[NOC] [Anon] [Open Set-Up] Strip Mafia - lol

[Nemu Kurotsuchi]

Let’s make this quick, I’ll be back later to analyse what's happened in the last half hour or so.

Bogeto: I feel that if his first post was really deliberate, he’d have come in with a few good content posts first, since it’s unclear whether Parsel’s response was aggression or calling out a lazy post. And he wouldn’t have broadcasted “it was a trick I fooled you haha” unless he was trying to sow the seeds of suspicion in our minds. Bogeto is also focusing too much on the fact that Parsel is not focusing enough on Illusio, which is logically consistent, I suppose, but it’s really bad.

##Vote: Bogeto Bogeto

FOS: Parseltongue Before I felt pretty comfortable with him since his two main antagonists looked shifty to me, but I don’t agree with Parsel’s review of Soda’s post. Why is his post forced? And I’m not sure what exactly he means by convenient, but I doubt it’s a good thing so why is the playerslot suddenly not so bad? I don’t think he’s distancing, though, because it’d make no sense to compliment his argument like he did before, it'd only make the backflip more obvious.

[Aizen]

I wish I had the chance to update my graphs. Shame.

Bogeto's backtracking is really blatant and he only makes it worse the more he tries to justify it (and backtrack further). I would just as easily jump on him if Magus's further mass suspicion throwing did not bother me more.

Speaking of which, Magus really can't seem to focus on one player, can he? As soon as he votes one player, he's already attacking another and throwing around his vote. I would rather he stick to his guns with his vote rather then give an unwarranted reaction to every single new post. I'm not saying he can only attack one person, but he's dropping suspicion like an Apple fanboy does old iToys for the Next Big Thing.

[Ochako Uraraka]

This sounds like defending Parseltongue and I don't even see your reasoning for suddenly posting it

Unvote

##Vote: Magus

my question on you Parseltongue still stands, so you better not be ignoring it

If you actually read in context carefully, the person who did not give a direct answer was Parseltongue, who gave an answer that was so shrouded in the snake flavor that he uses. It was more of comparing Bogeto Bogeto's response to my question and Parseltongue's and me liking Bogeto Bogeto's response more.

[Prims]

>V-V-Votecount!

(4) IllusioMagus - Scumhunter X, Parseltongue, Urist McDwarf, Gonzou Azai

(2) Bogeto Bogeto - Grape Soda, Red Mage

(1) Parseltongue - Jay Gatsby

(1) Urist McDwarf - Stormageddon

Not Voting (4): Bogeto Bogeto, Ikakas, IllusioMagus, Viking

With 12 alive, it takes 7 to hammer. You have about 40.5 hours left in the day.

[Aizen]

@urist- those pictures don't seem to have any point other than taking up space on my screen. also voting someone for self-meta is one of those shitty textbook votes you make for "scumtells" (something i forgot to mention when i said why i thought parseltongue was scummy). self-meta is dumb, but like inactivity or emotion, it's not something that makes someone scummy. also you found parsel worse than illusio before, but you've now reversed them in your order of suspicion even though the posts you're voting illusio for are, iirc, before your initial vote for parseltongue. next, i have real problems with the fact that you're not going to bother defending yourself from something that you think is a valid reason for a vote. nobody gets (or should get, anyways) lynched for invalid reasons. they get lynched for valid reasons, and you're not going to bother defending yourself from it.

Self-meta alone isn't a valid reason to lynch me, but at that point in the game I thought it was a reasonable reason for voting me. Overall it improved my read for Parseltongue. I've dealt with people who defend with self-meta (who flipped scum) and I do think it's a good reason to vote.

I won't bother defending it because I really can't anyway, and like above, it isn't solid singular reason to lynch.

Magus meanwhile has only gotten worse in terms of read as he's posted, hence the reversal.

[Ochako Uraraka]

I really can't read and comprehend Gonzou's and Dwarf's posts... I think it could be my head or something.

In particular, I dislike how Dwarf is constantly attacking players for being aggressive. Read earlier when he attacked Parseltongue for being aggressive.

##Vote: Urist McDwarf

I'm placing my vote back on you because I do not like your answer to my question (recall that my vote was initially on you for this question).

I'm going to wait for Gonzai's response on the fact that he tore my post completely out of context and attacked me with it before I think about whether he might be scum or not.

[Rain Nijika]

urist, reasonable reasons for voting someone become valid reasons for lynches very easily when they aren't responded to properly. also aggressiveness isn't something that's inherently scummy either. it feels like all your reasons for votes are just applying some textbook scumtells that people have without putting much effort into doing some Good Old Fashioned Original Scumhunting.

before i go to sleep, some opinions. subject to change since ed1 and all

scummy people:

parseltongue

urist

bogeto

people who haven't done anything memorable and totally should before i wake up:

ikakas

scumhunter:

stormageddon

viking

[Aizen]

Scumtells are such for a reason, you do realize. Magus has been voting for flimsy or superfluous reasons and dropping his votes just as quickly.

Speaking of which:

Magus, can you explain what you dislike about my answer to your question? You also seem to be sidestepping the fact that I am voting you, and the reasons for why.

[Aizen]

Also I voted Parseltongue for being insulting, not aggressive. He wasn't even aggressive in that exchange, he was being quite defensive.

Aggression is indeed not a reason for voting, but it is when you're not giving very good reasons to vote while doing so, and switching them often.

[Ochako Uraraka]

For now, I want Dwarf to explain several things. One of which is what he means by over aggressive and over defensive when he describes the exchange between Parseltongue and I. I'm sure town would have noticed as I did that he has not touched one bit on the content of our exchange, but only on the tone of our exchange (aggressive vs defensive). I want him to address on what Parseltongue and I have brought up in our exchange like the others have done.

##Vote: Urist McDwarf

I dislike that you're very vague and only barely touched on what I wanted you to explain.

[Aizen]

Overagression is what you have been doing the whole game. Wild mass finger pointing and pushing around your vote with wild abandon. The inflated paranoia does not help things any.

Hyperdefense is when Parsel wwas spending all his time defending without doing any scumhunting, which did not turn out to be the case (mostly because there was little else to comment on in the first place)

I do believe I have touched quite a lot on the exchange and it's issues. The sidestepped questions are a dumb accusation (one you keep bringing up, also the game doesn't have a lie detector, so quit speculating) The GrapeSoda scumparing is ridiculous, as I helpfully pointed out in my graphs.

The accusation of tunneling the whole game is simply quick to judge

I can rest my case here, because all the evidence I've brought up have proven beyond all reasonable doubt that you are scum

This is an extremely haughty thing to say and only makes you look bad. Especially considering how easy it is to disagree with all your "evidence". It's a terrible way to end an argument and try and put yourself in a higher standing.

I am surprised I even thought you came out better in that exchange, now that I reread it.

You also continue to sidestep my vote on you while attacking me further. Smells like OMGUS.

[Ochako Uraraka]

Yet, your vote on me, as proclaimed by you, was in reaction to my vote on you earlier on in the day.

I have addressed the fact that the only reason you voted for me was for overaggressiveness. Other players have addressed it as well.

You, on the other hand, failed to address what they've advised you.

I'm happy with my vote on you at the moment.

Note also that you only bothered to clarify yourself after I asked the question again. You flip flipped a lot as well.

I've said my piece here, take your time to ponder what I've said.

[Aizen]

Thank you for oversimplifying everything I have posted so far. Surely I must be a neanderthal to be unable to understand my complex reasoning and debate.

I didn't "clarify" myself more then "repeat myself and add a few things to it".

You, on the other hand, failed to address what they've advised you.

Also what does this even mean?

[Aizen]

Furthermore I have an actual case on you that I addressed as soon as I voted you and have continued to address, while at the same time defended myself from opposite thinking.

You continue to attack me after I voted you, and you STILL have yet to defend against any reasoning I have put forth against you.

Which one looks more like OMGUS?

[Ochako Uraraka]

urist, reasonable reasons for voting someone become valid reasons for lynches very easily when they aren't responded to properly. also aggressiveness isn't something that's inherently scummy either. it feels like all your reasons for votes are just applying some textbook scumtells that people have without putting much effort into doing some Good Old Fashioned Original Scumhunting.

This is an example of something you've not addressed.

I can scour out more for you.

Before talking all "high and mighty", actually look at what's on the ground first or else you will fall, badly.

I don't even have to defend myself because others have already done so, and your "points" have not proven anything.

[Ochako Uraraka]

I'm not liking how Gonzai has shown up, posted, attacked, tore posts out of context, voted and then disappeared after I pointed out that he misrepresented my post. What do you guys think about this.

Also, I'm fairly certain I've caught ahold of a scum member here, with his constant slip ups and leaving out important facts until prodded again. Thoughts as well?

[Aizen]

Check #133

Also maybe say something about my thoughts about you from #136?

Why don't you defend yourself with your own words instead of relying on others. Didn't you accuse GrapeSoda of buddying me for doing the same thing?

[Aizen]

Also, I'm fairly certain I've caught ahold of a scum member here, with his constant slip ups and leaving out important facts until prodded again. Thoughts as well?

[Ochako Uraraka]

Why don't you defend yourself with your own words instead of relying on others. Didn't you accuse GrapeSoda of buddying me for doing the same thing?

Slip up. I didn't say that at all.

[Ochako Uraraka]

To be honest, my only comments regarding "buddying" up to Grape Soda was one where I said Parseltongue might want to foil his hypothetical scum buddy for town credit. And how is that even buddying with anyone at all?

[Kamina]

There was no making fun of usernames. This might be a slip up on Viking's part (they might have communicated about this and Viking remembered their conversation wrongly), or Viking might have remembered or interpreted Parseltongue's posts wrongly. This is worth noting.

　

Regardless of whether Parseltongue was buddying up to Grape Soda or not (or whether they may even be trying to "befriend" each other), I don't like this sentence because Grape Soda had never made or asked any indirect question. His other post was a complete RVS post and vote on Red Mage. So, is this statement a slip up or contradiction? I'm not sure.

Perhaps it was not the most accurate way to describe this post.

　

I never said that aggressiveness = scum. It's important to know who the more aggressive players are, as these are the ones who tend to have a power of some sort.

I would say that aggressiveness is a reasonable suspicion but not probable cause for a vote, which is why I haven't voted for you. I try to have at least 3-4 reasonable suspicions before I vote to lynch, and since we are playing with longer days as opposed to real time, I didn't think I was quite ready to make the decision to vote.

Why would you want to know which players have a "power of some sort"?

Excessive self-meta.

My "slip up" was deliberate, and it worked about how I thought it will. I am not scum, I am a regular townie.

Why do you need to refer to yourself as a "regular" townie? I don't like this, because it sounds like a vanilla softclaim. Which at this point is more scummy than townish, since based on the setup, scum would likely decide to claim vanilla quite quickly, and might see getting their claim out early as a good way to look like one of the real vanillas. As a townie, you're in no danger of being lynched, and you narrow down the number of targets for the mafia.

Aight I'm going to bed, but I think it's still a bit early to vote. Besides if I end up getting lynched it's not like my vote matters lol

Your vote is the clearest, most objective way to tell your opinions. You can't go back and twist things so you weren't suspicious of someone you voted for, and it contributes to scumhunting by getting reactions. You're able to unvote whenever, it's not like it has to be your final vote, and we're not that close to a hammer. There's insufficient justification for this "too early to vote", IMO.

Magus is jumping on every little thing, it seems. I'm trying to decide if he's scum grasping until enough people consider something lynchworthy, or just an aggressive scumhunter.

[Ochako Uraraka]

What about you? You have not voted at all, Viking, for all the grandeur that you have put into your words. Could this be scum trying to seem as if you are helping town by providing such advice for other players (that you yourself don't heed).

[Kamina]

What about you? You have not voted at all, Viking, for all the grandeur that you have put into your words. Could this be scum trying to seem as if you are helping town by providing such advice for other players (that you yourself don't heed).

Not voting yet =/= announcing that it's too early to vote. I'm still reading more carefully. I notice you haven't replied to my comment on you at all.

[Kamina]

Aaaargh, I had a post and lost it.

General points:

McDwarf voting Parsel for being insulting isn't great.

Parsel jumping on Dwarf for voteparking and not Scumhunter when the only difference was who they voted for looks bad.

Dwarf and Magus stayed active, Parsel's activity dropped quite a bit.

My opinion of Bogeto is fairly weak so I want to see what he does in the future, if anything.

##Vote: Parceltongue

[Estelle]

I'm going to explain this one more time, and I have maybe twenty minutes.

Posts with questions that don't have a definitive answer, and that sort of read dramatically, are scummy to me because they feel too artificial. Things like this:

Bogeto provided a convienent excuse, but so soon?

I feel that there could have been other ways to phrase this, but it just feels off to me this way. It's also worded oddly. "He provided a convenient excuse, but so soon?" I don't understand what he means by this--what;s worse, the fact that it was convenient or the fact that he was hasty about it? It's confusing to me.

I guess it drew out something, but it's still early game and I fail to see someone actively coming up with a diversion like that in hopes to nab scum. I am more curious as to why the intent of finding a side reaction. Aren't we supposed to point out things on multiple players? Bogeto you are encouraging straight tunnel vision right there, and calling out those who mean to deviate from static tunneled views.

If I remember correctly he only really called me out after I ragged on him for the flimsy post, but at least Soda's acknowledging the fact that I'm not looking to tunnel Illusio and this is why I stopped talking about our argument.

I'm not discouraging other players to read our argument and comment on it for themselves, but for some reason Bogeto seems to think otherwise (which doesn't make sense since this is forum mafia and anything posted can be read over again; I would understand if this were spoken mafia or something, but it's not).

The rest of that Grape Soda post is not as bad as the stuff before it, so I guess there's not as much to explain as I thought I had to explain. It seemed more forced the first time I read through it, but I guess what truly bothered me was the first half before the vote was made. I read through the last page hastily and I haven't read all of the page and a half that I missed yet because I'm in a rush, so I can't address much else yet. Would like to say I'm proud of Jay Gatsby for having an actually sound case on me for once (too bad I'm town though).