Print

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

[JanusTwoface]

And I don't think it's necessarily the case in this game because it's a closed setup, but IMO most of the time if someone asks a question about a scum role (especially if not directed at the mod), than they're usually trying to hide something.

You tried to cover it, but there's still a weak attack there.  Not enough to get a response out of him, but enough so you can cast doubt on Jokerman.  Either attack hard or not at all- don't just try to sow doubt on others.

I comment on anything I see that looks even a little suspicious.  Thus my tendency towards walls of text.  In this case, it's a weak attack because it's weak evidence.

I have seen the behavior I described in games before--heck, I've used it myself a few times--but I'm leaning against it being the case this time.

In any case, I'm more interested in Org's behavior at the moment.

[IronyOwl]

That's a different matter entirely. I was under the impression we were talking about Org flipping out over Janus asking why Org asked the RVS question he asked. Now you're talking about bringing role evidence against another player and how the accused player should respond. This transitioned weirdly.

Janus asked why Org was asking the question he was. Org essentially said that he couldn't say, because that would reveal his strategy which would reveal his role. I responded by saying that doesn't really work.

Jokerman-EXE - What are the odds we have both a Demon and a Devil in addition to the usual scum, as we did last time?

I have no idea. I'm not sure how this is balanced or anything like that.
Wait, weren't the two connected in some way? Or was that just the discussion that went on?

He answered your question, then elaborated on that answer. I don't think that's waffling. So, IronyOwl, what makes you think it is?

Both responses seemed excessively uncertain to me. Almost like nervous chatter. The second in particular seemed like a "So how's that weather, didn't they say it was going to rain today?" thing, not an elaboration.

If you have a powerful role, tell us now "for the good of the town".

/paraphrase

Behind all your talk of strategy and working together, IronyOwl, is the most blatant case of rolefishing I've seen thus far.  Explain yourself.

Nice try, scum. I could see getting that I wanted Org to reveal his role from looking at that out of context, but I can't imagine a method other than glancing at keywords that would imply I wanted anyone with a powerful role to reveal themselves (or Org to roleclaim only if he had a powerful role). Mind going over that in detail, or is two paragraphs too much to pick apart without revealing yourself?

IronyOwl:  There's scumhunting, and then there's looking around to see who's an easy lynch.  You sure look like you're doing the latter, especially since you mentioned Org policy lynches earlier.  Why are you pressing that when you could be doing original scumhunting?

There weren't a lot of good options, but Jokerman-EXE's response seemed slightly fishy, so I decided to poke at it further. I'm not under the impression that jumping around until someone gives a blatant, obvious scumtell is particularly effective, so poking at anything suspicious seems the way to go.

[Mephansteras]

The Scribe's Tally Sheet
Archangel: Solifuge
IronyOwl: Archangel, Eduren, Lonewolf I
JanusTwoFace: Toaster
Jokerman-EXE: IronyOwl
Org: JanusTwoFace
Pandarsenic: Jokerman-EXE
Solifuge: Mr.Person, Pandarsenic
Toaster: ToonyMan


Day ends ~5pm Pacific Friday

[JanusTwoface]

Unvote

If you have a powerful role, tell us now "for the good of the town".

/paraphrase

Behind all your talk of strategy and working together, IronyOwl, is the most blatant case of rolefishing I've seen thus far.  Explain yourself.

Three problems with this:

(1) You edited IronyOwl's quote, and misquoted him at that.  (IMO, cutting paragraphs is fine, formatting for emphasis is fine, anything else is not.)

I'm guessing that your attack is based on this:

Even if you have a powerful role, trying to hide from everyone else and do everything yourself doesn't work, Org. If you won't explain why you're doing anything, we'll have no choice but to assume you're up to no good and lynch you. Scum are working together by default, Org. If town can't do the same, they're going to lose.

Nowhere in there does IronyOwl ask Org to roleclaim.  He says that having a powerful role is not a get out of jail free card for not explaining yourself.  It's true.

(2) It's only your second post of the game.

The other was RVS with a not terribly worthwhile question.  While it would be useful to know if there are any Devils / Demons floating around, the only way that Jokerman-EXE would know is if he were one.  And all he has to do is say no.  So you jump from RVS to bandwagon.

(3) You are the third vote on IronyOwl.

I've found (empirical evidence is all I have) that the third vote on a bandwagon is usually the most suspicious place to be in deadline games.  That's the point at which it actually becomes a bandwagon and starts to gain momentum but before people just start voting to guarantee the lynch.

I still want an answer from Org, but major FoS Lonewolf I.

[Pandarsenic]

Unvote

If you have a powerful role, tell us now "for the good of the town".

/paraphrase

Behind all your talk of strategy and working together, IronyOwl, is the most blatant case of rolefishing I've seen thus far.  Explain yourself.

Unvote Solifuge. Vote Lonewolf I.

Shameless bandwagon-chainsawdefenseofOrg combo is shameless.

[Pandarsenic]

To add: Either Lonewolf is screening someone he doesn't want to see under suspicion or he's trying to make Org grateful to him by attacking IronyOwl for him unrequested. Either way it's not looking too good for him.

[Mr.Person]

Three problems with this:

(1) You edited IronyOwl's quote, and misquoted him at that.  (IMO, cutting paragraphs is fine, formatting for emphasis is fine, anything else is not.)

He said it was a paraphrase.

(2) It's only your second post of the game.

Irrelevant. This is a character attack that in no way proves IronyOwl's attack to be incorrect.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, you're not supposed to answer for other people. That's not what's going on, I'm FoSing Janus for bullshit. You make some good points, but those two bother me because they seem like the kind of attacks a person trying to make IronyOwl appear scummier than he actually is would say. You know, like scum trying to sling mud.

[Org]

What is chainsaw defense.

[Lonewolf I]

JanusTwoface:

(1) You edited IronyOwl's quote, and misquoted him at that.  (IMO, cutting paragraphs is fine, formatting for emphasis is fine, anything else is not.)

I advertised quite plainly that I was doing so, and felt justified as I was in a hurry at the time and it seemed the quickest and plainest way to convey my interpretation of his words.  I am pleased to see that I was not misunderstood.

I'm guessing that your attack is based on this:

Even if you have a powerful role, trying to hide from everyone else and do everything yourself doesn't work, Org. If you won't explain why you're doing anything, we'll have no choice but to assume you're up to no good and lynch you. Scum are working together by default, Org. If town can't do the same, they're going to lose.

Nowhere in there does IronyOwl ask Org to roleclaim.  He says that having a powerful role is not a get out of jail free card for not explaining yourself.  It's true.

It is indeed based on that passage, and I believe my interpretation of his words is a valid one, whatever you think.  I'd appreciate it if you'd let him defend himself from my accusations.

(2) It's only your second post of the game.

The other was RVS with a not terribly worthwhile question.  While it would be useful to know if there are any Devils / Demons floating around, the only way that Jokerman-EXE would know is if he were one.  And all he has to do is say no.  So you jump from RVS to bandwagon.

I check Mafia once in the morning and many times in the evening.  If if I want or need to say anything, I say it.  Otherwise, I keep my mouth shut.  It looks like lurking, sure, and if you want to argue that it is lurking, be my guest.  It's how I play all my games, regardless of alignment, and I'm sticking with it.  I'm not going to post arbitrarily on a daily basis just to look active.

(3) You are the third vote on IronyOwl.

I've found (empirical evidence is all I have) that the third vote on a bandwagon is usually the most suspicious place to be in deadline games.  That's the point at which it actually becomes a bandwagon and starts to gain momentum but before people just start voting to guarantee the lynch.

If no one voted third for fear of looking like a bandwagoner, things would go nowhere.  I can't say or do anything to defend against that accusation save keep up my attack until IronyOwl clears or damns himself.  Call me scum for it if you like.  I have scumhunting to do.

Mr.Person:

Three problems with this:

(1) You edited IronyOwl's quote, and misquoted him at that.  (IMO, cutting paragraphs is fine, formatting for emphasis is fine, anything else is not.)

He said it was a paraphrase.

(2) It's only your second post of the game.

Irrelevant. This is a character attack that in no way proves IronyOwl's attack to be incorrect.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, you're not supposed to answer for other people. That's not what's going on, I'm FoSing Janus for bullshit. You make some good points, but those two bother me because they seem like the kind of attacks a person trying to make IronyOwl appear scummier than he actually is would say. You know, like scum trying to sling mud.

Are...are you buddying me?

IronyOwl:

If you have a powerful role, tell us now "for the good of the town".

/paraphrase

Behind all your talk of strategy and working together, IronyOwl, is the most blatant case of rolefishing I've seen thus far.  Explain yourself.

Nice try, scum. I could see getting that I wanted Org to reveal his role from looking at that out of context, but I can't imagine a method other than glancing at keywords that would imply I wanted anyone with a powerful role to reveal themselves (or Org to roleclaim only if he had a powerful role). Mind going over that in detail, or is two paragraphs too much to pick apart without revealing yourself?

More detail?  Sure, why not?

Even if you have a powerful role, trying to hide from everyone else and do everything yourself doesn't work, Org. If you won't explain why you're doing anything, we'll have no choice but to assume you're up to no good and lynch you. Scum are working together by default, Org. If town can't do the same, they're going to lose.

Imploring Org to give explanations for his actions and work more closely with the town is simply a loosely veiled request that he reveal his strategy.  Given his declaration that revealing his strategy would reveal his role, which you were explicitly responding to, this equates to your asking him to reveal his role.

You're rolefishing.

Only scum would be rolefishing D1, since the secrecy of their roles is one of the few advantages town has.

You are either scum or you don't quite grasp role strategy in mafia, in which case being lynched will teach you not to rolefish without a solid reason next time.

[Toaster]

Janus:

I comment on anything I see that looks even a little suspicious.  Thus my tendency towards walls of text.  In this case, it's a weak attack because it's weak evidence.

I have seen the behavior I described in games before--heck, I've used it myself a few times--but I'm leaning against it being the case this time.

If it was truly an attack, why didn't you question him on it, or if it's so weak you think it's not meaningful, why mention it?

Org: If A posts an attack on B, and C starts attacking A over A's attack on B, then C is chainsaw defending B.  It's a scumtell on C.  If B turns out town, then it's a null tell.

Also, weren't you supposed to be doing some scum hunting?

IronyOwl:  Fair enough, but I'm curious about one thing (and this is not directed at Org, but is rhetorical).  What the heck kind of role defines your strategy in such a way as giving out your strategy would reveal your role?  I think we know generally enough about the roles in this game to show that there aren't any like that.  Maybe in a Ridiculous Mafia or something, but not here.  Regardless of your role, your prime directive is to hunt scum.

[Org]

If my strategy is to be purposefully obnoxious to see who doesn't do anything about it, is it not hunting scum?
Generally, scum will be less likely to go after me. Sure, maybe a stab here and there, but whats the point? He hurts town more when he is town?
Obviously, those who attack and then back off are probably scum.
Oh mah gawd I am so devious.

[Toaster]

So you're taking the Solifuge Strategy, then?

[JanusTwoface]

Three problems with this:

(1) You edited IronyOwl's quote, and misquoted him at that.  (IMO, cutting paragraphs is fine, formatting for emphasis is fine, anything else is not.)

He said it was a paraphrase.

If he wanted to paraphrase, I would have much rather he didn't use the quote tags.  Quote =/= paraphrase.  And I don't think he paraphrased, he changed the meaning.  At this point, I guess it's up to you if you think it was paraphrasing or misquoting.

(2) It's only your second post of the game.

Irrelevant. This is a character attack that in no way proves IronyOwl's attack to be incorrect.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, you're not supposed to answer for other people. That's not what's going on, I'm FoSing Janus for bullshit. You make some good points, but those two bother me because they seem like the kind of attacks a person trying to make IronyOwl appear scummier than he actually is would say. You know, like scum trying to sling mud.

The second and third points are weak by themselves.  All three together are what makes me suspicious.

It is indeed based on that passage, and I believe my interpretation of his words is a valid one, whatever you think.  I'd appreciate it if you'd let him defend himself from my accusations.

My primary intention was not to defend him, it was to attack you.  I think that you were deliberately mis-quoting him to try to get a lynch through, thus the FoS.

If no one voted third for fear of looking like a bandwagoner, things would go nowhere.  I can't say or do anything to defend against that accusation save keep up my attack until IronyOwl clears or damns himself.  Call me scum for it if you like.  I have scumhunting to do.

Like I said earlier, it's not scummy by itself.  It's having all three together that look scummy that was enough for the FoS.

Janus:

I comment on anything I see that looks even a little suspicious.  Thus my tendency towards walls of text.  In this case, it's a weak attack because it's weak evidence.

I have seen the behavior I described in games before--heck, I've used it myself a few times--but I'm leaning against it being the case this time.

If it was truly an attack, why didn't you question him on it, or if it's so weak you think it's not meaningful, why mention it?

I don't think it's important right now.  It may become important in the future.  I already have two people that I'm looking at, I don't want to focus too thinly.

If my strategy is to be purposefully obnoxious to see who doesn't do anything about it, is it not hunting scum?
Generally, scum will be less likely to go after me. Sure, maybe a stab here and there, but whats the point? He hurts town more when he is town?
Obviously, those who attack and then back off are probably scum.
Oh mah gawd I am so devious.

That strategy sucks.  It's unhelpful to the town because acting scummy as town hides the real scum. 

Are you actually going to answer my question?  Are you actually going to hunt scum?

[Pandarsenic]

words

Gentlemen, this is Lonewolf I not responding to my accusations.

[ToonyMan]

Haha Mr.Person you

Three problems with this:

(1) You edited IronyOwl's quote, and misquoted him at that.  (IMO, cutting paragraphs is fine, formatting for emphasis is fine, anything else is not.)

He said it was a paraphrase.

(2) It's only your second post of the game.

Irrelevant. This is a character attack that in no way proves IronyOwl's attack to be incorrect.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, you're not supposed to answer for other people. That's not what's going on, I'm FoSing Janus for bullshit. You make some good points, but those two bother me because they seem like the kind of attacks a person trying to make IronyOwl appear scummier than he actually is would say. You know, like scum trying to sling mud.

You're defending IronyOwl but you try to make it "OK" by saying that the other party is wrong.  Doesn't work like that, how can one appear to make someone "scummier" without going inside their mind and changing their posts somehow miraculously?

I would also like people to bring me up in discussion more, I fall asleep for 8 or so hours and no one even mentions me.