so Vote: Y"., ^{I thought he meant what he said and I found that reasoning to be really bad because of the chronological order of his quoted posts.} _{If he had some other reason, he didn't say so.} Why would he be looking for such a stupid excuse to vote while saying nothing about the true reasoning behind it? Is it wrong for me to take his words at face value, or are you saying that I should always assume that players might have other reasons that are not in their posts, and so I shouldn't attack anything they write?

First of all, when I placed aside, I meant that that comment was a general one about the wagon, not about you. Just to make it clear.

Subscript matches the first five words of bolded, and superscript matches italic's full sentence. Filler happens again. What a surprise.

Tails did not say the second half of bolded (so... y".') and did not use italics as a motive , so you are forcing words down their mouth and assigning false motives to them by saying those. Incidentally, Tails did say something other than bolded, which you conveniently ignore.

I'd love an explanation from Sundown, but I think that's enough votes for an early wagon.

In other words, their other reason was that the wagon on a player (you) was large enough at the moment, so may as well pressure someone else while they wait for a response.

What's interesting about underline aside from belonging to a passive-aggressive sentence is that you didn't take Tail's second line at face value. If you did, you would see that tails said that the vote was terrible. Not the player being suspect, but, literally the "worst vote". Please practice what you preach.

More to come about happenings by other USERS.

[Olivier]

on second thought, reading through page 6 again

both wagons kinda moved too fast. sundown had 5 votes on him in like a page or two and tails got a load of votes for him mostly based on one post.

hmmm.

also, colin LOOKS like he's been helpful, but most of the posts i have seen from him have actually had little to do with the actual game. and when he voted eternity, he had one sentence to back it up.

ughhh.

Quick note about the wagons - The Sundown wagon got 4 votes over a 8-9 hour span. The tails wagon went from 1 to 4 in less than 2 hours. Which one was fast again?

As for Mochrie, let's look at the eternitypost.

sorry got kinda distracted.

honestly i really dont like that sundown fishing. it really sets me off. like, ok, why does it matter to you if someone has info d1? you asked it in a really creeper way too, ugh.

but i wont vote. ill do a reread and see if i can catch anything else that hasnt had much attention paid to it

I actually thought it was an okay reaction to Trafalgar's vote, because no one would have any idea about how he'd have gotten whatever info. Then again, I've always been passive about things like that, so nvm.

This from the same person that whined about RVS and spammed the first two pages. Your logic is terrible and that's with benefit of the doubt. Surely you can find other ways to make a mislynch stick than someone scumhunting in a way you didn't think of.

I still don't understand the first part of this post which I deleted for some reason durr

Also, where the hell is this flaw in logic? Hell, you're the one throwing about the stupid logic, and you're the one throwing about the insults without really defending your actual point. That's MY job, dammit!

##Unvote

##Vote Tails

I see the second part as an appeal to emotion, in that it's like 'how dare you challenge sparrow's logic', which I didn't like when I read it. So, that's where I think Mochrie might be coming from.

Attempting to metagame in an anonymous setting. This game had better be smart enough to figure out why it's not the best idea. Given my wagon, I somewhat doubt this.

That was a poor reason on my part, yes, but I felt it was better to say that than to say 'gut feeling', when I thought (and still think) said meta could apply.

Perseus' little defense of Tails earlier on has caught my eye; he read a whole lot into Tails' original post, and explained Tails' actions before Tails himself had a chance to. Gives me an odd feeling but not a strong scum read at this point.

Well, this post made me think a bit about the reason behind tails' Trags vote, which made me see why that wagon appeared to be a poor choice.

i did not really word my thoughts correctly there because i'm tired. let me rephrase. i'm leaning scum on sundown but i think yoshimi is obvscum. basically what i meant to say was that regardless of sundown's alignment, i think yoshimi is scum, and then i gave a reason for why they could both be scum. does that make more sense?

I swore we agreed that Mochrie's bingo card was obvscum.

Seriously, though, Yoshimi is muddying the waters by posting that reads list which I'm fairly certain was not in-depth, so you may be right in that respect.

[Prims]

Daniel Craig has been prodded.

[Shiki Ryougi]

Look out guys, I'm about to change my mind again.

I think Tails is just Excellen. My vote was preemptive in retrospect, and holy shit, I really don't like how the wagon built up. Sundown and Eternity get scumpoints for that. I guess that means I do too. Oh well. By the way, I don't consider anything with less than three votes a wagon unless there are very few players left.

At a glance, the current choice of wagons is questionable at best. I'll go back and do some more reading but for now, I'm not really sure why there's an Asparagus wagon and I get the feeling there's mafia on it, there's a good chance Sundown and Yoshimi are aligned differently, and Eternity needs to be a thing. Look:

Post 1: RVS

Post 2: Defends possible scumbuddy, places weak vote

Post 3: IN THE FUTURE

##Unvote

##Vote: Eternity

[No Elimination]

This post is probably ging to be a doozy. I apologize before hand. Though, I`m certainly going to try to get as much out of it as I can.

##Unvote

I don't think sparrow's vote on Tails looks bad either on its own or when compared to the others. Don't like the wagon though. Vanilla Coke's vote seems the most genuine on the wagon.

I don't like ILoveTangerine's most recent post(the one about Letters and Asparagus). Based too much off a pretty ridiulous looking assumtption.

Don't agree with Volt's statement of Asparagus blending in. Asparagus is standing out, not blending in. And, in my opinion, not in a scummy way.

Eternity puts out an opinion then says "nvm" then jumps on a wagon. I think this is very scummy. There was no effort put into that post.

Colin looks more town with each post.

Trafalgar's long post has me in a weird situation. I want to disagree with his points on Asparagus(since I find asparagus looking more town) but I'm oddly swayed by his post and its making me want to find Asparagus scummy. Yet as I read more of Asparagus's posts, I think he looks more town. notbecause I agree with them, because on many I don't, but because he seems to be legitimately giving his opinion on every little thing that happens, not giving weak or hollow opinions.

Really don't like Sundown's large post. His explanations do not match his actual actions(and the tones in which those actions happened) so I can't take the as genuine explanations.

Letter's posts/ations/thoughts aren't explained well enough for my liking. Its hard to get anything out of them.

Don't like Tail's attitude, but under that is mostly good logic. Though I don't see the point in saying things like "BTW I'm Town." Everyone wants everyyone to think they are town.

Daniel Craig: Not a whole lot of activity, was on the Sundown wagon then got off for reasons that I believe are flimsy, since Sundown's behavior was fairly consistent and nothing else noteworthy happened.

Well with my vote initially being part of RVS and a wagon forming on him, I wanted to vote the other person I was finding scummy at the time.

Volt's second(important) post was better than the first, imo. Without it I would have voted him, but with it I don't think I can.

Meanwhile I think what stands out to me is Sundown's long post that I find really scummy. Definitely puts him as the most scummy in my eyes. ##Vote:Sundown

Also, hypocritical statment here, ILoveTangerine, Eternity, Shotta, (myself), and probably others I'm forgetting need some more activity.

[Aizen]

yoshimi you totally ignored the rest of my post too what are you doing

Pretty much acknowledging that I was wrong to bring meta into an anonymous game.

@Sparrow-I want to drop the whole "asparagus' posts are annoying to read" thing completely, that's what I was trying to accomplish.

[Refakitty³]

I'll try to make them more easy to read if that's what you want but I'm used to more short bursts of thought I guess

I'm going to sleep but I'll have more thoughts in the morning

[All Might]

oh look at that

look at the non-commitment

DEFEND YOURSELF SON

Defend myself from what? Two prior votes on me were made with no stated reasoning, giving nothing to actually reply to usefully; as for your points, yes, my position on Sundown at the time was neutral, would not lynch, want to wait and see how things develop, and my position on Tails was not my preferred lynch but could possibly go for his lynch if my preferred one won't happen. I can have an opinion on the various wagons and players without having a mega-strong read on each one.

and the past is past - rvs is a dangerous and confusing time

Ignoring prior player behavior, even during RVS, is unwise. The past, in mafia, is where you find patterns of behavior.

i like how the people suspicious of me are the ones who havent contributed as much actual content to the game

its like are you actually reading

Many posts does not necessarily mean a great contribution. A lot of your posts are fluff and posting a bunch of small things rapidly spams up the thread a bit.

Anyway, why I feel Asparagus is echoey and posting fluff:

also i have to read sundown's whole post. i liked what i read of it, though.

Also, re-reading Sundown's huge post makes me like it a little bit less

Sudden opinion switch; this is slightly mitigated by the original 'didn't read the whole thing' bit but neither position has any reasoning stated. In any case, waffly fluff.

both wagons kinda moved too fast. sundown had 5 votes on him in like a page or two and tails got a load of votes for him mostly based on one post.

hmmm.

This had previously been brought up as well. And it's part of a larger problem which you can also see in the two above-quoted posts, which is that Asparagus had some initial mild suspicion of Sundown, although he never put down a vote, which he then backed off of. Overall, he's been avoiding having any strong feelings about either wagon, resulting in waffly fluff that doesn't accomplish much. And, of course, the original Sundown suspicions were also echoing earlier posters.

ok then. im sure that you have a really complex plan going on in your head here but would you mind maybe explaining some of your reads here, or at least explain why youre pretty sure volt is scum? i guess you dont have to answer if you dont want but vagueness wont help us if you die later.

Echoing Sparrow's earlier prod.

the competing tails-sundown wagons are interesting.

perseus's responses to sundown and his opinion on the two wagons is something that we seriously need to look at when we get a flip. i actually kind of think we have mafia-town wagons here, and tails provides more flimsier responses than sundown does, but then perseus comes out and suggests that sundown is just glad to have a counterwagon to protect his ass.

This post is more waffly fluff without a strong opinion on either wagon, and was followed by an unvote and a series of posts on other players (Trafalfar, Colin, and Yoshimi to be specific). So...he never really got back to or addressed the wagons that he found so interesting. He dropped them like a hot potato after a little attention was paid to his odd attitude towards Sundown.

And:

i didnt think tails looked too scummy in the first place.

But in the above-quoted post where he compared the wagons, he said Tails' reasoning was flimsier than Sundown's. Again, Asparagus seems very wary of having any solid opinions on either wagon.

So in summary he has echoed a few times, danced around the Sundown and Tails wagons strangely, and has a lot of posts but not that much actual content. His mild suspicions of Colin are about the only notable/original thing I'm seeing, but that never resulted in a vote or much of anything. So yes, he does have some original stuff, but most of his posts are waffly fluff with some echoing thrown in.

Other stuff: after doing a re-read, I realized that Sundown hasn't done a whole lot except post long defenses of himself, and the defenses aren't that great. I might be okay with a lynch on him but would like to see some actual opinions etc. from him first.

Still not that happy with Tails but he's not a priority for the lynch to me so eh.

Vanilla backed off the Tails wagon pretty fast with his 'Tails might be Excellen' thing once the wagon fell out of favor; feels like he wanted to avoid being on a wagon that people had gotten suspicious of.

Asparagus is still my top pick for lynch, could possibly go for Sundown or Vanilla if no one wants to lynch Asparagus. Don't like Tails but can wait to see more from him.

[Sham]

i'm barely surviving because of school

will reread everything and post (hopefully) soon

also in the meantime ##Unvote, ##Vote Shotta

this is amazingly hypocritical but

exist pl0x

[Sham]

might do huge quotedump idk

asjdpasjpowe

[Sham]

It is funny that three people jumped onto Tails.

##Unvote

##Vote Eternity

That's generally what happens when someone uses bad logic, yeah.

Colin Mochrie has informed me that she.

omg gurl

ok back on topic

##Unvote, Vote: VoltTackle

90% certain this guy is scum.

Another post by Letters where he doesn't actually elaborate on his reasoning. I'm aware that he posted a reply later on after getting pressured, but I'm not liking these short, barely-explained posts.

Actually I'll go quote the only part of his VT vote explanation which stuck out to me.

ok this part isn't terrible but VT is just that mafia guy who posts every once in a while to look active; there's no fight in him

postulation best

back to chronological order

Defending stupid logic - Maybe there's three townies who use this kind of logic, and were insulted by it (serves you three right, now start using your brains)

You like wagons, being emotional, and generally being more of an ass than me, don't you? Emotion isn't a scumtell. Sheeping twice and contradicting yourself is. Let's see you respond in an even-headed and calm manner; then I might believe you. One of you decided to post something so inherently stupid that I can't let it go.

Way to ignore everything for a shitty vote. Trafalgar still had a vote after that post, which you decided didn't fit into your world view. That last sentence reeks of passive-aggressiveness, as well as a convenient excuse to get out of things when everyone sees the town wincon in my role PM. You can start looking better by apologizing, rather than attempting to defend your terrible logic. You had enough crap on you with your earlier antics; your last post convinced me that you're no good for the town. Go ahead and pass this off as a OMGUS; it might help your case.

##Unvote

##Vote: Sundown

I'm really... uneasy, to put it simply, with this post.

You begin by insulting the people whom don't follow your logic (beautiful, asshole), and pretty much the majority of this post is Tails PMSing and ranting about people being retarded. The sheer amount of emotion in this post is absolutely horrendous, and it only serves to get people even more pissed off at you.

Also, going on and asking someone to apologise to you, when YOU'RE the one who ought to be throwing out the apology for all the insults you've thrown in this game? Nice one.

Tails' last post had a lot of emotion and not too much actual content, and did not actually address the points made against him. Just going 'that logic is stupid' doesn't really contribute much. Given that displays of emotion tend to be read as Town, it makes me wonder if Tails is putting on an angry/blustering front to shove attention off of him. However his reference to post restrictions makes me think it's also possible he has some kind of PR to be aggressive.

So slightly suspicious of Tails at this point, but still more suspicious of Asparagus; his many posts feel low on content and his last post is echoing again. Would also like Asparagus to explain his Letters read more; what makes him Town? I have a neutral read on him so far.

I don't actually think that displays of emotion implies town, because it's pretty easy for mafia to get pissed when posting and resort to insults, or use appeal to emotion as an argument.

Also, I'm kind of a derp, but where was that part about post restriction? I saw nothing about it.

*Your

Also, the post I posted above came from me ISOing every single one of you, and that took time, so don't ignore it, please.

feels like you're trying to make your ISO sound really important

rubs off as really scummy

reading next page now

[Marisa Kirisame]

Bad logic is not scummy. You need to think about the motivation. How could that vote be mafia motivated? I do not see it.

I think my vote is still on you and that people should seriously consider lynching you.

[Sham]

Many posts does not necessarily mean a great contribution. A lot of your posts are fluff and posting a bunch of small things rapidly spams up the thread a bit.

Anyway, why I feel Asparagus is echoey and posting fluff:

<quote>

Sudden opinion switch; this is slightly mitigated by the original 'didn't read the whole thing' bit but neither position has any reasoning stated. In any case, waffly fluff.

this is day 1

this isn't a horrible thing

This had previously been brought up as well. And it's part of a larger problem which you can also see in the two above-quoted posts, which is that Asparagus had some initial mild suspicion of Sundown, although he never put down a vote, which he then backed off of. Overall, he's been avoiding having any strong feelings about either wagon, resulting in waffly fluff that doesn't accomplish much. And, of course, the original Sundown suspicions were also echoing earlier posters.

This post is more waffly fluff without a strong opinion on either wagon, and was followed by an unvote and a series of posts on other players (Trafalfar, Colin, and Yoshimi to be specific). So...he never really got back to or addressed the wagons that he found so interesting. He dropped them like a hot potato after a little attention was paid to his odd attitude towards Sundown.

And:

But in the above-quoted post where he compared the wagons, he said Tails' reasoning was flimsier than Sundown's. Again, Asparagus seems very wary of having any solid opinions on either wagon.

So in summary he has echoed a few times, danced around the Sundown and Tails wagons strangely, and has a lot of posts but not that much actual content. His mild suspicions of Colin are about the only notable/original thing I'm seeing, but that never resulted in a vote or much of anything. So yes, he does have some original stuff, but most of his posts are waffly fluff with some echoing thrown in.

Other stuff: after doing a re-read, I realized that Sundown hasn't done a whole lot except post long defenses of himself, and the defenses aren't that great. I might be okay with a lynch on him but would like to see some actual opinions etc. from him first.

Still not that happy with Tails but he's not a priority for the lynch to me so eh.

Vanilla backed off the Tails wagon pretty fast with his 'Tails might be Excellen' thing once the wagon fell out of favor; feels like he wanted to avoid being on a wagon that people had gotten suspicious of.

Asparagus is still my top pick for lynch, could possibly go for Sundown or Vanilla if no one wants to lynch Asparagus. Don't like Tails but can wait to see more from him.

I'll just quote the rest of the post because lazy

I don't think it's a bad thing that some people are so jumpy and such on Day 1 - I've always felt that N0/D1 was a phase for people to get a general feel of the game, and when nobody's got any info from prior phases to go off, it's expected to see people changing their opinions relatively quickly. Hell, I honestly think it's good Asparagus is changing his vote around - As I see it, he's changing her vote in accordance with his suspicions, and on D1, I see it as implying that he's considering all the aspects and different arguments, instead of picking one and staying focused on it.

also

Eternity needs to be a thing.

not sure if this was meant to be a joke

but that wasn't bad

[Nemu Kurotsuchi]

Bolds and italics are blatantly redundant, let alone the message of both paragraphs, which makes half of those words filler. This fits the strategy that I think you're using in that this section was aimed at dodging the question, or in this case, the accusation. But that's not all: According to underline, you did not think that he was serious. If you did not think he was serious, then why did you ask him about it? 'Reads' is not a valid excuse, especially considering that was in the RVS. It puts Letters in a difficult position if he actually does have info, in that he has to claim or look scummy when he does claim later after denying it. If he claims, he paints a target on his back. If he doesn't have info, then the mafia knows that he is less likely to be a high-priority target. Both responses help the mafia, which is why that question is considered fishing.

I asked him because I wanted to know if he was serious or not. If he actually had info, he clearly isn't making any effort to hide it, since he's subtly hinting it in the first post. If he really did have genuine reasons, then the fact that he announced it in the first post implies that he doesn't desire to conceal it. If he doesn't have his reasons, then it means I can disregard it as a joke post. You said that both responses were beneficial for the Mafia. For the first response, I never asked him to claim, and even though it may benefit the Mafia nonetheless, it was his choice to post "I have my reasons" and make us curious. The second response, of him not having info, tbh I never actually thought about whether it'd be beneficial for the Mafia or not until now, but I don't actually see how not having reasons to vote for someone as the first post of the game makes you a less priority target. In fact, as far as my memory is concerned, I only remember ONE Mafia game where a player claimed to have reasons for suspecting a target before the game started, with Prims attacking Bizz in Draft Minimafia with some pretty stupid reasoning that was based purely on meta (not present in an anon game) and the drafting mechanics of the game (also not present in this game).

And really, when I made that first post, I never actually thought about whether it's beneficial for the Mafia or not. All I thought was "He says he has his reasons? Eh, he probably isn't serious. Early D1 is usually filled with fluff like this. Still, though, if he really is serious, it could become useful data later on, so let me just inquire him about it." That was my thought process. I didn't think about whether my post was scummy or not, or about whether NE#'s response would hint at his role or anything like that. I did not expect the huge reaction that came out of it (like I said, I thought the early reactions to my posts weren't serious either). I just wanted to know if there was a serious post amidst the D1 fluff, and the only early posts that could have been serious was NE#'s first post and the Survivor Miller claim, both of which I still think of as joke posts, but for some reason, neither of those players seem interested in talking about those, so I was forced to treat it as D1 fluff... until I got attacked for it.

But if you did not take it seriously, why did you fail to ask Mochrie about the accusation/reasoning like you did Letters? Instead, you query about the use of a player's username, and suggest that CM is breaking the rules, which shifts the attention straight to her because she might be modkilled or otherwisely penalized. It's a dodge politicians would be envious of. "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain".

Fail to ask Mochrie about what? What accusation/reasoning are you referring to? I actually forgot that you're not allowed to claim your true identity (scummy reason, I know, sorry), but I saw a SF username and was wondering why CM would mention Manix.

Let us look at what you said at the time.

What you said was that the tails vote was 'pretty stupid' because the post uses a post that was chronologically after the post Tails took aim at. After ignoring the appeal to emotion bits used in the second half of the vote('stupid, use of caps, the wth at the end'), you are putting words into our furry friend's mouth, as shown in bold. If one reads the whole post (try the line with your username on it), it is clear the vote is part of RVS, just like the vote by Trags was. Which is why I said it was to pressure Trags, because that is the point of RVS: to pressure people.

Also, I would rather you stop this misdirection business, but that is unlikely, so I will settle for you being lynched. I am a very reasonable man in that sense.

First of all, when I placed aside, I meant that that comment was a general one about the wagon, not about you. Just to make it clear.

Subscript matches the first five words of bolded, and superscript matches italic's full sentence. Filler happens again. What a surprise.

Tails did not say the second half of bolded (so... y".') and did not use italics as a motive , so you are forcing words down their mouth and assigning false motives to them by saying those. Incidentally, Tails did say something other than bolded, which you conveniently ignore.

In other words, their other reason was that the wagon on a player (you) was large enough at the moment, so may as well pressure someone else while they wait for a response.

What's interesting about underline aside from belonging to a passive-aggressive sentence is that you didn't take Tail's second line at face value. If you did, you would see that tails said that the vote was terrible. Not the player being suspect, but, literally the "worst vote". Please practice what you preach.

Caps represented key words to my reasoning, not emotions. Before I get to tails' post, I should let you know that I never once talked about motive, whether true or false, though I may have implied what I thought his motive was through my vote. My post was purely on reasoning, not motive. There was no assigning false motives or anything like that. As for tails post, here's how my thought process worked:

You're a sweetheart for remembering that I exist.

I perceived this as irrelevant fluff.

Biggest town read ATM is right here.

I perceived this as him stating his opinion that CM looks the most Townish for that post.

Which means worst vote is here.

I assumed that the "which means" was a follow up to the previous sentence about CM looking Townish. He didn't use the word "so" but "which means" implies the same thing. Oh, wait, his previous sentence didn't actually mention CM being Townish, but rather, he just pointed out that his strongest Town read was here in a specific quote. So this next line must be about the previous quote. Which is why I was suspicious. It would have looked okay if I hadn't looked at the timestamps, but when I noticed the inconsistency, I couldn't understand tails's actions. I mean, seriously, think about it. If tails was reading the thread, found the CM post, copied it to his reply stating that it was his strongest Town read, and then scroll up, find Trafalgar's post, copying it to the reply stating that it's the worst vote because of the aforementioned Town read? You can't accuse someone for voting due to a Townish post that came later on.

And if the CM quote and Trafalgar quote are unrelated and that the CM quote was not his involved with his thoughts about Trafalgar's quote being the worst vote, then why would he write "which means"??? I'm not the one who is falsely claiming that tails was connecting CM's quote with Trafalgar's quote, it was tails himself that connected them through the words "which means". When you say "STATEMENT C which means STATEMENT E", it implies that your reasoning behind STATEMENT E came from STATEMENT C. C was about CM's quote being townish, E was about Trafalgar's quote being the worst vote, so tails was implying that Trafalgar's quote was the worst vote BECAUSE CM's quote looks townish. Which doesn't make sense if CM's quote came AFTER Trafalgar's quote.

I'd love an explanation from Sundown, but I think that's enough votes for an early wagon.

I assume he's referring to my unintentional rolefishing, which I explained already. He doesn't want to vote for me, though, because I have enough votes. Reasonable.

##Unvote

##Vote: Trafalgar

Okay, so he explained why he isn't voting for me. His next step was to vote Trafalgar. Nothing to imply that this vote was random. Of course, failure to mention anything relevant about the user you're voting generally implies it was a random vote, but he did refer to Trafalgar's quote earlier. My thought process was that after tails decided I had enough votes on me, he decided to go for a different target, choosing Trafalgar because of that quote which he referred to as the "worst vote". You, Perseus, on the other hand, seem to believe that he chose his next target randomly, without any proper reasoning, but I fail to see any evidence supporting your theory. It most certainly isn't "very clear" from my point of view. True, he did not outright say that he found Trafalgar scummy, but he quoted his post and gave a negative opinion on it. As far as I can deduce from his posts, the only players he didn't like were me and Trafalgar, which would logically explain his non-random vote for Trafalgar. Before you attack me for my response, I would appreciate it if YOU could tell what you think went through tails' head while making that post.

If this keeps up, I will have to roleclaim, but until then, I might as well post my own thoughts here.

##Unvote: tails

##Vote: NE#

I don't like how he found VoltTackle to be 90% scum because of a single post (though, his analysis on that post was pretty good). And then he just declares that he dislikes all the current wagons, but evades answering which wagons he would have preferred otherwise. Again, my suspicion on him is probably gonna look as suspicious as my unintentional rolefishing on him, but I really don't like how he just posts stuff without clarifying whether he's serious or not. It's like having the freedom to say whatever you want, but exaggerate them a little ("I have my reasons", "90% scum"), so that they aren't treated as serious statements.

[Sham]

Bad logic is not scummy. You need to think about the motivation. How could that vote be mafia motivated? I do not see it.

I think my vote is still on you and that people should seriously consider lynching you.

No, but when someone uses bad logic, you call them out on it, don't you?

I wouldn't mind; My role is useless and I'm going to be even busier than I already am, honestly.

[Nemu Kurotsuchi]

Oh, what the heck, I might get hammered, so I might as well just claim right now. A Lynch Bomb that kills the last player to vote for it. I'd consider this a negative utility role, but Prims probably doesn't mind putting negative utility roles. Either way, I doubt such a claim would get any votes off of me, so I would prefer it if the 8th person to vote for me is somebody scummy. The last thing you want is for two Townies to die when the second Townie's death doesn't add much data as to why it happened.

[Nemu Kurotsuchi]

And no, I'm not going to apologize for anything aside from being a horrible Mafia player. I still don't see anything wrong with a) wanting to know whether a specific post was a serious post or a joke when there are doubts about that, and b) assuming that the phrase "which means" indicates that the following statement is directly supported by the preceding statement. If those two are actually scummy, I apologize, because clearly something must be wrong with how I think this game is to be played.

[Marisa Kirisame]

No, but when someone uses bad logic, you call them out on it, don't you?

I wouldn't mind; My role is useless and I'm going to be even busier than I already am, honestly.

... So you are saying you voted someone that you do not think is particularly scummy.

Why?

[Shiki Ryougi]

Sundown, please don't make huge walls of text just to defend yourself from a couple of accusations. I don't want to read that. And just stop freaking out in general.

No, but when someone uses bad logic, you call them out on it, don't you?

I wouldn't mind; My role is useless and I'm going to be even busier than I already am, honestly.

I see no reason to move my vote then. A scumread who's gone and announced that they're not ever going to be useful sounds like a good Day 1 lynch to me.

[Prims]

Sundown (4) - Perseus, tails1996, Yoshimi, Daniel Craig

Asparagus (3) - Shotta, VoltTackle, Trafalgar

Eternlty (2) - Colin Mochrie, Vanilla Diet Coke

NE93B27J3U (2) - ILoveTangerine, Sundown

Yoshimi (2) - Asparagus, Sparrow

Shotta (1) - Eternlty

VoltTackle (1) - NE93B27J3U

Not Voting - None!

With 15 alive, it takes 8 to hammer. You have about 10.5 hours left in the day (countdown).

Trafalgar has been prodded. ILoveTangerine has also hit the prod timer, however, she informed me of an absence ahead of time.

Edited July 20, 2012 by Prims

[All Might]

I don't actually think that displays of emotion implies town, because it's pretty easy for mafia to get pissed when posting and resort to insults, or use appeal to emotion as an argument.

Also, I'm kind of a derp, but where was that part about post restriction? I saw nothing about it.

I agree that emotional-ness has no bearing on alignment, but what I'm saying is that it's common for emotional displays to be perceived as Townish. So I think it could be a viable strategy for scum to feign anger in order to look more Townish. In general I don't care if players are aggressive/angry/whatever, but when they combine that with not actually saying much as Tails did in that post it looks like covering lack of content with emotion.

In whichever post Tails made where he said at the beginning that emotion isn't a scumtell...he made a passing mention of PRs. So I thought it was possible he was implying that he had a PR. It's not like there's strong evidence of it, just a possibility.

As I see it, he's changing her vote in accordance with his suspicions, and on D1, I see it as implying that he's considering all the aspects and different arguments, instead of picking one and staying focused on it.

If you read my post you will see that I did not complain about him changing his vote; in fact, I complained about him having suspicions of Sundown but never voting on them. Disconnect between words and votes is scummy. The problem is that he talked a bit about the Sundown and Tails wagons, but avoided having strong opinions one way or the other--it was all this 'oh they're kind of scummy but maybe not' stuff. Basically, fluff that avoided taking a position.

Sundown has now continued to focus on defense, with only a single paragraph devoted to actually scumhunting...and now he's claimed lynchbomb. I've seen Town lynchbombs but it's also a role that makes you want to avoid lynching it, making it not a bad fakeclaim. However, it's still risky to lynch him.

Although Sundown is scummy I don't think I want to lynch a possible lynchbomb and risk getting a second person killed.

[C. C.]

oh yeah, by the way, trafalgar.

some of your earlier posts havent sit very well with me, either. there were a few pages of legit discussion already and you were one of the people still in rvs mode, which really set me off when i was trying to get reads. i really hope youre not trying to redeem yourself in like the easiest way possible because its going to backfire on you; you ignored the competing wagons completely and smelled the chance to get one on me. that makes me uncomfortable.

trafs, what is your opinion on the counterwagons?

still catching up, and there are a bunch more posts to go, but figured i need to get get something down as a response here at first, and most of the answer doesn't possibly depend on anything that will come later in the thread.

the first. we have three days for discussion, hammer or lose policy is not in effect in day one, it was still early in the phase.

the second. past games have had me worried about the first couple big wagons, as often they seem built on people making mountains out of users like rapier, marth, 13th, etc. doing something a little boneheaded. while obviously with anonymous i don't know if this is the case, i didn't think being a little wary and trying to at least explore new ground was a terrible decision.

the third. in that first clutch of posts i didn't completely ignore the wagons, as i asked sundown a question. sadly he disappeared again before answering and left in the same situation as before i decided to sit as is.

the fourth. i think you're reaching in your call on me being opportunistic and wouldn't be surprised if if i had voted for one of the main wagons you or someone else would have then accused me of sheeping. one d1 there is almost never any completely solid vote, all of them will have some fault or other. you have produced a lot of seemingly good content in the period after my vote though (even if it was like mulitpost extreme) so after i finish a complete catch-up, believe you me i will be reevaluating.