Two Sides Mafia: Side A, Endgame, The Old Ways

[safariguy5]

Wow, funny how sg7 says nothing about the nature of the posts yet tries to play moderator.

You know what shield, if you really tried and thought about the content of the posts that people write, maybe you wouldn't have to run around and proclaim how everyone is better than you. It's waay past time for you to be feigning noobiness because you haven't bothered to actually try to play better. Because at this point, all you're showing me is that you're going to be dead weight. No opinion on anything and no substance in your posts.

unvote vote sg7

[Rodion]

That's perfectly cool as long as you move your vote away from me should you ever consider someone more scummy (and quite frankly I can't see how I'm being scummy for trying to get mafia to confess). I'll take (more) issue with it if you park your vote on me out of spite for the way I play. I know we have butted heads more than once regarding our playing styles. You heavily disliked my plan covering night actions in GP: Greek and you expressed a similar feeling when I replaced back into NBC with another plan (my plans were solid in both games by the way and town only lost GP: Greek because you guys decided my Hermes role was too weird to be believable and therefore threw my gameplan out of the window). And now this. Perhaps you are an old school guy with an old school modus operandi and you're bothered by the way I play (it's your prerogative). Just make sure that negativeness is not going to protect scummier people simply because you may have a grudge with me (this whole paragraph can be disregarded if you are not town/town).

And this is the kind of comment that will keep my vote where it is. It's an underhanded way of trying to get me to go along with your plan, and sets up a total WIFOM scenario. If you really want me to change my vote, you're not doing yourself any favors.

That one.

I'd like to call everyon's attention upon the fact that my request to Crazy Milkshake was dodged/stalled for several hours and posts. And after I made a post filled with quotes evidencing what I wanted, Pancakemix intervened.

Check this.

I'm not sure what you want me to say about any WIFOM statement I made. Care to elaborate? Or, even better, since CMS also wants to hear the answer, perhaps he could mention the WIFOM statement and ask the question himself? That would surely help him prove he knows what he's talking about instead of simply threatening to vote the biggest current bandwagon.

I've been arguing that CMS is scummy for trying to join (and now joining) the biggest bandwagon without coming close to understand what the hell has been going on here. His earlier posts have been one-liners that did not present reasoning and know that has evolved (?) to larger posts with flawed reasoning. Anyway, I wanted to prove that CMS had no idea what he was talking about and simply decided to mindlessly join the bandwagon ("scum doesn't care about who dies as long as it isn't their scumbuddies", remember?). Since he mentioned he wanted to hear a response, I asked him to prove he at least knew what the question (or comment, statement, whatever) was. I made countless posts asking him that and he seemed to ignore that one after the other (shouldn't there be a limit to how much someone can play dumb in a single 24-hour period?).

Anyway, after all this dodging, Pancakemix made the question, thus effectively saving Milkshake by the bell. Should Milkshake ever flip mafia, I want everyone to remember how Pancake intervened here, releasing Milkshake from a question he all but confessed he was unable to answer.

I also want everyone to check for themselves how much Milkshake played dumb and refused to adress the crucial request I made, until he was no longer forced to by the hands of Pancake.

It's insanely frustrating to spend 20+ hours cornering someone into admitting they don't know what they are talking about just to have someone else feed them the answer before you can get the admission. Regardless, I'll consider my point accomplished.

@PCM - in the paragraph you quoted I talk to you assuming you have no hidden agenda in the game. It's a frank conversation between a person who's being voted partly "out of spite" (poor choice of words, I know, but you understand what I mean) and its voter. I've seen many instances of players talking to others assuming (without explicitly mentioning it as an ssumption) the other players have no hidden agenda being converted into a "why are you treating him as if he's town? How can you be so sure he's town? You can only be sure if you are scum" argument. In order to avoid that stupid argument, I preemptively added the "disregard this if you are not town" clause.

[Rodion]

:roll: (used him to point up)

Simple slip of the toung.

Don't understand what you are saying here.

Safari: A side: town. B side: Mafia

B side gets lynched, town is happy,
A side is left with his claim of town, leaving him to be fed to the A mafia. (ie getting killed)

Yes, there is a good possibility that A mafia would kill Safari A during N1, thus making town lose a member.
Being that (presumably) mafia has a N1 kill that they will use to kill a townie regardless, how exactly does town A loses?

You argument would only make sense in the case that mafia were only allowed a night kill IF someone confessed. Then, yes, I'd agree that by seeing Saf confess on the B side, town A would lose. However, come N1 mafia will kill anyway, so whether it's Safari (that was perceived as a townie through a confession) or another townie (that was not necessarily perceived as a townie since there were no confessions to begin with), town A will not be left at a disadvantage. Think this through and you'll be forced to agree with me, as it's a matter of logic.

As for the rest... its just a pissing match. I'm done.

Vote Rodion for being scummy.

fastposted

I'll be noting that you once again refused to adress what I had requested. I'm not sure if this time you ignored it because PCM had answered (probably not, as you were fastposted) or not, but the sheer ammount of dodging you've done before this cannot go unnoticed.

Also noting that you wanted to hear my response to decide whether you'd vote or not but you ended up voting before seeing the response (ironically, because you never bothered to ask the question).

[Rodion]

Wow, funny how sg7 says nothing about the nature of the posts yet tries to play moderator.

Saf, since you seem to have read it all, can you say something about the nature of the posts?

[crazymilkshake5]

:roll: (used him to point up)

Simple slip of the toung.

Don't understand what you are saying here. 1

Safari: A side: town. B side: Mafia

B side gets lynched, town is happy,
A side is left with his claim of town, leaving him to be fed to the A mafia. (ie getting killed)

Yes, there is a good possibility that A mafia would kill Safari A during N1, thus making town lose a member.
Being that (presumably) mafia has a N1 kill that they will use to kill a townie regardless, how exactly does town A loses?

You argument would only make sense in the case that mafia were only allowed a night kill IF someone confessed. Then, yes, I'd agree that by seeing Saf confess on the B side, town A would lose. However, come N1 mafia will kill anyway, so whether it's Safari (that was perceived as a townie through a confession) or another townie (that was not necessarily perceived as a townie since there were no confessions to begin with), town A will not be left at a disadvantage. Think this through and you'll be forced to agree with me, as it's a matter of logic. 2

As for the rest... its just a pissing match. I'm done.

Vote Rodion for being scummy.

fastposted

I'll be noting that you once again refused to adress what I had requested. I'm not sure if this time you ignored it because PCM had answered (probably not, as you were fastposted) or not, but the sheer ammount of dodging you've done before this cannot go unnoticed.

Also noting that you wanted to hear my response to decide whether you'd vote or not but you ended up voting before seeing the response (ironically, because you never bothered to ask the question). 3

1. dont know how you cant...
2. It is a matter of logic, and i see where your coming from... A kill is a kill, but if they claim town, they will most likely be targeted that night, , but if they dont take your deal, then they have a chance of killing a 3rd party, if there is any that is, whos goal is usually to survive to the end, weather it be with the mafia or the town, they just want to live.
If somebody claims town/mafia, then they will, as i said, most likely be targeted, and relieve pressure of the 3rd party.

Better for the town to have one less third party than one less town.
3. I under stand that it will not go unnoticed.

[crazymilkshake5]

Not going to hear from me for at least 4 hours... so thats why i wont respond....

ttyl <3

[Rodion]

2. It is a matter of logic, and i see where your coming from... A kill is a kill, but if they claim town, they will most likely be targeted that night, , but if they dont take your deal, then they have a chance of killing a 3rd party, if there is any that is, whos goal is usually to survive to the end, weather it be with the mafia or the town, they just want to live.
If somebody claims town/mafia, then they will, as i said, most likely be targeted, and relieve pressure of the 3rd party.

Now I can finally say you made an interesting point (but it is still wrong).

If mafia knows someone is town, they are less likely to hit a 3rd-party. That makes some sense, but it's still hard to predict what they'd do (would they risk killing a player that is statistically more likely to be protected/watched/busdriven)? If they decide not to risk, then, against what you originally believed, we are not relieving, but adding pressure to the 3rd-party.

Regardless, that sort of thinking goes against what is intuitive in a game of mafia. Town wins a mafia game by diagnosing town as town and anti-town as anti-town. The more town players we can clear, the better, even if that means that an eventual SK (or another 3rd-party) would not be nightkilled since mafia is busy getting rid of confirmed townies.

[pancakemix]

I'd like to call everyon's attention upon the fact that my request to Crazy Milkshake was dodged/stalled for several hours and posts. And after I made a post filled with quotes evidencing what I wanted, Pancakemix intervened.

Oh, please. I didn't even understand what you were talking abut until you you actually lined up what you were referring to. Don't accuse someone of dodging when you yourself are being inherently obtuse. Look back at the first post in which this came up and you'll see that you added another post's worth of information immediately afterwards. It's really hard to be direct when you ask five questions at once. And you wonder why you can never get a straight answer.

Never mind the fact that I bolded that goddamn WIFOM statement the first time I posted it. Not sure how you missed it.

in the paragraph you quoted I talk to you assuming you have no hidden agenda in the game. It's a frank conversation between a person who's being voted partly "out of spite" (poor choice of words, I know, but you understand what I mean) and its voter. I've seen many instances of players talking to others assuming (without explicitly mentioning it as an ssumption) the other players have no hidden agenda being converted into a "why are you treating him as if he's town? How can you be so sure he's town? You can only be sure if you are scum" argument. In order to avoid that stupid argument, I preemptively added the "disregard this if you are not town" clause.

See, but here's the catch with that phrase:

If I don't respond, you can point to that and say "since PCM didn't respond to that, he must be at the very least M/T. Here's what we do next..."

If I DO respond (and I did), then it becomes a game of WIFOM. "Well sure, he responded to that statement, but is that just what he WANTS us to think?", etc., etc.

In other words, it comes off as an underhanded way of trying to get me to go along with your plan, or at the very least to paint me in a bad light.

[Rodion]

Oh, please. I didn't even understand what you were talking abut until you you actually lined up what you were referring to.

Hard to believe. But if you eventually understood, why get in the way?

Don't accuse someone of dodging when you yourself are being inherently obtuse. Look back at the first post in which this came up and you'll see that you added another post's worth of information immediately afterwards. It's really hard to be direct when you ask five questions at once. And you wonder why you can never get a straight answer.

And now you blame the excess of questions as a reason why I don't get straight answers or get stalled for 20+ hours. All questions I asked I considered to be relevant. It shouldn't be hard to understand what you are requested to answer to (they are usually preceded by a "?"). If they are not in the form of a question (no "?"), then worst case scenario you post again explaining that you actually want a response to that excerpt and that' it. It should not be that hard to reply to what people want to hear.

Never mind the fact that I bolded that goddamn WIFOM statement the first time I posted it. Not sure how you missed it.

What can I say? Bolded text is not that different from non-bolded black test.

See, but here's the catch with that phrase:

If I don't respond, you can point to that and say "since PCM didn't respond to that, he must be at the very least M/T. Here's what we do next..."

If I DO respond (and I did), then it becomes a game of WIFOM. "Well sure, he responded to that statement, but is that just what he WANTS us to think?", etc., etc.

In other words, it comes off as an underhanded way of trying to get me to go along with your plan, or at the very least to paint me in a bad light.

It could be at most an underhanded way of forcing you to reply to what I had written (so that you don't "confess that you are not T/T"). If you answer it, by no means you are cleared, but by no means you are busted either, which means your alignment is still unknown, just like everyone else's. Not sure why you'd be worried about this being a "game of WIFOM". In fact, if you had just replied and I had brought the game of WIFOM into the table ("Well sure, he responded..."), you could have accused me of trying to have it both ways.

To summarize, there was no attempt of making you go along with my plan (accepting any deal or at least liking the idea) nor paint you in a bad light. You just got defensive and assumed you were in a trap you could not possibly escape from (which is false as I've just explained).

[Rodion]

On an somewhat unrelated note, do you understand that the same deal I proposed here and applied either for T/M and M/T could have just as easily been posted in Side B instead?

[safariguy5]

Wow, funny how sg7 says nothing about the nature of the posts yet tries to play moderator.

Saf, since you seem to have read it all, can you say something about the nature of the posts?

I think this argument you guys are having is devolving into a discussion revolving the possible game mechanics of an unusual setup. I've said before that I don't believe this is a deal that's feasible to offer now, but I concede that this may be something we revisit later on in the game.

With the 3 of you dominating the posting, this is not only giving mafia the chance to submarine, but they must also be loving the fact that at least a couple town members are tearing each other apart. I suppose all 3 of you could be mafia, setting up a huge WIFOM, but from a statistical standpoint, I'm leaning towards at least 2 of you and maybe all 3 of you being town.

[/]

A Vote Count

You are on side A

Rodion; 4 votes: PCM, VS, jonty, CMS

Crazymilkshake; 1 vote: Rodion

Shield; 1 vote: Safari



with 12 alive it takes 7 to lynch

Deadline Thursday

[soundman]

Why are you guys so stuck on Rodion? I can understand PCM's vote, but the rest of you?

Now, CMS. I find a lot of what you are saying to be illogical and you do seem to be avoiding pointed questions from Rodion. This post of yours really bugs me.

(used him to point up)

Simple slip of the toung.

Safari: A side: town. B side: Mafia

B side gets lynched, town is happy,
A side is left with his claim of town, leaving him to be fed to the A mafia. (ie getting killed)

As for the rest... its just a pissing match. I'm done.

Vote Rodion for being scummy.

fastposted

So what if mafia know that Saf (staying with example) is town in Side A? They already know they need to kill him at some point so they can win. Your whole argument later about getting 3rd party isn't great either. 3rd party either wins with either side (survivor type role) or is against everyone (SK type role), so if there is a 3rd party survivor we don't care is he stays in the game. He can (usually) hurt us. And if there is an SK in the game then the mafia want him dead just as much as us. So really your argument doesn't hold water. Also I see your vote on Rodion here as OMGUS. "This is just a pissing match. I'm done. Vote Rodion for being scummy". Wow, great case there. All I've seen him doing is trying to help town. I haven't read one thing from him that I would consider scummy. All his arguments and questions have been, IMO, completely logical. Vote CMS

[pancakemix]

But if you eventually understood, why get in the way?

Merely trying to aid the discussion, especially when the whole thing seems rooted in misconceptions.

Looking back, I'm not even convinced CM5 was referring to that same statement, rather more generically to your case as a whole or to his post directly above mine. As far as that goes, I can't say for certain, but it would explain a great deal of the shenanigans.

And now you blame the excess of questions as a reason why I don't get straight answers or get stalled for 20+ hours. All questions I asked I considered to be relevant. It shouldn't be hard to understand what you are requested to answer to (they are usually preceded by a "?"). If they are not in the form of a question (no "?"), then worst case scenario you post again explaining that you actually want a response to that excerpt and that' it. It should not be that hard to reply to what people want to hear.

See above. Just because there are words in front of a question mark doesn't mean they can adequately be responded to. If what is said is vague and unclear, then there will be misunderstandings. Did you ever stop to think that he WASN'T actually referring to my statement and didn't believe that paragraph was directed at him?

What can I say? Bolded text is not that different from non-bolded black test.

You mean like an entire bolded paragraph?

It could be at most an underhanded way of forcing you to reply to what I had written (so that you don't "confess that you are not T/T"). If you answer it, by no means you are cleared, but by no means you are busted either, which means your alignment is still unknown, just like everyone else's. Not sure why you'd be worried about this being a "game of WIFOM". In fact, if you had just replied and I had brought the game of WIFOM into the table ("Well sure, he responded..."), you could have accused me of trying to have it both ways.

To summarize, there was no attempt of making you go along with my plan (accepting any deal or at least liking the idea) nor paint you in a bad light. You just got defensive and assumed you were in a trap you could not possibly escape from (which is false as I've just explained).

But how can I be sure you WEREN'T going to bring that to the table? It's easy to wash your hands of such a thing after it's been brought out into the open, but if I leave it be, then what?

You have to admit, it's very odd to add a disclaimer like that, especially when you've gone to great lengths discussing such an alignment.

On an somewhat unrelated note, do you understand that the same deal I proposed here and applied either for T/M and M/T could have just as easily been posted in Side B instead?

Well, it kind of relies on Side B's existence, so yes I do understand that. What of it?

[Rodion]

But if you eventually understood, why get in the way?

Merely trying to aid the discussion, especially when the whole thing seems rooted in misconceptions.

Looking back, I'm not even convinced CM5 was referring to that same statement, rather more generically to your case as a whole or to his post directly above mine. As far as that goes, I can't say for certain, but it would explain a great deal of the shenanigans.

Not sure I can agree that this has all been a misunderstanding, because you mentioned I didn't bother to respond to something and 6 minutes later he dropped a one-liner saying that he'd vote me depending on my response. Could it be a misunderstanding? I suppose so, but it's unlikely.

See above. Just because there are words in front of a question mark doesn't mean they can adequately be responded to. If what is said is vague and unclear, then there will be misunderstandings. Did you ever stop to think that he WASN'T actually referring to my statement and didn't believe that paragraph was directed at him?

Initially, perhaps. But not after I specifically mentioned his name and called him out enough times, which I did.

You mean like an entire bolded paragraph?

To be quite fair, the first time I read that I didn't feel like it was something I had to respond to. Me realizing that it was bolded would not have changed that.

But how can I be sure you WEREN'T going to bring that to the table? It's easy to wash your hands of such a thing after it's been brought out into the open, but if I leave it be, then what?

You could not be sure, but you should not have to worry about that because if I ever decided to make such an attack you'd have an easy defense available. Something easily structured in the form of:
"Rodion said I should disregard this if I was town/town. If I had disregarded, he'd have called me non-town/town. Since I did not disregard it, he's playing WIFOM games to make me look bad. This is proof that it was a 'loaded' disclaimer. You can't have it both ways, Rodion."

That's a simple defense that would protect you from the attack, so you didn't need to commit a false start into calling me out on a disclaimer that I could potentially use in the future to hurt you (especially because you could have defended yourself in a way that would not leave you hurt).

Anecdotally, what you've just said made me wonder how you'd behave if you were a cop in real life, entering a suspicious hood and shooting everyone that had their hands in their pockets because they could be packing heat ("how can I be sure he wasn't going to draw a Colt Magnum and shoot me first?").

You have to admit, it's very odd to add a disclaimer like that, especially when you've gone to great lengths discussing such an alignment.

Odd? Yeah. But by saying things ahead of time you tamper evidence that could be used to help town later on. Like, if I were mafia trying to make you look bad you should have waited until I had done that before you complained about my disclaimer. Or if CMS5 is (maybe he is, maybe he isn't) mafia you could have waited until he had to admit that he couldn't explain what he wanted me to respond to before you decided to aid the discussion.

On an somewhat unrelated note, do you understand that the same deal I proposed here and applied either for T/M and M/T could have just as easily been posted in Side B instead?

Well, it kind of relies on Side B's existence, so yes I do understand that. What of it?

I'm just trying to argue that you should consider Rodion A as scummy as Rodion B, yet there your vote is on Shield.

[new guy1]

Please guys, I think we can all agree that this idea could be good later on, but has no place currently. Now can we get other people to add input on who they think looks scummy? (Kind of hard since nobody besides you three have said much).

[pancakemix]

Initially, perhaps. But not after I specifically mentioned his name and called him out enough times, which I did.

The WHO was certainly clear. The WHAT, no so much methinks.

You could not be sure, but you should not have to worry about that because if I ever decided to make such an attack you'd have an easy defense available. Something easily structured in the form of:
"Rodion said I should disregard this if I was town/town. If I had disregarded, he'd have called me non-town/town. Since I did not disregard it, he's playing WIFOM games to make me look bad. This is proof that it was a 'loaded' disclaimer. You can't have it both ways, Rodion."

That's a simple defense that would protect you from the attack, so you didn't need to commit a false start into calling me out on a disclaimer that I could potentially use in the future to hurt you (especially because you could have defended yourself in a way that would not leave you hurt).

Or I could have just called you out on it being a scummy thing to say in the first place. Why wait to defend myself against a potential trap when I can just point it out? Especially when I already perceive you as scummy?

Anecdotally, what you've just said made me wonder how you'd behave if you were a cop in real life, entering a suspicious hood and shooting everyone that had their hands in their pockets because they could be packing heat ("how can I be sure he wasn't going to draw a Colt Magnum and shoot me first?").

Gotta admit, that made me laugh.

Odd? Yeah. But by saying things ahead of time you tamper evidence that could be used to help town later on. Like, if I were mafia trying to make you look bad you should have waited until I had done that before you complained about my disclaimer. Or if CMS5 is (maybe he is, maybe he isn't) mafia you could have waited until he had to admit that he couldn't explain what he wanted me to respond to before you decided to aid the discussion.

If you say things like "Do X if you're Y", I'm gonna jump. Don't think anyone can really blame me for that.The latter portion relies on him actually knowing what you were referring to, which I can't say for certain and neither can you. And I really didn't even know until you lined it all up.

I'm just trying to argue that you should consider Rodion A as scummy as Rodion B, yet there your vote is on Shield.

Do you want me to vote you over there as well then?

I see your point, but I have two votes and you're not the only one I see as scummy.

Please guys, I think we can all agree that this idea could be good later on, but has no place currently. Now can we get other people to add input on who they think looks scummy? (Kind of hard since nobody besides you three have said much).

Um...

First of all, if you want people to share opinions, would you mind sharing yours?

Second, if you're going to post, please don't take something someone else has already said and rephrase it.

I think this argument you guys are having is devolving into a discussion revolving the possible game mechanics of an unusual setup. I've said before that I don't believe this is a deal that's feasible to offer now, but I concede that this may be something we revisit later on in the game.

With the 3 of you dominating the posting, this is not only giving mafia the chance to submarine, but they must also be loving the fact that at least a couple town members are tearing each other apart. I suppose all 3 of you could be mafia, setting up a huge WIFOM, but from a statistical standpoint, I'm leaning towards at least 2 of you and maybe all 3 of you being town.

[new guy1]

Im sorry PCM. I used something someone else said because it seems to have been looked over the first time, and so it was nessessary to put it back on the table. So far, the scummiest person (whom I dont see as extremely scummy) is Rodion for bringing the idea up (if you dont know what idea Im talking about read the last, say, 8 pages) and then thinking it was scummy that other people would not like the idea (not exactly how he put it, but how i percieved it). Again, he just seems the scummiest, but I dont really see anyone who sparks me as scummy.

[Rodion]

Initially, perhaps. But not after I specifically mentioned his name and called him out enough times, which I did.

The WHO was certainly clear. The WHAT, no so much methinks.

Really? I think I had the WHAT pretty nailed. Highlighting it in blue now in just one of the several posts I used to pressure CMS5.

So, you wanted me to answer the same question/comment PCM wanted, a question/comment I said I did not understand so I asked you, CMS, to (re)phrase it to me. I figure that is an important question/comment, since you said you would vote me DEPENDING ON MY ANSWER. Instead of (re)phrasing it and making the game move forward, you prioritize your short time to say you don't care about anything that is being discussed between VS and me.

Or I could have just called you out on it being a scummy thing to say in the first place. Why wait to defend myself against a potential trap when I can just point it out? Especially when I already perceive you as scummy?

For the same reason the cops don't go shooting first. Counterattacking someone that didn't attack you to begin with ends up in an innocent person being hurt because you didn't think things through. Not to mention the etimology of "counterattack".

I propose to you the following scenario.

3 more players say "PCM's right, Rodion totally used an underhanded tactic to force PCM into going along with his plan. It's weird that the tactic didn't actually force PCM into doing anything, but what do I care? I'm dumb! Vote Rodion. Great catch on the disclaimer tell, PCM!" Rodion is lynched and he flips town. What do you do now? ("My bad, guyz, I guess I was wrong after all?")

The former questions were rhetorical. The following is not.

From a town perspective, wouldn't it have been better if you had never passive-agressively defended yourself from an attack that never occurred?

If you say things like "Do X if you're Y", I'm gonna jump. Don't think anyone can really blame me for that.

That kind of "nobody tells me what to do" knee-jerk reflex made you lose GP: Greek for town when I had a plan that would give town a 100% chance of winning had you just followed it. Perhaps it's time for you to reevaluate part of your approach to the game of mafia? At least when Rodion and his "weird tactics" are part of the equation?

And before you get a chance to reply, know that I don't mean this as a sort of provocation. I honestly think you could be a better asset to town (again, provided you are town and this is not a "trap") if you just decided to throw some of your silly preconceptions away.

I'm just trying to argue that you should consider Rodion A as scummy as Rodion B, yet there your vote is on Shield.

Do you want me to vote you over there as well then?

I see your point, but I have two votes and you're not the only one I see as scummy.

I'd rather not be voted at all, but since you think I'm scummy for doing what I did I don't see how voting me in only one of the games makes you look coherent.

And even if I were to accept your reasoning, why Rodion in A and Shield in B?
Couldn't it be Shield in A and Rodion in B?
Is your decision of who gets the vote in each game arbitrary?
And assuming I flip town in game A, will you conclude that my "sheer scuminess" can only be explained by the fact that I'm mafia in game B, and will then proceed to lynch me over there?

Give us more insight on your thought process, please.

I havent responded because I am breaking my brain trying to figure out connections having to do with my roles (in other words between town A and B). I guess all I can say is i support Rodion's idea, but its pretty much a lost cause. I doubt that any mafia in their right minds would take that kind of a deal.

Im sorry PCM. I used something someone else said because it seems to have been looked over the first time, and so it was nessessary to put it back on the table. So far, the scummiest person (whom I dont see as extremely scummy) is Rodion for bringing the idea up (if you dont know what idea Im talking about read the last, say, 8 pages) and then thinking it was scummy that other people would not like the idea (not exactly how he put it, but how i percieved it). Again, he just seems the scummiest, but I dont really see anyone who sparks me as scummy.

Can you explain this 180º flip?

[Rodion]

Saf/Newguy - as much as I'd like to lay back and post less, I cannot stop defending me as long as I'm today's default lynch. Hope you understand.

[pancakemix]

From a town perspective, wouldn't it have been better if you had never passive-agressively defended yourself from an attack that never occurred?

I cannot say that for certain, as I see no detriment to it right now.

That kind of "nobody tells me what to do" knee-jerk reflex made you lose GP: Greek for town when I had a plan that would give town a 100% chance of winning had you just followed it. Perhaps it's time for you to reevaluate part of your approach to the game of mafia? At least when Rodion and his "weird tactics" are part of the equation?

And before you get a chance to reply, know that I don't mean this as a sort of provocation. I honestly think you could be a better asset to town (again, provided you are town and this is not a "trap") if you just decided to throw some of your silly preconceptions away

No, no it did not. An incredibly good fakeclaim made me lose that game. Don't even say "if we'd have followed my plan, we'd have won" again, because you and I both know that is not true.

As for reevaluating, maybe you would have had an argument there if more than two people agreed with you in this game. But that is not the case.

I'd rather not be voted at all, but since you think I'm scummy for doing what I did I don't see how voting me in only one of the games makes you look coherent.

And even if I were to accept your reasoning, why Rodion in A and Shield in B?
Couldn't it be Shield in A and Rodion in B?
Is your decision of who gets the vote in each game arbitrary?
And assuming I flip town in game A, will you conclude that my "sheer scuminess" can only be explained by the fact that I'm mafia in game B, and will then proceed to lynch me over there?

Give us more insight on your thought process, please.

Because what would advocating your lynch in both accomplish? Getting you out of the game entirely, which really isn't necessary. You could argue that you should vote the same person on both sides all the time, but it will only defeat the setup. And I'll admit we are dominating the conversation, so I don't want my other thoughts to get lost in the mix.

[Some7hingCLEVER]

Initially, perhaps. But not after I specifically mentioned his name and called him out enough times, which I did.

The WHO was certainly clear. The WHAT, no so much methinks.

Really? I think I had the WHAT pretty nailed. Highlighting it in blue now in just one of the several posts I used to pressure CMS5.

So, you wanted me to answer the same question/comment PCM wanted, a question/comment I said I did not understand so I asked you, CMS, to (re)phrase it to me. I figure that is an important question/comment, since you said you would vote me DEPENDING ON MY ANSWER. Instead of (re)phrasing it and making the game move forward, you prioritize your short time to say you don't care about anything that is being discussed between VS and me.

Or I could have just called you out on it being a scummy thing to say in the first place. Why wait to defend myself against a potential trap when I can just point it out? Especially when I already perceive you as scummy?

For the same reason the cops don't go shooting first. Counterattacking someone that didn't attack you to begin with ends up in an innocent person being hurt because you didn't think things through. Not to mention the etimology of "counterattack".

I propose to you the following scenario.

3 more players say "PCM's right, Rodion totally used an underhanded tactic to force PCM into going along with his plan. It's weird that the tactic didn't actually force PCM into doing anything, but what do I care? I'm dumb! Vote Rodion. Great catch on the disclaimer tell, PCM!" Rodion is lynched and he flips town. What do you do now? ("My bad, guyz, I guess I was wrong after all?")

The former questions were rhetorical. The following is not.

From a town perspective, wouldn't it have been better if you had never passive-agressively defended yourself from an attack that never occurred?

If you say things like "Do X if you're Y", I'm gonna jump. Don't think anyone can really blame me for that.

That kind of "nobody tells me what to do" knee-jerk reflex made you lose GP: Greek for town when I had a plan that would give town a 100% chance of winning had you just followed it. Perhaps it's time for you to reevaluate part of your approach to the game of mafia? At least when Rodion and his "weird tactics" are part of the equation?

And before you get a chance to reply, know that I don't mean this as a sort of provocation. I honestly think you could be a better asset to town (again, provided you are town and this is not a "trap") if you just decided to throw some of your silly preconceptions away.

I'm just trying to argue that you should consider Rodion A as scummy as Rodion B, yet there your vote is on Shield.

Do you want me to vote you over there as well then?

I see your point, but I have two votes and you're not the only one I see as scummy.

I'd rather not be voted at all, but since you think I'm scummy for doing what I did I don't see how voting me in only one of the games makes you look coherent.

And even if I were to accept your reasoning, why Rodion in A and Shield in B?
Couldn't it be Shield in A and Rodion in B?
Is your decision of who gets the vote in each game arbitrary?
And assuming I flip town in game A, will you conclude that my "sheer scuminess" can only be explained by the fact that I'm mafia in game B, and will then proceed to lynch me over there?

Give us more insight on your thought process, please.

I havent responded because I am breaking my brain trying to figure out connections having to do with my roles (in other words between town A and B). I guess all I can say is i support Rodion's idea, but its pretty much a lost cause. I doubt that any mafia in their right minds would take that kind of a deal.

Im sorry PCM. I used something someone else said because it seems to have been looked over the first time, and so it was nessessary to put it back on the table. So far, the scummiest person (whom I dont see as extremely scummy) is Rodion for bringing the idea up (if you dont know what idea Im talking about read the last, say, 8 pages) and then thinking it was scummy that other people would not like the idea (not exactly how he put it, but how i percieved it). Again, he just seems the scummiest, but I dont really see anyone who sparks me as scummy.

Can you explain this 180º flip?

well the thing about new guy
he probably thought the idea was good at first when first presenting it but when everyone pointed out the holes he saw the stupidity and retracting i know thats what i did..
with this your saying that someone is not allowed to change their mind?
and with humans being ...well..human i believe that that is completly fine lol

[new guy1]

Instead of quoting the very long post, I will just respond to Rodion's question. There was no 180 flip, as I was saying I supported Rodion's idea, but that it was scummy for bringing it up AT THIS TIME. I even said that it is a lost cause now, but it would be good later on. All this deal has done is make confusion and waste time. Is it not the mafia's intent to cause confusion? Is that what this plan has done?

[Some7hingCLEVER]

well thanks new guy you made my post defending you worthless lol
ok so i can kinda hope were all over this whole town/mafia deal ...for now
and we cant start hunting for scum the old fashioned way

[new guy1]

well thanks new guy you made my post defending you worthless lol
ok so i can kinda hope were all over this whole town/mafia deal ...for now
and we cant start hunting for scum the old fashioned way

An innocent person doesnt need someone to speak for them . And thanks for adding substance in that post, real helpful .