Conquer Club

It was a throw away comment I meant there is no long defence it was a stupid vote.
this is about my 4th game of mafia

well hensow i for one would like a better explanation, it seems that you said what you didn't want said, now that could be a mistake and you just said it wrong, or you said it wrong and that was the mistake but ill wait on your reply to vote for now FOS hensow

Hensow wrote:

safariguy5 wrote:

Hensow wrote:Did I really need to confurm it was an OMGUS vote

OMGUS vote for a valid point somehow is not scummy? And you admitting it was an OMGUS vote gives you no leeway to argue otherwise.

unvote vote hensow

I did not take VioIet's vote as a serious vote that is to say I did not (and do not) believe that at the time of casting her vote for me she had any intention of me being the day one lynch just as my OMGUS vote for her was made with out intent of lynching her.
that was the extent of my reasoning to provide a longer defense I would have to lie or discredit the scum tell.
saying this I suppose I should unvote which I suppose in it self is going to be called a scum tail but I ask would I be asked why I did not unvote.

We were still in the joke vote stage, when I first voted Hensow.

safariguy5 wrote:

jonty125 wrote:Well if this game is geting serious then, unvote, vote jak for doing a Yomiel and constructing a very weak case made of WIFOM about an imaginary link between three posts.

At least I give jak some credit for trying to get a case, it being Day 1 and whatnot. Someone has to start it, even if it's not the best.

unvote for now.

Yes, but is it good to make a weak case based on two posts (except for inactivity)??

jonty125 wrote:

safariguy5 wrote:

jonty125 wrote:Well if this game is geting serious then, unvote, vote jak for doing a Yomiel and constructing a very weak case made of WIFOM about an imaginary link between three posts.

At least I give jak some credit for trying to get a case, it being Day 1 and whatnot. Someone has to start it, even if it's not the best.

unvote for now.

Yes, but is it good to make a weak case based on two posts (except for inactivity)??

at this stage its hard to find more than two posts

vodean wrote:

jonty125 wrote:

safariguy5 wrote:

jonty125 wrote:Well if this game is geting serious then, unvote, vote jak for doing a Yomiel and constructing a very weak case made of WIFOM about an imaginary link between three posts.

At least I give jak some credit for trying to get a case, it being Day 1 and whatnot. Someone has to start it, even if it's not the best.

unvote for now.

Yes, but is it good to make a weak case based on two posts (except for inactivity)??

at this stage its hard to find more than two posts

Yes, and that is why it is a bad idea to try and build an actual case at 'this stage'.

Violet, I don't think anyone believes your vote was anything but playful ribbing, my point about his OMGUS vote on you was just to point out how vindictive and petty that response is. He didn't offer it with any indication of jest, and as such is scummy behavior.

About when or how to make a case... that is the point of this game. Of course early days cases will be predominately weak, but that shouldn't discourage someone from detailing their thought process. You develop a theory, see if all the evidence corroborates, and then offer it up for debate amongst your peers. If it has no merit, then those opposed will defend their position, debate occurs and the majority decide which side (if either) held water. Telling people that they shouldn't formulate ideas and discuss them seems extremely counterproductive.

I'm getting some slightly suspicious vibes out of hensow (or at least as much as you can get day 1) and I do agree with some things that were said about him (by both jgordon and droz). That said, I feel that a lot of my issues arise from my misunderstanding of hensow's posts. Specifically the one about the long defence and lying. Hensow, is english your first language? It says you're from the UK and if thats so, you really need to proofread your posts.

Not worth a vote right now, but I'm taking note of it.

DRoZ wrote:About when or how to make a case... that is the point of this game. Of course early days cases will be predominately weak, but that shouldn't discourage someone from detailing their thought process. You develop a theory, see if all the evidence corroborates, and then offer it up for debate amongst your peers. If it has no merit, then those opposed will defend their position, debate occurs and the majority decide which side (if either) held water. Telling people that they shouldn't formulate ideas and discuss them seems extremely counterproductive.

Who was this directed towards? Pardon my asking.

It is counterproductive but at the same time day 1 is full of crap anyway. votes and claims that can be verified or not are more important.

Mr. Squirrel wrote:

DRoZ wrote:About when or how to make a case... that is the point of this game. Of course early days cases will be predominately weak, but that shouldn't discourage someone from detailing their thought process. You develop a theory, see if all the evidence corroborates, and then offer it up for debate amongst your peers. If it has no merit, then those opposed will defend their position, debate occurs and the majority decide which side (if either) held water. Telling people that they shouldn't formulate ideas and discuss them seems extremely counterproductive.

Who was this directed towards? Pardon my asking.

Me, I think.

DRoZ, I think you're confusing sharing your suspicions with building a case. If one builds a case, one actively wants a specific someone to get lynched because you believe they're scum. Jak did neither of these things, yet he tried to build a case. His post mainly said this: "I don't know who is scum because we're so early in the game, but I really think we should lynch Gregwolf because I have these two* posts in my semi goodish case and it really kinda seems suspicious." (*: Yes, he did actually only quote Greg twice. The other quotes were Chap's, to point out he followed his lead TWICE in the 'joke vote stage'.)
Sharing your suspicions is a completely different method of playing. It's used because if you built a case every time you saw something scummy, you would need more than 24 hours in a day. Jak could simply have said "I think Greg is suspicious, he followed ChapCrap's vote twice." Instead he chose to delight us with five quotes which were pretty much irrelevant for his point.

I see this has become too long a post so here's a short summary. My point is that I don't think Jak for one second believed Greg was scum, but he did build his 'case', probably to flock some votes in the direction he pointed. At least a part of him wanted Greg to get lynched because he made two jokes. That simply seems plain scummy. And talk of the devil, where is Jak anyway?

It appears that Jak hasn't even been on the forums in almost a week (his last post being in this thread last Wednesday) of course that doesn't include private forums that he may or may not have been posting in.

As far as cases, I still have questions about Hensow but I really do need to reread the case on him and his responses before I can really ask them in an knowledgeable manner.

Everything day one is just suspicion and seeing how people react to the pressure. I will check back because Hensow appears to be at the center of the out of Joke vote but both Droz and Mr S. seem to be on them so have to recheck the banter to see if there is anything more to be gained from nothing much.

Unofficial vote count

NONE) (9) - (NONE), Pancakemix, samgrossy, F1fth, Crazymilkshake, Chapcrap, JGordon, Hensow, Gregwolf
Jak (2) - Illiad, Jonty
Pancakemix (2) - strike wolf, Aage
Jonty (1) - djfireside
vodean (1) - /
Crazymilkshake (3) - Soundman, LSU Tiger Josh, nagerous
JGordon (1) - Shaggy
Hensow (3) - Safari, VioIet, DRoZ
Gregwolf (2) - Jak, victor
penis (1) - Mr. S
PIRLOOOOO (1) - vodean

With 25 alive it takes 13 to lynch
Only Three(?) days left!

well this is a mess, we really do need to get something done before deadline to move the game along, I don't really see much merit in the cases so far, and I know it's an unpopular thing to say, but I'm honestly alright with pressuring someone at random at this point, just so we have something to look at...

Before my hiatus (waiting for seriousness to form), I noticed Hensow's vote and almost thought it seemed like a noob OMGUS. However, to me that by itself shouldn't mean anything in this game. Reasons:

1. We were still joke voting.
2. I have come to believe that OMGUS really isn't that scummy, especially from a noob.
3. Vio, deserves to be voted usually.

Heres a list of the last time a person posted.
1. Jak-8
2. Pancakemix-7
3. Mr. S-11
4. Illiad-5
5. Shaggy-9
6. Jonty-11
7. Safari-10
8. vodean-11
9. strike wolf-11
10. samgrossy-8-
11. djfireside-11
12. Soundman-7 (only to vote for me)
13. /-11
14. victor-9
15. F1fth-10
16. VioIet-11
17. LSU Tiger Josh-11
18. Crazymilkshake-11
19. Aage-11
20. nagerous-10
21. Chapcrap-11
22. JGordon-10
23. Hensow-11
24. Gregwolf-11
25. DRoZ-11

so i shall Vote Illiad for inactivity

Aage, we are just arguing semantics, anything brought up in attack or defense of a person could be used to build a case. The issue is if that case has any merit. You obviously see Jak's case as weak, and I agree with you, but to say someone should not try to build a "case" is not an optimal goal for the town. Even if someone has a vendetta against a player, it is best for it to be seen out in the open so that everyone can debate its validity, and should someone be seen as overreaching, then it just points the light on the one leading the charge. All in all, I think we are on the same side of this issue, I suppose it is just the phrasing that is causing the conflict.

Chap, I agree the OMGUS seemed like a noob move, and is exactly how I took it as well. It is also what led me to believe he may be scum, not because of the vote itself but what it said about the player (he is unexperienced). So my thought process is that as an unexperienced player, he saw the votes mounting on CM5 and got worried, not realizing how little pressure was actually on CM5. He made the post asking what CM5 did, without either looking back to the penis vote and figuring it out or waiting for things to become a bit more clear. The rushed reaction to the CM5 pressure is what looked like a possible alliance between them. A more experienced player would not have worried any about such early pressure in the joke stage. There is always information out there, even during the joke stage, it would be wise to dissect as much of what is available as possible. Day one cases are going to be weak, it is just the nature of the game.

Unvote. I think Hensow is a pretty inexperienced player. However, he is on my Day 1 radar for completely missing the CM5 vote reason which was only a couple of posts before his. I'm lost as to who to pursue (usual Day 1) but will probably push Hensow if nothing else comes up and we start getting close to the deadline. Would like to see Illiad and Jak back in here.

Well, I'm alive and still here

Unvote, Vote Aage

While yes, my case against Greg is weak at best (but lets face it, it wasn't too shabby for the first case of the day XD) your constant push of your pov on don't bring forth cases unless they're damning cases is total bs and like others have said unproductive. If anything it takes away production of better cases if the small ones never see the light. For who decides which case it worthy before it's posted?

Fastposted.

FOS Jak for a blatant OMGUS vote. While I agree with you and DRoZ (mostly DRoZ) that Aage discouraging early accusations is counter-productive and counter-fun, I have to say I find it more suspicious that you vote for him based on this. Of course scum wants to inhibit the town, but more often I find that town are overly cautious about lynches on the first few days which can explain Aage's behavior. Plus, scum benefits from random bandwagons so long as it's not one of their scummates being targeted so I don't see why discouraging bandwagons is necessarily a scumtell. But since OMGUS is frequent enough in early days as well among townies, I'll leave it at a FOS.

That said, Shaggy has been lying low (i.e. not posted once) since I mentioned his contradictory calling out of jgordon. I presume he's trying to skirt past the first day without drawing attention to himself which, after his aggressive "semi-serious" vote, is suspicious enough in my eyes to warrant this:
Vote ShaggyDan

I don't recall ever discouraging discussion. I think at least some of you missed my point. I simply don't see the value of building a case against someone on the third page of the thread. Yes, you could say that I believe the case is not "worthy" to be made such a big deal of. Your actual suspicions could have been formulated in two sentences, yet you elect to put in five quotes and call it a case. That is why I find it unworthy of a case, and that is why I'm responding to it. I hope that was clear.

You're probably right when you say we are discussing semantics, though, DRoZ. In my experience, building cases is not what you do when you just want to pressure someone for a bit. In my experience, cases are made to get players lynched. That is why people normally only have one at a time. Though, everyone seemed to think it but I was first to call out on it, and now I'm the a-hole? Got it.

aage wrote:I simply don't see the value of building a case against someone on the third page of the thread.

There is probably not much substance to the case itself, but there is value.

• It starts getting people to stop joke voting.
• It gives us the beginning of getting someone to claim if they can't come up with some kind of defense.
• It tricks people into voting for stupid reasons, helping to reveal scum.
• It starts to pull other scum tells out of people.

But, as for the case itself... Usually it's just hogwash.

Joke votes --> crappy case (usually from jak) --> semantics --> wall of text

Seems about normal to me. Step 4 should be coming around any minute now.

The biggest downside of trying to make a case too early usually falls on the person who makes the case. It's kind of the hidden opinion that the person who made it is trying to rush the town or being aggressive in an early attempt to make themselves appear townish. There's not really much logic behind either usually it's someone who really is just being a bit rash, thinks that maybe they see something early on (this happened with me in the Golden Pantheon Japanese game) or just someone anxious to get the day out of the joke stage. In this case, I am inclined to believe the third option and at this point I do not believe Jak to be scum. Based on everything making my general opinion on what's being said, generally making cases is harmless until it forces a player to reveal information about their role or action.

I think F1fth made a fairly well-reasoned post above mine and I will indeed FOS shaggy based on his disappearance and subsequent accusations. However I will leave it at an FOS as it does not appear that Shaggy has been overly active over the last few days in the forums in general.

As far as Hensow, the OMGus has been cleared up (as far as I'm concerned). He took Vio's post as a joke vote and appears to have been joke voting back with the OMGus. I would still however like to hear what had him confused over the Crazymilkshake vote as he has not addressed anything in the case on him beyond the OMGus vote. I also tend to be biased against people who bring out the newbie card out of thin air.

Hensow wrote:It was a throw away comment I meant there is no long defence it was a stupid vote.
this is about my 4th game of mafia

Since I haven't already...Unvote to get rid of my joke vote.

Fastposted by Pancake. Don't think I have anything to say about his post though.

Nice timing, eh, PCM?

Oh, dearie...

-Sully

As for ShaggyDan, I'm not too keen on voting him, myself. I prefer to vote off loose ends, even if they're town, simply based on the fact that whether an active player is scum or not, they should stick around at least until Day 2, just cuz it makes for a better game. I guess that's my philosophy on Day 1 voting. I'm always happy to vote off an inactive (or on occasion, an obnoxious scumzor).

But, of course, I'm not against voting an active player off 100% of the time... I do have a win condition after all.

-Sully