Also, Grak didn't say masons are the best people in the town to eat nightkills. You're putting words in his mouth. He said it's the best use of masons, which (once they're revaled) is true- an outed mason's best use is to take a nightkill that isn't being used on a power role. A non-revealed mason's best use is to take a bandwagon and then pop up and confirm themselves and make the wagon look silly (hi ZDS!).
For your reference, Grak said this:
Quote from Grak »
If we can force the mafia into killing the masons, then that's a win for us. Because, IMO, the best use for a mason is to eat a nightkill.
Notice that none of those caveats that you articulated in your explanation were present in his. Hence, my response.
I said the exact same thing as the second part of your post as my rationale for not wanting the second mason to come forward.
Take my word for it when I say the only danger is them killing the masons. Which, as stated, does not seem like a danger to me. Trying to kill me would only benefit us.
And frankly, once I use the ability, there will be no concern about my alignment. And if the target is a mason, there will be no concern about his either.
Alright, I'm willing to take your word on this for now. I still would rather not out the second mason on D1 though.
Yes, yes yes. I know we'd rather lose a vanilla than a mason, but you have to trick the mafia into killing vanillas but they kill masons willingly.
When designing a setup, you have to design it with the fact that the mafia/SK will probably need to nightkill most of the masonry.
Besides, I didn't say "the best player the mafia can kill at night is a mason." I say "the best use for a mason is to be nightkilled." And it is. That is also the best use for a vanilla mafia member.
Oh, sure, it's nice to have a mason survive till the end game... but it almost never happens. And besides, a cop can basically "create" masons for 3-4 nights.. and if you do the math, the town is better off if the mafia spends 3 nights kill masons rather than cop hunting.
First off, you are ignoring the possibility of a doctor in the set up Graky-poo. Depending on what other roles are out in the open, protecting masons in the early game is a perfectly acceptable strategy that mafiosi/SKs have to take into consideration.
Secondly, the cop creates cop-confirmed townies, not exactly masons. Enough roles exist that mess with cop results that they are not even in the same league as far as confirmed-ness that masons are.
Thirdly, I find it an interesting slip which I highlighted in bold from your quote. Are you planning on killing me in my sleep?
Alright, I'm willing to take your word on this for now. I still would rather not out the second mason on D1 though.
It's the town's call, obv. But if the required circumstances align before the 2nd mason claims, I'm not gonna have a lot of choice but to use it on ZDS and hope he's telling the truth.
Quote from AG »
First off, you are ignoring the possibility of a doctor in the set up Graky-poo. Depending on what other roles are out in the open, protecting masons in the early game is a perfectly acceptable strategy that mafiosi/SKs have to take into consideration.
Meh. Depends on the mason. Most of the time, the doc is better off protecting big name players.
Quote from Abbey »
Secondly, the cop creates cop-confirmed townies, not exactly masons. Enough roles exist that mess with cop results that they are not even in the same league as far as confirmed-ness that masons are.
For the purpose of endgame situations, there isn't much difference. Normally, by then the cop is dead, as are most of masons.
Quote from AG »
Thirdly, I find it an interesting slip which I highlighted in bold from your quote. Are you planning on killing me in my sleep?
First of all, stop using my line
Second of all, I think I meant mafia in the sense of the "game" and not in the sense of the "team." Either that, or I meant to type vanilla townie instead. Either way, the intended meaning is the same. We're discussing "tree" theory.
I def didn't mean that vanilla mafia should submit the NK. What I meant was that vanilla townies should absorb the nightkills whenever possible.
Well, it's a good thing people aren't just bandwagonning me to death. It seemed a lot of people were calling my plan scummy without saying why. Pod already did the math behind it, and while lynching is probably a worse strategy than vigging, the idea behind it was still solid. If we lynch nothing but townies and we leave the masons alive, we come to lynch or lose a day earlier than if we vig them. As long as there are 2 kills/night then we come to LoL the same day we would with or without vigging them, but as soon as the SK goes, we gain a lynch. I still don't believe the claim, but if there is the possibility that Grakthis can remove their liability, then my reason for lynching them goes away. I don't think we should let him go very long without the other mason though. Unvote
@Grak : in this case, do you mind if we wait a little before my partner is revealed and before you use your ability ?
There are still things to learn from my partner being wagonned (if it happens).
How is what you bolded a slip ?
As far the interest of the town go, the best use for a mafia member is to die. Where's the problem ?
I am not arguing that in the town's case, the best use to a mafia player is to die. No one is going to argue it.
The way that I saw it as a slip by Grakthis is the following: He is talking about in theory, which townie roles are best to suck up NKs. If you read the context (see posts 485, 487, 489 and 497) of what Grakthis and I had been talking about quickly (which I did the first time) based on context, you would expect the bolded part to say "Vanilla townie". Instead, it said "vanilla mafia member." Freud may be right or he may not in Grak's case, but either way, I felt it would be useful to point out.
DYH, call it just a curious on my part, by why (if you're so sure of my scumminess) have you not proxied your vote to the one person we know would carry out your wishes?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're town and I'm mafia, you've already lost. You just don't know it yet.
What if I were to say that my role has a way to remove the -2 vote limitation from one of the masons, IF a specific set of circumstances align and IF the mason is telling the truth about his alignment? Like, it is such that I would argue my role's ideal interaction is probably with one of these masons.
Would that change people's opinions about the plausibility of the roles existing?
Well, I obviously don't know exactly what you are talking about, but it sounds like it might be the kind of thing that would ease my mind a bit about ZDS's claim. The -2 to lynch thing never sat right. But if it "interacts" with another role, then it may, in fact, be more "elegant" than I was giving it credit for being.
Right now I'd say I'm twinging most on the group of Vampyr, Hvir, Sutherlands, Xyre, and Loran. Especially those first two. With the lurker group of Athos/Hawkeye/LJustus being essentially unknowns.
More to come....
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Bateleur »
Ambush Krotiq makes me laugh so much. I keep rereading the card and it keeps not having Flash. In what sense is this an ambush again? I just have visions of this huge Krotiq poorly concealed in some bushes, feeling slightly sad that his carefully planned ambushes never seem to work.
Lynching masons would be dumb. Grak can work his magic however he wants, but if the masons don't want to come out he shouldn't be able to insist on it.
Oh for crying out loud. Is there anyone who wants to lynch ZDS? I'm pretty sure every single person who's posted in the last 48 hours has commented on how pointless that would be, so I'm completely failing to see why people are arguing against it anymore. Can we move on, please?
BTW, Suth, I'm pretty sure I'm voting you.
Vote atlseal. At least this is a wagon that has potential to go somewhere.
What?! Look at the initial post; he is dead. Deceased. Kaputt. Indefinitely horizontal. In mafia games, you see, people are occasionally "killed off," and when that sad event occurs, he or she is no longer allowed to post, on account of rigor mortis and what-have-you.
'Welcome to Mafia Salvation', it said, 'Population: 3,660.' And someone, they never figured out who, had painted on the sign in red letters: '1,831 to lynch.'
Since it seems like there is a wagon on me growing, I'd like to state that like ZDS, I'll need to claim at 9 instead of 11 (if it wasn't obvious, I suffer from the same problem he does).
@Pod:
- Suth
- Spoon
- Cyan
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're town and I'm mafia, you've already lost. You just don't know it yet.
1st Post: Random vote + largely irrelevant question.
2nd Post: Public Service Announcement. Makes a lot of comments here, some kind of specific and some very general. But the main thing is that he doesn't actually say much of anything. Says Xyre's question to Spoon was not scummy (though adds that Xyre gave a "poor" response when questioned about it). Says people can role-play if they want to. Gee, thanks. Says we shouldn't be seeking out information about Spoon - the information will come out "when the time is right." How very metaphysical of you. And Grak doesn't seem too condescending to him. Which only proves he doens't know Grak.
Then the odd remark about this being a "Public Service Announcement."
Fairly wordy post to say very little. But, okay, it's still early.
3rd Post: Jokes with Grak about Grak referring to him as "Vampyre." Meaningless. Agrees with Xyre that it's frustrating when someone attacks you by saying "oh, but a scum would do exactly the same thing in your situation." Okay.
4th Post: This is the one that really started trippin' the old scumdar. Remember, he already said he thought Xyre's question to Spoon was not scummy. Now, he (again) agrees with something Xyre says - in this case, that it's possible to get distracted by someone while you are typing and type something you didn't mean - but nevertheless votes for Xyre. because he doesn't buy Xyre's explanation that this was what he thought might have happened with Spoon.
This is what's known as stretching to justify a vote. You don't want to be perceived as a bandwaggoner, so you come up with a "basis" for the vote. But the fact is, your basis (Spoon's post was so short that he must have meant it that way and it couldn't have been the typo Xyre suggested) is weak, and contradictory with your earlier responses to Xyre.
I might also add that this vote followed my vote.
(Then CP votes Xyre; Cyan votes Xyre; Loran votes Xyre. CP unvotes because the wagon is too popular, and later votes Hvir, which I join him in)
5th Post: Unvotes Xyre. Now says that he's been "rereading" and he's getting a "frustrated" tone from Xyre as opposed to a "desparate" one. So now he thinks Xyre is town (note: not because of what Xyre has actually posted, which Vamp still apparently thinks was "stretching").
Makes a comment on CP's multi-vote that he's never seen one wielded so recklessly, but doesn't actually give an opinion on whether he thinks that's scummy or not. Just throws it out there.
Takes a dig at me for not explaining my vote on Hvir (never a good idea, btw). And also questions Loran for his vote on Xyre. Seems to think that Loran was stretching to justify a vote on Xyre. Is that Pot/Kettle? I think it is. Doesn't vote for Loran though.
6th Post: Now he votes for Loran. His stated basis is that his earlier post was a "test ballon" regarding Loran, and when Loran came back he was "uncooperative." I find this underwhelming as a reason to place a vote. The "question" that you asked Loran was not exactly an objective neutral question to begin with. You essentially said "Hey Loran, it looks to me like you are voting Xyre for a BS reason, am I right?" What is the appropriate response for that kind of question, anyway?
7th Post: Re-affirms that he was just waiting for a response from Loran before voting for him, and when he got one, then he voted. Acknowledges that he might have missed where Loran already answered the same question, but still thinks the response was uncivil.
8th Post: Says that several people are not playing the way he is "used" to seeing them play. Not sure what this means, but is going to keep an eye on it.
How's that working out for ya' anyway?
9th Post:
DYH is explaining about "Dwight McCarthy" to Grakthis. I don't get the "Gaaaa" response from Vamp here. It's not like knowing that spoils your ability to read Sin City. Also defends himself from an attack by Spoon, saying that when he voted Loran he was also agreeing with other people's reasons for voting him, but didn't bother to re-state those reasons.
10th Post: More defense. Mischaracterizes the attack being made against him as "you have to come up with something new in order to vote for someone" and rants about how ridiculous that is. Indeed, that would be ridiculous, if that were true and it was the reason that Spoon was attacking you. But that's a strawman right there.
I'll note here Vamp's complete lack of mentioning of the top wagon of the day - namely ZDS. Hasn't said a thing at all about him all game.
12th Post: oh look, another dig at me. I called Sutherlands scummy because of THIS post But I didn't vote for him. Vamp seems to think that's hypoctitical of me.
He says he's in favor of the other Mason staying underground, which is fine. And says Sutherlands is spewing garbage. This is a little playing both sides of the fence. I mean, you can be suspicious of whoever you like, but you'd think if you were going to be suspicious of me, you wouldn't also be suspicious of the person I'm calling scummy in the very same post.
I don't see anything particularly townish here. A lot of stuff that I could see a scum doing. The wagoning, the weak justification of votes, the mild pot-shots at me. Vamp. not saying anything about ZDS the entire time of that wagon was suspicious. And the way he defended Xyre, voted Xyre, and unvoted Xyre don't really track. I don't see what "responses" of Xyre's that he made that would have made Vamp. feel better about him. Vamp didn't point any of those out either, just said that he was detecting this townish "tone" from them. Hasn't given very many opinions about other players either - he's been fairly narrowly focused. Xyre, Loran, and that's about it. Seems like he's definitely trying to stay under the radar and not make waves.
Anyway:
Vote: Vampyr
ewp: I've been working on this for a while, and I see that there's a wagon building on atlseal now. I'm going to look at that in a bit.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Bateleur »
Ambush Krotiq makes me laugh so much. I keep rereading the card and it keeps not having Flash. In what sense is this an ambush again? I just have visions of this huge Krotiq poorly concealed in some bushes, feeling slightly sad that his carefully planned ambushes never seem to work.
This is stupid. You say vigging us "is the prime strategy" (to make sure we don't become a liability in endgame), but you are opposed to using an ability which can entirely remove our drawback, and therefore the need to vig in the first place.
Makes sense.
@Grak : do you need to know who is the second mason ?
You're not paying attention. Your "drawback" isn't much of one, because if the town wagons you, it's going to be to eliminate you, and so you're not (right now) in danger of being killed solely for that drawback. Later in the game, once we're down to, oh, five people, then yes, that's a problematic drawback, but I honestly don't see you surviving that long, and if you do, then we'll address the problem then. I have a feeling I know what the ability to remove the drawback is, and if I'm correct, then it definitely shouldn't be used right now.
Just checking in for the day...i've started an analysis of this game and each player like i did in my other game (geass), but considering this game is 513 posts long, its taking me a bit longer.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Mafia MVP Harry Potter Mafia!
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
Quote from Seppel »
I love Joboman, Poggy, Niv, and Vezok, because, while they may not be the best players, they still try to win. Having fun is the most important thing to a game, but I've learned that if you don't try to win, then you're ruining everyone else's fun.
EBWODP: Xyre- do you think there's likely to be other people out there with Grak's ability? And if so, and they're townie, should they counterclaim him?
@atlseal: Because A) I think ZDS is town with his mason claim, and B) I figured he'd get around to changing it for me eventually (which he has).
@RafK: You're right, except that in the endgame, the scum will likely be able to figure out who that other mason is and terminate him with a quicklynch. It's in our vested interest to find out before our vig bites it. Also, in the event ZDS should be lying, it forces his handright now.
EBWODP: Xyre- do you think there's likely to be other people out there with Grak's ability? And if so, and they're townie, should they counterclaim him?
Personally, I don't think they should right now. I'd rather see his ability put into practice with someone other than a likely vig target first.
@RafK: You're right, except that in the endgame, the scum will likely be able to figure out who that other mason is and terminate him with a quicklynch. It's in our vested interest to find out before our vig bites it. Also, in the event ZDS should be lying, it forces his handright now.
"so in the interest of risk management, what do you suggest we do?"
816KAZ
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
RELAPSED MAFIA JUNKIE
W – 33, L – 19, Broke Games - 9
Calvin & Hobbs Mafia, Mafia MVP
X-Men Mafia Town MVP
Simpson's Mafia - best use of character
Mtgnews Mafia Mafia - Town Madman
Mythos Mafia: the Dunwich Massacre Town MVP
English Literature Mafia Town MVP
Best Role-Playing Sin City Mafia
Werewolf Mafia - Mafia MVP
Doctor Mafia - Mafia MVP
Mafia: Escape from the Cylons - Town MVP
Lost Mafia - Co SK Winner with Kops
Random Mafia 3 - Town MVP
@RafK: You're right, except that in the endgame, the scum will likely be able to figure out who that other mason is and terminate him with a quicklynch. It's in our vested interest to find out before our vig bites it. Also, in the event ZDS should be lying, it forces his handright now.
DYH, did you see the part where we now have another person out claiming the same restriction and vigging all the "liabilities" is becoming even less of a serious option?
And if DYH thinks ZDS is town, why is he advocating a step that only works out well for the town if ZDS is scum?
I have a nasty feeling that there are both good and bad roles looking for these "liability" roles, and this stealth desire of DYH's to expose ZDS' claimed mason partner worries me.
If we're going to follow through with the vig-a-mason plan to test the theory- then we should have the second mason revealed, IMO. However, it seems we have another claiming to be stricken with the lynch -2 disease, and someone who can clear that up, so things are a bit tricky.
Frankly, I'd prefer if we could go back in time and erase ZDS pointing out that he would die at lynch-2, but since that's not a possibility, we've got a quandry.
Thought: So, if ZDS comes forward and reveals his partner, does get vigged and turns up town, Grakthis could theoretically cure the partner's problem, right? That doesn't seem awful.
DYH, did you see the part where we now have another person out claiming the same restriction and vigging all the "liabilities" is becoming even less of a serious option?
No, I hadn't read that far when I responded earlier. That's my fault. I wanted to respond to atlseal's little quip about why I hadn't moved my proxy.
Quote from RafK »
And if DYH thinks ZDS is town, why is he advocating a step that only works out well for the town if ZDS is scum?
This is a horrible point and you know it. My thinking ZDS is town is irrelevant insofar that I have no evidence to back it- only everything that's been presented in-thread. If we're going to follow through with vigging a claimed mason, it at least stands to reason to be able to verify his partner when he's dead as town, or force his hand today if he's scum. You may say "only a suicidal scum would counter-claim the mason" but you don't know when that situation could arise - endgame - janitor - etc. Hell, we don't even know if roles will be revealed upon death.
Quote from RafK »
I have a nasty feeling that there are both good and bad roles looking for these "liability" roles, and this stealth desire of DYH's to expose ZDS' claimed mason partner worries me.
unvote, vote DYH
Conspiracy theories already? Duly noted. Let's stick to finding scum and worry about this rhetoric when we have reason to, eh?
And meanwhile we're left with at least atlseal who's still around with the "liability", and quite possibly at least one other, and this depends on Grakthis surviving.
This also fails to take into account that there's probably more than one role looking for these "liability" people (in addition to Grak), and at least one is probably scum. I am currently thinking that you are it.
This is a horrible point and you know it. My thinking ZDS is town is irrelevant insofar that I have no evidence to back it- only everything that's been presented in-thread.
It's not irrelevant- if YOU think he's town, why are YOU the person presenting a plan that's only good if he's scum?
If we're going to follow through with vigging a claimed mason
Which we shouldn't.
Conspiracy theories already? Duly noted. Let's stick to finding scum and worry about this rhetoric when we have reason to, eh?
I think we have reason. You are presenting plans which completely ignore the large possibility of scum roles messing them up (or outright benefitting from them). You played in Sin City- you know that making plans on that basis is outright dangerous.
Incidentally, town-DYH has been a mason in several games recently and I'm pretty sure town-DYH never supported outing his mason buddies just in case of a scum counterclaim in LYLO!
And you'd be wrong. In fact, the idea that there'd be someone else looking for these "liabilities" seems wrong. What - are they going to "break" them even further? Make it -4 to lynch? This doesn't look like a Rand Al'Thor situation in WoT Mafia (on News)*.
* Cyan can elaborate on how that interaction worked if he cares to, it was his game.
I agree with DYH that it seems unlikely that this is a symmetrical relationship. At least, in the context that there are multiple people that can interact with those that require less than the normal amount of votes to lynch. As he stated, there doesn't seem to be much that could be done in a negative context.
However, I also doubt that we have a slew of townies running around that all can be lynched at 2 less votes than normal. I'm thinking that we have some scum and some town that have this drawback. Since ZDS is likely not scum, and if he's not, his mason partner also isnt, and since I already thought atlseal was scum, now I am even more convinced of this.
It's not irrelevant- if YOU think he's town, why are YOU the person presenting a plan that's only good if he's scum?
You're infuriating. I did not present the plan for the hell of it- only if we're going to vig the claimed mason.
Quote from RafK »
Which we shouldn't.
That's what's being debated right now. This is like my argument with Axelrod in DotA mafia where he kept leaving out key elements (namely, the RB should come out "later"). See the above - I'm only advocating the plan if we're going to vig ZDS.
Quote from RafK »
I think we have reason. You are presenting plans which completely ignore the large possibility of scum roles messing them up (or outright benefitting from them). You played in Sin City- you know that making plans on that basis is outright dangerous.
Yeah, and I died during Day One. I skimmed through and read the end. Fact is, I'm not ignoring that, though. See my reference to the janitor above?
Quote from RafK »
Incidentally, town-DYH has been a mason in several games recently and I'm pretty sure town-DYH never supported outing his mason buddies just in case of a scum counterclaim in LYLO!
You've played in both those games and my entire mason group was revealed day one in both. Mainly because your ego wouldn't let it go in Elegant, and Cyan started some crazy-ass cult theory in DotA. So, this was never really an issue, now was it?
You've played in both those games and my entire mason group was revealed day one in both. Mainly because your ego wouldn't let it go in Elegant, and Cyan started some crazy-ass cult theory in DotA. So, this was never really an issue, now was it?
Yes, your entire mason group was revealed on day 1 in both games, but you, as town, were not in favour of it. In DotA it was the scum Sutherlands who led the charge to out the masons (with an assist, as you say, from Cyan). In Elegant, despite your ad hom attack on my credibility, I- as town cop- made you reveal your masons because I legit thought you were scum due to my role PM.
Yes, your entire mason group was revealed on day 1 in both games, but you, as town, were not in favour of it. In DotA it was the scum Sutherlands who led the charge to out the masons (with an assist, as you say, from Cyan). In Elegant, despite your ad hom attack on my credibility, I- as town cop- made you reveal your masons because I legit thought you were scum due to my role PM.
Because there were THREE of us in each case.
I was perfectly okay with revealing one and leaving the other one out of it.
Of course, WoD came in and blew that up in Elegant and DotA was another matter because of Cyan's cult theory.
No, I'm perfectly content to have my other two mason partners come out at this point so we can expose Cyan for the fraud that he is. No more stupid games- I'm getting sick of having to defend myself against ridiculous accusations with both an outside confirmation and a mason claim.
Let me get this straight- you're seriously wanting to follow up on this CL lead, yet wanting my mason partners to not come forward.
Uhh, Cyan, that's the part that clears me.
You can't selectively choose to not have that happen by using the "off-chance" I'm not lying logic. If you really want to pursue this avenue, they have to come out.
This would the point where you admit your read of me is wrong and start A) defending yourself, and/or B) provide a reasonable case on someone else.
So I'm afraid you're totally wrong. (Just like I was about Cyan in DotA, but hey that's not the point. :mad:)
Also, sorry I threw the ego comment in earlier - it wasn't necessary.
Can you guys please stop bickering so we can get back to lynching atlseal? I understand the irony of me being the one making this suggestion, as opposed to someone making it to me, but seriously...you guys aren't doing us any favors.
Hey guys, sorry I've not been around. I've been busy with the family this last week. I'll get caught up and take a look at the thread and post my thoughts.
It will probably be sometime tomorrow before I have anything serious to add.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Straddling the thin line between genius and insanity.
DYH: Those bits of you being willing for your partners to come out were in each case after pressure to reveal to clear. It wasn't something you proposed of your own accord.
Cyan- maybe; I'd like to see some other opinions on DYH first, thanks.
Analysis of each player starting form the top. Until the end of my analysis, I’m only fosing people until I can make a final conclusion.
Spoon
#7-Random votes Sutherlands (vote in blue) Uses the “we” pronoun.
#38-Says he was just speaking and that he has no relation to pod.
#90-Says he dislikes being voted without a reason (re xyre). Unvotes
#95-Replies again to Xyre, double votes himself to satisfy my inquiry based on his colored voting
#134-FOSes Arimnaes, citing opportunism.
#184-Votes Az to see if it works.
#214-Votes Arim for roleplaying/possible PR
#239-Comments on how after Vamp got called out for fence sitting, vamp voted the wagon with the most votes.
#245-Again at Vamp, points out that vamp doesn’t “do something other than bandwagon.” Points out vamp joined two major wagons and didn’t add anything. Still doesn’t vote vamp.
#282-Votes grak for the “retardspeak” referring to the loaded language talk. Asks alx to use default font rather than black font.
#327-Replaying to Grak’s reply, saying that Grak is a hypocrite, and explains why Grak’s explanation is flawed. Further complains that Grak shouldn’t speak down to people and then apologizes for the retardspeak comment.
#339-Explains to atlseal (who voted him) that he used “we in 327 to indicate the rest of the town. FOSes atlseal for the vote.
#343-Says he dislikes people viewing mafia games in invisible mode.
#409-Explains (presumably to cyan in 408) that the game is set after the trilogy.
#506-Unvotes, Says he’s still suspicious of Vamp.
Final Thoughts: Spoon’s a bit weirder than I thought. He has a little issue with arim early, but in the middle of it, and way later than random voting (184) he votes Azrael….which is kind of weird considering in the previous post he is on Arim and in the next post he’s back on arim. Also, there’s multiple times he criticizes vamp for his bandwagoning and fence sitting, but he never actually votes vamp himself. Weird posting thus far.
Fadeblue
#104-Checks into the game, says he’ll continue to be in “observation mode”. Says he’ll enjoy grakthis being in this game.
#116-Remarks that there’s an interesting baseless wagon on ZDS and that Suth requires attention. Asks if anyone can explain how ZDS is scummy
#128-Tells Sutherlands he’s scummy for being4th on a wagon that has no basis
#210-Apologizes for not posting, mentions he has a theory about CP which he has to think over.
#293-Says he thinks there’s a better play than ZDS, but would like to hear ZDS’ response before commenting.
#332-Explains his comment…says wagon was a bit spurious and that axel’s comment wasn’t really enough to wagon zds, and that Sutherlands shouldve been a better play. Posts his vote count of who was on the wagon.
#354-Re: a DYH post adding to his vote count, admits that Cyan, wiz, rafk, and ag should be added to the list. Says that once again he doesn’t see zds scummier than suth.
#358-Replying to arim’s question of why he isn’t voting Suth, mentions that he was considering voting arim in his last post.
#377-Replying to suth’s defense, he corrects Sutherlands saying that suth was the fourth person to vote zds, not 2nd. (Outside Comment, @the time axel led the wagon that led to ZDS’ claim, suth appeared to be 2nd on the vote count, since he never unvoted from his early vote)
Also says that Suth’s posting vote counts is unusual.
#386-Replying to Sutherlands again, says that the vote counts is suspicious behavior but doesn’t fall under the category of scum tells (?).
#397- Re Arim’s 396, he says that he never said Sutherlands was the scummiest player in the game, just scummier than ZDS.
#404- Re Cyan’s 403, disagrees and says that while there maybe roles outside the trilogy (a trick first seen in sin city), that only makes ZDS’ claim slightly less likely.
#416-Tells people to stop setup speculation about characters who may or may not be in the game. Says that his character isn’t listed in Sutherlands’ #412 list.
#418-Re Sutherlands, says he wasn’t accusing Sutherlands in 417 and repeats that claiming major or minor character is a dumb idea. Defends ZDS’ claim from attacks based on obsureness and the drawback.
#426-Disagrees with axelrod about mason drawback, saying that drawback is elegant, and that it is plausible.
#460-Asks CP if he’s going to try to game the mod on day 1. Still doesn’t see a case against ZDS
#462-Once again defends ZDS’ drawback as true
#467-apologizes to CP for misinterpreting him, and agrees that viggin is a reasonable possibility.
Final Thoughts: Fade’s interesting. Despite plenty of posts, including a good deal on Sutherlands’ scummy actions, he never votes Sutherlands, though he does threaten to vote arim at one point. Still he never gives a reason for that threat, and despite saying that he’s not calling Sutherlands the most scummy player in the game, he never details who he thinks that is, or even gives an FOS or vote. His lack of making votes or FOSes really piques my interest, and I think an FOS Fadeblue is on order. He’s stayed out of other’s attention due to his occasional disappearances.
DYH
#13-Proxys vote to RafK
#15-Re: My questioning his proxy he writes in quotes "Frankly, I don't trust any of you, but given the circumstances, it's a lesser of many evils."
#63-Agrees with Grak about triple posting being fine; makes a joke about me going to Duke. Admits that he’s curious about xyre’s answer to raf’s question (How can “we” be accidental). Agrees that RPers need to be more cautious in how they phrase things.
#80-Tells Grak about his former xyre quote in the sig (about bandwagoned to death from Verona mafia). Responds to pod saying his defense (Xyre’s I think) reminds dyh of xyre’s play in 24 mafia.
#84-disagree’s with the 2nd part of atlseal’s #82, and then agrees with the 1st part. Says that playstyle changes are worth looking for. Says he thinks Xyre’s defense is satisfactory.
#129-Says to Rafk if he doesn’t want to use it (dyh’s vote), then he’ll give it to someone else.
#159-Says he’s not feeling as good as before on xyre thanks to the 2 OMGUS votes. States thought that xyre hasn’t backtracked, but once again compares his thoughts on him to those of 24 mafia, so he’s unsure.
#221-Says the Wagon on CP is a bit “ridiculous” due to triple vote. Says he thinks he sees a pattern to CP’s votes. Mentions vampyr’s tentativeness (pointed out first by arim) Mentions scummy vibes similar to those in blood moon (In reference to either ZDS or vampyr, I can’t tell?) Feels better about Xyre and H-guy.
#223-says that the pattern he thought was there wasn’t, but diagrees with me and says that CP is likely town. Proxies vote to CP.
#238-Explains part of 221 to ZDS, and mentions vamp’s vote only coming out after being called out twice (by arim and dyh).
#242-Explains Az’s Dwight Mccarthy joke.
#249-Re: my joke on arim’s pirateness, claims that the pirate arim in court mafia is a bogus correlation to his “PR” in this game as a pirate in court mafia is different from an agent in the matrix.
#291-After Axel makes the case on ZDS, proxies vote to Axel (essentially voting ZDS, which Axel does in 292)
#299- Agrees that he’s ready for a claim from ZDS.
#320-Asks atlseal why the filler text in a post basically unvoting.
#323-Disagrees with cyan’s argument about zds’ obscurity. Disagrees with Axel’s 2nd question. Compares Atl’s explanation for the filler to Rahl’s in DotA mafia (Rahl was scum).
#333-After an atlseal vote on spoon because of a use of “we”, remarks that its interesting that atl hops on him for semantics, despite atl dismissing DYH’s comment for being semantics. Wonders atl is anxious to find a new wagon, and if atl doesn’t like his name being floated around.
#335-Mentions that Fade left out wizz who FOSed ZDS, and both rafk and ag who made pushes at the wagon without votes. Says to fade that zds’ play bothered him more than Sutherlands (I guess that’s what #221 was about?) and thus he wasn’t opposed to the wagon.
#344-Notes that atl’s attack on spoon is hypocritical considering atl’s #82 (as already commented on in DYH’s #84). Calls atl’s vote on spoon a “flawed, desperate looking vote”.
#353- Points out that alx’s example of cyan was in a game that alx was scum with cyan and that alx’ challenge to find cyan making that comment as town was silly (Shenaneghins!)
#355-Proxies vote to ZDS (promptly used on me, though Im pretty sure DYH didn’t proxy the vote with the intent to vote me), saying he’s losing faith in axel and buys the mason claim.
#366-Chides me for game in progress talk. Upset I beat him to mocking LJ’s comment.
#371-Disagrees with alx about scum fosing (especially each other), bringing up star trek mafia. Says that fos v vote on a scum partner is a worthwhile attack, at least in hindsight.
#400-Chides Cyan for claiming info (at least 2 players in game are not from the matrix).
#452-Calls sutherlands’ plan horrible (regarding the masons), and once again mentions atl as pretty scummy for opportunism.
#476-Tells dagger he was the early person calling out atlseal. Not opposed to vigging ZDS though wonders if they play it that way shouldn’t they know ZDS’ mason partner?
#482-Says atl is essentially strawmanning by focusing on AG’s weaker arguments instead of DYH’s superior ones. Continues to explain why atl requires attention Side Note: In between these points, zds properly changes dyh’s vote to atlseal.
#522-replies to atl about zds changing his vote properly and explains why we might want to know the 2nd mason to rafk.
#526-Comments more on the mason situation and grathkis’ role.
#527-Disagrees with Rafk comparing DYH’s play now to when he was a mason in 2 other games, and says that Rafk is chasing conspiracy theories.
#530-Continues to disagree with Rafk.
#532-Continues to disagree with rafk, getting a little annoyed here (calls rafk infuriating) Explains why the other games are not valid comparisons.
#534- Continues arguing with Rafk
#535-Quote games in question with Rafk.
Final thoughts: DYH reads like nothing but a townie. His concerns about atl are all well founded imo (ill get into this when I get up to the analysis of atl..im going in list order), and there’s not much else to say. He mentions comparisons of feelings to other games a little much for my taste, but never uses them as a sole judge of scumminess and thus that’s not really a big deal at all. I gotta say, I’m fairly convinced DYH is a townie.
WHEW! I gotta go to bed now, but ill continue this tomorrow.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Mafia MVP Harry Potter Mafia!
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
Quote from Seppel »
I love Joboman, Poggy, Niv, and Vezok, because, while they may not be the best players, they still try to win. Having fun is the most important thing to a game, but I've learned that if you don't try to win, then you're ruining everyone else's fun.
Raf, cut it out. He's specifically said he doesn't want to out the other mason unless we decide to vig the first one. If you're going to argue why that's scummy, you have to start with the assumption that we're vigging ZDS, which is by no means clear at this point, and which you are certainly not doing. So give it up.
What?! Look at the initial post; he is dead. Deceased. Kaputt. Indefinitely horizontal. In mafia games, you see, people are occasionally "killed off," and when that sad event occurs, he or she is no longer allowed to post, on account of rigor mortis and what-have-you.
'Welcome to Mafia Salvation', it said, 'Population: 3,660.' And someone, they never figured out who, had painted on the sign in red letters: '1,831 to lynch.'
If we can go back to my 484 (when I first called DYH out, before he had the opportunity to tweak his story and get moral support from Cyan- who is 100% guaranteed to oppose everything I say in every game ever)...
DYH says:
Quote from DYH »
Not opposed to vigging ZDS down the line - don't we need to know who his mason partner is beforehand, though, since the point is to avoid their liability in the late game?
I put it to him that it makes no sense at all to out the mason (or, for that matter, vig ZDS).
He has tried to make the argument about whether "outing the mason" depends on vigging ZDS first. The actual point here, as I said in my post 484, is that there is no reason to out the mason. I had him cold on that, with the stuff from Elegant and DotA (although he tried to get out with ad homs and selective quoting) so he tried to make the argument all about the conditions on outing the mason. But the conditions don't matter- we should not be outing the mason point blank, and if he was town he would have said the same thing.
Not to mention that this thing of pushing a plan "IF" we vig ZDS- which he allegedly doesn't support, but just in case we do!- is classic scum passive-aggressive behaviour. He gets to try to persuade people to do it, but also have the deniability that he didn't really support it if it turns out ZDS is town.
Look, I know DYH is a master of acting reasonable when he's caught out, and I know that my style tends to turn people off without even reading what I say. Build a bridge and get over it- DYH has been caught red-handed using scum tactics and is trying to weasel out by changing the focus. Realising this is your first step towards analysing play instead of analysing attitude.
DYH: Those bits of you being willing for your partners to come out were in each case after pressure to reveal to clear. It wasn't something you proposed of your own accord.
Hmm, speaking of changing your tune. That certainly reads nothing like:
Quote from RafK »
Yes, your entire mason group was revealed on day 1 in both games, but you, as town, were not in favour of it.
In bold, no less.
In the words of Rian: POST PROOF OR RETRACT.
Go back to Elegant or DotA and post where I was strictly anti-reveal. At any point. You won't. You are hinging your case on a bold statement that is wrong.
Furthermore, I didn't change a thing. Look at the quote you've posted directly above. I strictly stated I'm not opposed to vigging ZDS down the line, and if we're going to do that asked if we shouldn't have his partner out. I've defended the point of why I think that's the case should we vig ZDS. I'm not sure what else you want from me, but you haven't "caught me out" at all.
Furthermore, I didn't change a thing. Look at the quote you've posted directly above. I strictly stated I'm not opposed to vigging ZDS down the line, and if we're going to do that asked if we shouldn't have his partner out. I've defended the point of why I think that's the case should we vig ZDS. I'm not sure what else you want from me, but you haven't "caught me out" at all.
You say you're open to vig'ing ZDS down the line and outing the other mason. Do you feel the need to out the other mason now? Or leave that until it's decided ZDS is to die by vig?
I should note that I will be at relatives for the weekend. I may or may not be able to post during this time and should be back sometime Sunday evening.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Current Soul Collector count: 184
PM me if you have any to trade or sell.
Games finished:17
Games ongoing:1
Town/Mafia/Other - 13/2/2
Won/Lost/replaced/modkilled- 4/13/3/1
NK'ed(vig'ed)/Lynched/Endgamed(Survived) - 7(2)/5/5(1)
Matrix Mafia Town MVP
Medieval Mafia Mafia MVP
Ye have enemies? Good, good - it means ye've stood up for something, sometime in thy life. - Elminster of Shadowdale
1st Post: Random vote. Chastises Grak to be less hostile (heh).
2nd Post: Agrees with Pod that we shouldn't worry about what Spoon is at this point.
3rd Post: First post I really didn't like. Apologises for his absence over the weeked, though he wasn't really gone that long. Which is being a bit over-concerned about appearing to be a lurker. Then he makes an internally contradictory post. Says he isn't "terribly impressed" with the Xyre Bandwagon, which seemed built on a minor point, but then appears to say that Xyre's "level of defensiveness" was not excusable. Am I reading this post wrong? It's actually hard to decipher what you are saying here. Then quips about votes being meaningless at this point.
Seems to have some kind of "English Butler" speak going. Using a very consescending tone. No doubt this is part of what's rubbing me the wrong way. It's been a while since I was in a game with him, I do believe, and I can't remember if this is how he normally posts.
4th Post: CP votes for him, and he comes back with this quip. More condescending tone.
5th Post: A bit of a lecture to Xyre, telling him his throwing votes around was pointless and just made him look worse than he already did. So from that I would assume that Hvir is considering Xyre scummish. But he doesn't actually come out and vote or really accuse him of anything.
6th Post: More arguing with Xyre. Says you don't have to vote for someone when you disagree with them (true). Dismisses Xyre's attempt to characterize CP's vote (and my subsequent vote) as a "wagon." Calls it a "storm in a teacup."
I actually didn't care for the way Xyre attempted to categorize the current wagons in his post either. It's one of his posts that I am suspicious of him for.
7th Post: Raf asks him to clarify his earlier remark about Xyre. Hvir says what he meant was that he wasn't impressed with the basis of the wagon. And he doesn't consider Xyre to be scum at this point, just easily flustered. Although he also says he wouldn't be "shocked" if Xyre did turn up as scum. Then chastizes Xyre's rapid voting style some more. Says he would be more impressed if his votes actually stayed on people for a significant period of time.
This is troubling because, again, if you think he's town, why are you criticizing him? Why do you even think he's town at all based on what he's done so far which you have apparently had very little regard for? This is what I don't get.
8th Post: CP is goading Hvir a bit. Hvir does not take the bait. Says the fact CP has 3 votes and is using them so openly makes him think CP is town, so he has no reason to vote for CP. That is not an unreasonable position to take on it's face. His non-challance (spelling?) is still grating.
9th Post: Re-votes Loran, strictly to prove that he has a vote. Says the vote is meaningless and he will remove it as soon as the Mod. posts a vote-count.
I realize it's still early in the game, but he really doesn't appear to be trying very hard.
10th Post: Grakthis accuses him of being "unjustifiably dismissive" (good choice of words, I've been having trouble pining down what's bothering me about the tone). Hvir re-asserts that Xyre's early votes for CYan and Vamp were poor and meaningless, doing nothing but making him look defensive. Hvir is apparently very aware of what "being defensive" looks like, and is going to great leagths to not appear defensive himself. He basically says people have been voting him hoping to get reactions and he is not rising to take the bait.
Advises people to vote when it matters, not just when you can.
11th Post: Again I agree with something Grakthis says. Hvir's refusal to engage anyone voting for him looks a bit like him going "Ah ha, townies, I see your trap and I am not going to fall into it."
His reference to people "capable of rational thought" like "fadeblue, Raf, or Hawkeye7" is odd as well. CP is perfectly capable of rational thought. So am I. Grakthis essentially argues that all reactions are good things, and Hvir disagrees (but asks if other people agree with Grak about that because he might be wrong). Then dismisses Grak's vote as one that doesn't matter. Says no one stands out to him as scummy right now (if they did, he would vote for them).
12th Post: Another post I don't like. It starts as a "summary post" cataloguing the activity since he was last on. Why do this exactly? It's not like you were making an argument against anyone. You didn't even use this "summary" to analize anything. You just did it, and then proceeded to agree with Raf (and Alx) that ZDS's Mason partner ought to stay undercover for now. You didn't need to summarize anything to make that statement.
He then breaks down Sutherlands position (or rather, he "re-states" Sutherlands position "as he understands it") and says he doesn't agree with that position. Sutherlands essentially said, let's just lynch the Masons now since we can afford to kill them now, and we can't afford to have them around in an end-game. Hvir is exceeding tactful in his response here. Saying things like "I don't agree, but maybe I just don't understand it" and this means a townie lynch on Day 1, but we are statistically more likely to have a townie lynch on day one anyway....Also reminds us that ZFS could still just be lying scum, making the question moot.
This whole post is a lot of words to not say very much at all. A pointless summary followed by an unremarkable statement about Masons staying undercover, followed by a lengthy "analysis" of a rather extreme position, which is unlikely to be followed, which hedges it's bets, and concludes by saying I don't agree, but maybe you can explain it better to me.
13th Post: Questions why ZDS revealed he had a -2 to lynch disability when he could have just claimed "Mason" and that should have been enough to get people off of him.
That would be a valid point, maybe, if you were using it to express your suspicions of ZDS. But you are not, right? You appeared to acknowledge the possibility he could be lying, but more in an "anything's possible" kind of way, as opposed to a "I think this might be what's going on" kind of way.
You certainly aren't making that argument. You do not appear to be suspicious of anyone. You have not cast a serious vote the entire game. You have not argued that anyone is more likely than anyone else to be scum. You are standing completely aloof. The closest thing you have done to an analysis is where you go into some detail on what you think Sutherlands appears to be saying about the Masons, and conclude that you disagree with this position. And even that was wishy-washy.
No, I'm not impressed at all.
I still have not looked at this atlseal wagon yet. I don't remember him doing anything especially notable. I know he jumped on ZDS after I made my post about ZDS's apparent psychic abilities, but, considering that it was my point, I didn't think him following was suspicious. And I don't recall anything else sticking out. But I will be checking back.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Bateleur »
Ambush Krotiq makes me laugh so much. I keep rereading the card and it keeps not having Flash. In what sense is this an ambush again? I just have visions of this huge Krotiq poorly concealed in some bushes, feeling slightly sad that his carefully planned ambushes never seem to work.
As you've quoted yourself, you were in favour of your mason partners coming out once it was necessary to prove something (in Elegant it was, as you faced a cop accusation; in DotA you were under a little pressure and wanted to dispel Sutherlands and Cyan's cult accusation, albeit I don't think you were under that much pressure personally).
However, when it's not a benefit to the town to reveal a mason, you don't want the mason revealed. Naturally.
Let's lock you into the position a little more. Do you think the town should vig ZDS? If yes, why should his mason be revealed now?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
..and the reason(s) is/are?
For your reference, Grak said this:
Notice that none of those caveats that you articulated in your explanation were present in his. Hence, my response.
I said the exact same thing as the second part of your post as my rationale for not wanting the second mason to come forward.
Now onto Grak's latest posts:
Alright, I'm willing to take your word on this for now. I still would rather not out the second mason on D1 though.
First off, you are ignoring the possibility of a doctor in the set up Graky-poo. Depending on what other roles are out in the open, protecting masons in the early game is a perfectly acceptable strategy that mafiosi/SKs have to take into consideration.
Secondly, the cop creates cop-confirmed townies, not exactly masons. Enough roles exist that mess with cop results that they are not even in the same league as far as confirmed-ness that masons are.
Thirdly, I find it an interesting slip which I highlighted in bold from your quote. Are you planning on killing me in my sleep?
It's the town's call, obv. But if the required circumstances align before the 2nd mason claims, I'm not gonna have a lot of choice but to use it on ZDS and hope he's telling the truth.
Meh. Depends on the mason. Most of the time, the doc is better off protecting big name players.
For the purpose of endgame situations, there isn't much difference. Normally, by then the cop is dead, as are most of masons.
First of all, stop using my line
Second of all, I think I meant mafia in the sense of the "game" and not in the sense of the "team." Either that, or I meant to type vanilla townie instead. Either way, the intended meaning is the same. We're discussing "tree" theory.
I def didn't mean that vanilla mafia should submit the NK. What I meant was that vanilla townies should absorb the nightkills whenever possible.
1 Alx2-Arimnaes
1 Atlseal-Cyan
1 Carrion Pigeons- Hawkeye7
1 Cyan-Grakthis
1 Grakthis- Spoon
3 Loran16- Athos, Vampyr, DYH
2 Spoon-Wizzpig, Atlseal
3 Sutherlands- Dagger, ZDS, atlseal
2 xyre- Rafaelk, Ljustus
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
I am not arguing that in the town's case, the best use to a mafia player is to die. No one is going to argue it.
The way that I saw it as a slip by Grakthis is the following: He is talking about in theory, which townie roles are best to suck up NKs. If you read the context (see posts 485, 487, 489 and 497) of what Grakthis and I had been talking about quickly (which I did the first time) based on context, you would expect the bolded part to say "Vanilla townie". Instead, it said "vanilla mafia member." Freud may be right or he may not in Grak's case, but either way, I felt it would be useful to point out.
Well, I obviously don't know exactly what you are talking about, but it sounds like it might be the kind of thing that would ease my mind a bit about ZDS's claim. The -2 to lynch thing never sat right. But if it "interacts" with another role, then it may, in fact, be more "elegant" than I was giving it credit for being.
Right now I'd say I'm twinging most on the group of Vampyr, Hvir, Sutherlands, Xyre, and Loran. Especially those first two. With the lurker group of Athos/Hawkeye/LJustus being essentially unknowns.
More to come....
Unvote. I'm still suspicious of Vamp.
BTW, Suth, I'm pretty sure I'm voting you.
Vote atlseal. At least this is a wagon that has potential to go somewhere.
Mafia MVP BM Mafia
Mafia MVP Matrix Mafia
@Pod:
- Suth
- Spoon
- Cyan
Correct, I'm not ZDS's partner, and that's why I'm thinking it may be one of the mechanics of this game.
Cyan has the two scummiest posts in the game so far, and there are not enough people voting for him
I should probably go back and do an actuall PBPA on him. In fact, I will... hopefully tomorrow.
1st Post: Random vote + largely irrelevant question.
2nd Post: Public Service Announcement. Makes a lot of comments here, some kind of specific and some very general. But the main thing is that he doesn't actually say much of anything. Says Xyre's question to Spoon was not scummy (though adds that Xyre gave a "poor" response when questioned about it). Says people can role-play if they want to. Gee, thanks. Says we shouldn't be seeking out information about Spoon - the information will come out "when the time is right." How very metaphysical of you. And Grak doesn't seem too condescending to him. Which only proves he doens't know Grak.
Then the odd remark about this being a "Public Service Announcement."
Fairly wordy post to say very little. But, okay, it's still early.
3rd Post: Jokes with Grak about Grak referring to him as "Vampyre." Meaningless. Agrees with Xyre that it's frustrating when someone attacks you by saying "oh, but a scum would do exactly the same thing in your situation." Okay.
4th Post: This is the one that really started trippin' the old scumdar. Remember, he already said he thought Xyre's question to Spoon was not scummy. Now, he (again) agrees with something Xyre says - in this case, that it's possible to get distracted by someone while you are typing and type something you didn't mean - but nevertheless votes for Xyre. because he doesn't buy Xyre's explanation that this was what he thought might have happened with Spoon.
This is what's known as stretching to justify a vote. You don't want to be perceived as a bandwaggoner, so you come up with a "basis" for the vote. But the fact is, your basis (Spoon's post was so short that he must have meant it that way and it couldn't have been the typo Xyre suggested) is weak, and contradictory with your earlier responses to Xyre.
I might also add that this vote followed my vote.
(Then CP votes Xyre; Cyan votes Xyre; Loran votes Xyre. CP unvotes because the wagon is too popular, and later votes Hvir, which I join him in)
5th Post: Unvotes Xyre. Now says that he's been "rereading" and he's getting a "frustrated" tone from Xyre as opposed to a "desparate" one. So now he thinks Xyre is town (note: not because of what Xyre has actually posted, which Vamp still apparently thinks was "stretching").
Makes a comment on CP's multi-vote that he's never seen one wielded so recklessly, but doesn't actually give an opinion on whether he thinks that's scummy or not. Just throws it out there.
Takes a dig at me for not explaining my vote on Hvir (never a good idea, btw). And also questions Loran for his vote on Xyre. Seems to think that Loran was stretching to justify a vote on Xyre. Is that Pot/Kettle? I think it is. Doesn't vote for Loran though.
6th Post: Now he votes for Loran. His stated basis is that his earlier post was a "test ballon" regarding Loran, and when Loran came back he was "uncooperative." I find this underwhelming as a reason to place a vote. The "question" that you asked Loran was not exactly an objective neutral question to begin with. You essentially said "Hey Loran, it looks to me like you are voting Xyre for a BS reason, am I right?" What is the appropriate response for that kind of question, anyway?
7th Post: Re-affirms that he was just waiting for a response from Loran before voting for him, and when he got one, then he voted. Acknowledges that he might have missed where Loran already answered the same question, but still thinks the response was uncivil.
8th Post: Says that several people are not playing the way he is "used" to seeing them play. Not sure what this means, but is going to keep an eye on it.
How's that working out for ya' anyway?
9th Post:
DYH is explaining about "Dwight McCarthy" to Grakthis. I don't get the "Gaaaa" response from Vamp here. It's not like knowing that spoils your ability to read Sin City. Also defends himself from an attack by Spoon, saying that when he voted Loran he was also agreeing with other people's reasons for voting him, but didn't bother to re-state those reasons.
10th Post: More defense. Mischaracterizes the attack being made against him as "you have to come up with something new in order to vote for someone" and rants about how ridiculous that is. Indeed, that would be ridiculous, if that were true and it was the reason that Spoon was attacking you. But that's a strawman right there.
11th Post: This one is pretty much spam.
I'll note here Vamp's complete lack of mentioning of the top wagon of the day - namely ZDS. Hasn't said a thing at all about him all game.
12th Post: oh look, another dig at me. I called Sutherlands scummy because of THIS post But I didn't vote for him. Vamp seems to think that's hypoctitical of me.
He says he's in favor of the other Mason staying underground, which is fine. And says Sutherlands is spewing garbage. This is a little playing both sides of the fence. I mean, you can be suspicious of whoever you like, but you'd think if you were going to be suspicious of me, you wouldn't also be suspicious of the person I'm calling scummy in the very same post.
I don't see anything particularly townish here. A lot of stuff that I could see a scum doing. The wagoning, the weak justification of votes, the mild pot-shots at me. Vamp. not saying anything about ZDS the entire time of that wagon was suspicious. And the way he defended Xyre, voted Xyre, and unvoted Xyre don't really track. I don't see what "responses" of Xyre's that he made that would have made Vamp. feel better about him. Vamp didn't point any of those out either, just said that he was detecting this townish "tone" from them. Hasn't given very many opinions about other players either - he's been fairly narrowly focused. Xyre, Loran, and that's about it. Seems like he's definitely trying to stay under the radar and not make waves.
Anyway:
Vote: Vampyr
ewp: I've been working on this for a while, and I see that there's a wagon building on atlseal now. I'm going to look at that in a bit.
You're not paying attention. Your "drawback" isn't much of one, because if the town wagons you, it's going to be to eliminate you, and so you're not (right now) in danger of being killed solely for that drawback. Later in the game, once we're down to, oh, five people, then yes, that's a problematic drawback, but I honestly don't see you surviving that long, and if you do, then we'll address the problem then. I have a feeling I know what the ability to remove the drawback is, and if I'm correct, then it definitely shouldn't be used right now.
Experiments Series: #5 (Courtly Intrigue Mafia) | #4 (Drunken Tracker) | #3 (Big Red Button) - coming soon | #2 (Pope Mafia) | #1 (Iso's Inflammable Mafia)
Mini Games: MTGS Mafia Redux II (Invitational, Evil Mirror Universe) | Unreal City
Old Games (bad): The Greenwood Affair | Blood Moon Mafia
1 Alx2-Arimnaes
5 Atlseal-Cyan, Dagger, Carrion Pigeons (2), Pod, DYH
1 Carrion Pigeons- Hawkeye7
1 Cyan-Grakthis
3 Loran16- Athos, Vampyr, ZDS
1 Spoon-Wizzpig
2 Sutherlands- Carrion Pigeons (1), Atlseal
1 Vampyre-Axelrod
2 xyre- Rafaelk, Ljustus,
1 Looking for Dwight’s Corpse-Abbeygargoyle
7 Not Voting- Fadeblue, Hvirfilvindr, Loran16, Alx2, Xyre, Sutherlands, Spoon
13 to lynch.
Man... the not voting list is like a who's who of people who like to fight with me.
I think we should lynch/vig everyone on this list, and if we still haven't won, lynch Cyan.
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
Ah.
I think I know what you mean, and it explains a bit. Means that none of them are guaranteed townies just because of the drawback, though.
@RafK: You're right, except that in the endgame, the scum will likely be able to figure out who that other mason is and terminate him with a quicklynch. It's in our vested interest to find out before our vig bites it. Also, in the event ZDS should be lying, it forces his handright now.
V/LA: 3/21-3/24 & 3/27-3/29
Personally, I don't think they should right now. I'd rather see his ability put into practice with someone other than a likely vig target first.
Experiments Series: #5 (Courtly Intrigue Mafia) | #4 (Drunken Tracker) | #3 (Big Red Button) - coming soon | #2 (Pope Mafia) | #1 (Iso's Inflammable Mafia)
Mini Games: MTGS Mafia Redux II (Invitational, Evil Mirror Universe) | Unreal City
Old Games (bad): The Greenwood Affair | Blood Moon Mafia
"so in the interest of risk management, what do you suggest we do?"
816KAZ
Calvin & Hobbs Mafia, Mafia MVP
X-Men Mafia Town MVP
Simpson's Mafia - best use of character
Mtgnews Mafia Mafia - Town Madman
Mythos Mafia: the Dunwich Massacre Town MVP
English Literature Mafia Town MVP
Best Role-Playing Sin City Mafia
Werewolf Mafia - Mafia MVP
Doctor Mafia - Mafia MVP
Mafia: Escape from the Cylons - Town MVP
Lost Mafia - Co SK Winner with Kops
Random Mafia 3 - Town MVP
DYH, did you see the part where we now have another person out claiming the same restriction and vigging all the "liabilities" is becoming even less of a serious option?
And if DYH thinks ZDS is town, why is he advocating a step that only works out well for the town if ZDS is scum?
I have a nasty feeling that there are both good and bad roles looking for these "liability" roles, and this stealth desire of DYH's to expose ZDS' claimed mason partner worries me.
unvote, vote DYH
Frankly, I'd prefer if we could go back in time and erase ZDS pointing out that he would die at lynch-2, but since that's not a possibility, we've got a quandry.
Thought: So, if ZDS comes forward and reveals his partner, does get vigged and turns up town, Grakthis could theoretically cure the partner's problem, right? That doesn't seem awful.
V/LA: 3/21-3/24 & 3/27-3/29
No, I hadn't read that far when I responded earlier. That's my fault. I wanted to respond to atlseal's little quip about why I hadn't moved my proxy.
This is a horrible point and you know it. My thinking ZDS is town is irrelevant insofar that I have no evidence to back it- only everything that's been presented in-thread. If we're going to follow through with vigging a claimed mason, it at least stands to reason to be able to verify his partner when he's dead as town, or force his hand today if he's scum. You may say "only a suicidal scum would counter-claim the mason" but you don't know when that situation could arise - endgame - janitor - etc. Hell, we don't even know if roles will be revealed upon death.
Conspiracy theories already? Duly noted. Let's stick to finding scum and worry about this rhetoric when we have reason to, eh?
V/LA: 3/21-3/24 & 3/27-3/29
This also fails to take into account that there's probably more than one role looking for these "liability" people (in addition to Grak), and at least one is probably scum. I am currently thinking that you are it.
It's not irrelevant- if YOU think he's town, why are YOU the person presenting a plan that's only good if he's scum?
Which we shouldn't.
I think we have reason. You are presenting plans which completely ignore the large possibility of scum roles messing them up (or outright benefitting from them). You played in Sin City- you know that making plans on that basis is outright dangerous.
Incidentally, town-DYH has been a mason in several games recently and I'm pretty sure town-DYH never supported outing his mason buddies just in case of a scum counterclaim in LYLO!
* Cyan can elaborate on how that interaction worked if he cares to, it was his game.
V/LA: 3/21-3/24 & 3/27-3/29
However, I also doubt that we have a slew of townies running around that all can be lynched at 2 less votes than normal. I'm thinking that we have some scum and some town that have this drawback. Since ZDS is likely not scum, and if he's not, his mason partner also isnt, and since I already thought atlseal was scum, now I am even more convinced of this.
You're infuriating. I did not present the plan for the hell of it- only if we're going to vig the claimed mason.
That's what's being debated right now. This is like my argument with Axelrod in DotA mafia where he kept leaving out key elements (namely, the RB should come out "later"). See the above - I'm only advocating the plan if we're going to vig ZDS.
Yeah, and I died during Day One. I skimmed through and read the end. Fact is, I'm not ignoring that, though. See my reference to the janitor above?
You've played in both those games and my entire mason group was revealed day one in both. Mainly because your ego wouldn't let it go in Elegant, and Cyan started some crazy-ass cult theory in DotA. So, this was never really an issue, now was it?
V/LA: 3/21-3/24 & 3/27-3/29
Yes, your entire mason group was revealed on day 1 in both games, but you, as town, were not in favour of it. In DotA it was the scum Sutherlands who led the charge to out the masons (with an assist, as you say, from Cyan). In Elegant, despite your ad hom attack on my credibility, I- as town cop- made you reveal your masons because I legit thought you were scum due to my role PM.
Because there were THREE of us in each case.
I was perfectly okay with revealing one and leaving the other one out of it.
Of course, WoD came in and blew that up in Elegant and DotA was another matter because of Cyan's cult theory.
V/LA: 3/21-3/24 & 3/27-3/29
For the record:
From Elegant:
from DotA:
So I'm afraid you're totally wrong. (Just like I was about Cyan in DotA, but hey that's not the point. :mad:)
Also, sorry I threw the ego comment in earlier - it wasn't necessary.
V/LA: 3/21-3/24 & 3/27-3/29
It will probably be sometime tomorrow before I have anything serious to add.
Cyan- maybe; I'd like to see some other opinions on DYH first, thanks.
EWP: Hi Athos!
Spoon
#7-Random votes Sutherlands (vote in blue) Uses the “we” pronoun.
#38-Says he was just speaking and that he has no relation to pod.
#90-Says he dislikes being voted without a reason (re xyre). Unvotes
#95-Replies again to Xyre, double votes himself to satisfy my inquiry based on his colored voting
#134-FOSes Arimnaes, citing opportunism.
#184-Votes Az to see if it works.
#214-Votes Arim for roleplaying/possible PR
#239-Comments on how after Vamp got called out for fence sitting, vamp voted the wagon with the most votes.
#245-Again at Vamp, points out that vamp doesn’t “do something other than bandwagon.” Points out vamp joined two major wagons and didn’t add anything. Still doesn’t vote vamp.
#282-Votes grak for the “retardspeak” referring to the loaded language talk. Asks alx to use default font rather than black font.
#327-Replaying to Grak’s reply, saying that Grak is a hypocrite, and explains why Grak’s explanation is flawed. Further complains that Grak shouldn’t speak down to people and then apologizes for the retardspeak comment.
#339-Explains to atlseal (who voted him) that he used “we in 327 to indicate the rest of the town. FOSes atlseal for the vote.
#343-Says he dislikes people viewing mafia games in invisible mode.
#409-Explains (presumably to cyan in 408) that the game is set after the trilogy.
#506-Unvotes, Says he’s still suspicious of Vamp.
Final Thoughts: Spoon’s a bit weirder than I thought. He has a little issue with arim early, but in the middle of it, and way later than random voting (184) he votes Azrael….which is kind of weird considering in the previous post he is on Arim and in the next post he’s back on arim. Also, there’s multiple times he criticizes vamp for his bandwagoning and fence sitting, but he never actually votes vamp himself. Weird posting thus far.
Fadeblue
#104-Checks into the game, says he’ll continue to be in “observation mode”. Says he’ll enjoy grakthis being in this game.
#116-Remarks that there’s an interesting baseless wagon on ZDS and that Suth requires attention. Asks if anyone can explain how ZDS is scummy
#128-Tells Sutherlands he’s scummy for being4th on a wagon that has no basis
#210-Apologizes for not posting, mentions he has a theory about CP which he has to think over.
#293-Says he thinks there’s a better play than ZDS, but would like to hear ZDS’ response before commenting.
#332-Explains his comment…says wagon was a bit spurious and that axel’s comment wasn’t really enough to wagon zds, and that Sutherlands shouldve been a better play. Posts his vote count of who was on the wagon.
#354-Re: a DYH post adding to his vote count, admits that Cyan, wiz, rafk, and ag should be added to the list. Says that once again he doesn’t see zds scummier than suth.
#358-Replying to arim’s question of why he isn’t voting Suth, mentions that he was considering voting arim in his last post.
#377-Replying to suth’s defense, he corrects Sutherlands saying that suth was the fourth person to vote zds, not 2nd. (Outside Comment, @the time axel led the wagon that led to ZDS’ claim, suth appeared to be 2nd on the vote count, since he never unvoted from his early vote)
Also says that Suth’s posting vote counts is unusual.
#386-Replying to Sutherlands again, says that the vote counts is suspicious behavior but doesn’t fall under the category of scum tells (?).
#397- Re Arim’s 396, he says that he never said Sutherlands was the scummiest player in the game, just scummier than ZDS.
#404- Re Cyan’s 403, disagrees and says that while there maybe roles outside the trilogy (a trick first seen in sin city), that only makes ZDS’ claim slightly less likely.
#416-Tells people to stop setup speculation about characters who may or may not be in the game. Says that his character isn’t listed in Sutherlands’ #412 list.
#418-Re Sutherlands, says he wasn’t accusing Sutherlands in 417 and repeats that claiming major or minor character is a dumb idea. Defends ZDS’ claim from attacks based on obsureness and the drawback.
#426-Disagrees with axelrod about mason drawback, saying that drawback is elegant, and that it is plausible.
#460-Asks CP if he’s going to try to game the mod on day 1. Still doesn’t see a case against ZDS
#462-Once again defends ZDS’ drawback as true
#467-apologizes to CP for misinterpreting him, and agrees that viggin is a reasonable possibility.
Final Thoughts: Fade’s interesting. Despite plenty of posts, including a good deal on Sutherlands’ scummy actions, he never votes Sutherlands, though he does threaten to vote arim at one point. Still he never gives a reason for that threat, and despite saying that he’s not calling Sutherlands the most scummy player in the game, he never details who he thinks that is, or even gives an FOS or vote. His lack of making votes or FOSes really piques my interest, and I think an FOS Fadeblue is on order. He’s stayed out of other’s attention due to his occasional disappearances.
DYH
#13-Proxys vote to RafK
#15-Re: My questioning his proxy he writes in quotes "Frankly, I don't trust any of you, but given the circumstances, it's a lesser of many evils."
#63-Agrees with Grak about triple posting being fine; makes a joke about me going to Duke. Admits that he’s curious about xyre’s answer to raf’s question (How can “we” be accidental). Agrees that RPers need to be more cautious in how they phrase things.
#80-Tells Grak about his former xyre quote in the sig (about bandwagoned to death from Verona mafia). Responds to pod saying his defense (Xyre’s I think) reminds dyh of xyre’s play in 24 mafia.
#84-disagree’s with the 2nd part of atlseal’s #82, and then agrees with the 1st part. Says that playstyle changes are worth looking for. Says he thinks Xyre’s defense is satisfactory.
#129-Says to Rafk if he doesn’t want to use it (dyh’s vote), then he’ll give it to someone else.
#159-Says he’s not feeling as good as before on xyre thanks to the 2 OMGUS votes. States thought that xyre hasn’t backtracked, but once again compares his thoughts on him to those of 24 mafia, so he’s unsure.
#221-Says the Wagon on CP is a bit “ridiculous” due to triple vote. Says he thinks he sees a pattern to CP’s votes. Mentions vampyr’s tentativeness (pointed out first by arim) Mentions scummy vibes similar to those in blood moon (In reference to either ZDS or vampyr, I can’t tell?) Feels better about Xyre and H-guy.
#223-says that the pattern he thought was there wasn’t, but diagrees with me and says that CP is likely town. Proxies vote to CP.
#238-Explains part of 221 to ZDS, and mentions vamp’s vote only coming out after being called out twice (by arim and dyh).
#242-Explains Az’s Dwight Mccarthy joke.
#249-Re: my joke on arim’s pirateness, claims that the pirate arim in court mafia is a bogus correlation to his “PR” in this game as a pirate in court mafia is different from an agent in the matrix.
#291-After Axel makes the case on ZDS, proxies vote to Axel (essentially voting ZDS, which Axel does in 292)
#299- Agrees that he’s ready for a claim from ZDS.
#320-Asks atlseal why the filler text in a post basically unvoting.
#323-Disagrees with cyan’s argument about zds’ obscurity. Disagrees with Axel’s 2nd question. Compares Atl’s explanation for the filler to Rahl’s in DotA mafia (Rahl was scum).
#333-After an atlseal vote on spoon because of a use of “we”, remarks that its interesting that atl hops on him for semantics, despite atl dismissing DYH’s comment for being semantics. Wonders atl is anxious to find a new wagon, and if atl doesn’t like his name being floated around.
#335-Mentions that Fade left out wizz who FOSed ZDS, and both rafk and ag who made pushes at the wagon without votes. Says to fade that zds’ play bothered him more than Sutherlands (I guess that’s what #221 was about?) and thus he wasn’t opposed to the wagon.
#344-Notes that atl’s attack on spoon is hypocritical considering atl’s #82 (as already commented on in DYH’s #84). Calls atl’s vote on spoon a “flawed, desperate looking vote”.
#353- Points out that alx’s example of cyan was in a game that alx was scum with cyan and that alx’ challenge to find cyan making that comment as town was silly (Shenaneghins!)
#355-Proxies vote to ZDS (promptly used on me, though Im pretty sure DYH didn’t proxy the vote with the intent to vote me), saying he’s losing faith in axel and buys the mason claim.
#366-Chides me for game in progress talk. Upset I beat him to mocking LJ’s comment.
#371-Disagrees with alx about scum fosing (especially each other), bringing up star trek mafia. Says that fos v vote on a scum partner is a worthwhile attack, at least in hindsight.
#400-Chides Cyan for claiming info (at least 2 players in game are not from the matrix).
#452-Calls sutherlands’ plan horrible (regarding the masons), and once again mentions atl as pretty scummy for opportunism.
#476-Tells dagger he was the early person calling out atlseal. Not opposed to vigging ZDS though wonders if they play it that way shouldn’t they know ZDS’ mason partner?
#482-Says atl is essentially strawmanning by focusing on AG’s weaker arguments instead of DYH’s superior ones. Continues to explain why atl requires attention
Side Note: In between these points, zds properly changes dyh’s vote to atlseal.
#522-replies to atl about zds changing his vote properly and explains why we might want to know the 2nd mason to rafk.
#526-Comments more on the mason situation and grathkis’ role.
#527-Disagrees with Rafk comparing DYH’s play now to when he was a mason in 2 other games, and says that Rafk is chasing conspiracy theories.
#530-Continues to disagree with Rafk.
#532-Continues to disagree with rafk, getting a little annoyed here (calls rafk infuriating) Explains why the other games are not valid comparisons.
#534- Continues arguing with Rafk
#535-Quote games in question with Rafk.
Final thoughts: DYH reads like nothing but a townie. His concerns about atl are all well founded imo (ill get into this when I get up to the analysis of atl..im going in list order), and there’s not much else to say. He mentions comparisons of feelings to other games a little much for my taste, but never uses them as a sole judge of scumminess and thus that’s not really a big deal at all. I gotta say, I’m fairly convinced DYH is a townie.
WHEW! I gotta go to bed now, but ill continue this tomorrow.
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
Mafia MVP BM Mafia
Mafia MVP Matrix Mafia
DYH says:
I put it to him that it makes no sense at all to out the mason (or, for that matter, vig ZDS).
He has tried to make the argument about whether "outing the mason" depends on vigging ZDS first. The actual point here, as I said in my post 484, is that there is no reason to out the mason. I had him cold on that, with the stuff from Elegant and DotA (although he tried to get out with ad homs and selective quoting) so he tried to make the argument all about the conditions on outing the mason. But the conditions don't matter- we should not be outing the mason point blank, and if he was town he would have said the same thing.
Not to mention that this thing of pushing a plan "IF" we vig ZDS- which he allegedly doesn't support, but just in case we do!- is classic scum passive-aggressive behaviour. He gets to try to persuade people to do it, but also have the deniability that he didn't really support it if it turns out ZDS is town.
Look, I know DYH is a master of acting reasonable when he's caught out, and I know that my style tends to turn people off without even reading what I say. Build a bridge and get over it- DYH has been caught red-handed using scum tactics and is trying to weasel out by changing the focus. Realising this is your first step towards analysing play instead of analysing attitude.
Hmm, speaking of changing your tune. That certainly reads nothing like:
In bold, no less.
In the words of Rian: POST PROOF OR RETRACT.
Go back to Elegant or DotA and post where I was strictly anti-reveal. At any point. You won't. You are hinging your case on a bold statement that is wrong.
Furthermore, I didn't change a thing. Look at the quote you've posted directly above. I strictly stated I'm not opposed to vigging ZDS down the line, and if we're going to do that asked if we shouldn't have his partner out. I've defended the point of why I think that's the case should we vig ZDS. I'm not sure what else you want from me, but you haven't "caught me out" at all.
V/LA: 3/21-3/24 & 3/27-3/29
My ability is almost assuridly not what you think it is.
It strikes me as he's replacing his play with chamber's style for the time being.
Seconded.
Oh...
@Cyan: Have you actually made a case against me? (because if you have, I haven't seen it)
You say you're open to vig'ing ZDS down the line and outing the other mason. Do you feel the need to out the other mason now? Or leave that until it's decided ZDS is to die by vig?
I should note that I will be at relatives for the weekend. I may or may not be able to post during this time and should be back sometime Sunday evening.
PM me if you have any to trade or sell.
Games finished:17
Games ongoing:1
Town/Mafia/Other - 13/2/2
Won/Lost/replaced/modkilled- 4/13/3/1
NK'ed(vig'ed)/Lynched/Endgamed(Survived) - 7(2)/5/5(1)
Matrix Mafia Town MVP
Medieval Mafia Mafia MVP
Ye have enemies? Good, good - it means ye've stood up for something, sometime in thy life. - Elminster of Shadowdale
1st Post: Random vote. Chastises Grak to be less hostile (heh).
2nd Post: Agrees with Pod that we shouldn't worry about what Spoon is at this point.
3rd Post: First post I really didn't like. Apologises for his absence over the weeked, though he wasn't really gone that long. Which is being a bit over-concerned about appearing to be a lurker. Then he makes an internally contradictory post. Says he isn't "terribly impressed" with the Xyre Bandwagon, which seemed built on a minor point, but then appears to say that Xyre's "level of defensiveness" was not excusable. Am I reading this post wrong? It's actually hard to decipher what you are saying here. Then quips about votes being meaningless at this point.
Seems to have some kind of "English Butler" speak going. Using a very consescending tone. No doubt this is part of what's rubbing me the wrong way. It's been a while since I was in a game with him, I do believe, and I can't remember if this is how he normally posts.
4th Post: CP votes for him, and he comes back with this quip. More condescending tone.
5th Post: A bit of a lecture to Xyre, telling him his throwing votes around was pointless and just made him look worse than he already did. So from that I would assume that Hvir is considering Xyre scummish. But he doesn't actually come out and vote or really accuse him of anything.
6th Post: More arguing with Xyre. Says you don't have to vote for someone when you disagree with them (true). Dismisses Xyre's attempt to characterize CP's vote (and my subsequent vote) as a "wagon." Calls it a "storm in a teacup."
I actually didn't care for the way Xyre attempted to categorize the current wagons in his post either. It's one of his posts that I am suspicious of him for.
7th Post: Raf asks him to clarify his earlier remark about Xyre. Hvir says what he meant was that he wasn't impressed with the basis of the wagon. And he doesn't consider Xyre to be scum at this point, just easily flustered. Although he also says he wouldn't be "shocked" if Xyre did turn up as scum. Then chastizes Xyre's rapid voting style some more. Says he would be more impressed if his votes actually stayed on people for a significant period of time.
This is troubling because, again, if you think he's town, why are you criticizing him? Why do you even think he's town at all based on what he's done so far which you have apparently had very little regard for? This is what I don't get.
8th Post: CP is goading Hvir a bit. Hvir does not take the bait. Says the fact CP has 3 votes and is using them so openly makes him think CP is town, so he has no reason to vote for CP. That is not an unreasonable position to take on it's face. His non-challance (spelling?) is still grating.
9th Post: Re-votes Loran, strictly to prove that he has a vote. Says the vote is meaningless and he will remove it as soon as the Mod. posts a vote-count.
I realize it's still early in the game, but he really doesn't appear to be trying very hard.
10th Post: Grakthis accuses him of being "unjustifiably dismissive" (good choice of words, I've been having trouble pining down what's bothering me about the tone). Hvir re-asserts that Xyre's early votes for CYan and Vamp were poor and meaningless, doing nothing but making him look defensive. Hvir is apparently very aware of what "being defensive" looks like, and is going to great leagths to not appear defensive himself. He basically says people have been voting him hoping to get reactions and he is not rising to take the bait.
Advises people to vote when it matters, not just when you can.
11th Post: Again I agree with something Grakthis says. Hvir's refusal to engage anyone voting for him looks a bit like him going "Ah ha, townies, I see your trap and I am not going to fall into it."
His reference to people "capable of rational thought" like "fadeblue, Raf, or Hawkeye7" is odd as well. CP is perfectly capable of rational thought. So am I. Grakthis essentially argues that all reactions are good things, and Hvir disagrees (but asks if other people agree with Grak about that because he might be wrong). Then dismisses Grak's vote as one that doesn't matter. Says no one stands out to him as scummy right now (if they did, he would vote for them).
12th Post: Another post I don't like. It starts as a "summary post" cataloguing the activity since he was last on. Why do this exactly? It's not like you were making an argument against anyone. You didn't even use this "summary" to analize anything. You just did it, and then proceeded to agree with Raf (and Alx) that ZDS's Mason partner ought to stay undercover for now. You didn't need to summarize anything to make that statement.
He then breaks down Sutherlands position (or rather, he "re-states" Sutherlands position "as he understands it") and says he doesn't agree with that position. Sutherlands essentially said, let's just lynch the Masons now since we can afford to kill them now, and we can't afford to have them around in an end-game. Hvir is exceeding tactful in his response here. Saying things like "I don't agree, but maybe I just don't understand it" and this means a townie lynch on Day 1, but we are statistically more likely to have a townie lynch on day one anyway....Also reminds us that ZFS could still just be lying scum, making the question moot.
This whole post is a lot of words to not say very much at all. A pointless summary followed by an unremarkable statement about Masons staying undercover, followed by a lengthy "analysis" of a rather extreme position, which is unlikely to be followed, which hedges it's bets, and concludes by saying I don't agree, but maybe you can explain it better to me.
13th Post: Questions why ZDS revealed he had a -2 to lynch disability when he could have just claimed "Mason" and that should have been enough to get people off of him.
That would be a valid point, maybe, if you were using it to express your suspicions of ZDS. But you are not, right? You appeared to acknowledge the possibility he could be lying, but more in an "anything's possible" kind of way, as opposed to a "I think this might be what's going on" kind of way.
You certainly aren't making that argument. You do not appear to be suspicious of anyone. You have not cast a serious vote the entire game. You have not argued that anyone is more likely than anyone else to be scum. You are standing completely aloof. The closest thing you have done to an analysis is where you go into some detail on what you think Sutherlands appears to be saying about the Masons, and conclude that you disagree with this position. And even that was wishy-washy.
No, I'm not impressed at all.
I still have not looked at this atlseal wagon yet. I don't remember him doing anything especially notable. I know he jumped on ZDS after I made my post about ZDS's apparent psychic abilities, but, considering that it was my point, I didn't think him following was suspicious. And I don't recall anything else sticking out. But I will be checking back.
In the words of Rian: POST PROOF OR RETRACT.[/quote]
As you wish:
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=1793197&postcount=604
As you've quoted yourself, you were in favour of your mason partners coming out once it was necessary to prove something (in Elegant it was, as you faced a cop accusation; in DotA you were under a little pressure and wanted to dispel Sutherlands and Cyan's cult accusation, albeit I don't think you were under that much pressure personally).
However, when it's not a benefit to the town to reveal a mason, you don't want the mason revealed. Naturally.
Let's lock you into the position a little more. Do you think the town should vig ZDS? If yes, why should his mason be revealed now?