Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[origamiscienceguy]

*Vivalis hasn't been posting often* forgive my grammar.

[Tiruin]

Back here...

Tiruin, all of your links go to the top of a page for me, so I'm going to have to wait till I get home to answer questions based on those links.

:v
Can you see them now?

Confirmed because he got night killed and flipped cop. Or if you mean me, confirmed because myself and TolyK checked that our roles matched over the course of day two, which you claimed twice that you were reading through.

...Yeah, none of you mentioned the Minister thingy.

Again, you're asking me questions I've already given the answers to. I revealed myself because I had a guilty result and didn't think it worth the risk of getting randomly night killed and losing the information, as well as the fact that it meant out guard would be more likely to keep watch if they knew there was a more likely night kill target around, meaning we'd hopefully know the identity of two of the scumteam by the start of day three for the price of one cop.

...And what made you think that you'd be 'randomly night killed'? You're relating a conclusion by an assumption that is inferred to have been a real possibility instead of a random possibility, in the tone up here.
And regarding the guard: Doesn't that mean that you'd be trusting another...random individual? It seems like that 'fact' is more representative of an ideal watchman rather than the state by which a watchman is (can be any allegiance, rather than the ideal 'town' or 'honest' watchman)
So I'm curious about your stance here. It's wobbly, as it has been since D3. Especially given your tone against me, rather than talking to me.

What are you trying to say here? I investigated someone I found suspicious, do you think I shouldn't have?

:v
The context is you found a Mein Kampf book. You didn't talk about it much when Caz said she didn't have such a book.
So other than the context being under the grounds of 'Caz is miller', it seems like a nice scapegoat to broach upon--or it is a big credit to the 'plant evidence' theory which occurred before.

Let's analyse this for a sec.
*I say that someone who claimed to be a miller and flips town was a miller.
*You ask why I'm so sure that said miller was a miller.
*I answer and ask the meaning behind the question.
*You claim that me asking this proves I'm being defensive.
*I dismiss strange question that you're refusing to provide justification for.
*You claim that me not asking for the meaning of the question proves I'm being defensive.

And I'm supposed to be the jumpy one here?

Yo, jumpy. I said you're jumpy because in between your statements, you add a toxic and 'mean' note towards me. It's in your tone. It feels very well like you're moving to incriminate rather than interrogate (as a real and honest cop in the court of law should). While I'd be apt to debate specifics on this, I'm talking to a player rather than one who is seasoned in the intricacies of law and communication (under the law)--hence why I poked you that "emotional reactions" do not generally work when the other side is experienced or has been exposed and understands such ideas; emotional reactions have a double-sided point--that it requires the personal conclusion on the tester's side.

The orange part here is where our perspectives diverge. I did not ask whether she was a miller--I asked you why your wording in your first posts of the day, seemed very conclusive that the miller was a TOTAL miller, after considering what you said--and WHAT SHE SAID (as evidenced by that one snippet of...evidence back there. You did NOT discuss her having Mein Kampf, despite being a predominant role against Caz.).

Perhaps you missed the part where I revealed that 'Caz is mafia' was part of my result. That seemed like plenty of evidence to try get her lynched because of.

As is how the 'bias' in investigative roles stem from. "Caz is Mafia" has a lot of weight in Mafia (the game) circles, because the cultures (as my research sees it) has a psychological aspect when dealing with information. Saying this, along, is leverage enough is very...shallow to 'try to get her lynched because of'.

...Especially when there is contradicting evidence, in the form of flavor.

You're trying to metagame me off a single instance of play? Good luck with that. Especially considering that I only revealed the flavour of my result on Caz after I gave the actual result and the formatting if that result, when TolyK said that the flavour might play a part in who he voted for. The flavour result I got off you was having another MK in your pack as well as the papers that were in Caz's possession the day before. And then at the end, we had a nice little 'Tiruin is mafia'. As I said above, I was pretty sure I was paranoid after the flavour result, but I wanted to see how you reacted to the guilty result.

Wtf on the first orange, DA :v You're really coming off as a pointy and jumpy person with the tone there. Continuously.
Where is the 'metagame' there, when I'm discussing how your behavior is being, instead of relating it to...whatever your previous actions in other games were?

Now on the second orange part: ...And? Your 'reaction testing' is not by any bar seen as conclusive, but as a personal opinion.
Given your...lacking understanding as to how interrogations are performed, I'll ask you one thing:
> What do you understand about reaction-testing?
And what is your "result" from my one paragraph on it? It didn't mean anything to me given that...if you've a guilty report on one person--you've to give EVERYTHING about it, and not just a 'oh hey light nudge softball poke'. If I were to see it from the scum-viewpoint, it didn't feel sincere...or for better words: "impactful", when you first stated it. As a general note: Brevity does not bode well with me. :v


Also...err, on the lurking thing..its more of a personal thingy than anything else >_< Sorry for bringing it up. I'd ask that we drop the discussion regarding the lurking part. <_<

[Tiruin]

Addendum:

Lying. Untruth. Claiming things are otherwise than they actually are. Like when you claim I supported the planting evidence theory when this is the first post in which I've said anything in favour of it, now that there's actually some evidence that supports it.

Err...when I said 'supported', the meaning of 'support' there was more on you bringing it up as a plausible idea. That is what I mean by you supporting the theory.

..Is this a misunderstanding on terms or something? Because I did initially get the idea of you being twisty, however I'm still sticking to my idea at the end of D2 and at the start of D3 that you're a legitimate cop...though its becoming muddled by your seemingly D:< attitude here. I mean, you could've talked and inquired on such things--but instead you go to extremes, to conclude the negative before assuming an inquisitive stance.

[Tiruin]

Next up @Deus
...o_O
You have a very strange way of interpreting things.
> You pushed for an emotional test (a very blatant one, in my book :v)
Then you...go off and make it into an explosion of malevolent intent.

...Seriously?

And of course, the fact that she DEFINITELY knew that Caz wasn't scum (after she'd flipped) when beforehand the only thing she had to say on the matter was to agree that Caz's wagon was too big.

Uh, no? Given the events of D2--before the flip--I was still not that 'bought into' by the events in concluding Caz being scum--again, by that note of her stating her presence of a book, and you finding such a book in her possession: if that occurrence had not been present, I would be more leaning towards Caz being seen as scum--but something didn't feel right in how it progressed.

In any case, what do you think of the flavour of my result for Tiruin? Do you think it's more likely to be paranoia or evidence planting?

...Also what flavor result? Looking up--you're responding to Flabort, yet I don't see any indicative flavor result.

Comrade:

Odd question. I'm not sure what you want by that. I suppose anyone who I thought was scum or anti-town. Do mean something else by "ideas"?

I don't want 'anything' other than an answer :v Your wording implies something much more, of note.

Also your wording is a bit...off, there?
> What kind of idea would persuade you to vote?
>  I suppose anyone who I thought was scum or anti-town
...?
Yeah its not parsing well -_-
What I meant there is "How do you, as a player, qualify others to be voted upon"? Any other expansion of that kind of question is personal viewpoint.

Could you please explain what you mean by this. Thanks in advance.

Query CS:Seeing that list (and your other posts), it seems to...skim, on the finer and "more convincing" details in general.

The explanation is in how you see the question
But in that note, I've noticed that you're...very willing to just 'accept' others' words without questioning them. The term in psychology is "Conformity", along with the notions of 'Crowd Mentality' and 'Bystander Syndrome'. In my notes, you have a high degree of conformity--given-

Also in regards to vote. Deus found you guilty and I trust him.

...
This kind of attitude.

[Tiruin]

@Persus, also PFP because bluh x_x sickness sucks.

Anyone interested in massclaiming names (not roles, names)?

Me!

Persus13

...
Could I ask a general consensus (in the form of 'reads' like how we've been doing the playerlistings) in regards to how you view a player to be best as a watchman (instead of the usual 'general reads on the person')?

Persus: Why're you voting for yourself?

[mastahcheese]

Quick-post because I'm being rushed by things.

Unvote
For some reason, Shamrock showed up as farther along on the voting Caz bit.
Although the real reason I'm unvoting him is because when he pointed out that he did vote for a watchman, he didn't try to turn the question back on me for me not voting one. I expected him to try to look for anything to be used to incriminate people, but he's more focused on being accurate in his answers.

Argh, I wish I had more time to type stuff but busy.

[Tiruin]

And continuation as it seems my first post 4 posts back got a bit out of continuation because of my internets.
Yay.

I waited because if I'd revealed that I didn't trust my own inspection result, trying to get a reaction out of Tiruin using it would have been kind of pointless.

...?
So other than missing a question (you missed that question below), you've some kind of judgement extrapolating something bad out of the below?

Also, you are very aware that dumping your findings is a very conclusive piece of evidence, right? Something which I believe persus is also asking for? Something by which you're only squeezing out bit by bit in vague ways until now?

Deus

Tiruin, how's life on the scum team?

. . .?
(Real) Life's been hectic -_- More personal life than internet reasons. Is there something up on why you issue the one question to me--not in RVS (or rather only mention me now) in the present time, with brevity and an assumption in the background?

DA: What is your appraisal of yesterday's events? Comparatively, you and TolyK; could you give a comparison, and include what you did last night? Also more questions below.

...That?
The question has no value at all in regards to scumhunting--but it shows or gives an excuse (in the form of a standpoint) that you're 'analyzing a person's "reaction".' It's a shallow excuse, if you can only deem it that far as a 'reaction'.

...Especially since I got nothing out of the above. A bit rude there. <_<

Also:

Great.
Who decided that it was a good idea to kill TolyK? Don't answer that, I know which team decided it.
Scum team, you just did that to spite me, didn't you? Because you picked up on the "if I can't prove you're scum, you can lynch me" thing I told TolyK. So you made him flip.

So now I resign to being killed, if there is anyone who trusted TolyK. But I will try to survive and aid the town anyways, and oust the scum.

I'd also like to say that I've looked at this a couple of times, and I like it less each time I see it. It looks more like scum pretending to be town and appealing to emotion than genuine town to me.

Who are you talking to here, DA?
And what is 'this', pertaining to? (highlighted above)

Also, since I can follow links properly again.

Do you recall this one tidbit?

Because that one bit is a cornerstone in my attention towards your credibility. You hopped away from the theory which you mentioned earlier (or at least, did not mention it at all in your first posts...until poked), and yet in the link above to your post...misses it completely.

Link to Caz not knowing that the flavourtext would give descriptions of what cops find in people's possession, followed by vague mention of a theory I apparently mentioned earlier which I would very much like you to tell me about. Because unless you mean this one:

THEORY:
Scum have an ability to fake evidence, such as blatant German propaganda, in order to counteract the two cops.

Which you might notice had nothing to do with me and which I never treated as anything more than a theory, I don't know what theory you're talking about, since that's the only theory aside from the poisoning idea that I've talked about at all.

That's just it. That faked evidence planting.
What I thought when I was re-reviewing D2 was the...err, some role linked in the BM 'flash mafia' which let someone else 'frame' the other in implicating them as 'mafia'.

And next: An emphasis on flavor text.
WE ARE IN A BASTARD GAME--this is grounds enough to take note of flavor as it being important, rather than a normal game where flavor is nearly irrelevant.
THAT is why I'm so...touchy(? unsure term) about these things. A cop out of all people is being dismissive (or it seems that way to me) when talking about such ideas!

Last paragraph makes no sense. I'm jumpy because I didn't immediately launch into a detailed dissection of Caz not knowing what she had? Caz said that she wasn't aware of any items at all being in her possession. I also didn't receive any catalogue of my possessions, and as such have no idea what would be found in my pack if another cop did inspect me. Do you? Since we have another example of someone who got investigated by a cop in this game already,

...No? You're 'jumpy' because of some deviations in your behavior towards me.
Starting off with an 'emotional test'?
Then giving several pointed words in how you speak to me?
It's jumpy, in the way it refers to your conclusion system.

Also the catalogue isn't something to nitpick about: What is something to nitpick about is you...finding Mein Kampf all over the place. Now, I'm not a miller but I'm curious on why such a result is applied onto me.

[Tiruin]

@origami (You ok with shortened names?)

1. Unless placing "incriminating evidence" can cause the cops investigation to goo negative, (can it?) I am pretty sure the only way for Caz to roll civilian but be scum for the investigation is if she was the miller.

2. If mastacheese told everybody that he shirked duty, that would look bad for him whether he hid, or performed a night action. I think it's possible he took a gamble and lied about his duty, and since nobody was killed, I think it is reasonable that he chose to hide, and the mafia missed him.

3. Vivales hasn't been posted often, but he just doesn't seem like mafia to me. He also doesn't seem to care too much about who is lynched (correct me if i'm wrong) So I think he is 3rd party.

4. I had a reason when I wrote that other post, but I forgot it now.

@#1: How did you view the theory of planted evidence? There seems to be a discrepancy in how you also view cops. How do you view cops?
There is a role, or at least an ability (in the mafiascum wiki and in the BM Flash Mafia link [until the site went down]) as noted which gives credence to such a theory. Now, such a role may or may not exist (given that bastard games are usually creative customized forms of games), but the ability may exist given the recent happenings as of late.
@#2: That entails a lot of speculation behind the scenes, however. It would be strange for him to hide--as he stated that he saw TolyK//Flabort, before they said anything about it: now the only result that way to know such things is if they're tied or have some form of communication beforehand.
So...you are aware that MC did state the thing on Flabort and TolyK, before any of the two mentioned anything with relations to either, right? [as far as my memory serves, anyway. Being sick does no good for my memory]

[origamiscienceguy]

Thanks, I forgot about that in #2.

What do you mean by "view cops" please clarify.

[Tiruin]

Thanks, I forgot about that in #2.

What do you mean by "view cops" please clarify.

Yeah I'm also sloppy when sick >_<

When I read #1:

Unless placing "incriminating evidence" can cause the cops investigation to goo negative, (can it?) I am pretty sure the only way for Caz to roll civilian but be scum for the investigation is if she was the miller.

I'm picky on words used. The existence of 'unless' came to me as if there was an assumption in the background of how cops work--in the wording of this paragraph, it gives the implication that there is something about cops which causes that 'unless' to appear. It is forwarded by the query in parentheses.

So due to English being my third (actually second but dialects count right? ._.) language...erm, how do you view cops, here?

[origamiscienceguy]

Well in mafia games i've played (not on forums, just a large group of people), the cop always got full proof evidence. I was wondering if someone placeing incriminating evidence would make the cop not full proof as I am used too.

[Tiruin]

Well in mafia games i've played (not on forums, just a large group of people), the cop always got full proof evidence. I was wondering if someone placeing incriminating evidence would make the cop not full proof as I am used too.

Hmm, then a basic rundown must be done.
In the forum Mafia games, we have several 'variants' of cops, as well as several ways by which a cop 'sees' their results (due to their power, both psychological and otherwise of playing with the Mafia-game mechanics [ie The game revolves around information and the cops are a direct way on how to get information]

We have the 'Sane' cop--the regular 'vanilla' cop who always gets results as is.
We have the 'insane' variant--where the results are always the opposite of what is (ie Mafia appears Town, unsure on how third-party appears)
We have the DayCop -- akin to Scripten's Dayvig, is a cop who can act during the day (by which moderators say if it is an announced [in-thread] action, or otherwise)
We have the paranoid cop -- wherein all inspections are leaning one way or the other (ie THEY'RE ALL SCUM OMG! [even if town or third-party malevolent/benevolent])

And then we move onto the peoples who can 'modify' a cop's insight on things.
We have the 'Framer' -- basically, a role with the ability to 'tag' a person that, if investigated in the (usually present?) night, gets a guilty report (anything malevolent anyway), as noted in the linky back there.
We have the 'Roleblocker' -- which blocks the role from acting for the night.
We have the 'Jailkeeper' --which subsequently blocks and protects the role for the night
We have the 'Redirector (unsure on name) -- which can redirect the actor towards another person
We have the 'Bus Driver' -- who can swap person a to act on person b and vice versa
...
...Err, from memory. You can browse Mafiascum Wiki for a better explanation ._.
Or that flashMafia link...but I think the link to 'advanced' roles (basically all these) is down, or last I checked anyway (months ago)

[origamiscienceguy]

Okay, thanks for that

I would like to UNVOTE and vote VIVALES for not seeming to care about lynches. I suspect he is 3rd party.

[Tiruin]

Also welcome to B12 Mafia Origami!

I would like to UNVOTE and vote VIVALES for not seeming to care about lynches. I suspect he is 3rd party.

Why so? :O
And third-party...in general? Or was there a specific on it?

[origamiscienceguy]

As I speed-read the entire forumn, I noticed that he seemed to contribute little to the conversations, and he didn't react much to lynchings as if he didn't care about them. All in all, he seems to not care who dies as long as it isn't himself. (again, I may have missed some posts so correct me if i'm wrong) After reading the wiki like you suggested, perhaps he is a cereal killer? but I think he is a third party member.